Murder By Gun Vs. Murder By Judicial System = A Difference?

Post Reply
Posts: 2056
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Murder By Gun Vs. Murder By Judicial System = A Difference?

Post by johnkarls »

Most of us learn as a child to sleep on any important decision.

And I have slept on this for two nights.

Because it involves criticizing two of our long-time regulars for, effectively, being racists.

Though I am sure they would refuse to recognize their racism.


Our focus book (Just Mercy: A Story Of Justice And Redemption) describes how its author (Bryan Stevenson) and his organization have fought racially-based miscarriages of justice in America’s judicial system.

It was proposed by one of our long-time regulars, retired law school professor Thomas Chancellor.

One of the categories of justice miscarriage described in Just Mercy and stressed by Thomas was the willful withholding of evidence that would prove the innocence of the accused.

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court held in Brady vs. Maryland (373 U.S. 83 (1963)) that the Constitution requires prosecutors to disclose materially-exculpatory evidence to the defense.

Whether the withholding is inadvertent or purposeful, the so-called “Brady Rule” requires the conviction to be reversed. [Whether the materially-exculpatory evidence is conclusive of innocence will determine whether the government attempts to re-try the defendant.]

The 2015 Record Number Of Conviction Reversals

A University of Michigan Law School Professor, Samuel R. Gross, edits The National Registry of Exonerations which reports that 2015 set another record for the number of innocent people who were determined to have been wrongfully convicted of serious crimes, 40% of them being murder convictions.

Although all 100% of these wrongful convictions were probably not the result of the wrongful withholding of exculpatory evidence, Just Mercy indicates that a sizable proportion (if not the majority) are so caused.

And U/Mich Law Prof. Gross’ study, indicating Brooklyn and Houston lead the list for number of innocent people discovered in 2015 to have been wrongfully convicted, implies there was a strong whiff of impropriety employed by the prosecutors in those jurisdictions.

Murder 101

Listening to Thomas Chancellor’s impassioned presentation, Yours Truly couldn’t help but realize from the mere possibility of a conviction being reversed in cases where prosecutorial misconduct can be uncovered, the real problem is that misbehaving prosecutors are not put at personal risk for their intentional misconduct.

Any first-year law student will immediately recognize that it makes no difference what is used to intentionally kill someone wrongfully.

It makes no difference whether you use a gun or a knife.

And it should make no difference whether you are a prosecutor and you use the justice system to wrongfully kill someone by intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence.

After all, you could reasonably foresee that your Unconstitutional Behavior would result in the execution of your victim.

And your motive for UNCONSTITUTIONALLY using the Justice System by suppressing evidence to kill people (for example, demonstrating a high conviction rate so you can be elected to higher office) should be no more meritorious than a young child in one of our inner-city ghettos, 75% of whom live in single-adult households headed by druggies so that the children are forced to steal just in order to eat, who panics while stealing food to survive, resulting in someone’s death.

Sovereign Immunity

Listening to Thomas Chancellor’s impassioned presentation, Yours Truly immediately recognized that when prosecutors willfully suppress exculpatory evidence, they know they can do so with personal impunity because of Sovereign Immunity.

Sovereign Immunity is a quaint historical relic of Western Civilization that holds that “The King Can Do No Wrong” (usually expressed in Latin as “rex non potest peccare”) which probably derives from the quaint historical belief in Divine Right -- that a King is God’s representative on earth.

Even where Kings have been replaced by democratic governments, the quaint notion persists that the government cannot be sued unless it consents to being sued.

Sovereign immunity is not only possessed by the U.S. Government, but the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that each of the Sovereign States comprising the United States has Sovereign Immunity including immunity from being sued in federal courts without the consent of the particular state.

However, it should be noted that a Sovereign can consent to being sued.

For example, the Federal Tort Claims Act permits citizens to sue the U.S. Government in certain circumstances, such as being injured by an E.P.A. employee who, in the course of her/his responsibilities, hits someone while driving negligently.

And the U.S. Government permits itself to be sued for some non-tortious behavior, such as for breach of contract if it fails to pay a supplier.

The Still-Born Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign

Immediately realizing all of the foregoing, Yours Truly proposed that we consider a new Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign for both the federal and state governments to remove the sovereign-immunity shield from criminal prosecution for prosecutors who intentionally violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Brady Rule.”

After all, any first-year law student knows that absent Sovereign Immunity, a prosecutor who knowingly makes allegations while suppressing evidence that those allegations are false -- is guilty of criminal defamation.

And if those false allegations result in imprisonment, any first-year law student knows that absent Sovereign Immunity, the prosecutor is guilty of wrongful imprisonment.

And if those false allegations result in execution, any first-year law student knows that absent Sovereign Immunity, the prosecutor is guilty of murder. Because it really doesn’t matter whether the perpetrator uses a gun, a knife or a judicial system to do the killing.

The Reason For The Opposition By Our Two Long-Time Regulars

We have always prided ourselves for approving only Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaigns for which there is unanimous agreement or, at most, one dissent.

We had 10 RSVP’s for our meeting (8 immediately and 2 subsequently).

They included 5 attorneys.

And I am embarrassed to admit that the two long-time regulars who opposed the Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaigns were attorneys. Though I will not embarrass them further for what I view as their racism by identifying them further.

We never got as far in our discussion as considering such matters as to whom the campaign would be addressed, whether there should be a higher standard of proof than the normal criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” etc., etc.

Their unalterable position from which they would not budge one iota no matter how the rest of us probed, was that prosecutors who intentionally defame and kill using the judicial system in violation of the U.S. Constitution according to the Supreme Court’s “Brady Rule” are subject to disbarment!!!

And their punishment for “murder by judicial system” should be limited to disbarment!!!

They were unable to explain why “murder by gun” or “murder by knife” can be prosecuted criminally, while “murder by judicial system” should not be prosecuted criminally!!!

Accordingly, I am forced to conclude that the reason for their position is racial.

Please “say it ain’t so”!!!

[So that I am not accused of a gender-insensitive remark aimed at females who don’t know (or care) much about sports, please permit me to explain that “say it ain’t so” is often associated with “Shoeless Joe Jackson” who played for the 1919 Chicago White Sox and was banned by Baseball Commissioner Judge Landis for participating in throwing the 1919 World Series.]

Post Reply

Return to “Suggested Discussion Outline - Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption – March 16”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest