Are prosecutors doing what is right ,or just increasing numbers of convictions?
If a prosecutor knowingly uses perjured testimony, overcharges you, and intentionally distorts the facts during a jury trial, should the conviction stand?
What is a malicious prosecution ? Malicious prosecution can be many things but what the most common form and what we believe in this case, is when a prosecutor decides someone is guilty ahead of time and then uses any method of lies, propaganda and a pre-planned agenda to prove a person is guilty then justifies this behavior as being the interest of justice.
Things we should be bringing to question:
When someone is accused of a crime, should they be tried on the facts of the case or can any method they wis be used and it still be considered a fair trial? Such as the working jailhouse snitch, lying witness with withheld facts, extra charges as well using knowingly false arguments in an attempt to paint the worst picture possible just to make the conviction more certain?
Why wouldn't a prosecutor want a jury to hear what really happened and not what the prosecutor wants the facts to show as having happened?
What if the facts only paint guilt of a lesser included offense? What if the prosecutor feels a higher conviction is warranted because of his personal beliefs about a defendant? Or is this just what justice feels like in America? When are the facts alone enough? More so, where is the line that says that facts aren't enough and the manipulations should begin?
It is a part of the prosecutors job to manipulate the evidence in a way that paints a picture that there can be no doubt. Is his duty to prove guilty beyond any reasonable doubt? Why are we simply not doing what is right?
Keiths Thoughts:
I can only speak for my experiences with the system when in 1998 i was attacked by a group of criminal gang members one a convicted felon who received a slap on the wrist for narcotics distribution ,organized crime activity and possessing and illegal firearm and 1 who was illegally in the country and active in a criminal lifestyle ,and when i chose to defend myself after attempting to flee the attack - I was charged with murder and multiple counts of attempting capital murder as if i were a criminal !
The most serious offense reserved for the most hardened humans and serious offenses. I never knew defending myself fell into this category.
But you be the judge:
I was charged and convicted of 4 charges that the courts have now said ,have violated my constitutional rights ,again double jeopardy ... meaning I was overcharged . ( although the court refused to correct this... not because they didn't agree that it was a constitutional violation of my rights,but because of a procedures rule that is more important than justice according to the judge )
5 separate witnesses after giving favorable versions of events were persuaded by the prosecutor to change there testimony ( see previous article on how a prosecutor convinces civilians to commit perjury )
My first amendment right to free speech was infringed upon by my right to use self -defense
And if that was not enough the prosecutor recruited a jailhouse informant to come forward the day of my trial to allege that I confessed to him of all things , that I really wasn't defending myself ? ( who would say that ? )
My point here is simply ... why the need to lie ? What is wrong with just presenting the facts ? Why prevent a witness from testifying or encouraging one to skew the truth in a certain way that misleads ?
I get it, bad people should be punished when they do a bad thing. I am all for it. However shouldn't their acts be judged on what they actually did and not a fantasy narrative by an overzealous prosecutor with a false witness?
Is there any purpose with charging an individual with 4 charges from one self-defense 'crime' on someone who turned out to not even be legal here? Why are we overcharging? Any other reason than to exert a pressure on a jury to potentially convict of something that a prosecutor knows a defendant couldn't be found guilty of doing legally?
When a prosecutor does this - as happened in my case - should the conviction be permitted to stand ?
Or should there at least be a new trial in which ... only the facts presented and the the correct charges are applied ?