While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.
But by 1992, another man had confessed [2] to the crime, and Burris’ own assistant attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court. Burris refused. He was running for governor.
“Anybody who understood this case wouldn’t have voted for Burris,” Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, told ProPublica. Indeed, Burris lost that race, and two other attempts to become governor.
Burris’ role in the Cruz case was “indefensible and in defiance of common sense and common decency,” Warden said. “There was obvious evidence that [Cruz] was innocent.” Assistant attorney general Mary Brigid Kenney agreed, and eventually resigned [3] rather than continue to prosecute Cruz.
Once Burris assigned Kenney to the case in 1991, she became convinced that Cruz was innocent, a victim of what she believed was prosecutorial misconduct. She sent Burris a memo reporting that the jury convicted Cruz without knowing that Brian Dugan, a repeat sex offender and murderer, had confessed to the crime. Burris never met with Kenney to discuss a new trial for Cruz, Kenney told ProPublica.
I think Paddy-O’Beltway was driving thru DC when he heard the news item on talk radio.
#20–HMeyers==a truly disturbing mishmash of stinking thinking:
Prosecutors have a tough job./// True.
Just watch any prison movie for the stereotypical “everyone in jail says they are innocent” quips. /// Your world view is informed by “prison movies? — silly if true, moreso to post it. Watch MSNBC’s prison based reality shows–quite a few admit their guilt. Some don’t even want to be released. Life usually offers a fuller gamut than does stereotypical movies==regardless of subject.
Prosecutors aren’t nice and aren’t paid to be nice. /// Nice is irrelevant.
Your defense is your responsibility. /// Only partially true especially as the DA has responsibilities to assure the fairness of the prosecution. You understand that???? In a sense, yes, the DA is supposed to be “nice.”
The unfortunate side effects of this are:
1. Poor people get lower quality representation. /// While true, this result has nothing to do with what you have mentioned.
2. A lot of falsely convicted or falsely accused people are not exactly angels or clean, and as a result it makes them easier to get caught up in these situations. /// No. The whole point of this situation is that the DA has independent obligations from the nature and character of the accused.
I hope you are just up past your bedtime.
#29, Fusion,
Your quote shows that this appointment is invalid. A writ of election is an issuance for the holding of a special election. And since the word shall is used, that clause would mean that special election is the only way they can legally fill the vacancy, not by direct appointment.
ALL State Attorneys behave that way. Period.
#35 – SL
>>special election is the only way they can
>>legally fill the vacancy, not by direct
>>appointment.
Well, I may not know the Constitution of the Seven Seas as intimately as you (being a Sea Lawyer, and all), but a more complete reading of the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution reveals the following:
“When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”
So, no problem. You really need to sit for the bar exam someplace where Landlubber Law applies.
#37, hahaha, you could save yourself a lot of wasted hot air if you learned a little naval jargon between your homoerotic lovefests with bobbo. I know I’m full of shit, that’s why I chose the name in the first place. =D
#38 – SL
>>hahaha
Hahaha indeed. I’m fully aware of the meaning of “sea lawyer”, and I’m fully aware that you’re full of shit.
Interesting, though, that you should consider two people who agree on something that contradicts your point of view to be a “homoerotic lovefest”.
I guess that means that either nobody ever agrees with you on anything, or that you’re the most enthusiastic rump-wrangling, pole-smoking ass bandit on the blog.
I wonder which it is.
Whose side do I help if I admit I’m full of shit too?
Don’t blame sea lawyer for reading Fusion’s post
I believe #36 Angel H. Wong has it right — pretty much every prosecuting attorney has fought hard to get the maximum possible penalty for wrongfully accused defendants. The only ones you’ll ever _ever_ see asking the judge to dismiss the case, even when the defendant is proved not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, are the ones on TV.
Of course, Illinois can’t hold a candle to Texas, where every prosecutor, from the state Attorney General on down to the local Justice of the Peace is expected to continue to push for punishment for convicted criminals NO MATTER WHAT. There have been cases where, after conviction, the defendant is proven absolutely to be not guilty, but state prosecutors strenuously object to anything but the full sentence being carried out anyway, up to and including the death penalty. “They were lawfully convicted” is their motto and refrain.
It is my considered opinion (and nothing more than an opinion, though a well-considered one) that at least 15% to 20% of people in U.S. prisons right now are not guilty of the crimes that put them there. But this is likely a huge improvement over past times, where the percentage likely reached considerably higher than half. And yes, I do include death penalty cases.
#42–Uncle==I don’t know the percentages, but of course it happens. We thump our chests regarding the appeals process==”but” most appeals are lost regardless of new evidence or anything else: “should have been raised at trial level.”
As a death penalty advocate, I’m upset the standard for “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is set way to low. Single Eye witness testimony with no supporting circumstantial evidence should be thrown out by judges==not passed on to the jury for their opinion. Much more. Innocence Project is a real eye-opener.
@32 “That shouldn’t matter. Whenever the police or prosecution knowingly prosecute someone they know did not do it they do everyone a disservice.”
I agree. But that’s in a perfect world and I’m talking about the one we actually live in 😉
Sea Lawyer,
Sorry, but I thought I had posted the entire XXVII Amendment section. My mistake.
#44, Meyers,
I agree. But that’s in a perfect world and I’m talking about the one we actually live in
No, you are justifying the punishment of innocent people by police, prosecutors, and we must include, judges. As has been pointed out before, prosecutors knowingly continue to hamper and deny appeals even when they have been made aware that the person is innocent. Police are routinely shown to manufacture evidence to obtain search warrants and even in court.
That is as much the “real world” as is the robberies and murders they claim to be solving.
@Fusion
“No, you are justifying the punishment of innocent people by police, prosecutors, and we must include, judges.”
I’m not justifying anything. I’m making an observation. If my observation is true, how can you argue with a true observation. Truth isn’t subject to debate.
And it does happen and tends to happen to iffy people far more than it happens to upstanding citizens.
The best defense in an imperfect world is to behave honestly, keep a clean reputation and to stay out of trouble.
I’ve seen real life situations where a jerk prosecutors/police acted like a world-class asshole.
But usually (not always) honest and decent people end up winning out.
Burris insisted on prosecuting an innocent man even after DNA evidence cleared him! The man spent 11 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. In my opinion Burris is corrupt and he has no business being in the Senate.
I really doubt that Obama wants to start off his Presidency by seating a thug like Burris.
Well, it looks like the Dems are going to seat Burris after all.
# 48 Mister Mustard said, “Well, it looks like the Dems are going to seat Burris after all.”
You were informed of that last week…
#49 – Paddy-RAMBO
No, Paddy-RAMBO, that was the rumor. It wasn’t a done deal; only speculation. And it wasn’t until my buds, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry, let the new slip to me of the formal decision that I really believed it. Last night (shortly after they told me), the Wall Street Journal verified the information
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123179519870574715.html
I have lots of friends in high places, Paddy-RAMBO, but not as high as yours…I don’t find out about things BEFORE THEY HAPPEN, like you did with the drowned Somali pirates.
# 50 Mister Mustard said, “No, Paddy-RAMBO, that was the rumor. It wasn’t a done deal; only speculation.”
Nope. Wrong again ‘Tard.