Home
JD Features:
A Flawed and Imperfect System
By Rhonda Riglesberger, JD Staff
Every American citizen should feel a certain sense of outrage at how our legal system works in the United States. As I work to educate myself on these laws, I grow increasingly angry and frustrated. I have come to understand why so many innocent people have gone to prison. I believe that the practice of condemning the innocent based on flimsy allegations and equally flimsy laws should be abolished. I feel that as an American citizen I have an obligation to help educate the public.
Ask yourself this question: How often have I heard an Attorney or a Judge say, "The legal system is not without its flaws?" We sit in our easy chairs and listen to the news and say, "It serves those criminals right for breaking the law." I guarantee that the information in this article will cause you to sit up and take notice of the flaws in our current legal system and how you, the average citizen, can become enmeshed in a legal battle through no fault of your own.
Every single man, woman and child in this country could easily be accused, tried and condemned in a "circumstantial evidence" case. As a result they could spend a lifetime attempting to prove their innocence. I call it the monster of deception. These laws are designed to prosecute guilty people. The law assumes that once a defendant is found guilty by a judge and jury in a circumstantial evidence case that its job is entirely finished. It is also designed to disallow any defendant a meaningful appeal of his or her guilty verdict. Circumstantial evidence laws assume that all doubts of innocence are erased once a person has been tried and convicted. Lawmakers created this monster in the hope of keeping the guilty behind bars. But what if you are innocent?
Holmes, a renowned investigator of crime, once remarked, "Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different."
The legal definition of Circumstantial Evidence: The facts proved are possible or impossible, ordinary and probable, or extraordinary or improbable, recent or ancient; they may have happened near us, or afar off, they are public or private, permanent or transitory, clear and simple or complicated. They are always accompanied by circumstances, which more or less influence the mind in forming a judgment. And in some instances these circumstances assume the character of irresistible evidence. Does this sound confusing?
Circumstantial evidence is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. It is not a cut and dried fact. There is no DNA or real eyewitness testimony to help prove guilt or innocence in a case. Instead circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that gives prosecutors leeway to actually invent allegations. These allegations are manufactured to attempt to persuade a jury that the defendant is guilty. The prosecutor can imply that something happened, but he or she cannot directly prove that it happened. It is a chain of events or facts (usually manufactured in a clever prosecutor's mind) designed to help a jury determine the innocence or guilt of the accused.
Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to help in deciding the case. Prosecutors are well schooled in the deceit and lack of conscience their job involves. Many convictions for various crimes rest solely on circumstantial evidence.
What if you are innocent of the charges but the jury finds that you are guilty despite this fact? The real question is how can you prove your innocence? History shows that circumstantial evidence cases get very complex because of the webs of deceit spun by a wily prosecutor determined to sway a jury his or her way to gain a conviction. This has a devastating impact on the middle class and the poor who cannot afford adequate legal counsel. As the case becomes more complex the cost of defending yourself against a false allegation grows impossibly expensive. Would you like to spend your life savings trying to defend yourself against a false allegation? That's assuming you have a large savings account.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that that in a number of cases where direct evidence is scanty that circumstantial evidence plays an important role. Justices K.T. Thomas and R.P Sethi ruled during a criminal murder case appeal that circumstantial evidence, furnished by the prosecution, can be used to convict, provided that the evidence is so complete that it leaves no doubt about the guilt of the accused. The judges ruled that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be clearly established. The truth of the matter is that most of the allegations against a person in a circumstantial evidence case is never clearly established.
This ruling appears biased in favor of the prosecution. It is clearly unfair to someone who is innocent and whose conviction rests solely on a collection of cleverly crafted circumstantial evidence. The false allegations from the Prosecutor can come from his or her own personal need to gain a conviction. Furthermore, the laws are written in such a way to keep anyone convicted on circumstantial evidence from actually receiving an appeal. Any appeals that may be filed by an innocent person are basically futile because the Supreme Court constantly rules against them. As a result of this the innocent person in prison could be denied the right to a new trial. The laws that currently protect a circumstantial evidence conviction can and does impede true justice.
If I am innocent how can I prove that I am not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The answer is that you cannot. Your entire future depends on the decision that twelve people will have to make. They do not know anything about you except what they have read in the newspapers or heard on the news. Prosecutors use the press to help win their cases. Are juries fallible? The answer is, of course they are. Human beings from all walks of life are subjected to serving on a jury. Twelve people who do not know you decide the course of your life forever.
The facts are that a jury doesn't really know if a defendant actually committed a crime. In many cases the prosecution doesn't even know. Mainly because of media pressure which in turn causes public outcry; these cases become equivalent to a circus act. The police and prosecuting attorneys fall under pressure because it is a part of their jobs to ensure that someone pays for a crime committed. A mean spirited and contentious prosecutor can allege that any number of things happened and they use any means available to them to gain a conviction. What is inherently frustrating about a circumstantial evidence case is that it has the legal ability to convince a jury that an innocent defendant is guilty.
The jury has a legal obligation to carefully examine the evidence presented to it. The first question should be, Is the fact possible? If so, are there any circumstances that could render it impossible? If the facts are impossible then the jury should find the defendant innocent or guilty based on what they conclusively know. What we do know is that the real truth rarely comes out in a courtroom.
Often the defendant's rights are greatly compromised by the way different states place limitations on their rights of disclosure. Most states do not allow disclosure in a criminal case. This can impede true justice because if a defendant had disclosure rights they would have the right to depose any witnesses who plan to testify against him or her. This would allow the defendant to collaborate more meaningfully with their attorneys and this could greatly help an innocent defendant prove his or her innocence. In most states, a person bringing a civil suit in a car accident, for example, has more discovery rights than a person who may face the death penalty or a long period of incarceration.
Discovery rights should be allowed in all criminal cases. If an innocent person could have the equal rights of discovery in a criminal case, it would eliminate any surprises the defendant may face in the courtroom. By limiting the defendant's rights of discovery, it proves that most states actually value monetary case settlements over criminal cases that involve our most basic rights under the Constitution. These are the rights to pursue life and to have our liberty. The case eventually ends up in the hands of twelve people who have to decide who has presented the best argument for the innocence or guilt of the defendant. They deliberate by asking the questions: Who presented the best argument? Was it the defense or the prosecution?
Jurors are not legal experts. Jurors come from varied backgrounds and from all walks of life. They are human beings who can make mistakes. But the question begs asking, if jurors are not allowed to vote their consciences, how can they possibly pass judgment on another human being who may be innocent? The jury selection process needs improvement as well. Prosecutors and attorneys intentionally rule out anyone who has had any contact with the legal system. They want jurors who are uninformed and who will believe the tales invented by the prosecution. The truth is that most jurors lack the ability to decide the case based on factual evidence.
Justice Denied has featured several articles about some of the ordinary people who through no fault of their own have ended up in prison due to faulty Circumstantial Evidence laws. The story with which I am the most familiar is the Linda Keene story. It can be located on the Internet at http://www.justicedenied.org/lindakeene.htm.
As children we are taught that we have the best legal system in the world. It has some flaws, but it is the best in the world. I no longer believe that true justice exists. If our system is the best in the world, why are we sending innocent people to prison? And if an innocent person is convicted, why are we denying them the right to appeal their sentences? I vote to abolish the practice of allowing the legal system to ruin our lives by continuing to incarcerate the innocent.
Source: The 'Lectric Law Library
© Justice Denied
