Archive for July 24, 2007
CT rejects “automatic standing” rule
Jul 24th
In an opinion released last week [State v. Davis], the CT Supreme Court rejected the automatic standing rule. The automatic standing rule says that an individual has standing to challenge the Constitutionality of a search, even if he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject of the search, if he was legitimately on the searched premises or was charged with an offense of which possession of the seized item is an element.
SCOTUS rejected the “automatic standing” rule in US v. Salvucci, but the defendant here was asking the CT court to hold that the state constitution afforded greater protection than the Federal one.
The court then engages in a lengthy Geisler analysis and concludes that “effects” and “possessions” are one and the same; no dicta or holding of the court has suggested adoption of the “automatic standing” doctrine; Federal precedent clearly favors the state; sister state decisions also favor the state; no historical considerations and finally, that policy and sociological considerations favor the state (!!).
So the bottom line is that the person challenging the search has to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject of the search. The Courant article provides some examples:
Under the stricter rule adopted by the state Supreme Court, the owner of a motor vehicle could challenge the validity of a search of the vehicle, while his or her passengers could not.
If you were a guest at someone’s home, the homeowners could challenge a search of the premises and seizure of items whereas you, as a guest and not an inhabitant of the home, would not have standing to challenge the seizure of the briefcase or bong you brought along with you.
I guess to most of you, this is no big deal, but this was an undecided question for a while here in CT and now we’ll have to stick to the narrow Federal standard. Boo.
Eyewitness fallibility and “thousands” of wrongful convictions
Jul 24th
See, I told you there was so much I had missed in just one day.
EyeID points to this article about two upcoming studies on wrongful convictions:
The first, “Judging Innocence”, is soon-to-be-published in the Columbia Law Review, conducted by University of Virginia Professor Brandon Garrett. Professor Garrett’s study systematically examined all of the DNA exonerations and concluded that “the leading cause of the wrongful convictions was erroneous identification by eyewitnesses, which occurred 79 percent of the time. In a quarter of the cases, such testimony was the only direct evidence against the defendant.” Other leading causes of wrongful convictions were faulty forensic evidence, unreliable snitch testimony and false confessions.
You must read the study [pdf] to get the full sense of the various problems found. Here’s a sample:
There were false confessions in 16 percent of the cases, with two-thirds of those involving defendants who were juveniles, mentally retarded or both.
Here’s the zinger:
Garrett’s study strongly suggests, then, that there are thousands of people serving long sentences for crimes they did not commit but who have no hope that DNA can clear them.
The second is by Professors Samuel Gross at Michigan Law School and Barbara O’Brien of Michigan State. It, too, reached similar conclusions. Specifically:
“The main thing we can safely conclude from exonerations is that there are many other false convictions that we have not discovered,” the Michigan study said. “In addition, a couple of strong demographic patterns appear to be reliable:
Black men accused of raping white women face a greater risk of false conviction than other rape defendants; and young suspects, those under 18, are at greater risk of false confession than other suspects.”
CapDefWeekly has more. Grits has a lot on snitching. Scott Greenfield feels vindicated. I will have more on this later.
Intriguing criminal justice TV shows
Jul 24th
Two new shows spotlighting criminal justice issues that should be worth your while:
First, from PBS, “Prison Town“:
What happens when a struggling rural community tries to revive its economy by inviting prisons in? The story of four families living in a modern-day prison town, as told in “Prison Town, USA,” is a riveting look at one of the most striking phenomena of our times: a prison-building and incarceration boom unprecedented in American history.
Second, from the Discovery Channel, “Guilty or Innocent?“:
No matter how precise the U.S. legal system is, verdicts often rely on circumstantial evidence or “reasonable doubt.” Prosecutors and defense attorneys may plead their case to the best of their abilities and jurors may use their keenest judgment in formulating a verdict, but it remains an imperfect system. Guilty or Innocent? presents a breakthrough series that looks at real-life criminal investigations in which the public still questions a criminal’s guilt or innocence. From O.J. Simpson to Michael Jackson, for many, the question lingers: are they Guilty or Innocent?
A premiere 18-hour series, Guilty or Innocent? airs every Saturday at 2100 hrs (9:00 pm SIN/HK) starting August 13, with episodes encoring the next day at 0200 (2:00 am) and 1400 hrs (2:00 pm).
Both sound very interesting.
HT: Skelly & Simple Justice
recent comments