Massive Demand to
Lock Up the Innocent
in a Democracy
Florida Supreme Court
Innocence Commission
Embarrassing Charade
The Myth That
Burns Our Cities
Mock Trials and the
Common Mediocrity
of History
Coerced Jailhouse
Confession Witness
Satanic Scam
New York Police
and Justice Reforms
Legislative Concepts
and Proposals
Attorney General
William Barr is a
Sick Retard
Debating with the
Law-and-Order Mob
Letters to my
Representative
Justice without Fraud
Challenge to Republicans
Running for Office
Voters Give Police
A Mandate To Lie
Republican Cop Cult
Disconnects from Reality
Mass Incarceration
Worse than Immigration
for Republicans
2020 Election
Newt Gingrich
Republican Fossils
Timeline of Destruction
of the Republican Party
Criminal Guilt
Determined Socially
Guilty Until
Proven Innocent
Quick History of
Police Misconduct
Intellectual Dishonesty
In Defense of Perjury
Is A Vice
Real Justice
Crosley Green
Common Cause of
False Convictions
Embarrassed Cop Setup
John Alberto Torres
Supports Replacing
Juries With Politicians
False Prophet
Ann Coulter
Sheriff Wayne Ivey's
Dehumnanization
Propaganda
Political Activism
and Ideology
T-Shirt Artwork
Contact Info
About Site

 
 
 
 
LOADING...
LOADING...
LOADING...

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Florida Supreme Court Innocence Commission conducted what can only be considered an embarrassing charade, when determining how to mitigate wrongful convictions, which arise from prosecutors rewarding felons who lie at trials with freedom. In the absence of assuming the judges of the Florida Supreme Court are evil, I can only conclude they are stupid, or assume their observers are. It is entirely possible they know their arguments are spurious, but they are designed to appeal to dumb people to put on a facade that they had a reasoned debate. Most likely their idiotic arguments were designed to support a predetermined outcome, of putting on a political display of being fair and reasoned but tough on crime.




For this particular debate, most participants began with a pretend worship of the ridiculous premise that the jury is the "finder of fact" and should not be deprived of information by some other institution or branch of government.





Only a jury can decide that a defendant is guilty. But that is far from the same as "only a juror can decide someone is not credible." In fact, a simple policeman can deprive the jury of a particular witness, by not bothering to write down his name. The jury has no subpoena power, and even their questions are reviewed by the court. The idea that the jury gets to choose what witnesses they see is "turning the system on its head."

Of course the judge is presumed to be better at weighing the credibility of a witness than a juror, and only an ignorant or dishonest person would compare their efforts. The judge, and the prosecution and defense, know more than the jury. The reason you cannot find guilt except through a jury, is not because the jurors are better at finding fact than a judge. It is because the jury is less corruptible, and is cumulative. For this reason we insist only that the final finding of guilt can only be done through a jury. Limiting evidence is absolutely a role which defendants must allow to a smart but corruptible judge.

You NEED to get another 12 random people to each agree with everything that made it this far. You don't need for any item, including the charge itself, to make it this far.

The first problem with the Supreme Court's pretend premise, is most of the work of the attorneys and judge in a trial, consists of preventing the jury from hearing most of the things both sides would like to show them. There are a lot of things both sides would like to see admitted. And for every item they will tell you the Pilgrims wrote on Plymouth Rock that we should get this, I don't even know why we are having a meeting about it. I didn't know they were automatically taken seriously, much less quoted!

Their "jury issue" is simply them paying people to lie to the jury, but not telling the jury that is what they are doing. And big surprise, the jury would never guess that is what they are doing. The jury being "willing to listen to" a liar, is actually their own government telling them to listen to a liar, and hiding from them that it is garbage.

This Innocence Commission thing, it was just a bunch of people in a room saying "here is what I would like." And some cheezy car salesmen tried to get more weight for their personal agenda, by packaging it as some sort of tradition, the jury gets to see everything. It's not for us in this room to decide, its for the Pilgrims, and they already decided: Rule 1) The jury gets to see everything! False convictions what? Never mind that, we're past that already.

Here is just a small list of things which never make it to the jury:

-expert witnesses not allowed by the judge
-hearsay
-witnesses from jail who heard the defendant say he was innocent
-confessions after the defendant asks to speak to his attorney
-witnesses favorable to the defendant who would expose themselves to prosecution by testifying, rather than be granted immunity or rewarded by prosecutors
-other defendants who claim the same jailhouse witness lied about them
-other jailhouse witnesses the prosecution decided not to use because their stories conflicted
-photographs of marijuana which was not taken from an apartment supposedly ransacked by the defendant
-exhibits, props, and walkthroughs judged misleading, confusing, or unnecessary
-prior bad acts alleged against the defendant or witnesses
-prior errors by state technicians who testify about evidence
-evidence obtained in illegal searches, and tampered evidence
-shocking crime-scene photos which are redundant in presenting facts of the case
-questions to normal witnesses about whether they received a benefit for testifying
-most of the things defense attorneys would like to mention which are objected to


Their disrespect for the jury extends to:

-jailhouse witnesses are released from prison, without ever asking the jury who convicted them
-jailhouse witnesses are released from prison, without allowing opposing attorneys to argue against it, much less in front of a new jury


Most case law and rules of evidence derive from the assumption that jurors cannot weigh information rationally. The specific idea that jurors can weigh the credibility of jailhouse witnesses rationally is clearly false, as JURORS ARE INTENTIONALLY DEPRIVED, BY THE COURT, OF INFORMATION WHICH, BY HABIT AND PREFERENCE, THEY WOULD USE TO WEIGH WITNESS CREDIBILITY. Here is a list of some examples, which is not intended to be exhaustive.

-the jury is already deprived of background information, such as the specific crimes the jailhouse witness was convicted of
-the jury is never instructed with a list of things they assume you would tell them, but they don't know they have been deprived of
-unlike other processes such as ballistics and DNA, you are not allowed to present experts to tell the jury jailhouse witnesses are a flawed process, having produced many false convictions in the past
-the jailhouse witness is intermingled with witnesses who were not paid to testify, but the jailhouse witness is more interesting and tells a complete story rather than a fragment
-jurors are under the false assumption that the prosecutor, as an adversary of crime, would use the full resources of the state to investigate and bring to light any dishonesty by the jailhouse witness, and to prevent that criminal getting out of jail by lying
-jurors are under the false impression there is some institution in the government charged with detecting and investigating lies by prosecution witnesses, when in fact it is the policy of the state to leave it up to private defense attorneys to investigate and prosecute this crime haphazardly


The most important reason jurors are not qualified to weigh the credibility of jailhouse witnesses is

-jurors are under the false assumption that there is a penalty for perjury in court, and are never instructed otherwise


I can point you to numerous examples of witnesses and even prosecutors lying at trial without consequence. I will only offer a few to make my point:

-Neisha Cintron
-Officer Jackson Athaide
-State Attorney Stewart G. Stone


But here is what the jury was actually told during a trial, about the credibility of jailhouse witness Kaylee Simmons:





Not only is it completely false, but no other witness in the whole trial was described as having this extreme disincentive to lie!

Here is the sad Florida Supreme Court mumbling somewhere in the 100's of pages of fine print that you "may consider some testimony with caution":





Hold on, a State Attorney, a Prosecutor of the State of Florida, just told you that of all the witnesses in the whole trial, one and only one will get life in prison if they catch her lying! The jailhouse witness!

And it is completely false. But the jury has NO IDEA.

And this is how the Florida Supreme Court scammed you by putting on a pretend debate to arrive at a fake solution designed by pussies. They are not some high-minded jurists, but are just insecure idiots fretting about their own political skills and prospects.

There was apparently a sheriff in this group, Doughnut Bill Cameron of Charlotte, who feared radical left-wing judges would have discretion to automatically throw out evidence, and save people being wrongly convicted. He wants to convict people who police have boasted to the local newspaper are guilty of murder, but they can't actually produce the evidence to prove it. And of course the county jail where inmates get the information to claim other inmates confessed, is run at the discretion of the sheriff without any interference or deterrent.

Pretending jailhouse witnesses are just about whether you believe them or not, is a scam in itself. They are a circus which takes over trials with nonsense in a way no jury instruction can cure, even if they are known to be lying.

-jurors don't absorb or follow voluminous jury instructions
-jailhouse witness testimony affects admissible evidence even if lying
-jailhouse witness affects jury instructions and appeals standards in circumstantial cases
-jailhouse witnesses tell a complete story which is better suited to juror attention span than any other witness or evidence delivered in fragments
-jailhouse witnesses are not held to the same standard as other evidence which is "confusing"
-jailhouse witnesses are mixed in side-by-side with actual witnesses, not with hearsay
-defendants and their families, don't understand their government actually can and will do something that crooked to them, and that it can take over a trial and jurors will actually believe it, until it is too late


I don't see Sheriff Doughnut Bill Cameron of Charlotte taking such a hands-off approach to any other scam which victimizes the innocent. Where else has he ever advocated for letting the scamming felons go, while only suggesting the general public might consider being cautious around them? The government produced these witnesses, so the Florida Supreme Court is really advising people to be cautious around their own government. And Republicans wonder why they lose elections.

It is pretty cheezy for sheriffs or prosecutors to declare before an audience of gullible rubes "juries getting to decide what evidence is admissible is a bedrock principle of our legal system." All they really mean is "jailhouse witnesses are something I bought and paid for, I manufactured it myself, and half the time I don't even have any actual evidence, so I would like to see it admitted." Why don't we admit tampered evidence or hearsay? Because it is not credible. It is not for the jury to decide whether to believe it.

Cases are built by police and prosecutors who keep every piece of evidence favorable to the prosecution, and lose the name of every witness favorable to the defendant, every step of the way before the defendant even gets an attorney. Defendants don't have investigators at crime scenes, especially not innocent defendants who weren't even there. Police and prosecutors are supposed to follow Brady. But there is no institution in the government to enforce it, to investigate and deter and punish them if they don't. They don't even think the role of the judge is legitimate, as a gatekeeper to enforce some honesty at the very end in what the jury sees.

The debate over whether jurors can tell if inmates are lying or not, is spurious from the beginning. Jurors literally have no basis to determine whether or not an inmate is lying. Suppose I tell you I drank two cups of water yesterday. There is literally no way for you to know if I am lying, it doesn't matter if you are a judge or a secret service agent. If a juror believes a jailhouse witness, it can never be proof of defendant guilt, because there is literally no way for the juror to know whether the jailhouse witness is lying. The only thing it can prove is that the juror has not been informed and educated about the nature of jailhouse witnesses because you are not allowed to tell them.

The credibility of the jailhouse witness is based solely on the juror's belief that the court system would not put a liar in front of them, that a prosecutor would not put someone in front of them unless the prosecutor knew it was the truth. The jurors are never told that the jailhouse witness pays no penalty for lying or if he is caught lying. Jurors are never told that the prosecutor himself pays zero penalty if the witness he let out of prison is found to be a liar. The prosecutor is in fact rewarded, for getting convictions in "tough" cases (also know as people who are probably innocent).

Jurors just assume you would not put a liar in front of them, somebody would stop it, e.g. the judge. Jurors don't know there is literally no constraint on a prosecutor saying "anyone who claims the defendant confessed gets out of jail." There is literally no reason for any sane person to assume this process would produce anything but an unlimited unconstrained supply of liars. There is literally no basis to assume the process has not produced a liar, if you know what the process is.

So jurors are not really weighing the credibility of the jailhouse witness. They are applying their preconceptions about prosecutors and judges and courthouses, their belief it is not just brazen lawyer slime, the lowest product of politics and human nature throughout history. People are awful in history books and the Bible, but not right in front of me. Jurors transfer onto the jailhouse witness the general credibility of the criminal justice system, which sadly is not worthy of any credibility, having spent its credibility so casually, over and over, to get false convictions. Oh well, another liar, another conviction based on lies, I hope there is not too much traffic on my way home from work today.

A trial with jailhouse witnesses begins with two assumptions, 1) the government would not let dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying to take the lives of innocents, and 2) the defendant has confessed and is therefore guilty. From that point, the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence. So I ask you, what is the penalty, when a prosecutor is found to have let a dangerous felon out of prison as a reward for lying, to take the life of an innocent person? There is no penalty, and the prosecutor is rewarded for being successful. The penalty is on you, when those victimized by the justice system vote Democrat, and your taxes and health insurance go up. The price of convicting innocents to get one more marginal guilty person, even if they may be mental incompetents and untermenschen, is paid back tenfold in time.

The idea of a pretrial admissibility hearing is spurious. Because the very idea that judges or anyone can judge the credibility of a jailhouse witness is spurious. There is literally no way for a judge to know a jailhouse witness is lying, in an individual case. It is only by looking at the incentives, and the process of how jailhouse witnesses are manufactured, that one can expect jailhouse witnesses in general are most likely lying almost all of the time. So there is no role for hearings, or the wisdom of a judge, or the credibility of a particular informant, in an individual case.

The only way for you to know the jailhouse witness is lying, is because he wants to get out of prison and he knows he can do it this way. That is true of all of them, in every case. It is not just a theory that this is an unreliable type of witness. It is something proven by experience. By contrast, there is zero evidence, zero actual experience, and really not even any theory to support the idea, that a judge can know something did or didn't happen in a room between two people.

These slimeballs will manufacture every piece of evidence a gullible public will let them get away with, and tell you with a straight face it is a bedrock principle of our legal system. They would tell you judges have no role, it is just police and juries. And the Florida Supreme Court sticks this drivel, this garbage in a book and puts their name on it for lawyers to quote, crazy!