Maybe all lead prosecutors or senior DA's, especially those prosecuting serious felony or capital cases, should be required to obtain and hold a special bar licensure. To obtain said licensure, hours of special training and classes and exams regarding prosecutorial ethics, evidence handling, and responsibilities would have to be completed. The state should pay for prosecutors to have liability insurance so that if they are found to have been negligent in the conduct of a case, their tax payer employers (the city or state) would not have to cover the cost of the damages created by the harm they inflict. Also, a special bar proceeding should be available to defendant's counsel during the trial or appeal of a case, or whenever there is an issue with mishandling of evidence by a prosecutor, so that ethical issues can be addressed before irreparable harm is done to a defendant.
11
I don't understand the part about Noura's miscalculation of her credits. Why weren't her attorneys able to secure the prosecution's agreement to recommend a "time served" sentence under the Alford plea?
9
Sorry to dispense with the niceties. Of course even a prosecutor I guess is innocent until proven guilty. If guilty, a prosecutor should be punished. One way or another. Ruin a life, ruin your life.
8
I wonder where is DJT in regards to the real and long lasting crimes committed by Amy Weirich? Amy Weirich should have been locked up. Amy Weirich and her ilk steal the lives of innocent people so she can hold on to her job and perhaps one day rise to the title of governor. That type of individual is without morality and has betrayed her obligation to the citizens of her state. let's face it, we want the right person to serve time for a crime, he or she committed not just anybody who happens to have known the victim or was walking through the town close to that date a crime was committed.
BTW, why is it that the same judge and prosecutors are given another opportunity to further lie, cheaat and steal their way to a possible new conviction? It seems that if a case is overturned, the accused ought to go free because after many years, memories, witnesses, etc., has changed for better or worse. Therefore, how does the convicted get an opportunity to participate in a fair retrial? Setting the folks free whose cases have been overturned, as well as really giving jail time to the erraant prosecutors may cause more of these prosecutors to refrain from withholding evidence.
BTW, why is it that the same judge and prosecutors are given another opportunity to further lie, cheaat and steal their way to a possible new conviction? It seems that if a case is overturned, the accused ought to go free because after many years, memories, witnesses, etc., has changed for better or worse. Therefore, how does the convicted get an opportunity to participate in a fair retrial? Setting the folks free whose cases have been overturned, as well as really giving jail time to the erraant prosecutors may cause more of these prosecutors to refrain from withholding evidence.
14
What would DJT have to do with a trial that took place long before he was president in a court that wasn't run by the feds, by prosecutors who weren't federal employees?
1
All in the name in furthering her own career. Just another notch in her belt to become the next elected whatever. All at the expense of someone life. Amy Weirich is a cruel, mean, self-centered and amoral person that belongs in jail for what she has done to Noura Jackson. And sadly she and others like her build their career's on the backs of such cases and go on to become higher public office holders. All built on deception and lies. And we wonder why we have the government we have.
16
The answer is simple - require the State to make available to the accused ALL information it has gathered to the accused in a timely manner. "Timely" defined as not less than 90 days before trial.
7
Thankyou for this heart-wrenching piece of research and writing.
6
The problems with our adversarial system of criminal justice cuts both ways.
When the issue is about winning and not justice both sides are easily compromised.
Prosecutors hide evidence that would exonerate the innocent and defense attorneys seek "technicalities" that will free the guilty.
Determining guilt and innocence shoul be a wide open process of seeking the truth not a game of winning and losing.
Utopian? Perhaps, but the alternative gives us what we have now - innocents convicted and career criminals left to continue their lives of crime.
When the issue is about winning and not justice both sides are easily compromised.
Prosecutors hide evidence that would exonerate the innocent and defense attorneys seek "technicalities" that will free the guilty.
Determining guilt and innocence shoul be a wide open process of seeking the truth not a game of winning and losing.
Utopian? Perhaps, but the alternative gives us what we have now - innocents convicted and career criminals left to continue their lives of crime.
5
"The duty to act fairly" that arises from British common law and forms part of the law of Canada requires that anyone exercising power pursuant to a statute that might affect the rights, privileges, or interests of an individual must, before they affect any of those interest, tell the person the case against them and give them a fair opportunity to respond to it, unless it is an emergency in which case they must comply with this duty as soon as practicable there after. This is basic fairness and hey person adversely affected without compliance with this dude is entitled to have it reviewed and set aside that's failing to comply with due fair process. This is now the basic minimum of the fairness requirement under our Constitution the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from 1982 which requires when liberty or the security of the person is to be affected, as in all criminal cases, The government prosecuting must comply with the "principles of fundamental justice" and basic fairness is such a principle.
She Was Convicted of Killing Her Mother. Prosecutors Withheld the Evidence That Would Have Freed Her.
By the time Noura Jackson’s conviction was overturned, she had spent nine years in prison. This type of prosecutorial error is almost never punished.
Thomas Thompson was convicted of raping and murdering a young woman. Only two men could have possibly murdered her. On the motion of the defense counsel for the second man, the two trials were separated.
The state government prosecutor had the option of which man to try first. He chose to try Thomas Thompson first. At Thompson's trial, the prosecutor argued to the jury that Thompson had raped and then murdered the young woman in order to prevent her from reporting the rape to law enforcement authorities. Thompson claimed that the two had consensual sex and then passed out from the effects of excessive drinking and smoking hashish. A habitual jailhouse informant and heroin addict testified that Thompson had confessed to him. According to the prosecutor, the second man's only involvement was to get rid of the body after he returned to the apartment shared by the two men.
The jury obviously had only two choices: find Thompson innocent and no man would be convicted of her murder or find Thompson guilty of rape and murder. Thompson was found guilty and ordered to be executed by the court.
Then, the prosecutor tried the 2nd man for first degree murder on the basis of a completely different set of "facts" and also found guilty.
By the time Noura Jackson’s conviction was overturned, she had spent nine years in prison. This type of prosecutorial error is almost never punished.
Thomas Thompson was convicted of raping and murdering a young woman. Only two men could have possibly murdered her. On the motion of the defense counsel for the second man, the two trials were separated.
The state government prosecutor had the option of which man to try first. He chose to try Thomas Thompson first. At Thompson's trial, the prosecutor argued to the jury that Thompson had raped and then murdered the young woman in order to prevent her from reporting the rape to law enforcement authorities. Thompson claimed that the two had consensual sex and then passed out from the effects of excessive drinking and smoking hashish. A habitual jailhouse informant and heroin addict testified that Thompson had confessed to him. According to the prosecutor, the second man's only involvement was to get rid of the body after he returned to the apartment shared by the two men.
The jury obviously had only two choices: find Thompson innocent and no man would be convicted of her murder or find Thompson guilty of rape and murder. Thompson was found guilty and ordered to be executed by the court.
Then, the prosecutor tried the 2nd man for first degree murder on the basis of a completely different set of "facts" and also found guilty.
4
More 'American Exceptionalism!' (as in 'greatest justice system in the world').
If I were innocent and accused, this would be one of last countries I'd want to be tried in.
If I were innocent and accused, this would be one of last countries I'd want to be tried in.
6
This is just obscene in my opinion. There is a reason why we require prosecutors to disclose all evidence to the defense at trial. ALL evidence, even if the prosecutors do not believe that the evidence is 'material to guilt or innocence'.
12
Noura Jackson, a victim of Amy Weirich's cold hearted injustice, strengthens the argument against the death penalty.
"Noura spent a total of three and a half years in jail awaiting trial." Flabbergasted!
we want a justice system for the victims. but while it goes after the criminals, it also goes after the innocents. ironic.
"Noura spent a total of three and a half years in jail awaiting trial." Flabbergasted!
we want a justice system for the victims. but while it goes after the criminals, it also goes after the innocents. ironic.
13
There are consequences for you too, Ms. Weirich, such as being exposed like this when your m.o. is to win at all costs. But these consequences are nothing compared to the people you have helped be falsely convicted.
8
Well, did anybody read that note? It proves nothing. It's just a technicality that saved her.
And there's other thing that bothers me, why would prosecution give that note away at all if they knew it could cause re-trial? I think it was an honest mistake and tried to make it right. They could just toss it in the garbage after all
And there's other thing that bothers me, why would prosecution give that note away at all if they knew it could cause re-trial? I think it was an honest mistake and tried to make it right. They could just toss it in the garbage after all
1
The case did not hinge on that note. Reread the article. This D.A. committed many, many violations of the law in many different cases over many years. It was no "honest mistake", Ms Weirich is a criminal masquerading as law enforcement.
6
Requiring prosecutor to swear a complete affidavit of documents in which she attests to full disclosure and acknowledges failure to disclose would lead to her removal from the justice system might go a long way to ending abuse.
There's too much at stake and there have been too many slip-ups. An Affidavit is a necessary protection for the accused.
There's too much at stake and there have been too many slip-ups. An Affidavit is a necessary protection for the accused.
6
Noura, If you read this, please get a second and third opinion about the hysterectomy.
You deserve all the happiness in the world. I hope you have the joy of the child you have long dreamed for and that happiness finds you always!
My very best wishes to you.
You deserve all the happiness in the world. I hope you have the joy of the child you have long dreamed for and that happiness finds you always!
My very best wishes to you.
9
Amy Weirich should be jailed for as many years as the innocent Nora was. She should be shunned by all decent people. That she remains an admitted attorney is a travesty.
15
This is a great example of what you may do in the dark, will always come to the light. The fact that they tried to hide this letter and not think that it would not come about again in the future is just so wrong on so many levels. One would have to go back and review any and all of this prosecutor's cases to see just how many others have been wrongly conviction due to her poor skills.
4
My gut tells me she is not innocent and had some accomplices kill the mother. Based on how the door from the garage to the kitchen was broken. And her inability to explain her whereabouts at the time of the murder. However, I probably still would have voted to acquit, given the state only had circumstantial evidence, no physical evidence. In other words, I think she is probably guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As soon as I saw the name Noura Jackson, I remember watching this case unfold on CourtTv. I remember feeling the exact opposite as you did. There was really no solid or circumstantial evidence against this young woman, yet she was convicted anyway.
And of course, the constant -- and I mean constant -- and cloying voice of Nancy Grace, night after night after night on CourtTv pronouncing Noura GUILTY had its effect as well.
If there's a Gofundme account for Noura, I will contribute. She was railroaded by the prosecutor who should be hanging her head in shame.
And of course, the constant -- and I mean constant -- and cloying voice of Nancy Grace, night after night after night on CourtTv pronouncing Noura GUILTY had its effect as well.
If there's a Gofundme account for Noura, I will contribute. She was railroaded by the prosecutor who should be hanging her head in shame.
7
"Your gut". We should definitely trust that. Her inability to explain her whereabouts probably had a lot to do with having drunk alcohol and possibly using drugs. But she's a woman & you're a man. So she must be guilty.
3
Allen, your, or anyone else's, "gut" is, always has been and always will be a very, very unreliable guide to the truth about pretty much anything. Or, as a great 19th century American once observed : " it ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so".
3
It astounds me to hear stories like this about people who advance their careers on the misery and suffering of others. It's no way to live, it's o way to build a better society.
6
Beyond sickening. District attorneys don't care if a person is innocent or guilty. All they want is a warm-body in a prison cell and bragging rights about how tough on crime they are.
7
Interesting to note the Shelby County DAG office posted 31 tweets in response to this article. Hmmmm.... hit a nerve?
Also, the author made mention of the resolution of the civil case regarding Noura's mother's estate. She did not mention, however, what that resolution was.
And... How does a sitting judge justify character assassination statements from relatives who are pursuing monetary gain from the defendant's mother's estate... her inheritance?
This leads me to wonder what the author's intention was in mentioning these points without providing their details. Careful Emily, folks are getting right tired of having their emotional chain yanked.
Also, the author made mention of the resolution of the civil case regarding Noura's mother's estate. She did not mention, however, what that resolution was.
And... How does a sitting judge justify character assassination statements from relatives who are pursuing monetary gain from the defendant's mother's estate... her inheritance?
This leads me to wonder what the author's intention was in mentioning these points without providing their details. Careful Emily, folks are getting right tired of having their emotional chain yanked.
5
I believe that Noura Jackson was mistreated by the law. It's unbelievable that Amy Weirich held evidence in order to wrongly convict Noura to kill her mother. The government needs to clean up on things like this so that no more people face consequences that they do not deserve.
5
As a former prosecutor in Manhattan, (30 years ago), I think this is one of the best articles I have ever read about the criminal justice system. Thank you.
Robert Krakow
New York, New York
Robert Krakow
New York, New York
8
This is one of the many problems with our adversarial system of law. Too often it is all about WINNING and not about the truth or justice. This DA stood to gain far more then a win in tis case but a good kickstart to her career.
The withholding of this type of evidence should be punishable by exposing the prosecutor to a lawsuit and or legal jeopardy. This type of violation is all too common and results in terrible injustices where individuals lives are ruined.
Inapt and corrupt Police Departments contribute much to this type of problem. They too often are just INCOMPETENT and poorly trained.
What is worse is that the "system" just does not seem to care if an innocent individual gets convicted. It is a win for the prosecutor and woe to anyone who questions that powerful political individual.
Finally there are way too little consequences for the people involved in these type of "railroad" jobs. A totally independent review of these types of cases should result in disbarment or sanctions on ANY lawyers involved in the obvious miscarriages of justice that result in an individuals loss of freedom.
The withholding of this type of evidence should be punishable by exposing the prosecutor to a lawsuit and or legal jeopardy. This type of violation is all too common and results in terrible injustices where individuals lives are ruined.
Inapt and corrupt Police Departments contribute much to this type of problem. They too often are just INCOMPETENT and poorly trained.
What is worse is that the "system" just does not seem to care if an innocent individual gets convicted. It is a win for the prosecutor and woe to anyone who questions that powerful political individual.
Finally there are way too little consequences for the people involved in these type of "railroad" jobs. A totally independent review of these types of cases should result in disbarment or sanctions on ANY lawyers involved in the obvious miscarriages of justice that result in an individuals loss of freedom.
5
In cases where prosecutors intentionally convict and imprison the innocent, should the sentence for those prosecutors becomes the penalty that was meted out to the innocent?
If an innocent person serves 3 years on a bogus conviction, those who committed conspiracy to gain that conviction falsely should each be compelled to serve 3 years?
Seems just...
If an innocent person serves 3 years on a bogus conviction, those who committed conspiracy to gain that conviction falsely should each be compelled to serve 3 years?
Seems just...
6
This week in the New York Times, a story about a murder case interested me. A women named Jennifer Jackson was killed at 5 am on June 5, 2005. She was stabbed 50 times and many people thought that here only child Noura was the murderer. Noura claimed that she was out on the night of the murder partying with friends. She told the jury that she was out with friends and on her way home stopped at a gas station and a Taco Bell. She neglected to tell the jury that at around 4 am she stopped at Walgreens where there was blurry security footage of her buying skin care products and bandages. Noura was found guilty of second degree murder. During the trial though, DNA samples were taken from the blood that was splattered all over the room and it showed that there were two or three people in the room, none of the DNA matching Nouras. Weirich who was considered “a highly trained trial lawyer” dismissed the fact that Nouras DNA wasn't there. Another piece of evidence was withheld from the jury. A note from a witness Andrew Hammack. The note was a crucial piece of evidence and was showing that Andrew was not a reliable witness. After these important pieces of evidence were discovered, the case was brought to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The trial continued on for a very long time but in the end Noura's conviction was overturned but she was still seen as guilty of murder. She was given a plea deal and had to confess to manslaughter which she took, having to serve another year.
3
In my opinion, she is guilty. Getting off on a technicality does not prove innocence. There is a ton of circumstantial evidence that points insidiously at Noura as the murderer. She did have motive. Maybe she did received help? The true victim here is her mother, who many of you have neglected to mention.
The author slants this story in a very Liberal/Progressive fashion intentionally going to great lengths to provide a very incomplete lopsided story. Typical of mainstream journalism these days. Leftists are guilty of exactly the same thing they charge the DA. They fail to provide the facts of the case, just their own interpretation. When confronted they scream and cry louder for their socialist utopia, shower the feet of murderers, cop killers and rapists with flowers, and call for the death of anyone who disagrees with them.
The author slants this story in a very Liberal/Progressive fashion intentionally going to great lengths to provide a very incomplete lopsided story. Typical of mainstream journalism these days. Leftists are guilty of exactly the same thing they charge the DA. They fail to provide the facts of the case, just their own interpretation. When confronted they scream and cry louder for their socialist utopia, shower the feet of murderers, cop killers and rapists with flowers, and call for the death of anyone who disagrees with them.
4
Inflammatory political language with ad hominum logic is no way to make an argument.
8
"Getting off on a technicality does not prove innocence."
The accused doesn't have to "prove innocence," Mac. The _state_ has to prove "guilt _beyond a shadow of a doubt," remember? "Innocent, unless proved guilty," right? Not "guilty, unless proved innocent."
The accused doesn't have to "prove innocence," Mac. The _state_ has to prove "guilt _beyond a shadow of a doubt," remember? "Innocent, unless proved guilty," right? Not "guilty, unless proved innocent."
13
That is just WACKY.
1
Why do we think we are an exceptional country when these kinds of things happen every day? "Winning is everything; truth doesn't matter". Weirich needs to go to prison for a very long time.
I find it so very difficult to hear about these cases. Usually they are black men who have served near lifetimes for the lies of the prosecutors who put them in prison. How does one live year after year incarcerated for something they know they did not do? I can't imagine it. It's too difficult. And so many of them come out without bitterness. I don't think I could be that good of a human. I'd want to go kill the prosecutor who put me there with their lies.
This woman, Weirich, she's the murderer. Murdering the spirit of a human who lost so much. Put her in prison day for day of Nouris' wronged life.
I find it so very difficult to hear about these cases. Usually they are black men who have served near lifetimes for the lies of the prosecutors who put them in prison. How does one live year after year incarcerated for something they know they did not do? I can't imagine it. It's too difficult. And so many of them come out without bitterness. I don't think I could be that good of a human. I'd want to go kill the prosecutor who put me there with their lies.
This woman, Weirich, she's the murderer. Murdering the spirit of a human who lost so much. Put her in prison day for day of Nouris' wronged life.
5
Scary stuff, and true. The ambition of the Suits is demonic. They smile and look like they are human but truly they are from the Pit, and to it they will return
3
For the umpteenth time — there is no such thing, and never has been, as a 'British court'; there is no such thing as the 'law of Britain', or 'British law'.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has three separate jurisdictions; England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland. The first and the last follow the common law. Scotland has always followed civil or continental law, with some elements of common law. Further, slowly but surely, Wales is going its own way. Some acts of parliament apply to the whole UK. All juridisctions share a common domestic court of final appeal.
The NYT needs to desist from constantly using 'Britain' and 'British' as a misleading synonym for the UK and it constituent parts.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has three separate jurisdictions; England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland. The first and the last follow the common law. Scotland has always followed civil or continental law, with some elements of common law. Further, slowly but surely, Wales is going its own way. Some acts of parliament apply to the whole UK. All juridisctions share a common domestic court of final appeal.
The NYT needs to desist from constantly using 'Britain' and 'British' as a misleading synonym for the UK and it constituent parts.
1
Meant to write '... and its constituent parts'.
1
This is dismaying. Does she have any chance of an exoneration if she is not guilty?
1
All evidence collected by the State should be turned over to the defense, whether it has been "added to the file" or not. Sticking a piece of paper in a drawer and claiming it wasn't part of the file until such time as it is removed from the drawer and used in court should not be allowed. All evidence collected by the defense should likewise be turned over to the State. "Winning" is not justice.
6
Yet another reason to move to Tennessee. The justice there is so great, so really, really great. They have so much great justice in Tennessee that you'll be tired of justice, I tell you.
5
Sincere thanks to the NY Times for publishing this brilliant piece on a subject all Americans need to learn. Yes, "it can happen to you." If this doesn't make a person anti-capital punishment, nothing will. Sending sincere hope to Nuora for a future filled with happiness and inner-peace. Having two parents with whom she shared loving relationships bodes well for her.
4
Whenever an ambitious prosecutor has a really good theory, watch out!
4
I live in a free country, "the best" democracy on the planet. I have lived an exemplary life, and haven't a murderous bone in my body. I don't have enemies. I don't have phobias. I don't have nighmares. I am not a person you would choose as a "suspect." Yet every time I learn about a case like Noura Jackson's, my blood runs cold and I am scared. Because it could happen to anyone. Prosecutors and the police hold all the cards and if they make up their minds and develop a case too soon -- as the importance of conviction rates predispose them to do -- the defendant is doomed. I appreciate Emily Bazelon and all the journalists who bring these stories to life -- even though they terrify me.
8
Clearly innocent. There is no way to pay back the lost years in Noura's life. Life is never fair. But there should be justice, esp. vis-a-vis the prosecution and their misstep.
4
The prosecution didn't "misstep." They lied.
5
Power hunger, fame, and greed are what I experience in all fields. Here is a classic case of fall from grace. The prosecutor should apologize and pay for Noura education.
2
climbing to the top of the mountain, against all odds, just to get there....
what a "prize" these people are, stumbling along, kicking stones down upon those below, ignoring the basic truths that get in their way, even using their intellect and training to subvert the very goals intended to protect the innocent.
well, isnt this a surprise, at least for those who gobble up all the profusion of media spin, political lies and ideas gleaned for monetary gain.
only in 'merica, where the buck stops, and truth dissapears...
what a "prize" these people are, stumbling along, kicking stones down upon those below, ignoring the basic truths that get in their way, even using their intellect and training to subvert the very goals intended to protect the innocent.
well, isnt this a surprise, at least for those who gobble up all the profusion of media spin, political lies and ideas gleaned for monetary gain.
only in 'merica, where the buck stops, and truth dissapears...
1
This wouldn't happen if the penalty for this sort of purposeful neglect was incarceration of prosecutors without limits on how long it takes to uncover the truth. The time served should equal the time wrongfully served. That would, in my opinion fulfill the notion of justice. We have an extremely serious situation in this country that is defined as "winning" and, as an earlier writer has pointed out, 75% of prosecutors seek only to win rather than seeking justice. This is also true in civil cases. In both instances winning is losing for a civil society. I recall a statement made by Carl Rogers many years ago: "Every bit of evidence one can acquire, in any area, leads one that much closer to what is true. And being closer to the truth can never be a harmful or dangerous or unsatisfying thing." And I will add: A viable civil social contract demands the truth be it comfortable or uncomfortable.
3
if only the prosecutors could be put in jail for a bit.
would broaden their horizon and conscience.
would broaden their horizon and conscience.
4
Wonder whether there ought to be "a year for a year" law.
You deprive a person of their freedoms for years by withholding evidence the ultimate appearance of which gets the person declared innocent,
you and everyone who knew about this illegal withholding of evidence gets to spend and equal number of years in the same type of prison.
Want to bet this practice stops immediately?
Want to bet that without that, it will just get worse?
Too many prosecutors just want to "achieve" a conviction - "tough prosecutor is a career launchpad to higher office to many. Who cares whether the convicted person is actually guilty - the chances of innocence proved later conclusively to skeptical courts is minimal. So the retribution for this criminal and despicable conduct needs to get personal. Automatic disbarment for life, kand equal numbers of years in prison.
If you don't have a case, don't bring one. It's immoral and illegal.
If you do have a case, there is no problem putting all evidence on the table.
Withholding evidence is an admission that there is no case.
To bring one anyway and hide the evidence is criminal conduct under color of law.
You deprive a person of their freedoms for years by withholding evidence the ultimate appearance of which gets the person declared innocent,
you and everyone who knew about this illegal withholding of evidence gets to spend and equal number of years in the same type of prison.
Want to bet this practice stops immediately?
Want to bet that without that, it will just get worse?
Too many prosecutors just want to "achieve" a conviction - "tough prosecutor is a career launchpad to higher office to many. Who cares whether the convicted person is actually guilty - the chances of innocence proved later conclusively to skeptical courts is minimal. So the retribution for this criminal and despicable conduct needs to get personal. Automatic disbarment for life, kand equal numbers of years in prison.
If you don't have a case, don't bring one. It's immoral and illegal.
If you do have a case, there is no problem putting all evidence on the table.
Withholding evidence is an admission that there is no case.
To bring one anyway and hide the evidence is criminal conduct under color of law.
13
So, your subheading is "By the time Noura Jackson’s conviction was overturned, she had spent nine years in prison. This type of prosecutorial error is almost never punished."
In your article, you say "In 2010, the National District Attorneys Association persuaded the American Bar Association to pass a resolution calling on courts to stop using the term 'prosecutorial misconduct' for Brady violations and other infractions that the attorneys argued were mere ‘'errors.'"
Based on your statement, I believe you would agree that calling this misconduct an "error" to be a gross understatement of the prosecutor's actions. I assume some editor did this, I recommend you fix it.
Basically every defense attorney who has been doing this for some time can tell you about large numbers of blatant Brady violations. Even when a violation is found, courts are fairly loathe to do anything meaningful about it. These aren't "errors" they're misconduct by lesser prosecutors who can't win a "fair" fight in an already rigged system.
In your article, you say "In 2010, the National District Attorneys Association persuaded the American Bar Association to pass a resolution calling on courts to stop using the term 'prosecutorial misconduct' for Brady violations and other infractions that the attorneys argued were mere ‘'errors.'"
Based on your statement, I believe you would agree that calling this misconduct an "error" to be a gross understatement of the prosecutor's actions. I assume some editor did this, I recommend you fix it.
Basically every defense attorney who has been doing this for some time can tell you about large numbers of blatant Brady violations. Even when a violation is found, courts are fairly loathe to do anything meaningful about it. These aren't "errors" they're misconduct by lesser prosecutors who can't win a "fair" fight in an already rigged system.
10
What the justice system in telling all of us is, "The loss of 9 years of someone's life isn't worth prosecuting someone for."
9
‘‘prosecutorial misconduct’’ is a faint euphemism for what occurred in this case; "miscarriage of justice" hardly begins to cover it. Seems prosecutors conspire to obfuscate, prevaricate and tamper with evidence with no more regard for the rights of the accused, who they immediately consider convicted, that your average cop does.
7
The impression I have from reading this story is the prosecutors are seeking better statistics. They're not concerned about justice. Your guilty before being tried.
3
Really need to focus on the law's failure to find and prosecute the people DNA evidence shows to have been involved in the crime.
9
This reads like a left-wing version of the Rush Limbaugh show.
It is profoundly depressing how many - mostly utterly anonymous - people simple lap up whatever is served, question little or nothing, or worse draw ludicrous conclusions frow few facts.
This story was written over months by a very skilled writer who chose to draw a rich and deeply sympathetic portrait of the woman who eventually admitted she killed her mother. We get exactly two short statements from the prosecutor commenters are demanding be jailed, disbarred or worse.
The evidence that "might have freed her" was disclosed not by the defense, but by the SAME prosecutors to the court. In other words, they turned themselves in.
There is a huge difference between prosecutorial misconduct - evidenced in the Mike Nifong/Duke Lacrosse case or the Michael Morton/Ken Anderson case. Both those prosecutors were properly prosecuted and disbarred, and the "prosecutorial error" the ABA has suggested be available to appellate courts.
Can you guess how many elected prosecutors ever ascended to congress? The answer is less than 1% As someone who's made it my life's work, it's actually a terrible job to get "promoted politically." The pay isn't very good and a lot are people are upset you're prosecuting "someone they know" - exactly as scores of these comments show. Almost as many are convinced we're covering up for those we decided hadn't committed a prosecutable crime.
It is profoundly depressing how many - mostly utterly anonymous - people simple lap up whatever is served, question little or nothing, or worse draw ludicrous conclusions frow few facts.
This story was written over months by a very skilled writer who chose to draw a rich and deeply sympathetic portrait of the woman who eventually admitted she killed her mother. We get exactly two short statements from the prosecutor commenters are demanding be jailed, disbarred or worse.
The evidence that "might have freed her" was disclosed not by the defense, but by the SAME prosecutors to the court. In other words, they turned themselves in.
There is a huge difference between prosecutorial misconduct - evidenced in the Mike Nifong/Duke Lacrosse case or the Michael Morton/Ken Anderson case. Both those prosecutors were properly prosecuted and disbarred, and the "prosecutorial error" the ABA has suggested be available to appellate courts.
Can you guess how many elected prosecutors ever ascended to congress? The answer is less than 1% As someone who's made it my life's work, it's actually a terrible job to get "promoted politically." The pay isn't very good and a lot are people are upset you're prosecuting "someone they know" - exactly as scores of these comments show. Almost as many are convinced we're covering up for those we decided hadn't committed a prosecutable crime.
4
THANK YOU. From someone who has followed this case from day one I can not applaud you enough for this statement.
She didn't admit guilt. She was manipulated by the system.
1
"The pay isn't very good," but the the power hurt others, even those innocent unless _proved_ guilty, is immeasurable and makes it all worthwhile for a schoolyard bully who has never grown up.
One can read the PDF of the appeals court decision online and after reading it it is clear that there were leads in this case that were not pursued, issues with the credibility of all the parties, and the possibility that Noura was innocent. On the other h
and the evidence suggests that she was the perpetrator more likely than not......which does not justify the second rate job the prosecution did. I doubt the jury thought the boyfriend was credible so the held back statement would probably not have made any difference. The comments by the prosecutor were running through all the jurors heads before the prosecutor said it so I doubt that made or broke this case. I suspect that signing the plea agreement made sense for the daughter. If I was her lawyer I would not advise her against signing it. Who knows how another trial would turn out? This article is taking a side and not particularly balanced.
and the evidence suggests that she was the perpetrator more likely than not......which does not justify the second rate job the prosecution did. I doubt the jury thought the boyfriend was credible so the held back statement would probably not have made any difference. The comments by the prosecutor were running through all the jurors heads before the prosecutor said it so I doubt that made or broke this case. I suspect that signing the plea agreement made sense for the daughter. If I was her lawyer I would not advise her against signing it. Who knows how another trial would turn out? This article is taking a side and not particularly balanced.
2
"The perpetrator more likely than not"? What happened to "the perpetrator beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
3
Prosecutors, DA's District Attorneys need to be held personally accountable. Too many times we read that people spent a lifetime in prison for something they did not do. In fact, once that has been established, no one goes after the real killers!
DA's get promoted on how many guilty cases they process. This is WRONG!
And for the establishment to decide that they don't need to be held accountable because it was a honest mistake does not hold true just like in this case. They willingly neglected the vital information just like they did in the case of the man in Texas. Put the fear in the prosecutors so they have to do it right! And juries, well, they are stupid.
DA's get promoted on how many guilty cases they process. This is WRONG!
And for the establishment to decide that they don't need to be held accountable because it was a honest mistake does not hold true just like in this case. They willingly neglected the vital information just like they did in the case of the man in Texas. Put the fear in the prosecutors so they have to do it right! And juries, well, they are stupid.
3
This case is all too familiar in Georgia... every day I wonder what has happened to seeking the truth
4
This is sickening, frightening and so so sad for a country that qualify itself as exceptional when it is nothing but.
4
It's a sad statement when the attornies are as guilty, if not more so, than the people they are in charge of prosecuting!
2
#ProCrimeNYTimes was a blatant effort to create sympathy for the defendant while demonizing prosecutors. Here are a few facts it left out. Everytime def was asked her whereabouts the night of her mother’s murder, she gave a different answer. Author omitted that the def ran to a neighbor and screamed “my mom, my mom someone is breaking into my house.” Armed with a gun neighbor runs with her to the house. Neighbor was surprised when Def ran in the house ahead of him. There was no intruder.911 operator asked def if her mother – who was covered in blood - had been shot def answered no. how would she know that judging by police that arrived at scene it was so gory you could not tell?Def was busy on her phone thru the night, but it goes silent from 1:13am to 3:18am then resumes with more calls/texts. Ample time to murder.Def said she found mother dead upon arriving home and immediately sought help. Water on shower curtain indicated someone had just showered. Def had wet hair. Also, Def would not show arms and was wearing sweat shirt in July in 90 degrees weather. Def bought bandages and Nu Skin wound care and asked Walgreen’s clerk for a paper towel for her bleeding hand. Def did not tell police.
4
unTruthinJustice, it's up to the prosecution to prove "guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt." It's not up to the accused to prove innocence.
2
It should be noted this comment is nearly identical to a series of tweets from the Shelby County TN District Attorney's office.
3
If I steal someone's money, I will be punished. If I injure somebody and make his/her life difficult, or even such action of mine will take years from someone's life I'll be punished. If for such action of mine somebody will have to spend long time in hospital, I will be punished.
So why when justice fails me, and steals years of life from me, why they aren't punished? That's not justice!
So why when justice fails me, and steals years of life from me, why they aren't punished? That's not justice!
4
Ms. Weirich's response: http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/clip/13547184/raw-weirich-responds-to-crit...
1
It's a very sympathetic interview, certainly.
And a response in which the prosecutor conveniently avoids addressing her own improper and inflammatory address to the jury it is, too. You know: the address in which she reversed the burden of proof.
And also the DA claimed to have, unusually, evidence of motive in this case. Fine. Not that motive is an element of the crime of murder, or, for that matter, any other crime. But it plays well when relevant evidence is lacking, since it enables a prosecutor to poison the atmosphere.
Oh, and she offers the fact that investigators had not provided the witness' 3rd statement to her office as some sort of excuse. It is not. She should or does know that under the progeny of Brady v Maryland the prosecutor is obliged to disclose material in investigators' files, along with that in the DA's own files.
And yes, there's her continuing description of the defendant as a "convicted murderer". Actually, that conviction was set aside, if Ms. Weirich recalls.
The moral: don't fall under suspicion in Shelby County.
And a response in which the prosecutor conveniently avoids addressing her own improper and inflammatory address to the jury it is, too. You know: the address in which she reversed the burden of proof.
And also the DA claimed to have, unusually, evidence of motive in this case. Fine. Not that motive is an element of the crime of murder, or, for that matter, any other crime. But it plays well when relevant evidence is lacking, since it enables a prosecutor to poison the atmosphere.
Oh, and she offers the fact that investigators had not provided the witness' 3rd statement to her office as some sort of excuse. It is not. She should or does know that under the progeny of Brady v Maryland the prosecutor is obliged to disclose material in investigators' files, along with that in the DA's own files.
And yes, there's her continuing description of the defendant as a "convicted murderer". Actually, that conviction was set aside, if Ms. Weirich recalls.
The moral: don't fall under suspicion in Shelby County.
1
Weirich the DA is trying to disparage Noura Jackson on her Twitter account - twitter.com/ShelbyCountyDA in response to this story.
5
A spectacular piece of human interest and deep delving into history and future of prosecutorial duty to disclose. Makes a great case for prosecutors having obligation to open their entire files. Full disclosure: I know & love author.
1
Practice what you preach Emily. This article is so one sided and biased and a travesty to journalism. For those of you just learning about this case via this article please do additional research. The author left out so much key evidence that was presented against Noura as well as failed to mention several other people who testified against her. Emily, if you are going to accuse Amy of not presenting all information atleast make sure your hands are clean. Anyone who has following this case would read this and croak. Clearly, just like Amy you are guilty of deciding someone's innocence or guilt for yourself and not presenting all of the information but rather painting the picture how you would like it to look.
Direct tweet from the DA office:
. #ProCrimeNYTimes @emilyBazelon's story ignores TRUTH in St. v Noura Jackson who was twice convicted and plead guilty to killing her mother.
Direct tweet from the DA office:
. #ProCrimeNYTimes @emilyBazelon's story ignores TRUTH in St. v Noura Jackson who was twice convicted and plead guilty to killing her mother.
3
"Direct tweet from the DA office:" We have _proved_ the defendant to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Oh, wait. The "direct tweet from the DA office" does _not_ say that, does it?
Oh, wait. The "direct tweet from the DA office" does _not_ say that, does it?
1
I see the key issue as that framed by Lee Coffee - the case should never have been brought. This reminds me very much of the Adnan Syed story. The fact that a conviction may be won does not mean that one should be sought.
3
The headline of this article is simply not true. Read the note that wasn't turned over. It's barely relevant. Saying that it "would have freed her" is an extraordinary distortion. The Tennessee Supreme Court never held that the note "would have freed" Jackson. It merely held that the processes followed by the prosecutors weren't up to the very high Brady due process standard.
1
The prosecutors weren't up to the very high standard that guilt be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This is really a FANTASTIC piece of journalism. Thank you Emily Bazelon for writing this article and illuminating the history and state of legal system as it pertains to prosecutors.
5
We have learned that someone prosecuted for a crime in the US must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" for a jury to be allowed to sentence him or her. In this case there seems to be plenty of doubt, coupled with unreasonable circumstantial demagoguery by the prosecutor.
6
"Beyond a _shadow_ of a doubt," Lars.
Call me naive, but why can't - whenever there is Felony Case -
the Prosecution be required to open a File Book on the case that
has to be available to the Defence and nothing can be presented
in Court unless it is in the File Book ?
As for Prosecutors who intentionally mislead the Court...
A Year in Country and loss of your Law License ought to solve that problem.
the Prosecution be required to open a File Book on the case that
has to be available to the Defence and nothing can be presented
in Court unless it is in the File Book ?
As for Prosecutors who intentionally mislead the Court...
A Year in Country and loss of your Law License ought to solve that problem.
6
I think you've missed the point. The reason prosecutors have for not disclosing or turning over evidence that may be exculpatory to the defense is that it would harm their case. Since they don't want to see it introduced in court in the first place, this would do nothing to remedy the problem.
1
What if any of us had been denied our freedom and civil rights, with great damages past and present as this woman has? One may hope there are both criminal and civil recourse for the defendant and jeopardy for the prosecutor. And that the defendant receives assistance to pursue.
2
ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE. If a prosecutor illegally withholds exculpatory evidence that MUST be uniformly and swiftly punished with mandatory disbarment. If found to be intentional then it must be punished by mandatory criminal prosecution AND loss of protection against personal civil liability. If a preponderance of the evidence indicates it was intentional then the appropriate civil penalty is forfeiture to their victim(s) of all personal wealth, 100% of all they possess, nothing excepted AND if found criminally guilty, in other words convicted beyond reasonable doubt of having intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence leading to conviction of an innocent person, a mandatory minimum sentence at least twice however long their victim was incarcerated and if the offense is egregious in the opinion of the presiding Judge, then up to 10 times as long.
3
Until there are dramatic changes in prosecutorial immunity to give civil rights lawsuits, with monetary awards, a better chance to succeed, this will never stop. Censures and reprimands are smacks on the wrist; a few large judgments against the prosecutors and the government entities that employ them, will quickly put an end to this common practice.
4
Someday we humans must finally come to understand that abuse of power is a natural occurrence in ALL systems, and that all systems — religious, judicial, political, business, familial, etc. — must be designed to include effective checks and balances. We must quit being shocked and surprised that a human organization doesn't naturally live up to its lofty aspirations. We fix such problems by applying effective checks and balances to every system that lacks them.
3
Having worked as a correctional educator and having been taught in orientation meetings that no inmate ever speaks the truth, I can only imagine that many of the prosecutors feel the same way. Often, they believe, I am sure, that the evidence they are witholding will only confuse the issue as they have already made up their minds that the person they are prosecuting is guilty. All human beings rationalize their misbehavior in some way, and no doubt even those prosecutors are also human.
The more sinister prosecutors do the cover-up (witholding of evidence) to gain favors, such as a promotion to judge, political points, or, at its most sinister, the solicitation of a bribe. It is clear, then, that more regulation needs to be put in place to assure that a particular prosecutor's perjudice, rationalization, or greed don't get in the way of doing their job with integrity.
The more sinister prosecutors do the cover-up (witholding of evidence) to gain favors, such as a promotion to judge, political points, or, at its most sinister, the solicitation of a bribe. It is clear, then, that more regulation needs to be put in place to assure that a particular prosecutor's perjudice, rationalization, or greed don't get in the way of doing their job with integrity.
7
The public has been brainwashed into believing that the system operates just like it's depicted on the show Law and Order.
In reality, ambitious prosecutors care about their win/loss record, and prosecutors with the quaint mentality of caring about justice and the humans involved are endangering their future career prospects.
The show Law and Order depicts a world that may never have existed, but certainly doesn't exist today.
It will take an uprising of grassroots movements to change the system, the people who work in the system are already organized to maintain the status quo.
To paraphrase an early 20th century American writer, "it is nearly impossible to get a man to understand something when the continuation of his paycheck depends upon his not understanding it."
We need to see a lot more of these stories published to have any hope of moving the scales toward an actual "justice" system.
Ever since the 2011 Supreme Court ruling Connick v. Thompson, the courts have eliminated every avenue of holding prosecutors accountable for anything.
In too many instances, the nation's prosecutors are a government protected criminal class.
This should be a source of shame for every decent American.
In reality, ambitious prosecutors care about their win/loss record, and prosecutors with the quaint mentality of caring about justice and the humans involved are endangering their future career prospects.
The show Law and Order depicts a world that may never have existed, but certainly doesn't exist today.
It will take an uprising of grassroots movements to change the system, the people who work in the system are already organized to maintain the status quo.
To paraphrase an early 20th century American writer, "it is nearly impossible to get a man to understand something when the continuation of his paycheck depends upon his not understanding it."
We need to see a lot more of these stories published to have any hope of moving the scales toward an actual "justice" system.
Ever since the 2011 Supreme Court ruling Connick v. Thompson, the courts have eliminated every avenue of holding prosecutors accountable for anything.
In too many instances, the nation's prosecutors are a government protected criminal class.
This should be a source of shame for every decent American.
5
Why do players in the legal system so frequently violate the Constitution?
No consequences. They get to do it again tomorrow on another case.
No consequences. They get to do it again tomorrow on another case.
2
I am no fan of vigilante justice, but I can imagine a novel similar to 'The Orient Express' where a loathsome character is done away with by a rather large number of his victims. A well-written novel featuring a dishonest prosecutor could be distributed to all prosecutors in the country as a salutary tale. I'd much prefer the bad ones were imprisoned long enough to savor the injustices they have perpetrated.
1
Unfortunately, the U.S. criminal justice system is very broken as is our model for policing. When it comes to prosecutorial misconduct and corrupt law enforcement it is nearly impossible to even have the perpetrators investigated at all let alone charged. Should those 2 steps be taken an actual conviction is nearly impossible and in the vanishingly rare case in which conviction is secured the penalty is nearly always a slap on the wrist. The article mentions the case of the man who was exonerated after 24 years in prison and the prosecutor whose misdeeds had robbed the man of 24 years of life received a jail sentence of 10 days. Though we have a system that hands out absurdly long sentences for things like drug convictions that many citizens don't even feel should be illegal when it comes to wealthy financial sector criminals or members of the criminal justice system suddenly the entire scenario is flipped 180 degrees and every effort is taken to shut down the proceedings at every level. Again and again this happens and whenever any hint of it surfaces in media the apologists rush out to claim how at worst its just a few bad apples and how the vast majority are heroic public servants. The proof that corruption is rampant is all around us yet it seems that the vast majority of Americans find the idea that these jobs are not filled with selfless do-gooders so disturbing that they would prefer that often innocent people have their lives ruined to maintain a comforting fiction.
4
I think the problem (part of it anyway) is that defense lawyers get too caught up in just winning to further their own careers. We all know the many jokes made about defense attorneys because they will do anything to defend their clients, even if they know they are guilty. What many do not realize is that many prosecutors are exactly the same in that they will prosecute people they know to be innocent.
"[Defense attorneys] will do anything to defend their clients, even if they know they are guilty."
So, what? That's what they're paid to do.
"Prosecuting attorneys will do anything to convict the defendants, even if they know they are innocent."
Somehow, I'm more bothered by that, because it could happen to me.
So, what? That's what they're paid to do.
"Prosecuting attorneys will do anything to convict the defendants, even if they know they are innocent."
Somehow, I'm more bothered by that, because it could happen to me.
1
I find this article very disconcerting that something like this could happen and that there is such a big region for human error in the judicial system. It is a horrible thought that a girl spent nine years of her life in jail for a crime she didn't commit, especially when the evidence to prove her innocence wasn't used in her case. I am not able to tell if the assistant prosecutor excluded this important piece of evidence by accident or on purpose. He may have mistakenly put it in his notebook and really did forget about it like he said or he was set up by the real persecutor to take the fall for her. However if this really was an accident like he said, then that just proves my point of the role human error has on many cases. If this injustice happened to Noura, then how many other innocent people are in jail right now for the same reason. Another thing that upset me was the small detail of the defendant's family. Her aunts and half uncle all gave testimonies against her for the prosecution to try to sway the jury and ruin her character. It is my opinion that they would only do this to help with their lawsuit for the estate and for the value of Noura's mothers life insurance policy. Also, the assistant prosecutor introduced many witnesses that gave horrible accounts of the defendant that wasn't related to the case but was allowed anyway. These testimonies just add to the amount of malpractice that surrounded this case. I just hope something like this never happens again.
2
NOURA JACKSON Was wrongly convicted of murdering her mother because the prosecution withheld evidence that supported her innocence. There were other egregious prosecutorial errors in the trial. Public sentiment was against Noura, apparently because she and her mother had a conflicted relationship. There is great irony in the fact that not only her mother, but her father died violently in an unsolved murder. Now Noura has been freed, but what sort of life has she got left for herself? I hope that she finds emotional support and the resources to heal.
4
This is outrageous, and this article says a lot about lawyers generally. They are more concerned with winning than seeing justice done. Prosecutors more than defense attorneys must be forced to seek justice rather than convictions. The prosecutor in this case should be permanently disbarred and charged with obstruction or whatever charges are appropriate. If convicted, she should receive the same sentence as Noura received. Noura should file civil suit and if she does, I hope she wins.
It's not a defense attorney's job to "seek justice." A defense attorney's job is what he's paid to do: to defend his client by whatever means his client is able to pay for.
It's the prosecuting attorney's job to seek justice for the plaintiff, but not by perpetrating an injustice against the defendant, who may well be innocent, unless proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It's the prosecuting attorney's job to seek justice for the plaintiff, but not by perpetrating an injustice against the defendant, who may well be innocent, unless proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't understand why doctors are held accountable when they make involuntary mistakes, while prosecutors are given a pass when they willingly hide evidence and send innocent people to jail.
4
"Plea bargains account for nearly 95% of convictions ..." What does that tell you? Don't ever, ever believe the system, or anyone associated with it, ever!
1
The fastest way to cure this is to sentence a few dozen corrupt prosecutors, including Weirich and Jones, to prison with other real criminals they helped convict. Where is the public integrity division of the FBI and why aren't they running numerous wiretapping/ surveillance operations against corrupt prosecutors? Too bad these questions weren't posed during the incoming FBI director's confirmation hearings.
1
The more I, an immigrant from Germany, learn about the judicial system in this country, the more I wonder wether raising a family here is a good idea. The amount of dysfunctionality surrounding stuff that should have been sorted out a long time ago sometimes is extremely difficult to swallow.
1
Truth is, Justice is not about truth; it is only about evidences. Even in a perfect system, we can scarce care about the truth but only thing we have are a set of broken evidences. All evidences come in fragments and it is our job to arrange the set of evidences without bias to get a reliable and comprehensive picture. It is our basic incompetence that we forget that are are leaving a set of evidences that do not fit the narrative being presented and we impulsively try to discard them. The process is basically illogical and unscientific.
The incident that has actually taken place is the only truth; the rest are all conjectures. We have made this mess and we only have pay for that and finally clean up the mess.
The incident that has actually taken place is the only truth; the rest are all conjectures. We have made this mess and we only have pay for that and finally clean up the mess.
2
The combination of no term limits and prosecutorial immunity is lethal. There's little incentive to play by the rules when you have nothing to lose. Why not take short cuts if you can claim another win for your next campaign? It's a safe bet because most public defenders are too overwhelmed to notice.
2
This story was heartbreaking. But on reading it I couldn't help but become cognizant of the fact that Amy Weirich is really no different in the way she treats people than members of our conservative congress, those heartless individuals who have been, for months now, trying to take bare essential medical care away from the poor.
2
Why is a 30-year-old woman being referred to by her first name?
1
Many prosecutors are bullies and justice is an illusion. Innocent people accept plea bargains or other deals because they risk worse sentences if they lose in court despite being innocent.
2
"They risk worse sentences."
Or, at, least, it's perfectly legal for the prosecution to tell a defendant that he does, even when they know that it's a complete lie.
Or, at, least, it's perfectly legal for the prosecution to tell a defendant that he does, even when they know that it's a complete lie.
What a depressing story. Anyone who has evidence should not go with blind and misplaced faith to the prosecutor, but to the defense. I hope word somehow gets out beyond NYT readers.
1
The prosecutor should be convicted for withholding evidence . Making somebody suffer so she could go on with her life and forget that 9 years passed by is a real lack of respect to humans. I could not live with myself if I know I've done wrong to another person. The prosecutor should be removed from office and her license revoked.
2
If we believe in "law and order", then these heinous actions of Police and Prosecutors should be held akin to treason for not upholding their oaths to obey and uphold the law. These people are oathbreakers. They are the worst people in a civil society. Those who use law enforcement for personal gain, to look good, instead of in search of justice. They aren't even vigilantes because a vigilante cares about getting the evil doers. They are amoral sociopaths.
They should be prosecuted themselves to the fullest extent of the law and should never to be allowed to hold a criminal justice job again. The punishment should be in like and comparison to that of those whose lives the attempt to and often do ruin using the corrupted power of the state.
Of course Republicans today call for police brutality and "rough" rides. Republicans today lie about their actions in regards to criminal investigations. Republicans are the first to shrug and look the other way as they promote instead of prosecute those oathbreakers.
The first step in justice, might be to deal with the enablers of the Republican Party, so law, order and more importantly, justice can be the basis for courts in the USA.
They should be prosecuted themselves to the fullest extent of the law and should never to be allowed to hold a criminal justice job again. The punishment should be in like and comparison to that of those whose lives the attempt to and often do ruin using the corrupted power of the state.
Of course Republicans today call for police brutality and "rough" rides. Republicans today lie about their actions in regards to criminal investigations. Republicans are the first to shrug and look the other way as they promote instead of prosecute those oathbreakers.
The first step in justice, might be to deal with the enablers of the Republican Party, so law, order and more importantly, justice can be the basis for courts in the USA.
1
I hope Weirich gets disbarred. She deserves worse.
6
How does Amy Weirich sleep at night?
Perhaps the bigger question is why are their no consequences for this type of prosecutorial misconduct? It should be disbarment at a minimum and preferably jail time in my opinion.
Perhaps the bigger question is why are their no consequences for this type of prosecutorial misconduct? It should be disbarment at a minimum and preferably jail time in my opinion.
36
The same way Confederate Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Con Don and others of their ilk. They have no conscience and if by chance they have a slim one, it is wrapped in self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
1
When ‘everyone is guilty all the time.’ is the mindset of a prosecutor, and mind you, a republican at that, what does that tell you about "justice"?. It is just a pretext to advance their corrupt careers to the highest levels. Now that you have been caught, Mrs. Weirich, for massaging a sentence and destroying somebody's life along for many years, your term is up. Remember, ‘everyone is guilty all the time' applies to cheating prosecutors as well....
12
Daring to use my real name and since I'm quoted in the story, commenters will know I'm one of those vile, despicable prosecutors who actually thinks that when someone pleads guilty, after being well counseled by defense counsel, that means we can actually say they ARE guilty.
One of the conceits in this story is the claim, told through Ms. Jackson's words, that appeals are rarely successful.
After 24 years as an elected DA in the very Blue state of Oregon I just received the latest State Court of Appeals monthly report on decisions. It was typical - Nine decisions were report, in 6 of them the conviction was reversed in part of full....66%....hardly rare.
One of the conceits in this story is the claim, told through Ms. Jackson's words, that appeals are rarely successful.
After 24 years as an elected DA in the very Blue state of Oregon I just received the latest State Court of Appeals monthly report on decisions. It was typical - Nine decisions were report, in 6 of them the conviction was reversed in part of full....66%....hardly rare.
6
Hi Josh,
I hope you are an honest prosecutor. The reason most innocent people plead guilty is they don't have money to fight the laundry list of charges with severe sentences. Money gets you off and most Americans cannot afford justice.
Most have to plead out.
Withholding evidence is very common. Prosecutors get more votes with more convictions. It's a perverse incentive to cut corners and abuse citizens.
I hope you are an honest prosecutor. The reason most innocent people plead guilty is they don't have money to fight the laundry list of charges with severe sentences. Money gets you off and most Americans cannot afford justice.
Most have to plead out.
Withholding evidence is very common. Prosecutors get more votes with more convictions. It's a perverse incentive to cut corners and abuse citizens.
1
... what? ... Ms. Jackson wasn't planning "an appeal." She was going to be re-tried. A new trial is not an appeal.
Also, an Alford plea is not a guilty plea.
This story plainly explains, in detail, the nature of the prosecutorial misconduct and the injustice done to Ms. Jackson. The fact that it seems to strike a nerve with you is ... interesting, considering you are also a prosecutor. Hmm.
Also, an Alford plea is not a guilty plea.
This story plainly explains, in detail, the nature of the prosecutorial misconduct and the injustice done to Ms. Jackson. The fact that it seems to strike a nerve with you is ... interesting, considering you are also a prosecutor. Hmm.
Please take this as intended, and not as an attack. I don't understand why you're so defensive. This article does not reflect well on prosecutors, I'll grant you that, but it hardly makes them sound "vile" and "despicable", except when they are, such as when they deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence. And how can they sound anyway but like that when the results are people losing decades of their lives?
You chose to take a job that gives the power to put people away for a very long time. Do you not expect to be held to a very high standard? Is writing an article presenting cases and situations like this in and of itself somehow unfair to prosecutors? She has made nothing up, written it in an even tone, and given people a chance to respond. I see no justifiable reason for you to be so upset with it.
It may well be the case that cases are overturned on appeal more often than is implied in this article, and maybe not. But your tone of hurt and offence from an article that is simply trying to say, hey, this is a problem is really concerning considering your position. I would expect a much more even keeled and sober reaction.
You chose to take a job that gives the power to put people away for a very long time. Do you not expect to be held to a very high standard? Is writing an article presenting cases and situations like this in and of itself somehow unfair to prosecutors? She has made nothing up, written it in an even tone, and given people a chance to respond. I see no justifiable reason for you to be so upset with it.
It may well be the case that cases are overturned on appeal more often than is implied in this article, and maybe not. But your tone of hurt and offence from an article that is simply trying to say, hey, this is a problem is really concerning considering your position. I would expect a much more even keeled and sober reaction.
2
Weirich is a Republican. Why am I not surprised?
11
Above and beyond all that Noura has been subjected to...the lies,
unprofessionalism, criminal behaviour...Everything...
We are told her medical condition whilst in Jail went untreated and the further drastic consequences to her as a result.
Hasn't the U.S signed the declaration of Human Rights ? Don't prisoners in Jail get access to medical help and care?
You know like enemy prisoners under the Geneva Convention.
OH...Gitmo...no right of trial, no habeas corpus...torture...
Disdain for International Treaties and disregard for some of the oldest and first recognised Human Right.
Way to Go America...next stop 15th Century Feudal Law if you get lucky.
Millions haven't.
unprofessionalism, criminal behaviour...Everything...
We are told her medical condition whilst in Jail went untreated and the further drastic consequences to her as a result.
Hasn't the U.S signed the declaration of Human Rights ? Don't prisoners in Jail get access to medical help and care?
You know like enemy prisoners under the Geneva Convention.
OH...Gitmo...no right of trial, no habeas corpus...torture...
Disdain for International Treaties and disregard for some of the oldest and first recognised Human Right.
Way to Go America...next stop 15th Century Feudal Law if you get lucky.
Millions haven't.
12
"Don't prisoners [in the U.S.] get access to medical help and care?"
Surely, you jest! Innocent people who _aren't_ prisoners don't get access to medical help and care!
Unless they have the money to afford it, of course.
Surely, you jest! Innocent people who _aren't_ prisoners don't get access to medical help and care!
Unless they have the money to afford it, of course.
1
If Trump hears about Weirich, he may want her to replace Sessions.
8
Sadly way to many Americans don't realize that unethical prosecutors like Amy Weirch often want a conviction or a plea deal as a means to show the electorate they are tough on crime, when they decide to run for higher office and want to be seen as tough on crime.
Much like a notch in their belt. And heaven help you if you are a kid, are poor from the wrong side of the tracks. Withhold information and convict an innocent person rather than double down and do the hard work and actually find and convict the real criminal(s).
As to Ms.Jackson as a teen having heated arguments with her mom, ask yourself this. As a teen did you ever have disagreements with your parents that a neighbor heard?
How would you feel if that parent ended up dead, and there was not proof that you killed them or were anywhere around when they were killed, yet the prosecutor decided to build a false case, based on the neighbor saying they heard you and your parent having an argument? Oh but by the grace of God go you.
Much like a notch in their belt. And heaven help you if you are a kid, are poor from the wrong side of the tracks. Withhold information and convict an innocent person rather than double down and do the hard work and actually find and convict the real criminal(s).
As to Ms.Jackson as a teen having heated arguments with her mom, ask yourself this. As a teen did you ever have disagreements with your parents that a neighbor heard?
How would you feel if that parent ended up dead, and there was not proof that you killed them or were anywhere around when they were killed, yet the prosecutor decided to build a false case, based on the neighbor saying they heard you and your parent having an argument? Oh but by the grace of God go you.
8
If proven to be true the prosecutors should be put in jail for the rest of her sentence.
55
Horrific case! Yes, the Prosecutor should be in jail forever for what he did to this women.
2
My thoughts exactly.
1
I try to imagine myself going to prison when I was 18 for a crime I didn't commit—one of the most horrific, matricide—and spending 9 years behind bars, with no one to help me. I feel ill. Some of the richest, most formative years of life gone forever, because a callous, self-serving prosecutor hid evidence that would have set me free. Loura Jackson's life was ruined, and concealing evidence is a crime that is almost never prosecuted if it is committed by a prosecutor.
And each time I read about a crime that was resolved through plea bargaining I wonder who committed the crime—the accused or the prosecutor?
And each time I read about a crime that was resolved through plea bargaining I wonder who committed the crime—the accused or the prosecutor?
73
Elle who commented on original post...do your research this author left out mentioning so much critical additional evidence that directly tied Noura to the crime.
3
Such as? What evidence are you referring to?
1
The vast majority of cases in the criminal justice system are resolved through plea bargain. Without it, the system would come to a grinding halt.
Next thing you know, she'll be the new AG.
13
She is obviously guilty. This is an anti law anti judgement anti justice article that degrades our society and our justice system. Please stop publishing foolish emotional victim stories to push your agenda. Are you ever honest?
9
What about the lack of DNA evidence?
17
She is obviously guilty? Of what, exactly? Did you read this exceptionally well written article? I did. The prosecutor had to HIDE evidence in order to convict her, and make a name for herself. There was NO evidence whatsoever that she committed ANY crime! She simply discovered her mother DYING and called 911. No, that is not a crime. That is a desperate daughter trying to save her mother's life.
I guess you also missed the last paragraph in this great article as well (made my jaw drop). Yeah. That's where the other prosecutor the Times reporter interviewed said he never would have prosecuted this case, never would've taken this case to a Grand Jury. Mmmmm hmmmm. Not enough evidence.
I guess you also missed the last paragraph in this great article as well (made my jaw drop). Yeah. That's where the other prosecutor the Times reporter interviewed said he never would have prosecuted this case, never would've taken this case to a Grand Jury. Mmmmm hmmmm. Not enough evidence.
42
what makes you say she is 'obviously' guilty?
and even if so. that would be unwise then to use her as an example. but it doesn't diminish she well argued problem of prosecutors having too much power over evidence and crucial information and how easily this power can be misused.
It still makes she US system highly problematic. - also what is up with a judge being able to withhold a bond hearing for five months? that is horrible mismanagement to the level of abuse.
and even if so. that would be unwise then to use her as an example. but it doesn't diminish she well argued problem of prosecutors having too much power over evidence and crucial information and how easily this power can be misused.
It still makes she US system highly problematic. - also what is up with a judge being able to withhold a bond hearing for five months? that is horrible mismanagement to the level of abuse.
1
In Virginia, if you are accused, you are guilty. The only thing you can hope for is a less bad outcome and rest assured prosecutors will prioritize winning over justice or the truth. Senator Bill Stanley's Criminal Discovery rules bill passed the Senate last session, but Courts of Justice legislators let it die in subcommittee. Virginia is for Lovers of Trial by Ambush.
10
'Once her conviction was overturned, Noura was still charged with murder.'
But wouldn't that then be covered by double jeopardy?
But wouldn't that then be covered by double jeopardy?
6
No, it simply entitled her to a new trial.
If she had been acquitted in the first trial double jeopardy would apply, but not in this case.
While her conviction was overturned on a technicality, she was not adjudicated as guilty or innocent, and therefore able to be recharged with the same crime again, which Weirach did.
Double jeopardy applies only if she is found innocent at trial, and the trial over, other evidence linking her as a suspect is found. Once found innocent after trial, she could never be recharged, thus avoiding double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy also applies if the trial judge finds such malicious prosecutorial tactics and illegal goings on that the judge can then order a mistrial, and dismiss the case against the defendant with extreme prejudice,
meaning that the charges are dismissed and can never be refiled again.
Double jeopardy applies only if she is found innocent at trial, and the trial over, other evidence linking her as a suspect is found. Once found innocent after trial, she could never be recharged, thus avoiding double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy also applies if the trial judge finds such malicious prosecutorial tactics and illegal goings on that the judge can then order a mistrial, and dismiss the case against the defendant with extreme prejudice,
meaning that the charges are dismissed and can never be refiled again.
As a native Memphian who has watched the whole trial several times I will tell you this article jumped lightly into small error and completely skipped over details that tie Noura directly to the murder. What a one sided article. I personally know several people who were friends with Noura at the time they all testify that she had claimed she wanted to kill her mom on several occasions, had no remorse for her mothers death, lied to every single person about her whereabouts and even called people from the landline when she "wasn't home". You didn't mention how she ran to the neighbors house saying there was an intruder and the neighbor grabbed his gun and ran with her back to the house and noted it was odd she ran in front of him and in the house with no fear before knowing her mom was dead. Someone who thought there was an intruder would not run in front of the person with the gun. The girl killed her mother and every one of her child hood friends and family testified against her. Does that not say enough? She's a killer who got lucky with a lawyer that found an error in her case. May her mother be at peace and receive the justice she deserves one day. I pray the truth comes out for her mother.
21
Thank you for sharing this. I did find it odd that a jury would convict someone based on the limited facts presented in the article. The article clearly has a bias - Noura is innocent. Instead of focusing on prosecutorial misconduct alone, it loses credibility when it downplays the facts that led to her conviction.
5
Do you understand what "direct evidence" means?? None of what you described amount to direct evidence... they are barely circumstantial if true at all.
If you are so convinced the accused did the crime, why was there NO DNA or ANY other evidence linking Ms. Jackson to the crime? Evidence does NOT lie; people on the other hand, even those with high moral responsibility- like prosecutors and priests- Lie everyday to save their image. I await your response..
As a prosecutor, I find her statement in closing ("where were you Noura") to be extremely troubling. That's a built-in reversal for a violation of the 5th amendment. Amateur hour.
38
I want to know if her defense attorney objected (I would assume so as the issue was preserved), and if so, what the judge's reasoning possibility could have been.
Judges have a lot of power. Why don't they arbitrarily sentence the prosecutor for deliberate tampering with evidence?
10
No one can be arbitrarily sentenced without being charged and found guilty. This is America. Not China.
The author of this article is guilty like Amy in the fact they made up their minds of innocence or guilt and painted the picture how they wanted it to look leaving out very important evidence. So much evidence that directly tied Noura to the crime isn't even mentioned in this article. She showed no remorse for her mother so please people stop feeling sorry for this girl and please educate yourself more on this case.
10
What an idiotic, biased statement. Remorse is feeling guilt over something you've done, so why would a person who hasn't done something wrong feel remorse?
4
please do tell
2
Remorse is regret of a wrongdoing. Expecting to see remorse is tied to a presumption of guilt that should never happen. This is another example of how the perceived emotions of someone through a TV screen impair rational thought.
1
Noura - I don't know if you're reading these comments, I hope you are. The injustice that has been done to you, to a young person who lost her mother and then got thrown in jail. Innocent person, I can't stop thinking about you, and the young 18 year old you, please fInd the time and will to grieve your mother's passing. Please find the time to express your rage for what has been done to you and then stop being a victim forever. Find a way to break away from the past and live your YOUR life to its fullest potential. You get to decide what you make of it for the rest of your life. Your mother is with you forever in your loving mind. Sending you love, support and when you don't feel good - think of me and others who have posted here who are present witnesses to the injustice. We are rooting for. YOU. With tremendous love .
11
What happened to the assets of the parents estates? One and a half million eleven years ago...
11
Her mom's greedy relatives (the ones that testified she was asking about life insurance before her mother's death), sued for it. I'm sure whatever was lady was eaten up in legal fees.
After more than two decades as a criminal defense lawyer, none of this is surprising, though all of it remains infuriating.
Three-and-a-half years to get a detained client her trial? The court not granting an immediate mistrial when the prosecutor intentionally - or at least extremely recklessly - shifted the burden of proof onto the defense in closing arguments? And the convenient "omission" of potentially exculpatory evidence being submitted when it was too late to impact the actual verdict and sentence until the appellate process slowly considered the injustice?
What's more troubling than hearing chronic cautionary tales such as these is that calls for civil rights and fair trials constantly yield to inflammatory rhetoric about "public safety", which are rarely if ever supported by verifiable facts. In the current political climate, this problem will likely get worse before it gets better.
Three-and-a-half years to get a detained client her trial? The court not granting an immediate mistrial when the prosecutor intentionally - or at least extremely recklessly - shifted the burden of proof onto the defense in closing arguments? And the convenient "omission" of potentially exculpatory evidence being submitted when it was too late to impact the actual verdict and sentence until the appellate process slowly considered the injustice?
What's more troubling than hearing chronic cautionary tales such as these is that calls for civil rights and fair trials constantly yield to inflammatory rhetoric about "public safety", which are rarely if ever supported by verifiable facts. In the current political climate, this problem will likely get worse before it gets better.
34
The delay of trial is just as much the fault of the defense as it is of the prosecution. If Noura was so concerned about being confined pending trial, why not proceed without a time waiver? She has the right to be brought to trial within a reasonable time. She obviously waived that right.
2
People wrongly convicted should be awarded greatly, making the reward painful to the state, say five million dollars up front, plus so much for each year spent in jail. It should be painful for the state so that it does not happen often. After all money is the only thing the system actually recognizes. Then the prosecutor should have to serve the same sentence the guilty person was convicted and sentenced to serve, after all, it is only fair. This is only for cases where the prosecutor knowingly caused the conviction of the wrongfully convicted person, to be furthered. And the cases must be tried.
19
Sadly, innocent people are convicted all too often. My friend served 23 years for a crime he did not commit. Like in this article, the prosecution played down the importance of DNA evidence that should have been enough to prove his innocence. Fortunately, he worked hard to get himself exonerated, and was successful after 23 years in prison. Read his story here: https://justbakery.blog/2017/06/16/joseph/
8
This article fails to mention the volume of incriminating evidence against Noura. While the prosecutor's misconduct is apparent, Noura's innocence isn't.
4
wow Veejay based on an anonymous comment from someone who sounds like they read too many tabloids?
Why would the judge at the first trial be allowed to decide what should be done in a second trial. If like as of this judge Craft, was working with the DA rather than being impartial. Did the judge have any reason to be prejudiced in favor of the DA? Did they share a social life? Was one the mentor of the other? Did this DA, who seems to make the most of her appearance, acting seductively towards judges and other attorneys in her area? These are the kinds of questions one should want to ask. In the meantime if might be better for the original judge in a trial not to control any activities related to the follow up processes. Simply because they may have a vested interest in the outcome. In this case, it likes very bad, almost as if the judge were colluding with the DA to cover up malfeasance for both.
14
Prosecutors are too autonomous and beyond the law's reach should they abuse their power. As a deterrent, another pretrial hearing should be added to "due process", scheduled after the arraignment/bail phase but before the pretrial motion phase begins: a midlevel, impartial pretrial inventory and review of all evidence accumulated by both sides.
All.
Later, should it subsequently develop that either the prosecution or defense cheated by concealing items to buttress their respective cases the penalties should be near-Draconian -- severe, and mandatory; especially for prosecutors.
It should be an open/shut kind of judicial decision, no exculpatory reasons valid, like "I forgot", or, "the cat ate it". If a trial tainted by prosecutorial misconduct resulted in a conviction the trial verdict should be voided, the transgressing attorney forced to serve a significant part of the defendants' original sentence, plus substantial fines and even disbarment.
I know the odds don't favor the adoption of such reforms because the legal system protects its own -- from crooked judges down to crooked cops -- except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
All.
Later, should it subsequently develop that either the prosecution or defense cheated by concealing items to buttress their respective cases the penalties should be near-Draconian -- severe, and mandatory; especially for prosecutors.
It should be an open/shut kind of judicial decision, no exculpatory reasons valid, like "I forgot", or, "the cat ate it". If a trial tainted by prosecutorial misconduct resulted in a conviction the trial verdict should be voided, the transgressing attorney forced to serve a significant part of the defendants' original sentence, plus substantial fines and even disbarment.
I know the odds don't favor the adoption of such reforms because the legal system protects its own -- from crooked judges down to crooked cops -- except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
7
The prosecutor lied. Shocking.
21
"Prosecutorial error"? If it can be proven to be willful malice, the prosecutor should be sentenced to serve the same sentence the mistakenly convicted defendant is assigned. That will make the prosecutors think twice, or, my cynicism thinks, at least be very careful to hide their efforts well... I hope this poor woman is very well compensated for the nine years stolen from her by this "error".
26
this story examplifies why in so many countries technicalities are given so much weight. a simple technical mistake in countries like England or Germany can lead to a mistrial with prejudice. after all, the police and the attorneys carry all the guns, literally and figuratively.
15
This would be bad for so many reasons. But most importantly, why should the victim of a crime have to watch a criminal walk free because of a technical error by a prosecutor? How is that fair?
Ever heard the saying, "Better ten guilty men should go free than one innocent man be condemned?"
Why isn't Amy Weirich in jail? Prosecutors are not above the law. Where's the Attorney General's office in all of this?
Last time I looked, the Constitution still stands: innocent until proven guilty. When crucial evidence is deliberately withheld, a crime has been committed.
Uncle Sam owes the is poor innocent young woman major $$$. Where's the lawsuit?
Last time I looked, the Constitution still stands: innocent until proven guilty. When crucial evidence is deliberately withheld, a crime has been committed.
Uncle Sam owes the is poor innocent young woman major $$$. Where's the lawsuit?
23
Prosecutorial "error?" It was prosecutorial malfeasance.
40
Prosecutorial error! This is a prime example of why people don't trust the judicial system and certainly don't believe that justice is fair to poor or minorities. Prosecutors are as corrupt and evil as any other criminals. The training of lawyers who may become prosecutors is designed to take out emotions and personal feelings. It is also designed to put in place a cold approach that denigrates the value of humans and the truth about human behavior. The training of lawyers makes them impervious to the feelings and emotions of others. That means when prosecutors begin the process of trying a criminal they forget that a human being is being tried and that he/she may well be innocent. They forget their obligation is not just to seek a conviction but also to seek the truth and justice for those who are wrongfully accused. There is an air of arrogance and superiority that is rightly attributed to lawyers/prosecutors and sometimes even lawyers of defendants.
This so-called error was criminal activity. Noura Jackson was intentionally denied justice and freedom by criminal action of the prosecutor. Until we hold these prosectors responsible for their actions and make them pay dearly for ruining the lives of the innocent then the "errors" will continue.
My son is an attorney. Being one has changed him and others that I know as well. The arrogance is real. The warm, understanding young man that I raised is gone. His mind was washed of compassion in law school. I am heart sick.
This so-called error was criminal activity. Noura Jackson was intentionally denied justice and freedom by criminal action of the prosecutor. Until we hold these prosectors responsible for their actions and make them pay dearly for ruining the lives of the innocent then the "errors" will continue.
My son is an attorney. Being one has changed him and others that I know as well. The arrogance is real. The warm, understanding young man that I raised is gone. His mind was washed of compassion in law school. I am heart sick.
18
I'm sorry for your loss. In time, your son may come to realize what has happened to him, and decide that his life needs to change.
This story highlights a problem of character and incentives. Why some prosecutors are so lacking in character as to commit such a wrong I can't say. But on the incentives front I have a proposal. In cases like this, where the prosecutor's clearly wrong behavior resulted in the wrong person being found guilty, that prosecutor should be named as an accessory when the actual killer commits the crime again. It was the prosecutor who, after all, put gaining a conviction above sending the right person to jail, and thereby enable the killer to remain free.
11
After reading this story, I must say I'd feel safer living on the street here in Los Angeles than living in a mansion in states where prosecutors and police and judges of such unquestioned powers.
15
Sadly, an old story of unbridled ambition subverting the justice system.
Rack up the wins and move up in the political hierarchy. What is extremely disturbing is the lack of response by the local Bar association to punish these acts.
Rack up the wins and move up in the political hierarchy. What is extremely disturbing is the lack of response by the local Bar association to punish these acts.
15
Hello! Amy recently accepted a reprimand from the Tennessee Bar Association and has all kinds of stuff still pending. I came up in this particular East Memphis Catholic milieu, same church as the folks involved in this tale. The stuff you hear ...
Bearing false witness is not just a crime; it's a sin, which is worse.
10
I can understand, to a point, the prosecutor but what is the excuse for the judge to be acting in such a vindictive manner
14
Craft was the original trial judge, right? If Weirich goes down, so does he.
4
This known to be innocent woman spent 9 years in prison because of deliberate prosecutorial misconduct. The only equitable remedy is for the prosecutor to serve 9 years in the same prison, preferably in the exact same cell.
18
Thank you to the NYT for this in-depth examination of the woeful wrongs of the U.S. prosecutorial system and the errors in management of Ms. Jackson's case along the way - from her defense attorney to the prison system's misinformation on forward.
But I would most sincerely like to direct some thoughts and concerns to Ms. Jackson personally with regard to her longing to have a child and her Dr's recent suggestion that she needed to have an hysterectomy due to her endometriosis. I, too, suffered from endometriosis and an OBGYN Dr., who I consulted - without examining me, without doing any tests - suggested a hysterectomy. I immediately got a sound referral for another OBGYN who did not recommend a hysterectomy, but instead performed surgery to remove the endometrial tissue. Your Dr. may be correct, but please consider a 2nd or possibly 3rd opinion. You deserve every chance for a happy and fulfilled life going forward. Hopefully, you will find a doctor who is also an advocate for you if you don't already have that with your physician. All the best to you.
But I would most sincerely like to direct some thoughts and concerns to Ms. Jackson personally with regard to her longing to have a child and her Dr's recent suggestion that she needed to have an hysterectomy due to her endometriosis. I, too, suffered from endometriosis and an OBGYN Dr., who I consulted - without examining me, without doing any tests - suggested a hysterectomy. I immediately got a sound referral for another OBGYN who did not recommend a hysterectomy, but instead performed surgery to remove the endometrial tissue. Your Dr. may be correct, but please consider a 2nd or possibly 3rd opinion. You deserve every chance for a happy and fulfilled life going forward. Hopefully, you will find a doctor who is also an advocate for you if you don't already have that with your physician. All the best to you.
19
This is why we must oppose the death penalty.
30
How do you write this essay about absurd prosecutorial misconduct without mentioning Mike Nifong and the Duke lacrosse fiasco!
8
'This type of prosecutorial error is almost never punished"
PRECISELY why it happens.
As in police misconduct, and individual usually has no chance.
For all its rhetoric about every one being equal under the law, the US prosecution system is build to protect the government.
PRECISELY why it happens.
As in police misconduct, and individual usually has no chance.
For all its rhetoric about every one being equal under the law, the US prosecution system is build to protect the government.
18
3.5 years for a trial, that is unfathomable.
20
I recommend that everyone watch the Frontline documentary on the Norfolk Four.
Parts of it sound like the prosecutor was hallucinating when he invented a massive gang rape/conspiracy scenario starting from facts that pointed to a single assailant. DNA was ignored there, too. Experienced defense attorneys were not surprised. A pardon was ultimately the only avenue to exonerate these victims, and they obtained one only recently.
Parts of it sound like the prosecutor was hallucinating when he invented a massive gang rape/conspiracy scenario starting from facts that pointed to a single assailant. DNA was ignored there, too. Experienced defense attorneys were not surprised. A pardon was ultimately the only avenue to exonerate these victims, and they obtained one only recently.
11
Thanks to the NYT for exposing the nuts and bolts of the
US justice system.
I do understand that maintaining order in a nation of
300 million plus is not easy. However, it needs to be
Done.
These are American citizens, whether guilty or innocent.
As such, they do have rights.
I concur with one of the other commenters, that election
For public office is not a good idea in the justice system.
This duty should be discharged dispassionately.
I do think this is a significant article in American legal
History. Even though a cynic would say it had better
Be, meaning, otherwise people will stop respecting
The law.
US justice system.
I do understand that maintaining order in a nation of
300 million plus is not easy. However, it needs to be
Done.
These are American citizens, whether guilty or innocent.
As such, they do have rights.
I concur with one of the other commenters, that election
For public office is not a good idea in the justice system.
This duty should be discharged dispassionately.
I do think this is a significant article in American legal
History. Even though a cynic would say it had better
Be, meaning, otherwise people will stop respecting
The law.
She did plead guilty to manslaughter. Is this topsy turvy land where the guilty are actually innocent and the innocent guilty?
4
Did you not read the article?
"On May 20, 2015, wearing her prison uniform, an orange top and navy pants, Noura was taken to a courtroom. A bailiff she met when she was arrested at 18 took off her handcuffs so she could sign an Alford plea that her lawyers had negotiated, which allows a defendant to acknowledge that the state has enough evidence to convict her while she maintains her innocence."
From Wikipedia: An Alford plea (also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine) in United States law is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence.
"On May 20, 2015, wearing her prison uniform, an orange top and navy pants, Noura was taken to a courtroom. A bailiff she met when she was arrested at 18 took off her handcuffs so she could sign an Alford plea that her lawyers had negotiated, which allows a defendant to acknowledge that the state has enough evidence to convict her while she maintains her innocence."
From Wikipedia: An Alford plea (also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine) in United States law is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence.
5
We tend naively to believe that our country is relatively free of public corruption. And then, with unsettling regularity, we encounter stories like this. Such cases are worth bearing in mind when on occasion we are tempted to launch brick bats at the various benighted dictatorships.
9
The US had the "justice" system it wants; it is based on punishment and retribution, not any ideal of justice and "innocent until proven guilty." Unless one is rich, of course, or corporate CEOs clearly conducting themselves with malfeasance.
It's part of our mythology that we are a just nation but our policies and practice prove otherwise. This particular prosecutor should be locked up herself but instead she's "tough on crime" and sometimes "too aggressive."
Americans should be horrified by a criminal justice system that locks up more of its population (absolute numbers and as a percentage) than any other nation. We are more like Iran and Saudi Arabia than Britain, France, Spain, Norway, etc.
And that's how we like it.
It's part of our mythology that we are a just nation but our policies and practice prove otherwise. This particular prosecutor should be locked up herself but instead she's "tough on crime" and sometimes "too aggressive."
Americans should be horrified by a criminal justice system that locks up more of its population (absolute numbers and as a percentage) than any other nation. We are more like Iran and Saudi Arabia than Britain, France, Spain, Norway, etc.
And that's how we like it.
19
There's a book, "Getting Life" by Michael Morton that describes Morton's 25 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. The prosecutor wanted to win and withheld evidence.
21
The US is the only country in the world where prosecutors are elected. Tying the job of prosecutor to public opinion must inevitably influence the mind set of the tough on crime, "winning" prosecutor. That 95% of prosecutors are white and male is surely connected to the fact that 47 states elect prosecutors, and only 3 appoint them.
But appointments are also tied to political parties and political power.
There are better alternatives to elections. Prosecutors could be career civil servants, as they are in most developed countries, their promotions based on merit and seniority. This would provide an opportunity for review, and end the “tough on crime” grandstanding typical of prosecutorial elections, and the desire for convictions at any cost.
Even elected prosecutors could be held accountable by informed, independent review boards, rather than by uninformed voters or biased judges, as we see in Bazelon's article.
Ending prosecutorial elections could also inhibit politically ambitious prosecutors like Amy Weirich from exceeding all reasonable or legal limits to score a "win," including concealing evidence, ignoring obvious evidence like DNA, and feeling no remorse at putting innocent people in prison in order to pave their way to higher office.
Implementing better means to hold prosecutors accountable would go a long way to achieving a fairer, more democratic criminal justice system.
But appointments are also tied to political parties and political power.
There are better alternatives to elections. Prosecutors could be career civil servants, as they are in most developed countries, their promotions based on merit and seniority. This would provide an opportunity for review, and end the “tough on crime” grandstanding typical of prosecutorial elections, and the desire for convictions at any cost.
Even elected prosecutors could be held accountable by informed, independent review boards, rather than by uninformed voters or biased judges, as we see in Bazelon's article.
Ending prosecutorial elections could also inhibit politically ambitious prosecutors like Amy Weirich from exceeding all reasonable or legal limits to score a "win," including concealing evidence, ignoring obvious evidence like DNA, and feeling no remorse at putting innocent people in prison in order to pave their way to higher office.
Implementing better means to hold prosecutors accountable would go a long way to achieving a fairer, more democratic criminal justice system.
19
Thomas Martin Thompson (Wikipedia)
On Nov. 4, 1983, Thompson was convicted by an Orange County Superior Court jury of the first-degree murder and forcible rape of Ginger Fleischli and sentenced by the court to be executed. He had never before been arrested; he had never even got a speeding ticket.
Subsequently, the same state prosecutor brought to trial David Leitch for the murder of Ginger Fleischli based on an entirely different set of facts and the testimony of a different set of witnesses.
The same state prosecutor argued to the second jury: "[Leitch is] the only one, before the victim's death, who expressed any hatred for and the only one with any motive for her death." In the closing arguments at Leitch's trial, the prosecutor labeled as absurd the closing arguments he had made to the jury at Thompson's trial:
"So we have to ask ourselves, why would Mr. Thompson murder Miss Fleischli alone in an apartment where he lived, with no transportation, no means to move the body and wait for Mr. Leitch to come home to be an A-1 witness for the murder of his ex-girlfriend? Is that reasonable or logical? Do you think that's what happened? . . . . You think Mr. Thompson did this all by himself and waiting for this good guy to come home so he could see him standing over his ex-girlfriend, who he lived with ten days before? No, it didn't happen that way."
Thomas Martin Thompson was executed on July 14, 1998.
On Nov. 4, 1983, Thompson was convicted by an Orange County Superior Court jury of the first-degree murder and forcible rape of Ginger Fleischli and sentenced by the court to be executed. He had never before been arrested; he had never even got a speeding ticket.
Subsequently, the same state prosecutor brought to trial David Leitch for the murder of Ginger Fleischli based on an entirely different set of facts and the testimony of a different set of witnesses.
The same state prosecutor argued to the second jury: "[Leitch is] the only one, before the victim's death, who expressed any hatred for and the only one with any motive for her death." In the closing arguments at Leitch's trial, the prosecutor labeled as absurd the closing arguments he had made to the jury at Thompson's trial:
"So we have to ask ourselves, why would Mr. Thompson murder Miss Fleischli alone in an apartment where he lived, with no transportation, no means to move the body and wait for Mr. Leitch to come home to be an A-1 witness for the murder of his ex-girlfriend? Is that reasonable or logical? Do you think that's what happened? . . . . You think Mr. Thompson did this all by himself and waiting for this good guy to come home so he could see him standing over his ex-girlfriend, who he lived with ten days before? No, it didn't happen that way."
Thomas Martin Thompson was executed on July 14, 1998.
10
Wow! Talk about egregious abuse of power and total lack of integrity.
5
reply to Dr. B
The paragraph quote at the second trial for Leitch comes from federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion (en banc) vacating the California's order of execution and ordering the state to either retry Thompson or release him. See Thompson v. Calderon, 120 F.3d 1045, 1057.
The California Attorney General, Dan Lundgren, appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A five justice majority of the Supreme Court reinstated the order of execution for Thompson. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, called the Court of Appeals' action a "grave abuse of discretion" by not adhering to the objects of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in recalling its mandate: "Although the terms of AEDPA do not govern this case, a court of appeals must exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the objects of the statute."
Justice Souter wrote in the four-justice dissenting opinion: "Whatever policy the Court is pursuing, it is not the policy of AEDPA. Nor is any other justification apparent. In this particular case, when all else is said, we simply face a recall occasioned by some administrative inadvertence awkwardly corrected; while that appellate process may have left some unfortunate impressions, neither its want of finesse nor AEDPA warrant the majority's decision to jettison the flexible abuse of discretion standard for the sake of solving a systemic problem that does not exist" Calderon v. Thompson, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 1507 (1998).
The paragraph quote at the second trial for Leitch comes from federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion (en banc) vacating the California's order of execution and ordering the state to either retry Thompson or release him. See Thompson v. Calderon, 120 F.3d 1045, 1057.
The California Attorney General, Dan Lundgren, appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A five justice majority of the Supreme Court reinstated the order of execution for Thompson. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, called the Court of Appeals' action a "grave abuse of discretion" by not adhering to the objects of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in recalling its mandate: "Although the terms of AEDPA do not govern this case, a court of appeals must exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the objects of the statute."
Justice Souter wrote in the four-justice dissenting opinion: "Whatever policy the Court is pursuing, it is not the policy of AEDPA. Nor is any other justification apparent. In this particular case, when all else is said, we simply face a recall occasioned by some administrative inadvertence awkwardly corrected; while that appellate process may have left some unfortunate impressions, neither its want of finesse nor AEDPA warrant the majority's decision to jettison the flexible abuse of discretion standard for the sake of solving a systemic problem that does not exist" Calderon v. Thompson, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 1507 (1998).
1
So why aren't prosecutors then prosecuted or disbarred for this behavior. I know it is not simple but they must be held accountable as well as guilty defendants are punished they too should be punished.
12
"So why aren't prosecutors then prosecuted or disbarred for this behavior."
If gross official misconduct by prosecutors and other creatures of the government was a death penalty offense they just might be a little more
carefull.
If gross official misconduct by prosecutors and other creatures of the government was a death penalty offense they just might be a little more
carefull.
7
The reason is that U. S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, ruled that all state and federal trial court prosecutors had absolute immunity from claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil suits for ALL violations of a defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). This U. S. Supreme Court decision remains the law of the land.
9
Does this Amy Weirich ever express any sympathy at all for the people whose lives she has deliberately damaged? Is she sorry?
23
Hey, why should she care? She's above the law and is climbing the ladder on their bodies.
5
Fantastic article. My gosh, I wish Noura had had a more aggressive defense attorney when considering her decision. At least as recounted here, the case seems remarkably weak. And the prosecution's misconduct -- not just the failure to turn over the statement, but the outrageous argument in closing -- is appalling.
Open file should be the law in all 50 states and the federal system. I couldn't agree more with the scholar who points out the absurdity of not allowing discovery in criminal cases when we allow it in contract cases.
Best wishes to Ms. Bazelon for a long and effective career.
Open file should be the law in all 50 states and the federal system. I couldn't agree more with the scholar who points out the absurdity of not allowing discovery in criminal cases when we allow it in contract cases.
Best wishes to Ms. Bazelon for a long and effective career.
13
From all accounts, the case has not been recounted in this article fully. It leaves out volumes of incriminating evidence.
1
As long as our criminal justice system is an adversary system where DA's [and also defense lawyers] are rewarded for "winning" you will have cases like this.
Harold Rothwax was a former NYC judge.
In his book , Guilty, he suggested something he called "the sealed envelop proposal".
Have the defendant write down his version of what happened or did not happen. Place in a sealed envelop.
Then let the defense see all of prosecution's evidence.
At trial if the defense contests the prosecution's evidence then let the envelop be opened.
No one should be convicted of murder without direct evidence. That a child and parent had conflicts is not direct evidence.
To convict for treason the Constitution requires testimony of at least two eyewitnesses. That same standard should be used in all criminal cases.
Harold Rothwax was a former NYC judge.
In his book , Guilty, he suggested something he called "the sealed envelop proposal".
Have the defendant write down his version of what happened or did not happen. Place in a sealed envelop.
Then let the defense see all of prosecution's evidence.
At trial if the defense contests the prosecution's evidence then let the envelop be opened.
No one should be convicted of murder without direct evidence. That a child and parent had conflicts is not direct evidence.
To convict for treason the Constitution requires testimony of at least two eyewitnesses. That same standard should be used in all criminal cases.
8
This is a well written article that exposes a major weakness in our Criminal Justice system, that being prosecutorial accountability. The system is already angled against defendants. Judges and juries perceive the prosecution and the police as more credible than the defense. A presumption of innocence is just a nice idea, it doesn't actually exist. And a not guilty verdict, for most defendants, is not a restoral of their life. The press and the process has already impacted their life, almost always in a negative way.
Prosecutors who violate their oath and ethics, and the law, should be held criminally and civilly liable. Prosecutorial immunity should be limited. Discovery should cover every record, every note, every scrap of information collected by the police and the prosecution. The defendants lawyer can be compelled by a Judge to keep certain information confidential when absolutely necessary, but any and all relevant information must be available in the crafting of a effective defense of the accused.
Prosecutors who violate their oath and ethics, and the law, should be held criminally and civilly liable. Prosecutorial immunity should be limited. Discovery should cover every record, every note, every scrap of information collected by the police and the prosecution. The defendants lawyer can be compelled by a Judge to keep certain information confidential when absolutely necessary, but any and all relevant information must be available in the crafting of a effective defense of the accused.
4
I've often wondered if more American lives are destroyed by prosecutorial misconduct, police brutality, civil forfeiture, and corporate malfeasance than by so-called "terrorists."
No need to answer, the statistics are there for those who care about facts.
No need to answer, the statistics are there for those who care about facts.
19
then why do you wonder?
Don't use a rhetoric tool first to then feel superior by saying 'don't bother to answer my appearant for show question since there are facts already'
if you want to say something, why not just say it?
Don't use a rhetoric tool first to then feel superior by saying 'don't bother to answer my appearant for show question since there are facts already'
if you want to say something, why not just say it?
Doctors are sued and prosecuted on a hunch, and in the public's eye are often denied the benefit of the doubt. Now there are physicians going to jail for "malpractice".
As the 'accidental exclusion' of the evidence described in the article, if I were to accidentally omit reporting earnings from a 1099, Im sure the IRS wouldn't let it slide.
The omission of pertinent evidence should be treated as a crime - even it really was a mistake. It's time for lawyers to be held a standard - I suggest at minimum the one all non-lawyers are held to.
As the 'accidental exclusion' of the evidence described in the article, if I were to accidentally omit reporting earnings from a 1099, Im sure the IRS wouldn't let it slide.
The omission of pertinent evidence should be treated as a crime - even it really was a mistake. It's time for lawyers to be held a standard - I suggest at minimum the one all non-lawyers are held to.
12
Until there is some sort of punishment for prosecutors who knowingly allowed the conviction of someone without all the evidence being shown we will never have a fair system. I feel for those who have been wrongly convicted. And for those who played a part in it may God have mercy on your soul
2
We don't persecute (I use that deliberately instead of prosecute) on political grounds in the US but we sure do on religious, economic and racial ones. And elected prosecutors and judges make a mockery of justice for all anyway...
1
If you follow enough of these cases, you see that the law drags and drags them out to beat the resistance out of the wrongfully convicted to get them to plead to "something" to relieve the system from fully admitting it mistakes and avoid financial remuneration that might be otherwise due.
Is that what Craft was doing, the judge who refused to hold a bond hearing after Noura's conviction was overturned and she was held in a jail without contact from her support system?
I wish the article had gone into this more. It may have made the difference in her emotional ability and thus willingness to fight on.
Perhaps a part solution would be that the state pay for the defense in cases such as this. Then others might force them to be more responsible.
And finally, for those who think this might be an anomaly, read how our Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, reversed holding the former New Orleans DA, Harry Connick, Sr., accountable for a history of just such abuses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/opinion/justice-gone-wrong-in-new-orl...
Is that what Craft was doing, the judge who refused to hold a bond hearing after Noura's conviction was overturned and she was held in a jail without contact from her support system?
I wish the article had gone into this more. It may have made the difference in her emotional ability and thus willingness to fight on.
Perhaps a part solution would be that the state pay for the defense in cases such as this. Then others might force them to be more responsible.
And finally, for those who think this might be an anomaly, read how our Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, reversed holding the former New Orleans DA, Harry Connick, Sr., accountable for a history of just such abuses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/opinion/justice-gone-wrong-in-new-orl...
14
Judges ABSOLUTELY put their thumbs on the scales of justice in this manner. I know of one who would set high bail intentionally to encourage pleas; he was a former public defender.
2
“If the authorities knew about the problems and chose not to prevent them, then clearly something is rotten in the state of Denmark”, Shakespeare wrote. Nowadays it seems more appropriate to substitute USA for Denmark.
Someone said “make America great again” and too many believed him. I am waiting for someone to call out “make America honest again”
Someone said “make America great again” and too many believed him. I am waiting for someone to call out “make America honest again”
4
Want to know how Out Of Control the system is?
Marijuana was placed in schedule 1 by the no nothing DEA.
Classifying it the same as heroin, makes for overcrowded prisons and many harmless folks rotting in them, just for wanting to feel better with the help of a harmless herb..
Marijuana was placed in schedule 1 by the no nothing DEA.
Classifying it the same as heroin, makes for overcrowded prisons and many harmless folks rotting in them, just for wanting to feel better with the help of a harmless herb..
6
know nothing DEA
2
Why should the lead prosecutor worry? She became the DA by playing fast and loose with the evidence in multiple case. And she is still the district attorney.
Just like the Wall Street bankers who got rich while destroying the economy, the benefits outweigh the risks.
Until these crooks start serving some serious jail time, miscarriages of justice will continue.
Since most state courts and the bar associations refuse to fix this matter, is the second amendment the only solution against judicial tyranny?
Just like the Wall Street bankers who got rich while destroying the economy, the benefits outweigh the risks.
Until these crooks start serving some serious jail time, miscarriages of justice will continue.
Since most state courts and the bar associations refuse to fix this matter, is the second amendment the only solution against judicial tyranny?
8
Plus, this is an old boys club. They all look out for one another. Take a look at your State Bar disciplinary board: All Lawyers.....Trying to hold any lawyer accountable is a bit like trying to hold the police accountable.
It ain't gonna happen in this day and age.
It ain't gonna happen in this day and age.
5
Is America the bastion of freedom?. Absolutely amazing. I don't wish to list all the things I find offensive about the USA, but Americans ought to take a close look at your country. To use Trumps's words - sad.
8
I find your treatment of your indigenous natives vis a vis oil pipelines running through their tribal lands offensive. I find your willingness to barge oil just off shore of our Eastern coastline offensive. I find your use of Koch money to finance a pipeline running 3,000 miles through the United States carrying toxic bitumen oil offensive. One State managed to beat back your fraudulent claim of "eminent domain". It runs over our aquifirs; one leak into the water table with no fix for it. You didn't want it running over B.C. land, right? Why was that? I also find your superior attitude towards 330,000,000 people you don't know offensive. What ever happened to Canadian honesty in dealing with neighbors, eh?
2
No surprise, here. Weirich is just one example of prosecutorial and judicial corruption that was exposed. The courts are made for the wealthy and have partnered with a corrupt system. A phalanx of court staff and legal staff support these entities. How can such bad apples as Weirich be held accountable when it is her friends who help her run the system that they are bed fellows in?
6
Why aren't there laws to penalize overzealous prosectors? Tragically, this is a too common occurrence in our judicial system.
These prosectors should be made to serve out the entire their sentence of their victim.
These prosectors should be made to serve out the entire their sentence of their victim.
4
Of course, poor Noura Jackson had no access to the estates of her mother and father when she was desperately in need of money to pay for bail and a good defense attorney. That's American justice for you. Of course, if you'er a dishonest corporate bigwig who ruins thousands of lives, you will never see the inside of a jail cell or prison. Our "justice" system is very class-biased. The "little people" are the subhumans and the rich are the superhumans.
15
...and the reason prosecutors do now and will continue to withhold evidence is precisely because they don't pay a price for it...the ONLY people paying are the ones on trial. prosecutors like police...in the new 'murica get away routinely with lying...and murder.....
7
This Weirich's even want to move to Governor's mansion? That is too much. Her place should be in a jail. Thanks for informative article in American Justice system.
17
I hope Jackson sues the state of Tennessee and Weirich for damages and wrongful imprisonment
7
This is inexcusable, but is the very thing encouraged by the current Oval Office Occupant.
Make no mistake, left unchecked, The Trump Wars will be under way before we know it.
After all, this is the very type of thing mentioned under "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation," in the Declaration of Independence.
Unfortunately, despite the good work of the Founding Fathers, fewer and fewer appear interested in continuing their experiment unless there is a profit in it for them.
The "Black Lives Matter" movement might point out that the very issue was addressed in the Declaration of Independence. Undoubtedly, police officers being susceptible to human frailties, the killing of unarmed citizens is bound to occur on occasion. What is unfathomable is that they should escape accountability.
See: Fact 15; Declaration of Independence
"For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States."
The Constitution, for all its wisdom, is all but ignored except when it is convenient.
The Declaration of Independence set out the Spirit and Intent of the country. It lists what the signers felt were worthy of fighting over, or as they said:
"We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Review The Declaration & decide for yourself if the Founders would sign it today.
Better Luck.
Make no mistake, left unchecked, The Trump Wars will be under way before we know it.
After all, this is the very type of thing mentioned under "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation," in the Declaration of Independence.
Unfortunately, despite the good work of the Founding Fathers, fewer and fewer appear interested in continuing their experiment unless there is a profit in it for them.
The "Black Lives Matter" movement might point out that the very issue was addressed in the Declaration of Independence. Undoubtedly, police officers being susceptible to human frailties, the killing of unarmed citizens is bound to occur on occasion. What is unfathomable is that they should escape accountability.
See: Fact 15; Declaration of Independence
"For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States."
The Constitution, for all its wisdom, is all but ignored except when it is convenient.
The Declaration of Independence set out the Spirit and Intent of the country. It lists what the signers felt were worthy of fighting over, or as they said:
"We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Review The Declaration & decide for yourself if the Founders would sign it today.
Better Luck.
5
And police never lie. Ain't life great.
5
win, win, win at any cost
2
Women routinely face harsher and longer sentencing than men. Just yet another example of sexism, or are those privately owned women's prisons, that scam taxpayers and provide massive kick-backs to judges and elected officials, simply harder to fill? Guess we'll never know, since neither scenario will end any time soon.
10
I'd just like to look at this case from the standpoint of statistics. If the probability that Noura murdered her mother is A, then there is another probability, 1-A, that someone else murdered her mother. While the number of teenagers that fight with their parents is fairly high, the number that go on to murder them after no history of violent behavior is vanishingly small. Meanwhile we have DNA from three other people who were at the murder scene who were never identified and it seems they were never even pursued.
The prosecutors case more closely resembles spook stories and augury than it resembles a careful examination of the facts of the case and the possibility that someone else may be involved in this murder. But our whole trial system is straight out of the dark ages so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
The prosecutors case more closely resembles spook stories and augury than it resembles a careful examination of the facts of the case and the possibility that someone else may be involved in this murder. But our whole trial system is straight out of the dark ages so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
14
She pled guilty and now recants.
I see you are from Memphis and may have more information about the case for that reason so please fill me in. If she pled guilty, why did the case go to trial? If she "confessed", was it thrown out due to a violation of her constitutional rights? I am sure you know there is such a thing as an improperly coerced confession.
2
Not only did she plead guilty *to killing her own mother*, she plead guilty after learning that she had a very good chance of winning at a new trial. Who does that? Especially when she had a stable and supportive environment to go to once she was out on bond, a blessing not available to many ex-cons. Any attorney would have argued for bond once the new trial was ordered, and based on the thinness of the evidence (according to the NYT) there is a good chance it would have been granted and she would be out in a few month's time anyway.
If innocent, she languished for nine years in prison and leapt at the chance to be out immediately but she was not concerned with clearing her name, through a court process that she would not have to pay for? Not to mention the possibility of cashing in on a civil lawsuit once the second trial was over? This report is heavily slanted towards this young woman's innocence. It's possible that there were errors in the investigation and at trial, but that does not mean she is innocent; it does not mean she is guilty, either, but there is more to the story here. A defendant does not have to testify in their own defense in order for their version of events to be presented in court. There are numerous avenues a defense attorney could have used to present Noura's version of events, including the explanation for the cut and the her version of her relationship with her mother. Note that incompetent counsel in the first trial is not being alleged.
If innocent, she languished for nine years in prison and leapt at the chance to be out immediately but she was not concerned with clearing her name, through a court process that she would not have to pay for? Not to mention the possibility of cashing in on a civil lawsuit once the second trial was over? This report is heavily slanted towards this young woman's innocence. It's possible that there were errors in the investigation and at trial, but that does not mean she is innocent; it does not mean she is guilty, either, but there is more to the story here. A defendant does not have to testify in their own defense in order for their version of events to be presented in court. There are numerous avenues a defense attorney could have used to present Noura's version of events, including the explanation for the cut and the her version of her relationship with her mother. Note that incompetent counsel in the first trial is not being alleged.
3
Okay - did you not read about the false promises that led to the guilty plea? This is a cautionary tale if -- and only if -- you are paying attention.
5
How many more ?
1
It is likely far more common for males to be in that predicament, than women.
1
And?
What kind of monster dressed in professional attire does this? This person went to college, law school got married and even had kids but she is a predator. She would send an innocent person to death and not think about it twice. These are the kind of people that get praised and are considered winners. How long are we going to just shake our heads and let this go by?
20
So long as Weirich and hers never suffer consequences for her actions, why should she care?
2
Hoo boy. My head and heart are spinning. I have never read an article in the NY Times before that involved someone who I have known for a very long time, so this is a very dizzying experience for me. I have known Amy and her family (immediate and extended) about 15 years, and they are good, caring, wonderful people. Her family is AMAZING. They are truly generous spirits. She's an amazing mom and person. I know that passions are running high after reading this article and I accept that. I'm feeling extremely conflicted because the picture painted in this article in no way lines up to who I know she is. I know that other readers might be very angry that I'm posting this but I would feel remiss if I didn't post a positive response about someone from whom I've only seen caring, intelligence, and a deep and kind dedication to family and people in general.
4
It is rare indeed to know all facets of even our closest intimates, especially how they behave in the workplace.
2
Well, clearly she hasn't prosecuted you for something you didn't do. I bet you'd be singing a different tune were you in Noura shoes.
Like many people, the face she presents in her social life is completely different in the face she presents in her professional life. You don't know anything about her in that professional life. Glad you finally do.
Like many people, the face she presents in her social life is completely different in the face she presents in her professional life. You don't know anything about her in that professional life. Glad you finally do.
3
I assume you've never been arrested for a murder you didn't commit, and then prosecuted by your friend who withheld information that might have set you free.
3
This is an appalling, sad story about a hopelessly broken and decrepit justice system.
Future generations will look back in our system, and our teeming prisons, in disbelief.
Future generations will look back in our system, and our teeming prisons, in disbelief.
10
Excellent piece. Well researched, well reported, well written. And I learned so much. I thank the writer.
I hope to God this piece sparks some changes.
I hope to God this piece sparks some changes.
9
>‘‘Just tell us where you were!’’ she shouted, throwing up her hands in a gesture of impatience. ‘‘That’s all we are asking, Noura!’’
That should be reversible error right there. That's nothing if not a statement drawing attention to the defendant's failure to testify.
That prosecutor belongs in jail.
That should be reversible error right there. That's nothing if not a statement drawing attention to the defendant's failure to testify.
That prosecutor belongs in jail.
19
Read it and weep. Literally. A cast of characters so malevolent my stomach heaves.
5
And Weirich and people like her are "above the law" it seems. Is this right, here in America? I don't think so.
4
This is the definition of ghoulish:
"At the time of the trial, two of Noura’s aunts and the half uncle were suing her for the value of her mother’s life insurance policy and the rest of her estate."
Despicable.
"At the time of the trial, two of Noura’s aunts and the half uncle were suing her for the value of her mother’s life insurance policy and the rest of her estate."
Despicable.
15
Please please don't rely on this article for all of the facts and do yourself a favor and read more about the case. This article could not be more biased and one sided.
This prosecutor needs to be prosecuted.
6
What a heartbreaking story! (And kudos to NYT for yet another great investigative piece.)
There seems to be very little justice for the poor and frail. Oh, the irony - Weirich is the real criminal yet she gets to prosecute criminals. I hope she will at least be shamed and shunned by her peers and community.
The District Attorney position should not be an elected position. Leave politics out of justice.
There seems to be very little justice for the poor and frail. Oh, the irony - Weirich is the real criminal yet she gets to prosecute criminals. I hope she will at least be shamed and shunned by her peers and community.
The District Attorney position should not be an elected position. Leave politics out of justice.
10
Doesn't it make sense that ALL evidence in a possible crime must be brought forward?
One example that springs to mind is Gov. Christie's cell phone in the Bridgegate case, which his attorney insisted on holding on to and not submitting as evidence. That attorney, by the way, was Chris Wray, the new Director of the FBI. Sigh.
One example that springs to mind is Gov. Christie's cell phone in the Bridgegate case, which his attorney insisted on holding on to and not submitting as evidence. That attorney, by the way, was Chris Wray, the new Director of the FBI. Sigh.
7
Well we know what to expect from him
4
One right remember that the judge, the prosecutors, the jury, the state's criminal investigators, the law clerks, and the low enforcement officers are all employed by the same party.
2
Isn't it a prosecutor's ethical duty to seek justice and not convictions?
I wonder if the author can answer this question: Because Noura signed the plea agreement, is she prohibited in any way from suing the DA's office/state?
I hope there are some punitive measures that can be taken against the DA. Truly disgraceful.
I wonder if the author can answer this question: Because Noura signed the plea agreement, is she prohibited in any way from suing the DA's office/state?
I hope there are some punitive measures that can be taken against the DA. Truly disgraceful.
17
Do Defense Lawyers ever withhold evidence?
Are these lawyers held to a lower standard and does our society suffer because some criminals are found innocent because of their shady lawyers?
Are these lawyers held to a lower standard and does our society suffer because some criminals are found innocent because of their shady lawyers?
1
Defense lawyers have no obligation to prove anything. The burden is entirely on the prosecution.
14
@JK
Our system of law and justice is based certain premises to protect the accused:
One of these is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
Another is the 5th Amendment, which among other things guarantees protection against self incrimination
Another is the right to representation by competent counsel
(I am not sure what you mean by "shady lawyers" inasmuch as a defense lawyer's duty is to defend her or his client , and all accused are guaranteed the right to legal counsel)
All of the above mentioned rights of the accused are intended to guarantee the rights of the individual against the power of the state which, as we have seen here and elsewhere, may be biased or corrupt.
Our society does not suffer, but is stronger for all these protections.
The great 18th c English jurist William Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," restating a concept dating back to the Bible: (Genesis 18:23-32), and to Islamic doctrine as well.
This idea was absorbed into the English common law, and into American jurisprudence as well, and has been taught to law students ever since.
You may want to review the Bill of Rights and then rephrase your comment.
Our system of law and justice is based certain premises to protect the accused:
One of these is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
Another is the 5th Amendment, which among other things guarantees protection against self incrimination
Another is the right to representation by competent counsel
(I am not sure what you mean by "shady lawyers" inasmuch as a defense lawyer's duty is to defend her or his client , and all accused are guaranteed the right to legal counsel)
All of the above mentioned rights of the accused are intended to guarantee the rights of the individual against the power of the state which, as we have seen here and elsewhere, may be biased or corrupt.
Our society does not suffer, but is stronger for all these protections.
The great 18th c English jurist William Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," restating a concept dating back to the Bible: (Genesis 18:23-32), and to Islamic doctrine as well.
This idea was absorbed into the English common law, and into American jurisprudence as well, and has been taught to law students ever since.
You may want to review the Bill of Rights and then rephrase your comment.
1
Public Defenders are not that well paid; they are not in lucrative legal careers; they have no incentive to lower standards. Defense attorneys who are well paid cannot invent witnesses and evidence and go up against the power of the State and its resources. If a criminal is found innocent due to a technical error on the part of the prosecution, that does not support the opinion that prosecutors are always on the side of justice. In the case of Weirich, we have an aggressive, ambitious and ruthless woman seeking to advance her career at any cost to others. I hope that DNA testing exonerates her completely. Her mother was involved with drug dealers whose DNA was probably in that bloody bed.
1
I am not a lawyer but wonder if Ms. Jackson can sue the state of Tennesee. I don't recall every specific detail but there have been case of people convicted wrongly who have been compensated back by the state, e.g. the Central Park Five, Larry Polschneider.
9
So you fool a bunch of stupid jurors with a concocted story and with hold evidence that would exonerate an innocent person.
Justice American Style.
We see videos of prison guards torturing a man who is restrained.
We see videos of cops shooting people in the back.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Once I would like to see a cop testify that he saw another cop plant evidence, lie on the stand, beat a person in handcuffs senseless.
I would like to see a prosecutor in prison maybe alongside of an innocent person he or she imprisoned through perjured evidence and testimony.
They steal a persons life.
They belong in a special prisons.
Now imagine you are Black or Hispanic. Start praying when the police lights come on and the prosecutor tells you they have evidence that will result in your getting "the needle".
American justice.
Justice American Style.
We see videos of prison guards torturing a man who is restrained.
We see videos of cops shooting people in the back.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Once I would like to see a cop testify that he saw another cop plant evidence, lie on the stand, beat a person in handcuffs senseless.
I would like to see a prosecutor in prison maybe alongside of an innocent person he or she imprisoned through perjured evidence and testimony.
They steal a persons life.
They belong in a special prisons.
Now imagine you are Black or Hispanic. Start praying when the police lights come on and the prosecutor tells you they have evidence that will result in your getting "the needle".
American justice.
14
And this is why I say that we have only a "Legal System" and most assuredly NOT a "Justice System"! There is something terribly wrong with our legal system when this kind of malfeasance is done. I would suggest that we need a complete overhaul of our legal system so that prosecutors cannot get away with such behavior. With racial bias in juries and now prosecutorial misconduct, the deck appears to be stacked pretty much against the innocent. The recent "not guilty" verdicts against police who obviously used excessive force, does not inspire confidence in our legal system.
8
As Gil Scott-Heron wrote (and sang) so many decades ago, "The rich go to San Clemente; the poor to San Quentin". Nixon to San Clemente which sold for $75 million in 2015; the poor railroaded to horrific, miserably overcrowded, frequently privatized prisons/jails.
And yet the Supreme Court building has "Equal Justice Under Law" chiseled in the white marble of its entrance.
Sad. But true.
And yet the Supreme Court building has "Equal Justice Under Law" chiseled in the white marble of its entrance.
Sad. But true.
15
I see a series of errors in the handling of Ms. Jackson's case across all levels. Ultimately, we have a dysfunctional criminal justice system for the same reasons we have a dysfunctional educational system and a crumbling national infrastructure. We get what we pay for and we do not want to pay the necessary taxes to provide for a quality criminal justice system. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are overworked, courts are overburdened by their caseloads, and there is not adequate support staff to keep the system running smoothly. Yes, there are some bad prosecutors, just like there are some bad defense attorneys, but they are merely a symptom of a dysfunctional system. It is our fault that we have a system that does not work the way it should.
Most prosecutors and defense attorneys want to do well and they do the best they can under the circumstances, but they cannot push back the tide.
Either we need to decide we are willing to pay for a quality criminal justice system (and educational system, healthcare system, etc.), or we just need to admit we do not care enough to pay for it and move on.
Most prosecutors and defense attorneys want to do well and they do the best they can under the circumstances, but they cannot push back the tide.
Either we need to decide we are willing to pay for a quality criminal justice system (and educational system, healthcare system, etc.), or we just need to admit we do not care enough to pay for it and move on.
7
I don't think this is a case of "we get what we pay for." What we have here is a DA so cravenly ambitious that truth and justice (not to mention letting the real killer get away with murder) don't matter, and a maliciously negligent judge who made it all possible.
5
Ms. Weirich was not doing the "best" she could do; she was doing the "best" she could do to advance her career as The Hammer. Given that she has a record of withholding evidence, she is always looking for a nail. She prosecuted a young woman whose mother was probably murdered by drug dealers; she cost her all that she would have inherited; she cost her years of productive life; she cost her a reputation which did not include murder until Weirich decided to ignore any evidence which would have exonerated her victim. If this were the first questionable conviction, she would be due the benefit of the doubt. It is not the first; it is how she operates. After she puts an innocent young woman in prison for murder, she can go home and be a good neighbor and mother. One neighbor has written about what a wonderful person Ms. Weirich is. She isn't. She is an ambitious, driven prosecutor looking to be Governor some day.
2
Yet another symptom of a system which monetizes guilt. When prosecutors are elected officials (or on their way to becoming elected officials) and corporations who run prisons are donors...well, people know what side their bread is buttered. and it creates a bias whether or not they recognize it. And while, of course, there will always be errors, to point out consistent errors or outright misconduct should never be considered anti-law enforcement. The more faith people can have in the rule of law as a whole, the more likely people are to adhere to it.
5
We Americans really, really need to believe our justice system is fair and seeks the truth, we we live by rule of law then the system must work. And yet this article demonstrates that the problem isn't only with the prosecutors, it is also with the judges, who seem arbitrary, with no need whatsoever to explain themselves. Too often they are elected and not subjected to any accountability or scrutiny whatsoever.
We can do better than this shabby system.
We can do better than this shabby system.
5
They are elected in the rich Palo Alto city on the California peninsula. A recent case which horrified a number of people was the violent rape of a young girl at a party where all had been drinking. She left the party and the rapist followed her. She went to the police and reported it. When the case went before a judge, he humiliated the young woman; he shamed her. She later wrote a statement revealing her anguish and pain. The rapist's father was a wealthy, powerful man; and, the judge knew where "justice" had to go. The rapist was expelled from Stanford and later transferred to a college in the mid-West where his record followed him; and he was socially isolated. The young woman will recover; the young man is forever branded a rapist.
We have to stop electing prosecutors and county sheriffs. The urge to grandstand with people's lives to win re-election is just too much for some of them.
The most disturbing thing is that they don't appear to think about the implications of leaving the guilty on the street while railroading the innocent.
The most disturbing thing is that they don't appear to think about the implications of leaving the guilty on the street while railroading the innocent.
10
In the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in VAN de KAMP v. GOLDSTEIN, 555 U.S. 335, (2009), Justice Breyer wrote:
"We here consider the scope of a prosecutor's absolute immunity from claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). We ask whether that immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material, see Giglio, 405 U.S. 150, (1972), due to: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor's absolute immunity extends to all these claims."
Until this ruling, administrative prosecutors had a constitutional duty to "insure communication of all relevant information on each case [including agreements made with informants] to every lawyer who deals with it." Giglio, at 154.
"We conclude that the very reasons that led this Court in Imbler to find absolute immunity [for all trial court prosecutors] require a similar finding in this case. We recognize, as Chief Judge Hand pointed out, that sometimes such immunity deprives a plaintiff of compensation that he undoubtedly merits; but the impediments to the fair, efficient functioning of a prosecutorial office that liability could create lead us to find that Imbler must apply here."
The Supreme Court should discourage bad actors, not reward them.
"We here consider the scope of a prosecutor's absolute immunity from claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). We ask whether that immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material, see Giglio, 405 U.S. 150, (1972), due to: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor's absolute immunity extends to all these claims."
Until this ruling, administrative prosecutors had a constitutional duty to "insure communication of all relevant information on each case [including agreements made with informants] to every lawyer who deals with it." Giglio, at 154.
"We conclude that the very reasons that led this Court in Imbler to find absolute immunity [for all trial court prosecutors] require a similar finding in this case. We recognize, as Chief Judge Hand pointed out, that sometimes such immunity deprives a plaintiff of compensation that he undoubtedly merits; but the impediments to the fair, efficient functioning of a prosecutorial office that liability could create lead us to find that Imbler must apply here."
The Supreme Court should discourage bad actors, not reward them.
5
This was an excellent article. It clearly shows how those in power without a clear moral compass and with a weak conscience can think nothing of building their careers on the back of others, for the sake of expediency.
Bad prosecutors, bad defense lawyers and bad judges are prime candidates to be replaced in the future with AI equivalents that have been previously tested for high integrity, impartiality, and zero ambition for career advancement. The good judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers would help train, test and improve the AI.
The likes of Weirich will never be missed.
Bad prosecutors, bad defense lawyers and bad judges are prime candidates to be replaced in the future with AI equivalents that have been previously tested for high integrity, impartiality, and zero ambition for career advancement. The good judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers would help train, test and improve the AI.
The likes of Weirich will never be missed.
4
How to combat or discourage over-zealous DA's? Seems like prosecutors should face penalties, disbarment, or some sort of repercussion for ruining peoples' lives.
6
How about this to bad prosecutors: If you are found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, you will be sentenced to three times the time served by the innocent person because of your misconduct? After all, "treble damages" are standard in many other contexts.
8
Thanks very much for this excellently reported story. It's hard to believe that this is the state of prosecutorial practice in this country. I thought the piece was fair and multi-faceted, but the tragedy of innocence losing to 'win at all costs' is as Noura says is "hard to wrap my head around that".
7
If I were Noura Jackson I would sue the prosecutor for everything she owns, every penny she has and every penny she will ever make and/or own - even a dog dish. I take that back - that would be unfair to the dog.
12
This is horrible and Weirich should be in jail.
That said, what jumped out at me was the fact that Jennifer Jackson was stabbed 50 times -- and they thought they had evidence because of on small cut on Noura's hand? I've seen many crime documentaries and my takeaway is if you stab much more than once the victim's blood will make your own hand slippery, which means your hand will start to slip over the blade. Murderers who stab typically slice up their own hands as well -- and FIFTY times? Her hands would have been hamburger.
It sounds like this thing was maliciously mishandled from the start. But I would also ask readers to realize this could easily (especially with this bloodthirsty prosecutor) been a death penalty case. Noura Jackson could easily have been executed. This is why we must eliminate the death penalty. We can't give this poor woman back the years she lost, or the healthy reproductive system she should have had, or her home and inheritance. But she has her life. People were certain she was guilty -- and they were wrong We can't afford to let our lust for vengeance make us murderers too.
That said, what jumped out at me was the fact that Jennifer Jackson was stabbed 50 times -- and they thought they had evidence because of on small cut on Noura's hand? I've seen many crime documentaries and my takeaway is if you stab much more than once the victim's blood will make your own hand slippery, which means your hand will start to slip over the blade. Murderers who stab typically slice up their own hands as well -- and FIFTY times? Her hands would have been hamburger.
It sounds like this thing was maliciously mishandled from the start. But I would also ask readers to realize this could easily (especially with this bloodthirsty prosecutor) been a death penalty case. Noura Jackson could easily have been executed. This is why we must eliminate the death penalty. We can't give this poor woman back the years she lost, or the healthy reproductive system she should have had, or her home and inheritance. But she has her life. People were certain she was guilty -- and they were wrong We can't afford to let our lust for vengeance make us murderers too.
16
As sad as this story sound, it's 100 times worst for a black man in this so-called justice system. From a messed-up childhood and adolescence to being falsely convicted for her mother's death, this girl went through hell. I really hope she recovers.
6
The absolute evil of whats happened to this poor woman just floors me. As the close family member of a murder victim I can't even imagine her pain. And to be presented with the Sophies Choice of pleading guilty??.... I sincerely hope none of those who persecuted ever sleep thru a night again. But they will. It's impossible to prick the conscience of the conscienceless.
9
Back in 2014, Shreveport, Louisiana prosecutor A. M. Stroud wrote a revealing and apparently sincere apology about his role in sending Glenn Ford to death row in 1984. Ford was later released, but after years of his life spent sitting in on death row. This story is not a one-off. There should be huge penalties for prosecutorial misconduct.
11
Thank you for drawing attention to this issue, though alas I do not have much hope for change. I am married to an appellate criminal defense attorney, so am well aware of the frequency of both police and proprietorial misconduct and just how difficult it is to fight it. Sadly, most people are either not aware, or do not care when presented with the facts. Many otherwise educated and thinking people often yield to their gut instincts on matters of criminal justice and still think that merely being arrested is enough evidence of some sort of bad activity. Many think its better to jail someone than let them go because of a "technicality" (of course purposefully withholding evidence is not a technicality).
This attitude has real consequences for our justice system. We create incentives for prosecutors to win, and not to uphold justice. Compare also the funding received by public defense agencies compared to prosecutors. In most states, the prosecution has multiples the funding on a per case basis than the defense. They have the backing of state labs, investigators and other experts. Defense has to beg for funds for these things for each case, often being denied.
Aside from the lack of concern among the general public, the lack of concern among judges is astounding. While there are many exemplary justices that stick to facts and precedents, many do not want to bother with admitting that something could have gone wrong in a trial.
This attitude has real consequences for our justice system. We create incentives for prosecutors to win, and not to uphold justice. Compare also the funding received by public defense agencies compared to prosecutors. In most states, the prosecution has multiples the funding on a per case basis than the defense. They have the backing of state labs, investigators and other experts. Defense has to beg for funds for these things for each case, often being denied.
Aside from the lack of concern among the general public, the lack of concern among judges is astounding. While there are many exemplary justices that stick to facts and precedents, many do not want to bother with admitting that something could have gone wrong in a trial.
11
When such 'lapses' come to the surface, those who witheld evidence, intentionally or not, should be sentenced to the same number of years and conditions in prison that the wrongfully convicted has served before being freed. That would tidy things up VERY QUICKLY.
That said, the justice system in this country is antagonistic with the wrong incentives for prosecutors, not focused on justice at all. Even if most of the convictions are 'just', we can't know that or have faith in such a system or any particular case.
That said, the justice system in this country is antagonistic with the wrong incentives for prosecutors, not focused on justice at all. Even if most of the convictions are 'just', we can't know that or have faith in such a system or any particular case.
5
In addition to witholding exculpatory evidence and the disastrous results we predictable get from our adversarial model, the whole idea of having someone plead to a lesser charge so the prosecution can hold onto a 'WIN' just makes my stomach turn. Such an offer also suggests they don't think that they can win.
What I don't get is that even if she were convicted a second time, given her good behavior in prison and that she had only a year left, why would she not have gotten out when she did?
What I don't get is that even if she were convicted a second time, given her good behavior in prison and that she had only a year left, why would she not have gotten out when she did?
9
Same thing happened to former US Senator Ted Stevens, R-AK, when US Justice Department prosecutors Bottini and Goeke withheld evidence that eventually exonerated the senator. Same thing. Neither prosecutor was punished.
7
I remember that case; Senator Stevens was a close friend of the managing partner I worked for in D.C. He was often in the office. He was a good Senator for Alaska, and that prosecution was a travesty.
1
Simple! If a prosecutor is found to have withheld evidence that would have exonerated a person, the prosecutor goes to jail. No fines, no probation. End of story.
9
I was surprised and saddened to see you refer to "prosecutorial error" in the lead-in to this article. This may have been an error at first but it became more than that as soon as the assistant prosecutor discovered, a mere FIVE DAYS after the jury rendered its guilty verdict, that he had failed to disclose a document that might have been exculpatory to the defendant. At that point the matter went from an innocent error to misconduct, cheating, dirty pool. I suspect this happens all the time, and I suspect that prosecutors are often more than willing to look the other way or even to condone or initiate such concealment.
And then we have the judge, whose performance in this case seems inept at best. When the prosecutor, in her closing statement, cited Noura's decision not to testify, the judge should have immediately declared a mistrial.
Finally, we have the jury. From what I've seen, American juries don't really comprehend the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt." I believe they all too frequently convict on a standard of "probably," "pretty sure," or "almost certainly." This is, I think, especially true when the defendant is poor, or is smeared with accusations of bad behavior (sex, alcohol use, drug use), or is not white, or does not appear attractive or un-threatening. This is, I think, why we see so many convictions overturned with findings that the defendant was innocent after all. Oops! Sorry about all those years behind bars.
And then we have the judge, whose performance in this case seems inept at best. When the prosecutor, in her closing statement, cited Noura's decision not to testify, the judge should have immediately declared a mistrial.
Finally, we have the jury. From what I've seen, American juries don't really comprehend the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt." I believe they all too frequently convict on a standard of "probably," "pretty sure," or "almost certainly." This is, I think, especially true when the defendant is poor, or is smeared with accusations of bad behavior (sex, alcohol use, drug use), or is not white, or does not appear attractive or un-threatening. This is, I think, why we see so many convictions overturned with findings that the defendant was innocent after all. Oops! Sorry about all those years behind bars.
9
I used to work the night shift, so I would sometimes watch trials on COURT TV during the day, and wonder, "How did the jury find the defendant guilty?" Easy - our "peers" are mostly a bunch of idiots.
11
“At that point the matter went from an innocent error to misconduct…”
Exactly correct. From that point on, a crime was committed every day that the document was not revealed to the court and defense counsel.
Some say, prosecutors who commit these “errors” should go to prison. Probably true. They also should be co-defendant in the erroneously convicted individual’s lawsuit against the state for false imprisonment, and they should be forced to contribute to any cash awarded to settle the case.
Exactly correct. From that point on, a crime was committed every day that the document was not revealed to the court and defense counsel.
Some say, prosecutors who commit these “errors” should go to prison. Probably true. They also should be co-defendant in the erroneously convicted individual’s lawsuit against the state for false imprisonment, and they should be forced to contribute to any cash awarded to settle the case.
3
They should send the prosecutor that hid the evidence to jail for 9 years.
11
"Prosecutors Withheld the Evidence That Would Have Freed Her" Then why, after the allegedly exculpatory evidence in your inflammatory title came to light, did Noura Jackson not fight to have her name cleared of a crime she knew she did not commit? A more intellectually honest title would have been: "Prosecutors Withheld Evidence That May Have Led to a Not Guilty Verdict", but what's a little white lie when you're trying to entice readers and sell newspapers.
3
Why did an 18 year old woman, without means, a drug pronblem and even possibly psychiatric disease not rise up against her tormentors? I suppose in the US (and very likely in Russia too) that constitutes a legitimate question....
3
@Earl W
Your comment about why Noura Jackson didn't fight to have her name cleared of a crime she knew she did not commit shows you didn't read the article, which explained why she chose a plea bargain at that point. It also displays an astonishing naivete about the way the system works (though Bazelon's article surely did an excellent job of revealing its injustices and corruption).
Your statement also lacks understanding of what might motivate a girl railroaded to prison at the age of 18, with no parent or relative to assist her, and what her mindset might be after spending her youth incarcerated.
The Times has about 1.5 million digital subscribers, around 500,000 daily print subscribers, 1 million on Sundays.
If I were you I'd save my indignation about the "inflammatory title" and intellectual "dishonesty" for more widely broadcast "enticements" -- like Donald Trump's televised suggestion to police that they not worry about injuring people under arrest, but treat them roughly when putting them into police cars or vans. How many millions watched that after it was broadcast again and again and again?
What justice can any ordinary person expect in our system, from arrest to trial to conviction to appeal, when POTUS #45 shows no respect for the law, assuming that police brutality is OK? The Justice Department currently has 93 vacant US Attorney positions. Let's hope they are not filled by this icon of disrespect for law and justice.
Your comment about why Noura Jackson didn't fight to have her name cleared of a crime she knew she did not commit shows you didn't read the article, which explained why she chose a plea bargain at that point. It also displays an astonishing naivete about the way the system works (though Bazelon's article surely did an excellent job of revealing its injustices and corruption).
Your statement also lacks understanding of what might motivate a girl railroaded to prison at the age of 18, with no parent or relative to assist her, and what her mindset might be after spending her youth incarcerated.
The Times has about 1.5 million digital subscribers, around 500,000 daily print subscribers, 1 million on Sundays.
If I were you I'd save my indignation about the "inflammatory title" and intellectual "dishonesty" for more widely broadcast "enticements" -- like Donald Trump's televised suggestion to police that they not worry about injuring people under arrest, but treat them roughly when putting them into police cars or vans. How many millions watched that after it was broadcast again and again and again?
What justice can any ordinary person expect in our system, from arrest to trial to conviction to appeal, when POTUS #45 shows no respect for the law, assuming that police brutality is OK? The Justice Department currently has 93 vacant US Attorney positions. Let's hope they are not filled by this icon of disrespect for law and justice.
1
Clairette Rose: I did read the article; I just chose to discount the reasons Ms. Jackson gave as a weak rationalization. A more logical assumption is that the defendant and her attorneys were not nearly as confident as the NYT title writer about how exculpatory the withheld evidence would turn out to be and were not willing to face the strong possibility that she would lose at the second trial. Isn't that the thought process behind most accepted plea bargains?
2
As an estate and trust attorney, I am compelled to ask- what exactly is a HALF uncle?
3
My mother was the only child of her father's second wife - therefore, her siblings were considered "half-brothers/half-sisters," so I am guessing that - her siblings would be to me "half uncles" and "half aunts?" Just a thought.
1
The last three words of the Pledge of Allegiance are such a lie on so many levels.
5
. ‘‘Just tell us where you were!’’ she (Weirich) shouted, throwing up her hands in a gesture of impatience. ‘‘That’s all we are asking, Noura!’’ Shouldn't that in itself been grounds for a mistrial?
14
I don't get it. Did her lawyers screw up in telling her that if she plead guilty she'd get out immediately? How is it that she signed off on a deal that was misleading? That's ridiculous.
3
I spent only three years as a deputy public defender -- but my experience is that the more serious the charges the more likely prosecutors will withhold evidence or otherwise behave unethically. In the one capital case I was involved in, the prosecutor lied, lied, lied -- and got away with it. In another case -- a double homicide -- the prosecutor withheld crucial evidence: that the chief witness against the defendant had been given a favorable plea deal in exchange for her testimony. It has also been my experience that judges tend to be complicit.
19
Reminds me of my days as a public defender and criminal defense lawyer in the 1970s. We all knew what was going on, but they made the rules, and broke them when it suited them. There was one particularly egregious case in which a judge actually set aside a verdict when presented with overwhelming evidence that a prosecutor had suppressed evidence favorable to the defense. What happened to the prosecutor who did that? Nothing.
5
This article is mostly about prosecutorial misconduct but I was just as horrified by a small fact at the beginning. The defendant spent 3.5 years in jail awaiting trial. Even if she had won the trial and been declared innocent, that would have surely caused permanent psychological issues.
The lack of speedy trials in this nation is a human rights catastrophe, NYT has covered this issue before but nothing seems to happen
The lack of speedy trials in this nation is a human rights catastrophe, NYT has covered this issue before but nothing seems to happen
18
I have personally been a victim of lies by the police and prosecutors. I know it happens because it happened to me. Many are more interested in gaining a conviction than finding the truth. The truth is hard to find, and takes work. Apparently it is easier to hide and twist facts than to find them.
8
Excellent article. Justice in the U.S. varies based on what state and locality you find yourself in. A horrible shame any way you look at it.
I would have liked to see another paragraph discussing who prosecutors represent. There is a mistaken notion that the prosecutor represents the victim and must work zealously to punish the defendant. However, the prosecutor works for all of us, including the defendant. When they withhold evidence they are attorneys failing their clients.
I would have liked to see another paragraph discussing who prosecutors represent. There is a mistaken notion that the prosecutor represents the victim and must work zealously to punish the defendant. However, the prosecutor works for all of us, including the defendant. When they withhold evidence they are attorneys failing their clients.
5
Years ago, a law school colleague was interviewed by my friend for a job as an assistant U.S. attorney in NJ (very pre-Christie). During the interview she emphasized how competitive she is and how much she likes to win. My friend refused to offer her the job on the basis that the job was about "justice", not winning, and sometimes the right thing to do as a prosecutor is to drop a case or offer a plea. He thought that she was dangerous.
Prosecutor Weirich is a prime example of what can happen when a prosecutor puts winning ahead of justice. It is shameful that Weirich's only punishment was a slap on the wrist.
Prosecutor Weirich is a prime example of what can happen when a prosecutor puts winning ahead of justice. It is shameful that Weirich's only punishment was a slap on the wrist.
16
Disbarment ought to be the minimum penalty for the prosecutor's behavior. Criminal and civil punishment should also be part of egregious cases such as this one.
8
the prosecutorial misconduct in asking the question, just tell us where you were is so basically and elementary a constitutional violation, any first year criminal law student would know this
when I read the article is just jumped out at me, this is so wrong, how did it go unnoticed
the fact that it was a repeated violation must call for some sort of sanctions and punishment
when I read the article is just jumped out at me, this is so wrong, how did it go unnoticed
the fact that it was a repeated violation must call for some sort of sanctions and punishment
5
Sadly this criminal misconduct by our prosecutors happens far more often than we think. Lawyers are competitors and allow that competitor "gene" to override their sense of duty to their sworn oath and us citizens.
3
Failure to investigate and throw open the records of misdeeds, crimes, and omissions made for the benefit of government officials-- investigators, prosecutors, mayors, governors, police chiefs, their reputations, their sense of community control, their racism, their political careers, their sexual cravings, is a failure that chips away at the foundation of American trust in justice. The consequences are being experienced by all of us every day as the lawless and unprincipled practices of our White House and our Congress in Washington DC threaten and dare to intimidate our welfare and our very democracy.
2
This happens all the time. It was considered par for the course in Brooklyn, 1950s, to put black men away knowing they didn't do the crime.
7
Prosecutorial misconduct is a huge issue.
My fellow Americans, we need to address this issue together. Otherwise our pusillanimous politicians will avoid it.
My fellow Americans, we need to address this issue together. Otherwise our pusillanimous politicians will avoid it.
4
Ms. Weirich's conduct is indeed shameful and despicable. As she well knows, it is not up to her to decide whether evidence in her possession would or would not lead to a different result in a criminal case. Instead, she has an ethical obligation to disclose the evidence and let the defense make of it what they can. This, she did not do. She should not be a prosecutor or, indeed, be allowed to practice law at all.
6
Amy Weirich, In her quest to 'win' ruined this woman's life. It looks like there was more than one person involved. If the bit about the manilla envelope is true. The whole DA's office needs to be put under investigation and arrests have to be made.
She has no right being in public office. It turns my stomach knowing that she is still trying people in court.
She has no right being in public office. It turns my stomach knowing that she is still trying people in court.
9
Was heartbroken to hear about what Noura was forced to endure due to the unethical behavior of the prosecuting attorney. She should go to jail and Noura should be compensated for her pain and suffering. Too many others have had the same scenario play out again and again.
Noura - if you're reading this, we're rooting for you. Never give up on your dreams of starting a family. You deserve that much. I will never forget your story.
Noura - if you're reading this, we're rooting for you. Never give up on your dreams of starting a family. You deserve that much. I will never forget your story.
6
One is reminded of the chilling words in Errol Morris' 1988 documentary The Thin Blue Line: "Any prosecutor can convict a guilty man. It takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent man."
It is shameful how little has changed in 30 years.
It is shameful how little has changed in 30 years.
5
Amy Weirich deserves to be punished. Same for all of these prosecutors who pull this.
Noura should try in-vitro fertilization of her egg and transplantation to a surrogate mother.
Noura should try in-vitro fertilization of her egg and transplantation to a surrogate mother.
2
I think that they have the wrong people locked up. Weirich belongs in jail.
5
Hopefully Amy Weirich will lose her law license and never live in the governors mansion.
8
"Prosecutorial error."
The only thing that shocks me as a reader is the spineless nature of the New York Times refusing to characterize Weinrich's actions as anything less than criminal. She must be called to account.
This was not 'prosecutorial error' by any stretch, and to qualify it as such is an insult to the collective intelligence of all thinking people everywhere who might find a way to reason away Weinrich's flagrantly narcissistic tendencies to aggrandize herself at the expense of others.
Prosecutors are not Gods, but when you give them the virtually unrestrained power to act in their own best interests and not of the public at large, they become thugs of the lowest order. It is hard to believe that we allow the prosecutor's office to be politicized in the manner that it is; the dispensation of justice is not a platform or a springboard to a political career, and the gross abuse of it at the expense of our personal liberty -- arguably the most cherished aspect of our identity in a civil society -- should be a crime on par with treason and sedition.
American society continues to be the most enlightened experiment among all democracies in the world today, but we fail miserably at holding ourselves accountable for the abuse of power.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Though the New York Times deserves credit for exposing the craven ambition of Weinrich, it needs to do more to guard our liberty.
Call a spade a spade. This was no 'error.' This was a crime.
The only thing that shocks me as a reader is the spineless nature of the New York Times refusing to characterize Weinrich's actions as anything less than criminal. She must be called to account.
This was not 'prosecutorial error' by any stretch, and to qualify it as such is an insult to the collective intelligence of all thinking people everywhere who might find a way to reason away Weinrich's flagrantly narcissistic tendencies to aggrandize herself at the expense of others.
Prosecutors are not Gods, but when you give them the virtually unrestrained power to act in their own best interests and not of the public at large, they become thugs of the lowest order. It is hard to believe that we allow the prosecutor's office to be politicized in the manner that it is; the dispensation of justice is not a platform or a springboard to a political career, and the gross abuse of it at the expense of our personal liberty -- arguably the most cherished aspect of our identity in a civil society -- should be a crime on par with treason and sedition.
American society continues to be the most enlightened experiment among all democracies in the world today, but we fail miserably at holding ourselves accountable for the abuse of power.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Though the New York Times deserves credit for exposing the craven ambition of Weinrich, it needs to do more to guard our liberty.
Call a spade a spade. This was no 'error.' This was a crime.
14
So how would the comments be different if Noura was black? Racism?
1
The prosecutor had been fully backed by what passes for a system of criminal justice in Tennessee, but the problem is nation-wide. The fact that Weirich has been living a life of freedom all these years, and faces no clear danger of not continuing to do so, is something that can turn one's stomach. I doubt that Weinrich has ever lost an hour's sleep, however, over her serial misdeeds.
3
I am not categorically against the death penalty. I do believe that The State has the right to take a life for certain crimes. I fully accept the notion that certain people have forfeited their right to live, and that, in theory, The State, even with it's imperfect tools of justice, has the right to carry out such a sentence. But then I read stories like this, and there are, indeed, lots of stories like this, all of them horrifying. And suddenly, I take back everything I said in my opening paragraph.
5
Think of what it does to a person to kill under the auspices of a system they know to be corrupt.
6
There is nothing new here except the identity of the latest victim. One particularly galling case from New Orleans reached the Supreme Court in the last ten years. The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, which landed the defendant in jail for 18 years, 14 of them on death row. When he got the retrial he should have had originally, the jury acquitted him in 35 minutes. There was considerable evidence of a prosecution conspiracy to convict the defendant and have him executed. The Supreme Court held that he had no civil remedy for the large chunk of his life that the prosecutors took from him. Immunity, not the Constitution, ruled the day.
The Supreme Court has, in fact, constructed any number of immunities that help to make constitutional guarantees of individual rights toothless. These immunities appear nowhere in the Constitution; they are the Court's own invention, a form of constitutionalized common law. The Court's excuse for that is that the Framers supposedly would have recognized all of those immunities and would have assumed their applicability. The argument proves too much, because the Constitution does provide one immunity specifically, in the Speech-and-Debate Clause, art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1. Somehow, the Framers put that one in but omitted all of the others that the Court keeps saying they were fully aware of and supported. What should that tell us?
The Supreme Court has, in fact, constructed any number of immunities that help to make constitutional guarantees of individual rights toothless. These immunities appear nowhere in the Constitution; they are the Court's own invention, a form of constitutionalized common law. The Court's excuse for that is that the Framers supposedly would have recognized all of those immunities and would have assumed their applicability. The argument proves too much, because the Constitution does provide one immunity specifically, in the Speech-and-Debate Clause, art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1. Somehow, the Framers put that one in but omitted all of the others that the Court keeps saying they were fully aware of and supported. What should that tell us?
7
You'd be more effective in this argument if you didn't seem to be passive aggressively trying to undermine the SCOTUS. Just say what you mean and mean what you say.
The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress
...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The intended purpose is to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree.
A similar clause in many state constitutions protects members of state legislatures in the United States. Legislators in non-U.S. jurisdictions may be protected by a similar doctrine of parliamentary immunity.
...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The intended purpose is to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree.
A similar clause in many state constitutions protects members of state legislatures in the United States. Legislators in non-U.S. jurisdictions may be protected by a similar doctrine of parliamentary immunity.
I should clarify. Certainly not all prosecutors do this. Most are dedicated public servants. But the practice is certainly not unusual. Those interested in the subject should read the posts and articles of Prof. Bennett Gershman, Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law. He has done a remarkable amount of scholarly work in this area.
1
Thank you for this excellent reporting!
3
Just made another donation to the Innocence Project. Thanks for the reminder of the good work that they do.
14
That poor child. She lost her father, her mother, and her own life to a predatory prosecutor looking to "move into the governor's mansion". She took her life for a "win".. There's a name for people who commit crimes like that with no remorse.
15
Nouras friends and family all say she had no remorse for her mothers death. It was always poor me. Please don't feel sorry or call this girl a sick child. This article is so biased, it was well known this girl was behaving as an adult cussing out her mom, engaging in hardcore drugs and sex. please educate yourself more on this crime.
These stories, like unjustified police shootings, become ridiculous after a while. Sure, the media and the public excoriate the offending law enforcement officials. Sure, high-ranking law enforcement figures utter the usual platitudes: "this doesn't reflect our values etc. etc." But then what happens?
Despite the fact these incidents happen over and over again, they are dismissed as aberrations. "It's because of a few bad apples." We - as a nation - declare the wrong has been fixed and go on, learning nothing.
When you have something that happens over and over again, it's not just a matter of "a few bad apples." There are problems with the system. There are too many incentives for misconduct, and not enough checks against it. Whether it's prosecutorial misconduct or police abuses, Americans - as a nation - are extremely reluctant to put in systematic safeguards because we think - somehow - having checks and balances in place is some kind of insult to the honor of our law enforcement heroes. For example, state bars rarely discipline prosecutorial misconduct. Or another example: It took years for there to be enough pressure to get police departments to adopt body cameras, and even now police officers somehow always have their cameras off when there are allegations of abuse.
Maybe there are only a few bad apples, but the bad apples will always get away with it more often than not when you have a system that refuses to enforce accountability.
Despite the fact these incidents happen over and over again, they are dismissed as aberrations. "It's because of a few bad apples." We - as a nation - declare the wrong has been fixed and go on, learning nothing.
When you have something that happens over and over again, it's not just a matter of "a few bad apples." There are problems with the system. There are too many incentives for misconduct, and not enough checks against it. Whether it's prosecutorial misconduct or police abuses, Americans - as a nation - are extremely reluctant to put in systematic safeguards because we think - somehow - having checks and balances in place is some kind of insult to the honor of our law enforcement heroes. For example, state bars rarely discipline prosecutorial misconduct. Or another example: It took years for there to be enough pressure to get police departments to adopt body cameras, and even now police officers somehow always have their cameras off when there are allegations of abuse.
Maybe there are only a few bad apples, but the bad apples will always get away with it more often than not when you have a system that refuses to enforce accountability.
8
I find it especially chilling that, even after this kind of misconduct is detected, the state will often do things like offering the wrongly convicted an Alford plea, exactly what happened here. The resistance to acknowledging error, let alone misconduct, is implacable.
And we wonder why many, many people have such a deep-seated distrust for the entire process.
And we wonder why many, many people have such a deep-seated distrust for the entire process.
17
As an attorney, I find this story sickening. As a human being, I find this story terrifying. There are not words strong enough to condemn the actions of attorneys like Weirich. How can anyone trust the criminal justice system after hearing stories like this?
As awful as withholding crucial evidence is, impugning Noura's right to remain silent in closing argument was just as egregious. Attorneys who use these tactics, knowing that even if an objection is sustained that the jury will have heard it already, are a scourge on the profession.
Ethics are what we do when no one is watching. This should apply even more strongly to those in power. It is shameful that that is so rarely the case.
As awful as withholding crucial evidence is, impugning Noura's right to remain silent in closing argument was just as egregious. Attorneys who use these tactics, knowing that even if an objection is sustained that the jury will have heard it already, are a scourge on the profession.
Ethics are what we do when no one is watching. This should apply even more strongly to those in power. It is shameful that that is so rarely the case.
16
A Prosecutor caught in these all to often crimes should be forced to spend the same jail time as the ones who they have wronged, in this case nine years behind bars.
10
Not only was an injustice done to this poor girl, but our prison system denied her the very medical care she needed for a devastating problem. The rules are made mostly by men. I doubt many who make the medical rules for inmates even know what endometriosis is or how crippling it can be physically and emotionally for women because its outcome usually robs women of bearing children. I hope that Noura can not let her experiences so far color the rest of her life, and that whatever paths she chooses help her find love, compassion and fulfillment.
8
So, those who are to serve justice are above the law! And, truth is secondary to winning?? This message has been well spread and has infected the Executive Office as well.
Is there any area of our government institutions that is not putridly corrupt?
We have forgotten about accountability unless it's someone already vulnerable. Those with power are "scott free!!"
Is there any area of our government institutions that is not putridly corrupt?
We have forgotten about accountability unless it's someone already vulnerable. Those with power are "scott free!!"
4
"Is there any area of our government institutions that is not putridly corrupt?"
Only those places in which no republican has ever entered.
Only those places in which no republican has ever entered.
5
Amy Weirich and Stephen Jones should be in prison for 9 years due to unethical behavior and incompetence, e.g. ignoring DNA evidence. These are truly two disgusting individuals.
Why was Amy Weirich not disbarred for 'do not show to defense' note?
The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility is useless.
Why am I not surprised that Amy Weirich is a Republican?
Why was Amy Weirich not disbarred for 'do not show to defense' note?
The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility is useless.
Why am I not surprised that Amy Weirich is a Republican?
11
Why was it necessary for the author to identify Amy Welrich as "a Republican"?
6
Why not??? I've read about these cases for years. The great majority are GOP. Coincidence??? I think not.
7
Actually, it wasn't necessary. Ethically-challenged "public servant"--I just assumed she was a Republican.
8
Let's hope Weirich doesn't become one of the lawyers tapped to become a federal judge, of the 1000 vacancies Trump and his cabal will get to appoint thru 2020.
Weirich should have to pay millions in restitution to Noura from her personal accounts, and lawyers withholding evidence should be disbarred. How does she pay back the years of young adulthood that Noura lost in prison, just to feed Weirich's ego and career? What a disgusting example of uncaring, power-seeking inhumanity.
Weirich should have to pay millions in restitution to Noura from her personal accounts, and lawyers withholding evidence should be disbarred. How does she pay back the years of young adulthood that Noura lost in prison, just to feed Weirich's ego and career? What a disgusting example of uncaring, power-seeking inhumanity.
8
I've been a prosecutor for 15 years. Once or twice, at the beginning, I have felt the nudge to hide a piece of information in a file. In the end I turned it over. It wasn't worth my bar card or my reputation or the guilt I would feel. We are all human and anyone can make an honest mistake about what the law requires. However, just like officers on the street, prosecutors hold immense power over other people's lives. We have a duty to wield it responsibly. I don't know whether this young lady is guilty or innocent, but I know she had a right to a fair trial.
23
You have a rational mind probably developed from early in life a moral sense of how to work things out and listen to your conscience. Ms Weirich is the sort of person who does none of these introspective things and simply makes assumptions based on what she is feeling most strongly. She is your basic common as dirt ignoramus who happened to have the benefit of an education she never let get further than skin deep.
5
@magicisnotreal earth
I doubt Weirich had "the benefit of an education". She was "trained" as a lawyer, and according to the account of her behavior prior to and at Noura Jackson's trial, she wasn't even well trained enough to avoid egregious legal errors (as in her closing demand for Noura to speak)
In any case, true education includes more than just the technical skills of a particular trade. Ethics is part of an education, as is an understanding of the real role of a prosecutor in a true system of justice, not just "law".
I doubt Weirich had "the benefit of an education". She was "trained" as a lawyer, and according to the account of her behavior prior to and at Noura Jackson's trial, she wasn't even well trained enough to avoid egregious legal errors (as in her closing demand for Noura to speak)
In any case, true education includes more than just the technical skills of a particular trade. Ethics is part of an education, as is an understanding of the real role of a prosecutor in a true system of justice, not just "law".
The whole prosecution/prison complex is designed to provide slave labour to private prisons, the American Gulag Archipelago. Due process is a joke to low-income Americans who get three-minute interviews with "counsel" just to establish how many years of slave labour can be extracted. Guilt/innocence has nothing to do with anything: it's all about keeping the slave labour flowing.
The U.S. is insane with its prison state.
The U.S. is insane with its prison state.
7
A magnificent story and really fine reporting and analysis and writing. One hopes Noura Jackson finds a measure of peace somehow, someway, and soon.
13
Yes, excellent journalism, so important and could really make a difference.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Prosecutors, like everyone else, can often believe something (like the guilt of the accused) is true when it's not. To "get a bad person off the streets", more than a few prosecutors have done shady things (and sometimes, they may even be right that the accused was actually guilty). However, when doctors make "errors" they get sued personally. Prosecutors who make meaningful "errors" should be in the same boat and not protected by their government positions. Ms. Jackson: Open a can of worms and find a way to personally sue Mrs. Weirich and Mr. Jones. At a minimum, getting dragged through the mud (like you were) could teach them, and others a lesson.
7
This goes to show, (as I have long suspected, after reading and witnessing numerous such miscarriages), that what was once considered the oldest joke about life in prisons in the US:
that "Half of the people one meets in prison insist that they were framed or are innocent." is either absolutely true or is serious underestimate of the actual number. . .
This article put me in mind almost immediately, of the Martin Tankleff case, in which prosecutors and police claimed desire for a new car was the reason why an innocent teenager murdered both his parents. Tankleff served many years before he was freed, after it was shown how seriously the prosecution and police and conspired to enforce his conviction.
I suspect that many of the lawyers who become prosecutors do so out of misplaced zeal and later, are absorbed into the crooked mindset of organizations that believe themselves godlike and know themselves above the law, as they have been granted total immunity for their criminal or careless actions-accidental or puposeful.
Few Americans are aware of that one fact: that prosecuting attorneys are unanswerable to any laws for anything they do in pursuit of a conviction ,(short of murdering witnesses).
that "Half of the people one meets in prison insist that they were framed or are innocent." is either absolutely true or is serious underestimate of the actual number. . .
This article put me in mind almost immediately, of the Martin Tankleff case, in which prosecutors and police claimed desire for a new car was the reason why an innocent teenager murdered both his parents. Tankleff served many years before he was freed, after it was shown how seriously the prosecution and police and conspired to enforce his conviction.
I suspect that many of the lawyers who become prosecutors do so out of misplaced zeal and later, are absorbed into the crooked mindset of organizations that believe themselves godlike and know themselves above the law, as they have been granted total immunity for their criminal or careless actions-accidental or puposeful.
Few Americans are aware of that one fact: that prosecuting attorneys are unanswerable to any laws for anything they do in pursuit of a conviction ,(short of murdering witnesses).
3
It is a sad story and that makes it difficult to eliminate our emotions. The tenure of the article is a very severe disapproving of the behaviour of Amy Weirich. In fact, she is judged and condemned. But I miss her defence. The article makes no mention of her refusal to react, if possible. And if a prosecutor isn’t allowed to react in cases he handled, a warning should be evident. Those who condemn Amy Weirich without hearing her defence, make a similar mistake as what they are condemning.
3
Please keep us posted about the DNA testing of the blood. I would really like to see the right person prosecuted for this crime. My condolences to Noura for the loss of her father & mother. And hopes for a baby in the near future.
11
how many times have prosecutors denied exonerating evidence.????? the DA and law enforcement only seek to incarcerate victims. the governments laugh at the defendants claim - ' im innocent". how many drug cases are total frog marching lies--- only later, much later, are the arresting officers found guilty of civil right crimes, much worse , than what the accused was charged for.????
Was Deputy District Attorney Weirich sanctioned?
If not, why not?
If not, why not?
7
The Brooklyn DA Gonzales has it right: a prosecutor's job, like a judge's, is about justice, not about racking up convictions as a ladder to career advancement. Withholding evidence is illegal as well as unethical. If that is what sends an accused person to prison, it should send the prosecutor to prison for an equal term. If prosecutors could be sure of a criminal conviction and disbarment for this grave offense, they'd probably find their way back to ethics real soon.
This should apply to police, too. Police are well-known for deciding on a perpetrator early in a case and often focus only on evidence that supports their original notion - and actually hide evidence, not only from the defense but from prosecutors. The certainty of prison terms for this behavior would make them follow the law despite their worst instincts.
All that said, I am constantly shocked and depressed to learn that people whose job it is to seek justice and enforce the law frequently do exactly the opposite. Clearly, ethics is not stressed enough in law schools or police academies.
This should apply to police, too. Police are well-known for deciding on a perpetrator early in a case and often focus only on evidence that supports their original notion - and actually hide evidence, not only from the defense but from prosecutors. The certainty of prison terms for this behavior would make them follow the law despite their worst instincts.
All that said, I am constantly shocked and depressed to learn that people whose job it is to seek justice and enforce the law frequently do exactly the opposite. Clearly, ethics is not stressed enough in law schools or police academies.
7
" running on a law and order message ". Why certainly. And probably a " family values" spewer, also. The hypocrisy is overwhelming in this
" person". Explain just why she isn't criminally charged. Gee, a white Female Republican. Coincidence???
" person". Explain just why she isn't criminally charged. Gee, a white Female Republican. Coincidence???
6
"Prosecutorial error"? Nonsense. Withholding evidence to secure a conviction is a deliberate act, not an error.
8
You would think the DOJ civil rights division would be all over this, but they are apparently incompetent, but still getting payed regardless.
1
And while the wrong person is KNOWINGLY incarcerated, the real perpetrator is out wandering the streets at will.
9
Down here in the South, prosecutors and judges run for office. At the same time, prosecutors and judges are supposed to be able to use logic and science to identify the objective truth.
Can you imagine what medicine would be like if doctors and researchers ran for office? Suppose we only funded research by scientists that promised to be implacably angry at germs? Never mind if their results are reproducible: all sick people need chemotherapy!
Down South, prosecutors and judges compete to buy billboards and TV commercials, often advertising "Tough Republican Justice." Justice is only "tough;" never anything instead of "tough." And justice only comes out of one political party.
It doesn't diminish my regret for Ms. Jackson to know that there are many far less photogenic women and men who are innocent, but were convicted anyway. This is our way in the South: prosecutors thirst for votes and the governor's mansion, and judges don't care to be seen around that shabby old blind woman, Justice. Well, some of them are decent, but the system is an engine finely tuned to produce an evil stench.
For an unfortunate reason, Ms. Jackson's case adds another grain to the rusted scales of Justice. Enlightened souls feel pain for everybody. The rest of us, people such as myself, tend to feel a bit more empathy for good-looking people, and for people of our own race.
The more white people that get falsely imprisoned the sooner the system will be considered in need of emergency reform.
Can you imagine what medicine would be like if doctors and researchers ran for office? Suppose we only funded research by scientists that promised to be implacably angry at germs? Never mind if their results are reproducible: all sick people need chemotherapy!
Down South, prosecutors and judges compete to buy billboards and TV commercials, often advertising "Tough Republican Justice." Justice is only "tough;" never anything instead of "tough." And justice only comes out of one political party.
It doesn't diminish my regret for Ms. Jackson to know that there are many far less photogenic women and men who are innocent, but were convicted anyway. This is our way in the South: prosecutors thirst for votes and the governor's mansion, and judges don't care to be seen around that shabby old blind woman, Justice. Well, some of them are decent, but the system is an engine finely tuned to produce an evil stench.
For an unfortunate reason, Ms. Jackson's case adds another grain to the rusted scales of Justice. Enlightened souls feel pain for everybody. The rest of us, people such as myself, tend to feel a bit more empathy for good-looking people, and for people of our own race.
The more white people that get falsely imprisoned the sooner the system will be considered in need of emergency reform.
7
In this country fair trial means that you have money to hire a team of very good lawyers. Otherwise, it is all about luck.
3
In the interests of Justice and ending this type of malfeasance, we should "make the punishment fit the crime."
Anyone in the criminal justice system who can be shown to have deliberately and knowingly withheld evidence that would exonerate a defendant or deliberately and knowingly fabricated evidence or suborned testimony that led to a false conviction would then be required to serve the same sentence as the falsely convicted defendant.
Anyone in the criminal justice system who can be shown to have deliberately and knowingly withheld evidence that would exonerate a defendant or deliberately and knowingly fabricated evidence or suborned testimony that led to a false conviction would then be required to serve the same sentence as the falsely convicted defendant.
4
It's always the one true cancer of all societies; power! It's enough we tolerate racism, but wealth and power being directed upon someone with less however it is forced upon an individual or a group...there's a God in this story? I think not!
1
Withholding evidence and overcharging, the twin towers of prosecutorial injustice. Small wonder so many Americans are in prison.
4
My brother worked for the Innocence Project when he was in law school and was shocked by how widespread prosecutorial misconduct was, particularly the withholding of exculpatory evidence from the defense. It's on Long Island, too, not just in southern states like Tennessee.
It begins in law schools, and the laws of neither the several states nor the DOJ make this explicitly clear:
The prosecutor's job is to find THE TRUTH, not get convictions. The defense's job is to mount the best defense for the accused. A prosecutor who recognizes that either there is no case or the accused is the wrong person should be rewarded, not punished. And a prosecutor who deliberately withholds, destroys or removes exculpatory evidence that leads to a conviction should themselves be jailed because they have WILLFULLY destroyed another person's life, knowing they may well be innocent!
But when the President is telling police that they should rough up suspects, when the adored (by the right) late Justice Scalia said it was OK for police to slap a suspect around, our entire system of justice's principles have been corrupted.
The only reason a prosecutor should consider an acquittal a failure is because it's a measure of his/her incompetence at not recognizing that the facts, the evidence did not support a conviction and their own severe bias blinded them to that fact. Had they seen it fairly, charges might never have been brought.
It begins in law schools, and the laws of neither the several states nor the DOJ make this explicitly clear:
The prosecutor's job is to find THE TRUTH, not get convictions. The defense's job is to mount the best defense for the accused. A prosecutor who recognizes that either there is no case or the accused is the wrong person should be rewarded, not punished. And a prosecutor who deliberately withholds, destroys or removes exculpatory evidence that leads to a conviction should themselves be jailed because they have WILLFULLY destroyed another person's life, knowing they may well be innocent!
But when the President is telling police that they should rough up suspects, when the adored (by the right) late Justice Scalia said it was OK for police to slap a suspect around, our entire system of justice's principles have been corrupted.
The only reason a prosecutor should consider an acquittal a failure is because it's a measure of his/her incompetence at not recognizing that the facts, the evidence did not support a conviction and their own severe bias blinded them to that fact. Had they seen it fairly, charges might never have been brought.
8
I'm angered by this story, one that I've read versions of for years now. I'm also disturbed by a string of comments suggesting that the Times printed this story because the woman wrongly accused in this case was white. I've read other stories in this newspaper in which the wrongly accused person or persons was Black or Latino. That includes stories that were local to New York City (the Central Park Five, those many cases investigated by Detective Scarcella) along with many other stories from across the country. If those stories were not read by the commenters so be it. It doesn't mean they weren't reported, written and published in the Times.
5
The headline says "prosecutors withheld evidence that would have freed her." Obviously it wasn't evidence that would have freed her or she wouldn't have taken a plea, notwithstanding how this story is spun. They certainly held back relevant evidence but it only relates to one part of the case against her and even there it only casts some doubt on it, it doesn't make it clearly untrue. Of course prosecutors should not do this, but if this is the single most egregious case the NY Times can come up with, they're not putting in very much work on their stories.
4
read it again she is clearly innocent and no reasonable prosecutor would have ever brought the case. The evidence in question would have freed her since it destroys "beyond reasonable doubt"
1
She is not clearly innocent, she should have been acquitted in a trial or never charged based on the contradictory nature of the evidence. Big difference that you would be advised to remember.
2
What about the part where absence of Noura's DNA was
"dismissed" by the prosecutor, and that no physical evidence every linked Noura to the killing? I'd say that's awfully egregious and casts more than a little doubt. Of course prosecutors shouldn't withhold evidence. This story is about how they've done so again and again with little or no consequences. What about Weirich's history of "wining" at all costs and not turning over evidence to the defense in other cases? And, I'd hardly say this story is "spun" in favor of Noura since she spent 9 years in prison.
"dismissed" by the prosecutor, and that no physical evidence every linked Noura to the killing? I'd say that's awfully egregious and casts more than a little doubt. Of course prosecutors shouldn't withhold evidence. This story is about how they've done so again and again with little or no consequences. What about Weirich's history of "wining" at all costs and not turning over evidence to the defense in other cases? And, I'd hardly say this story is "spun" in favor of Noura since she spent 9 years in prison.
5
The article seems directed solely against the prosecutor. No question she and her office are venal.
But let's scrutinize the judge's behavior:
1. In the first case, he set bail too high for the defendant to be released. She had no criminal record; not one shred of physical evidence tied her to the crime; no showing she was a danger to the community or would flee the jurisdiction. If fleeing were a question, he could have required an ankle monitor.
2. He let trial be delayed for 3 years -- hardly a "speedy trial"
3. He admitted evidence at trial about the defendant's character which was irrelevant and hearsay. Without physical evidence that the defendant did the crime, testimony about her character not directly related to her state of mind in the days (not weeks or months) before the crime should have been carefully weighed for prejudice.
3. He allowed Weirich's summary, clearly violating the defendant's constitutional rights, to stand with no sanction and no condemnation in a jury instruction.
4. On remand, he delayed any bail hearing for FIVE MONTHS. Was he angry that the conviction had been overturned and his judicial reputation besmirched? He should never have been the judge assigned on remand.
Judges are elected in Tennessee and have to appear "tough on crime."
Noura's defense counsel did her an ENORMOUS disservice in letting her to plead guilty to manslaughter. This "voluntary" plea "proves" her guilt. Having the same judge may have influenced her decision.
But let's scrutinize the judge's behavior:
1. In the first case, he set bail too high for the defendant to be released. She had no criminal record; not one shred of physical evidence tied her to the crime; no showing she was a danger to the community or would flee the jurisdiction. If fleeing were a question, he could have required an ankle monitor.
2. He let trial be delayed for 3 years -- hardly a "speedy trial"
3. He admitted evidence at trial about the defendant's character which was irrelevant and hearsay. Without physical evidence that the defendant did the crime, testimony about her character not directly related to her state of mind in the days (not weeks or months) before the crime should have been carefully weighed for prejudice.
3. He allowed Weirich's summary, clearly violating the defendant's constitutional rights, to stand with no sanction and no condemnation in a jury instruction.
4. On remand, he delayed any bail hearing for FIVE MONTHS. Was he angry that the conviction had been overturned and his judicial reputation besmirched? He should never have been the judge assigned on remand.
Judges are elected in Tennessee and have to appear "tough on crime."
Noura's defense counsel did her an ENORMOUS disservice in letting her to plead guilty to manslaughter. This "voluntary" plea "proves" her guilt. Having the same judge may have influenced her decision.
25
In truth, in many cases, the consequences for withholding evidence are relatively minor. Only a tiny number of prosecutors have been disbarred or jailed for withholding evidence. Last year, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility recommended that Amy Weirich and Stephen Jones accept a public censure for failing to disclose Andrew Hammack’s note in Noura’s trial. The prosecutors said they would stand trial instead. Jones went first, in January. At a two-day hearing, he denied remembering Hammack’s note at critical points in the trial that might have jogged his memory, including Hammack’s testimony and Jones’s use of that testimony in his closing argument. But a panel of three Memphis lawyers, one of whom was a former prosecutor, called Jones’s account ‘‘entirely credible’’ and found him not guilty. Praising the result, Weirich announced that the Tennessee board had agreed to dismiss the charges against her in exchange for a private reprimand.
This paragraph says it all. They clearly know they didn't just forget, but let it slide because they're part of a club.
The power that "I don't recall" has in this country when spoken by a white person of means is absolutely insane.
This paragraph says it all. They clearly know they didn't just forget, but let it slide because they're part of a club.
The power that "I don't recall" has in this country when spoken by a white person of means is absolutely insane.
5
Charge and send the prosecutor to trial. If convicted send her to jail.
Sue her now in civil court, where all evidence must be turned over.
Sue her now in civil court, where all evidence must be turned over.
3
What an incredibly misleading headline. The evidence that was withheld would not have "freed" Ms. Jackson. It did not exonerate her. It was impeachment evidence that could have been used to challenge the credibility of the government's witness at a retrial. But there wasn't a retrial because Ms. Jackson chose to plead no contest. This could have been a thought-provoking article about the flaws inherent in such pleas -- the police consider the case closed while the person convicted of the murder continues to assert her innocence. Instead, we are given an article in which the author is clearly attempting to push on us her conclusion that an innocent person was sent to prison. The facts, however, do not seem to support that conclusion. Rather, I get the impression that a gullible author wrote what she set out to write. This article does not inform its readers in a way that will further an intelligent debate about any deficiencies in our criminal justice system.
3
3 little letters...DNA!
No physical evidence to tie the young woman to the crime.
Sir, what exactly are you talking about?
No physical evidence to tie the young woman to the crime.
Sir, what exactly are you talking about?
7
I don't think you read this article very closely.
2
Thank you!! I have lived in Memphis and followed this article my whole life. In fact, some of my friends are people who testified against her. It seems very convenient that the author somehow left out their testimony as well as crucial evidence that was presented at the trial and in return had the jury decide guilty. Article is extremely biased, and either author gathered this information from one of four of Nouras supporters or the she purposely left out crucial facts for her own gain. One click on Google and you will see so much information conveniently left out in this article.
A well written article about a critical process in a law-enforcing country, culture and tradition in a democracy! It is also beyond maintaining man-made laws. Beyond the words, concepts, values and norms of Justice.And the dimensions-levels and qualities- of known, currently unknown and even unknowable evidence.The descriptive words, and their ranges of meanings, also go beyond any reasonable understanding of human error.Willful or not!
This article juxtaposes a reality which is the foundation of healthy, civil, socializing in any type of a human and social system. Family. Friends. Neighborhood. Community. There are consequences for what ever ones says as well as does. Which each of us should, or shouldn't, say. Do. Express. About. For. Against. On purpose or not. In the real world, of institutionalized and tradition-fed inequity, there are people who don't "pay."Life, from Paradise downwards is far from perfect.This prosecutor,
whoever, and whatever, she is, is not, and may never be, is a debtor.She hasn't been "billed." Yet? She pleas immunity to having to acknowledge, and personally pay, for error. Having tried many people in courts of law, she behaves as a most trying, powerful, fellow being insensitive to Samuel Beckett's caveat:"Ever tried.Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again.Fail better." Willful ignorance? Toxic arrogance?And the many muted fellow prosecutors? Akin to muted physicians!And violating policy makers. And, perhaps, a complacent, coopted US.
This article juxtaposes a reality which is the foundation of healthy, civil, socializing in any type of a human and social system. Family. Friends. Neighborhood. Community. There are consequences for what ever ones says as well as does. Which each of us should, or shouldn't, say. Do. Express. About. For. Against. On purpose or not. In the real world, of institutionalized and tradition-fed inequity, there are people who don't "pay."Life, from Paradise downwards is far from perfect.This prosecutor,
whoever, and whatever, she is, is not, and may never be, is a debtor.She hasn't been "billed." Yet? She pleas immunity to having to acknowledge, and personally pay, for error. Having tried many people in courts of law, she behaves as a most trying, powerful, fellow being insensitive to Samuel Beckett's caveat:"Ever tried.Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again.Fail better." Willful ignorance? Toxic arrogance?And the many muted fellow prosecutors? Akin to muted physicians!And violating policy makers. And, perhaps, a complacent, coopted US.
2
Welcome to America, where cops will shoot you even if you're unarmed, and prosecutors will prosecute you even if you're innocent.
49
does this mean her aunts and half uncle stole the money which should have been hers? absolutely criminal.
17
I believe there was a sentence near the end indicating that they "settled" the matter. Meaning the circus of a trial and its result allowed them to steal at least some portion of her inheritance.
DAs are supposed to be prosecutors, not persecutors.
25
In a society such as ours, one of the most of the most egregious crimes should be purposely denying one's right to liberty. Yet this crime is rarely if ever prosecuted. Such irony defies the very foundation of our democracy.
22
As someone quoted in the piece I can say this is a deeply dishonest piece of advocacy journalism.
First the fact that the woman who the "art" (photos) iare intended to paint as a wronged innocent in fact pled guilty, albeit to a reduced charge and is in fact legally guilty of the crime the headline implies she did not convict.
The sources primarily cited - the so-called "National Registry of Exonerations," the so-called "Fair Punishment Project" and an often recycled study by Prof. James Liebman from 20 years ago - are all from groups who deeply despise law enforcement and prosecutors in general.
After hours of conversation Ms. Bazelon accurately quotes me about the changes the American Bar Association encouraged courts to make - to actually distinguish between cases of mistakes by prosecutors and the much rare malicisous prosecutorial misconduct like that I told Bazelon about committed by my immediate predecessor who falsely indicted two innocent cops).
But the implication that I - a DA from a small town on the north Oregon coast, he;ld so much sway with the enormous American Bar Association that they tumbled to the will of a group of prosecutors is ludicrous.
While most of the comments already denounce prosecutors badsed on half truth, please remember that Noura Jackson is guilty, pled guilty, and will forever be guilty.
First the fact that the woman who the "art" (photos) iare intended to paint as a wronged innocent in fact pled guilty, albeit to a reduced charge and is in fact legally guilty of the crime the headline implies she did not convict.
The sources primarily cited - the so-called "National Registry of Exonerations," the so-called "Fair Punishment Project" and an often recycled study by Prof. James Liebman from 20 years ago - are all from groups who deeply despise law enforcement and prosecutors in general.
After hours of conversation Ms. Bazelon accurately quotes me about the changes the American Bar Association encouraged courts to make - to actually distinguish between cases of mistakes by prosecutors and the much rare malicisous prosecutorial misconduct like that I told Bazelon about committed by my immediate predecessor who falsely indicted two innocent cops).
But the implication that I - a DA from a small town on the north Oregon coast, he;ld so much sway with the enormous American Bar Association that they tumbled to the will of a group of prosecutors is ludicrous.
While most of the comments already denounce prosecutors badsed on half truth, please remember that Noura Jackson is guilty, pled guilty, and will forever be guilty.
1
Because you say so? You don't seem to have had any more involvement in the case than I have, yet you're so very certain of her guilt. Therein lies the problem.
3
I think your post is a perfect example of why people despise prosecutors. It is clear that this woman did not murder her mother, yet you write, "Noura Jackson is guilty, pled guilty, and will forever be guilty."
I see. For a prosecutor like yourself, it doesn't matter whether she is guilty in the sense of having committed a crime. She's guilty in the sense that you got your win, you got your plea. Guilty in the sense that you put innocent people in jail and then shriek "MY WIN! NO TAKE-BACKS!"
As for your lapses of logic, grammar, and spelling - I would accuse you of lying about your profession as you seem in every way unqualified to practice law had I not met several prosecutors.
I see. For a prosecutor like yourself, it doesn't matter whether she is guilty in the sense of having committed a crime. She's guilty in the sense that you got your win, you got your plea. Guilty in the sense that you put innocent people in jail and then shriek "MY WIN! NO TAKE-BACKS!"
As for your lapses of logic, grammar, and spelling - I would accuse you of lying about your profession as you seem in every way unqualified to practice law had I not met several prosecutors.
6
You're a District Attorney, yet you can't help but play the game and imply that she took a plea so she must have committed the crime. Did the rest of the part about her being told that she would be released (which didn't actually happen and is another blight on the justice system) and not have to serve any more prison time go completely over your head? You have never heard of someone who was willing to plead guilty to avoid a trial? You have never read about companies who settle privately rather than go through a trial that gives them a chance of losing--even when they've done nothing wrong?
Noura Jackson may very well have committed the crime, but she was railroaded by the system (as well as, apparently, a bad defense lawyer) and certainly cheated out of a presumably easy acquittal. For you to try to impugn the credibility of the entire article based on your tiny role is one of the oldest sleazy prosecutorial tricks (but congrats to your Crim Procedure and Ajudication professors). And for you to ignore the many reasons why this woman may have been willing to plea bargain just supports the great and continued divide between prosecutors and the search for the truth.
Noura Jackson may very well have committed the crime, but she was railroaded by the system (as well as, apparently, a bad defense lawyer) and certainly cheated out of a presumably easy acquittal. For you to try to impugn the credibility of the entire article based on your tiny role is one of the oldest sleazy prosecutorial tricks (but congrats to your Crim Procedure and Ajudication professors). And for you to ignore the many reasons why this woman may have been willing to plea bargain just supports the great and continued divide between prosecutors and the search for the truth.
6
Unfortunately the code of success is, for prosecutors is to gain convictions based on police conduct during investigations of the crime committed. The police have their own difficulties in the "search for the truth." Most of the time this usually means greater reliance on profiling, as in say, "90% of the time the guilty suspect will be personally known to the victim" for example. Thus the first casualty of justices then is guilt by statistics. Once the police have a direction to pursue, finding the 'perp' becomes unidirectional, or other avenues of possibilities are ignored.
Prosecutors then pick up the same trail since it's just plain easier to rely on the assembled puzzle put together by the people that they have to rely on every day. Even if the case looks like a square peg in a round hole. Pursuit of the truth becomes tertiary behind needing a quick arrest and a fast conviction. To be fair, much of the time the 90% rule does find a truly guilty suspect, but the close call cases require greater scrutiny, greater skill in the Investigation phase, and a Prosecuter dedicated to finding the truly guilty party, not just an arrest, conviction, and a sentence. If it were easy then anybody could do the job. It's never more or less. Success in solving cold cases is proof of that.
Prosecutors then pick up the same trail since it's just plain easier to rely on the assembled puzzle put together by the people that they have to rely on every day. Even if the case looks like a square peg in a round hole. Pursuit of the truth becomes tertiary behind needing a quick arrest and a fast conviction. To be fair, much of the time the 90% rule does find a truly guilty suspect, but the close call cases require greater scrutiny, greater skill in the Investigation phase, and a Prosecuter dedicated to finding the truly guilty party, not just an arrest, conviction, and a sentence. If it were easy then anybody could do the job. It's never more or less. Success in solving cold cases is proof of that.
3
The most frightening thing about this story is that the well connected white man that killed her parents is still on the loose.
11
When will people in positions of power, be they prosecutors, police, investment bankers or politicians, go to jail like the rest of us when they have committed a crime?
17
Winning fair is the ultimate casualty in our hyper-competitive society.
5
Withholding exculpating evidence should be considered a crime of moral turpitude for which a prosecutor should be disbarred.
25
This is a terrific article. Thank you, Emily Bazelon, for putting such effort into the reporting.
9
Prosecutors who do this should have to serve whatever sentence their victim served, to include execution. They should also have to give up all personal assets and future income to their victims.
For those who do not see the obvious here, the truth cannot subvert itself.
"The language of misconduct ‘‘feeds a narrative that prosecutors are corrupt, which is poisonous,’’ says Joshua Marquis, a longtime district attorney in Oregon who pushed for the resolution as a member of the N.D.A.A.’s executive committee.’’
This is the irrational reaction and words of a guilty mind. I can attest that Oregon at every level of government employee stands out as far more corrupt than most places with a rep for it. In the Bay Area or NJ you'd expect it was about politics or money, in Oregon they do corrupt dishonest things just because they can and act morally superior to you as they do it. At a guess I'd say that was how they dissociate it. It feels a lot like Alabama seems in the news.
For those who do not see the obvious here, the truth cannot subvert itself.
"The language of misconduct ‘‘feeds a narrative that prosecutors are corrupt, which is poisonous,’’ says Joshua Marquis, a longtime district attorney in Oregon who pushed for the resolution as a member of the N.D.A.A.’s executive committee.’’
This is the irrational reaction and words of a guilty mind. I can attest that Oregon at every level of government employee stands out as far more corrupt than most places with a rep for it. In the Bay Area or NJ you'd expect it was about politics or money, in Oregon they do corrupt dishonest things just because they can and act morally superior to you as they do it. At a guess I'd say that was how they dissociate it. It feels a lot like Alabama seems in the news.
6
One method to address these problems would be to have two trials for each case. In the second trial the prosecutor and defense would switch roles with a separate jury. If there is a tie then all jurors would meet together and attempt to reconcile the results.
2
Basically, the prosecution of criminals is left to politicians. Where does the law-enforcer end and the politician begin? Did Ms. Weirich have the political career in her sights when she graduated from law school? Or did she decide to go to law school as a preparation for a political career?
Unfortunately, this is another symptom of the obsolescence of the American constitution.
But this will take a revolution far more fundamental than that of 1776!
Unfortunately, this is another symptom of the obsolescence of the American constitution.
But this will take a revolution far more fundamental than that of 1776!
6
I'm not a legal scholar, but can't the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment apply to the poorly regulated state of the justice system since is has wronged and harmed so many?
I don't know what to expect when prosecutors are rewarded for high conviction rates and by de facto have NOTHING to lose by seeking the most convictions with the strongest possible punishments. The presumption of innocence should inform the judicial process from the moment someone is charged. For example, the very legal practice of stacking as many and as severe as possible charges against the accused to bully them into a plea deal. The state should be penalized for erroneous charges.
As has been noted, the political motivations only worsen those incentives. No politician ever won by being "soft on crime". Noura Jackson paid the price for those who insist on the idea of order at all costs.
I don't know what to expect when prosecutors are rewarded for high conviction rates and by de facto have NOTHING to lose by seeking the most convictions with the strongest possible punishments. The presumption of innocence should inform the judicial process from the moment someone is charged. For example, the very legal practice of stacking as many and as severe as possible charges against the accused to bully them into a plea deal. The state should be penalized for erroneous charges.
As has been noted, the political motivations only worsen those incentives. No politician ever won by being "soft on crime". Noura Jackson paid the price for those who insist on the idea of order at all costs.
7
Why did it take 5 years for the appeal to be decided? Why if her plea bargain (avoiding a retrial) was based upon erroneous info from the TN DOC, the plea not vacated and her release, immediate? And "Prosecutorial misconduct" is no longer used? It was/is my favorite legal phrase and seems particularly appropriate in Ms Jackson's case. She was robbed repeatedly - including, apparently, of her mother's full estate.
10
Excellent case to point out that the death penalty is aninjustice. How many innocents have been killed via the death penalty unjustly?
3
It is clear that a huge effort will be required before the criminal justice system will approach the high standard claimed for it --- lady justice being blind to everything but the evidence, etc. Even those with "high" standards obviously support an environment of lawbreaking by their colleagues --- like the cardinals and bishops who look the other way when priest-pedophiles molest young children.
The MANY police officers, prosecutors and judges who violate the rights of accused criminals as a routine matter should be prosecuted and sent to jail. That is especially true of the deplorable person who was the prosecutor in this case, Amy Weirich. She is described as an agent of "law and order," but her methods promote civil strife and undermine respect for the rule of law.
The MANY police officers, prosecutors and judges who violate the rights of accused criminals as a routine matter should be prosecuted and sent to jail. That is especially true of the deplorable person who was the prosecutor in this case, Amy Weirich. She is described as an agent of "law and order," but her methods promote civil strife and undermine respect for the rule of law.
6
Nasty, truly evil creature; I sincerely hope this report causes her all kinds of problems.
She must be fired, tried and jailed, for at least 9 years, with some punitive years added on to deter any other individual(s) from engaging in such criminal activity.
She must be fired, tried and jailed, for at least 9 years, with some punitive years added on to deter any other individual(s) from engaging in such criminal activity.
7
In New Orleans where I live part of the year the city council passed a resolution asking the DA's office to stop jailing witnesses and in some cases victims for fear they would not show up at trial.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/05/city_council_adopts_resoluti...
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/05/city_council_adopts_resoluti...
4
Too many prosecutors see the court system as a game that they have to win at all costs. That an innocent person may go to jail is of small concern to them in comparison with the political or professional gains to be made by obtaining a conviction. Withholding evidence is rarely an error, but a willful act against an innocent person that should be punished. The threat of disbarment or jail should hang over the head of any prosecutor who decides that winning a case is their primary objective.
3
Our so-called criminal "justice" system is a travesty.
3
It seems to me that this is an inevitable outgrowth of our adversarial justice system. This story features blatant conflicts of interest -- Weirich furthered her own career by covering up evidence and went on to give Hammer Awards to others for big convictions, presumably by whatever means necessary (though she assures us that she told them "to do the right thing every day for the right reasons"). While the system allows such conflicts of interest to persist, it is difficult to imagine the system producing fair outcomes.
5
Well yeah...but she probably did something else wrong in her life that she should be punished for, right?
I can't think of a more heinous crime than bearing false witness, which is exactly what prosecutorial misconduct of this type is akin to.
I can't think of a more heinous crime than bearing false witness, which is exactly what prosecutorial misconduct of this type is akin to.
10
Throw the prosecutor in jail for a stretch
This is an incredible piece of journalism. The history of evidence withholding and criminal prosecution woven through the story of Noura's suffering is exactly what all voting citizens need to read. Winning at all costs is something we should never wish upon any defendant in a legal system that believes in a fair trial. Thank you.
2
Retry EVERYONE she ever convicted.
Expensive for the local taxpayers you say? Good. They elected a showboat rather than a professional. The added expense should be the least of their concerns.
Elections have consequences.
Expensive for the local taxpayers you say? Good. They elected a showboat rather than a professional. The added expense should be the least of their concerns.
Elections have consequences.
8
I find it appalling that DNA evidence is either submitted as important or it isn't.
It can't be both.
If it's not pertinent in this case it can't be in any other and visa versa.
I come from a long lineage of lawyers and judges--I am neither--and this article appalled me.
Obviously I'm ignorant of the system.
I knew it was stacked against those without means. It makes me furious that those like Mr. Wells Fargo pay a fine or lose s little money, do not even have to grace the doors of a courthouse and basically get off Scott free while others go to jail, prison, for stealing or smoking pot.
Perhaps we really aren't that much different from societies that have public hanging etc. only by degree and the distance is far too short for my comfort.
It can't be both.
If it's not pertinent in this case it can't be in any other and visa versa.
I come from a long lineage of lawyers and judges--I am neither--and this article appalled me.
Obviously I'm ignorant of the system.
I knew it was stacked against those without means. It makes me furious that those like Mr. Wells Fargo pay a fine or lose s little money, do not even have to grace the doors of a courthouse and basically get off Scott free while others go to jail, prison, for stealing or smoking pot.
Perhaps we really aren't that much different from societies that have public hanging etc. only by degree and the distance is far too short for my comfort.
1
Mr. Michael Gerson is said to have commented on the Trump family's twisted ethos; "If losing is a sin, cheating to win is a sacrament," a brilliant observation. This observation, shockingly applies equally well to the prosecutors of our vaunted criminal justice system, it appears.
1
I always hesitate to read features like this because I know the outcome. The defendant spends years in prison, without hope, losing time and family while the true perpetrators go unpunished. It is a sickening reality. Clearly the case against Noura was weak. Without physical evidence, how could anyone believe that presented guilt beyond reasonable doubt? If you've never had an experience with the criminal justice system beyond a traffic ticket it's hard to imagine that the men and women in the court systems make mistakes and commit ethical violations that destroy people and families. People believe that if you are charged with a crime, you committed that crime. There's an anger in this country that has boiled down into an insatiable need to convict without stopping to think - wait a minute - that doesn't seem right. My heart breaks for Noura. I hope that she will be able to create the life that she's always wanted and that her friends and new family can help her achieve that peace.
2
"the Hammer Award"
Despicable. They are celebrating taking away a person's liberty. Even when the defendant is truly guilty, a conviction should not be celebrated. It is a stain on our community. It is never appropriate to celebrate a tear in the fabric of civility. It is a grave thing to take away a person's freedom, even when they have forfeited it through their own actions.
Despicable. They are celebrating taking away a person's liberty. Even when the defendant is truly guilty, a conviction should not be celebrated. It is a stain on our community. It is never appropriate to celebrate a tear in the fabric of civility. It is a grave thing to take away a person's freedom, even when they have forfeited it through their own actions.
267
I understand where things like the "Hammer Award" can seem off putting and even cruel. I don't agree with judging a prosecutor's career solely on the basis of wins and losses. However, someone who hasn't experienced it likely won't understand the long, winding, process of getting a case to trial. I spent most of my career prosecuting violent and sexual offenses. In those cases, there a sense of relief, upon hearing a guilty verdict, that I can't describe. I have and will continue to celebrate trial victories. Speaking for myself, I am not celebrating the defendant's downfall, but the successful culmination of my team's hard work and the vindication of the victim.
While I agree with almost all of your comment, I found your statement that stabbing someone multiple times was most often something done by people on drugs like meth or crack cocaine to be incorrect and a damaging reinforcement of stereotypes. You have to reason to believe my take on this and will almost certainly dismiss what I say but as a lawyer you are no stranger to reading and research. It has been my observation that the only drug that can be regularly counted on to deliver violent behavior is alcohol. Further that when cocaine or methamphetamine is found to be in the system of someone who has committed a violent act there is seemingly always alcohol in their system as well but it is discounted as the catalyst for the behavior in question. I'm fond of alcohol and have no ax to grind but I think that it would be appropriate for blame to be laid where it appropriately belongs instead of making the public demonize substances and those who use them based on inaccurate information. I am including a link to a YouTube video with a Columbia professor that you might find interesting. My goal is not to insult you which would only make you more likely to dismiss what I am saying. As an articulate lawyer you are in a position to have quite an impact on the opinions of those who hear and read your words so I am hoping you will begin your own investigation into my claims even if your motivation is simply to prove me wrong because I think the results would be surprising.
Convictions are no stain whatsoever. Fairly done, they are a hallmark of a society that insists on justice, which far outweighs civility. Drop the virtue signaling.
"Justice" is no where evident in this story. Winning and padding one's resume was prime. There needs to be a consequence for stealing Noura's life, the years incarcerated and a felony conviction for life. Disbarment should be mandatory.
3
Did not have time to read the article here. Scrolled to the end noting with surprise & a chuckle that Emily Bazelon is a Truman Capote fellow at Yale.
That such a 'honorific' existed at the Ivy League continued my chuckle & further lessened my respect for the University whose faculty recently ended its MFA, Dramatic Arts. Albeit, Ms. Bazelon, a fellow there fills the gap in her powerfully composed in this lengthy drama the author composes for 'Theater NYTimes'.
Does the reporter hear Truman calling out Bravo?
That such a 'honorific' existed at the Ivy League continued my chuckle & further lessened my respect for the University whose faculty recently ended its MFA, Dramatic Arts. Albeit, Ms. Bazelon, a fellow there fills the gap in her powerfully composed in this lengthy drama the author composes for 'Theater NYTimes'.
Does the reporter hear Truman calling out Bravo?
Contempt prior to investigation. Clearly you would convict on presumption of guilt. BTW Yale's school of drama still exists.
1
Why ridicule Truman Capote? I loved his books when I read them in high school. Wouldn't his name attached to the fellowship mean that he, his estate, or someone in his name funded it? Perhaps if you studied grammar and composition during the time wasted trying to be snarky, your comment might be less nonsensical?
You did not read the article, yet you laugh and comment insultingly. This says more about you than the article.
For decades, prosecutors have failed to turn over evidence in criminal trials, yet show they know each and every item with perfect recall. They often refuse to even contemplate the possibility this defendant may be innocent and other perpetrators are running free. The "Open Files" projects are a great idea. Too many convicted people are being proven innocent by subsequent DNA tests. Our entire justice system is getting a black eye around the world. It's no laughing matter.
You did not read the article, yet you laugh and comment insultingly. This says more about you than the article.
For decades, prosecutors have failed to turn over evidence in criminal trials, yet show they know each and every item with perfect recall. They often refuse to even contemplate the possibility this defendant may be innocent and other perpetrators are running free. The "Open Files" projects are a great idea. Too many convicted people are being proven innocent by subsequent DNA tests. Our entire justice system is getting a black eye around the world. It's no laughing matter.
1
"Much of the testimony was tangential to Jackson’s death, but Judge Craft made the questionable decision to allow it, giving Weirich the chance to paint a picture of a teenager spinning out of control."
What is spinning out of control is the court system and individuals like this judge and Amy Weirich - in a hurry to convict, deliberately withhold evidence, and not allowing the accused to fight on a level or even playing field. The continued lack of ethics and a moral compass on the part of the prosecution is deplorable and appalling. I like to know whatever happened to the $1.5 million? Since she had to sit in jail for three and a half years because she could not make bail, I highly doubt she ever saw a dime of that money.
This entire story is a travesty and most of the players involved should be in jail or grossly fined or disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct. Noura Jackson's mother died a horrible death, Noura got hurt the most by the court system, she is completely innocent, and yet the murderer is still out there. There was no justice for Noura (taking a plea agreement in exchange for an early release but still having the lifelong stigma of being a convicted killer is no bargain) and there is still no justice for Noura's mom. This entire story is heart wrenching and mind boggling. And this all happened to a white individual. If her race was African American, she would probably never be freed from prison.
5
You can thank the republican party and reagan for introducing the concept of putting inappropriate and unqualified people on the bench.
I forget the exact details of it but the Press only reported it once then went on as if it were normal. I see now they were already suborned but I digress. the first such unqualified judge reagan appointed made a ruling against the facts and science proudly stating more or less that he knew what the truth was in spite of the facts.
I forget the exact details of it but the Press only reported it once then went on as if it were normal. I see now they were already suborned but I digress. the first such unqualified judge reagan appointed made a ruling against the facts and science proudly stating more or less that he knew what the truth was in spite of the facts.
1
Our moral compass has been eroded when winning is valued and the plight of the vulnerable go unchallenged. Noura was robbed of her mother, her freedom and her rights to a fair trial. Is anyone else outraged?
2
Heartbreaking. The Judge and Prosecutor are seeing themselves as victims but when the same patterns of abuse keep showing up and even your colleagues are complaining you start to see a Cosby effect. They can't admit any mistakes probably even to themselves.
A teenager who partied and fought with her mother. Might as well convict half of America.
A teenager who partied and fought with her mother. Might as well convict half of America.
3
I don't know how people like Amy Weirich sleep at night. When a personal victory of "winning" a case takes precedence over honesty, integrity, character, ethics and the strong possibility of an individual being sent to prison when there is evidence that could prevent that, there is truly something missing and wrong with this kind of mindset. Is it any wonder why so many people distrust the justice system and the police when the need to "clear a case" and "get that conviction at all costs" is paramount above all else? I detest reading stories like these because for every case that is showcased, how many others are out there, with no one fighting their fight? These stories are haunting, depressing yet necessary to report. Once again, good job NYT in jarring my conscience and keeping me abreast of the continual injustice felt and endured by so many. Stories like these keep me from taking my freedom and daily life for granted.
7
This case is, in some aspects, eerily reminiscent of last year's "The Night Of" on HBO. I wonder if that story was partly inspired by Noura's case?
1
It never smells good when prosecutors claim they just "forgot."
6
An honest person knows that even if they did forget they cannot rely on that as defense
2
Just a quick correction, SMU Law School is called Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law. The article misspelled it as "Dedham."
Blessings and godspeed to innocence proven for Noura; Weirich, Jones and Craft should be investigated, and admonished, disbarred.
2
Not clear.
So, did she do it?
The way she was going, best thing could have happened to her.
Dried out at taxpayer expense.
So, did she do it?
The way she was going, best thing could have happened to her.
Dried out at taxpayer expense.
Weirich sure looks like a future governor of Tennessee to me. Maybe after she spends nine years in prison.
1
Lies, covering up information, seriously damaging other people's lives no matter what the cost in order to advance your own career and political ambitions?
Now where have I heard that before? Is anyone surprised that Weirich is a Republican?
Now where have I heard that before? Is anyone surprised that Weirich is a Republican?
2
I know some members of DA Weirich's extended family....I've found them to be intelligent, good people....this observation is neither here nor there, just an observation is all. I will say that I believe when a heinous crime such as this occurs, the public outcry to blame someone, anyone, is intense. It seems that finding someone to blame, and locking them up, makes everyone feel "safe" again.....except we've ruined the life of an innocent person....and in this case, someone who has suffered enough already, having lost both of her parents at a relatively young age. It's amazing to me that the lack of DNA under Noura's acrylic nails, and the lack of damage to these nails, didn't speak volumes. We put a lot of stress on our public servants to do more and more with less and less....does not excuse this....but if we're going to hold them accountable for mistakes or misconduct, we need to make sure the behavior wasn't a result of lack of resources. Remember that the jury convicted her. No amount of money can make up for any amount of time an innocent person waits behind bars. Think of all the cases that we DON'T hear about.
1
Not we She ruined the life of an innocent. You go on to prove that she did so consciously and with malice aforethought.
1
Do more? The DA had only to follow the evidence presented. In her zeal to win she didn't even do that. All she did was present a character assassination, delivered by people with dollar signs in their eyes.
Excellent story just wondering why none of the Black people who have been affected by this evil woman in Memphis haven't been covered. She has covered up several murders for the police and P. Moses was prosecuted for her friend and no police report was ever made. Weirich should be removed from office and jailed for her crimes under the color of the law.
3
As I have done so many times on these pages...... the "mother country" had abandoned the trial by ambush approach over 100 years before the USA. Just like gerrymandered districts as well. I am not saying, btw, that the law and behavior of lawyers in the UK in the UK is perfect. What I am saying is that because you have a written almost unchangeable Constitution, much of the political and legal behavior in the USA is trapped in the beliefs of late 18th Century England. And that means the majority of your politicians and your lawyers are as trustworthy as a three dollar bill, just as they were in England in 1789.
2
That's why we have appellate courts such as the 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court. We are supposed to have a "living" document in the Constitution, although self-serving politicians have worked hard to denigrate this concept.
Many things can be simultaneously true. I see no definitive proof here that Noura was not in some way complicit in her mother's murder, just as there is no proof she was.
Wretched prosecutors do sometimes win convictions against genuinely guilty parties; genuinely-guilty parties are quite often acquitted at trial.
Things are much more complicated than this story would like to suggest.
Wretched prosecutors do sometimes win convictions against genuinely guilty parties; genuinely-guilty parties are quite often acquitted at trial.
Things are much more complicated than this story would like to suggest.
1
You see no definitive proof that Noura was not in some way complicit in her mother's murder, just as there is no proof she was?" Have you heard of "innocent until proven guilty?" If there is no proof either way, one is innocent! Prosecutors all too often forget this in their zeal to win, to establish or keep a record-setting number of convictions. I once read a former prosecutor-turned-novelist say that a high number of convictions compared to other prosecutors in the same office should raise eyebrows because it means they are failing to prosecute cases that are not slam-dunks, or pulling fast ones like concealing exculpatory evidence, etc. If their evidence is developed by the same law enforcement dept, and use the same judges and juries, shouldn't their conviction rates be roughly similar? At least if you compare all prosecutors, so relative talent is accounted for.... When there is a huge difference for one attorney, there ought to be a question of "Why?"
2
Not only is Cynthia right, but you seem to overlook compelling evidence that someone else carried out a brutal murder.
Do you condone prosecutors who do that? Why?
Do you condone prosecutors who do that? Why?
I just read someone's posting at another site:
"In the United States of America, nobody is above the law".
Apparently there are a number of prosecutors including Weirich who are. My belief in this country's ability to live up to it's ideals continues to be shaken by the things that are coming to light, like what is laid out in this article, and the overall climate.
So sad for this young woman. We only have ourselves to blame for egging on power hungry, bombastic, show-offs who have no interest in anyone but themselves.
"In the United States of America, nobody is above the law".
Apparently there are a number of prosecutors including Weirich who are. My belief in this country's ability to live up to it's ideals continues to be shaken by the things that are coming to light, like what is laid out in this article, and the overall climate.
So sad for this young woman. We only have ourselves to blame for egging on power hungry, bombastic, show-offs who have no interest in anyone but themselves.
3
"Studying the case, she [the prosecutor] developed a theory: Noura was bridling under her mother’s rules and killed her for money that she could use to keep partying with her friends. Jackson’s estate was valued at $1.5 million, including a life insurance policy."
This was a clear case of tunnel vision. It's an affliction that often affects the judgment of detectives, who are evaluated on the number of cases they clear, while prosecutors are rewarded based on convictions won. They set out to prove their theory of the case while ignoring and even hiding facts that may contradict their theory.
This was a clear case of tunnel vision. It's an affliction that often affects the judgment of detectives, who are evaluated on the number of cases they clear, while prosecutors are rewarded based on convictions won. They set out to prove their theory of the case while ignoring and even hiding facts that may contradict their theory.
2
Just goes to show that women can be every bit as brutal and cruel as men are perceived to be.
"In truth, in many cases, the consequences for withholding evidence are relatively minor. Only a tiny number of prosecutors have been disbarred or jailed for withholding evidence." Yet the consequences for those falsely accused and convicted entail years of one's life wasted. Why shouldn't those prosecutors get harsh punishment for treating human beings like pawns in a boardgame, easily knocked out of the game and discarded. I suppose the ultimate punishment for them is coming to terms with their consciences...if they ever grow one.
What the article shows is that, in the end, punishing prosecutorial conduct depends on the integrity of the judges and lawyers enforcing the rules. The investigation into Weirich and her office should extend into the Tennessee state bar system of prosecuting professional misconduct, which, the article shows, does not work.
2
People like Weirich just so believe in themselves, so much want to win that they don't feel guilty at all to 'ignore' evidences that are not convenient for them to win !
Noura, be brave and strong. You will have your child, and become a good mom, I am sure.
Noura, be brave and strong. You will have your child, and become a good mom, I am sure.
It's a travesty when an innocent person is found guilty. Evidence in this case indicates Noura may not be guilty. That our legal system, including police, prosecutors, etc. is in question is disturbing. I've sat in on trials where the decision could have gone either way, & I never stop wondering "what if...". This article would be more convincing if Noura was not pictured as a sweet innocent girl rather than the drug using party girl she was, if her words weren't assumed to be truthful. It's also surprising that she admitted guilt assuming her new legal team was as competent as described. Trying to be unbiased while being disturbed.
Amy Weirich is a criminal who sent an innocent victim (who’d lost her mother no less) to jail while allowing a killer to remain free and literally get away with murder.
D.A.s like Weirich like to pretend they’re “sending a message to criminals.” Sending creeps like her to jail for criminal behavior would send a message to other corrupt prosecutors, like her, to follow the law instead of caring more about their political careers and win/loss records than protecting the rights granted citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
D.A.s like Weirich like to pretend they’re “sending a message to criminals.” Sending creeps like her to jail for criminal behavior would send a message to other corrupt prosecutors, like her, to follow the law instead of caring more about their political careers and win/loss records than protecting the rights granted citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
4
With Trump and Sessions calling the shots in Washington, you know that federal review of juvenile justice practices in Memphis will end if it hasn't already. Justice is a game, played by opponents on a field we call a courtroom, with a referee we call a judge, and with endzones we call a jury . The theory is that the truth can be revealed through competition. It seems so crystal clear to me that for the competition to be fair, both sides need equal access to the ball, which in a courtroom, is the evidence. Without equal access to evidence, it's as if the prosecution is arbitrarily given the ball whenever the defense is about to score a few get-ahead points.
Ms. Weirich allowed at least one and probably several brutal murderers to roam free in order to indulge her fantasy of what happened in order to bolster her career. She should resign or be impeached.
4
As always, another well researched and written report by Ms. Bazelon. As a non-attorney, I found the treatment of Noura appalling. However, more appalling is the fact that prosecutorial misconduct, as Ms. Weirich's seems to have committed, goes unpunished. Where are all the lawyers, who by their incredible silence, condone this behavior?
2
A recent report on Weinrich writing to people directly: http://wreg.com/2017/06/13/das-office-sending-letters-to-people-who-comm...
So to sum up:
Innocent til proven guilty.*
Justice is Blind.**
The death penalty is justified and an excellent deterrent to crime.***
*unless the prosecutor has decided you are guilty and skews the case by withholding evidence so that their assumption and desire for your guilt can be verified and they can bump their win column (truth be damned). And proof is relative.
**unless you have no resources for excellent representation, don't live in a liberal part of the US (which is still no guarantee), and are not an individual of color or other factors that will bias our justice system unfairly against you.
***as long as you are willing to except executing conservatively 25% innocent individuals with a heavy bias towards those of lower socioeconomic status and individuals of color. Well and I supposed that executed person will not commit another crime, but that hardly seems like an effective intervention.
Innocent til proven guilty.*
Justice is Blind.**
The death penalty is justified and an excellent deterrent to crime.***
*unless the prosecutor has decided you are guilty and skews the case by withholding evidence so that their assumption and desire for your guilt can be verified and they can bump their win column (truth be damned). And proof is relative.
**unless you have no resources for excellent representation, don't live in a liberal part of the US (which is still no guarantee), and are not an individual of color or other factors that will bias our justice system unfairly against you.
***as long as you are willing to except executing conservatively 25% innocent individuals with a heavy bias towards those of lower socioeconomic status and individuals of color. Well and I supposed that executed person will not commit another crime, but that hardly seems like an effective intervention.
Jutice delayed is justice denied; three and a half years in prison awaiting trial proves that. Here in Canada the Supreme Court ruled that such a delay should result in the accused being freed.
1
Speaking as a lawyer, I think this article should've more clearly articulated the patently unacceptable amount of error on nearly EVERY level in this case. Just to cite a few of the larger ones: the trial-court judge should've declared a mistrial immediately after DDA Weirich shouted, "Just tell us where you were!" in her closing argument. (This type of incendiary statement to a jury isn't remotely allowable under any rules of criminal procedure, on top of its false inference that a defendant "should" testify.) Jackson's attorney should have moved for a mistrial and/or a JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict) as well. The police who led the investigation should've realized very early on that stabbing a victim dozens of separate times is most often the act of someone under the influence of drugs like meth and crack cocaine, not marijuana and low-level opioids, and Jennifer Jackson's history of volatile relationships with violent, abusive men should have thus been investigated to a far greater extent. Finally, the complete absence of physical evidence connecting the defendant to the crime -- coupled with the discovery of a third party's blood at the scene (!!) -- should have raised a battalion of red flags for every person involved with the investigation and trial.
While Amy Weirich may merit most of the blame in this case, the entire Shelby County criminal-justice SYSTEM failed Noura Jackson on virtually every level -- in ways as inexplicable as they are infuriating.
While Amy Weirich may merit most of the blame in this case, the entire Shelby County criminal-justice SYSTEM failed Noura Jackson on virtually every level -- in ways as inexplicable as they are infuriating.
757
The third-party's blood was not just at the scene, it was in the mothers bed!!!
5
Thank you for your excellent summary of the major flaws in the Shelby County "justice system". How horrible-really loathsome. And she will probably be elected again!
4
@Jeff:
A battalion of red flags? More like several divisions, with a follow-on wave.
Detectives and prosecutors working the case obviously wanted to win at trial and didn't particularly care how; actual guilt or innocence irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
This blindness seems to be a consistent problem in Law & Order red states. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth The Lord", but upon whom vengeance is wrought is essentially random.
That judge comes across as brain-dead.
The issue of who actually committed the act doesn't seem to have concerned any of them. A fish was in their net. They intended to kill and eat it. Their sole concern seems to have been to find someone they deemed easiest to convict.
God help us.
A battalion of red flags? More like several divisions, with a follow-on wave.
Detectives and prosecutors working the case obviously wanted to win at trial and didn't particularly care how; actual guilt or innocence irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
This blindness seems to be a consistent problem in Law & Order red states. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth The Lord", but upon whom vengeance is wrought is essentially random.
That judge comes across as brain-dead.
The issue of who actually committed the act doesn't seem to have concerned any of them. A fish was in their net. They intended to kill and eat it. Their sole concern seems to have been to find someone they deemed easiest to convict.
God help us.
4
So many law-and-order people believe that if a person is arrested, they are guilty, and that our system is far too lenient with defendants. But, cases like Noura's show that injustice can happen to any of us. Once the system takes over, events can spiral out of control and you can find yourself powerless. My heart goes out to Noura, who lost her mother in such a terrible way, and who no one protected. Equally sad is that no one in the system was at all interested in learning what really happened to Jennifer Jackson.
26
Most so-called "law and order" people view law enforcement as a sports team which either wins or loses -- and the constitution of course is just another banner for the self-righteous to wave around.
1
It happens for more often than a right result happens in my experience.
Remind me not to visit Memphis any time soon, if Ms. Weirich represents the quality of public servant that the people there elect. And, apparently, she does.
24
Ms. Weirich is not a 'public servant', but a politician turned law-enforcer.
2
Memphis of course has a rate of violent crime to match any in the nation, including that of St. Louis, Detroit, and others. What no one ever mentions is that the South leads the nation in virtually every category of crime, both by rate and total number.
4
"What no one ever mentions is that the South leads the nation in virtually every category of crime, both by rate and total number."
I wonder that no one connects this criminality to the hyper Christianity so favored by the suppressors of all things normal and human.
I wonder that no one connects this criminality to the hyper Christianity so favored by the suppressors of all things normal and human.
Our system is corrupt from top to bottom, is and has been. Let's never forget that most politicans are lawyers and that a judge is just another lawyer albiet with a robe covering that fact.
Judical reform? Where on earth would that begin? They make entirely too much money to even consider such a thing. This is the saddest part of all, they cannot be stopped, we can only sit and watch them until it is all gone.
Unless, of course, our media would begin a relentless campaign to demand
accountability.
Off with thier robes!
Judical reform? Where on earth would that begin? They make entirely too much money to even consider such a thing. This is the saddest part of all, they cannot be stopped, we can only sit and watch them until it is all gone.
Unless, of course, our media would begin a relentless campaign to demand
accountability.
Off with thier robes!
9
The courts are no more corrupt than any other organization run by human beings. Just look at your typical corporation. That's corruption by design.
1
Your post goes to far. if you actually thought things were that hopeless you'd never have posted unless you intend to make others lose hope.
The design of the system is still good. We need to hold the people we charge with running it for us to account for what they choose to do and remove the protections the republicans gave themselves from liability for their actions in office.
The design of the system is still good. We need to hold the people we charge with running it for us to account for what they choose to do and remove the protections the republicans gave themselves from liability for their actions in office.
I practiced law for about ten years after graduating from law school, doing general civil and criminal practice, numerous cases in tribal courts, and court appointments of various types. I did my work scrupulously fairly, helped many people, and made a positive difference in the small community in which I lived. My goal was not to get rich as a lawyer, but to improve the world I lived in -- and for a good while I really loved my work. I quit, though, when I finished paying off my student loans.
The reason I did so was because of lawyers like Ms. Weirich. The win-at-any-cost mentality of those who stoop to actual unethical/illegal behavior to stack an outcome made me sick -- and they were NOT uncommon. Whether you call it "prosecutorial misconduct" or some other euphemism, it is WRONG, and rife. Ask yourself, "Would I think it was a big deal if Ms. Weirich withheld exculpatory evidence if I were on trial?" I bet you would.
The barracuda mentality that's overtaken the profession is NOT a change for the better. Worshiping the billable hour, the power suit, and the corner office as indicators of success only prove that greed motivates those who think these are the most important proof of an up-and-coming litigator. An honest soul SHOULD be an absolute prerequisite.
The reason I did so was because of lawyers like Ms. Weirich. The win-at-any-cost mentality of those who stoop to actual unethical/illegal behavior to stack an outcome made me sick -- and they were NOT uncommon. Whether you call it "prosecutorial misconduct" or some other euphemism, it is WRONG, and rife. Ask yourself, "Would I think it was a big deal if Ms. Weirich withheld exculpatory evidence if I were on trial?" I bet you would.
The barracuda mentality that's overtaken the profession is NOT a change for the better. Worshiping the billable hour, the power suit, and the corner office as indicators of success only prove that greed motivates those who think these are the most important proof of an up-and-coming litigator. An honest soul SHOULD be an absolute prerequisite.
57
In June Weirich's office sent a letter to "repeat offenders" in Memphis under her signature asking them to stop committing crime.
Interviewed on local TV about what in reality was her latest publicity stunt she stated: "Stop! Stop committing crime. You are a drain on our community."
An appropriate letter to Weirich might read:
Stop! Stop violating the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.
Stop! Stop withholding, hiding and destroying exculpatory evidence that you are required to disclose under the Constitution.
Stop! Stop colluding with police officers to suborn perjury.
Stop! Stop bringing prosecutions that ethical prosecutors would decline.
Stop! Stop practicing law in any shape or form.
Stop! Stop doing evil for the sake of your political aspirations.
You are a drain on the reputation of ethical prosecutors everywhere and the very integrity of our criminal justice system.
Interviewed on local TV about what in reality was her latest publicity stunt she stated: "Stop! Stop committing crime. You are a drain on our community."
An appropriate letter to Weirich might read:
Stop! Stop violating the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.
Stop! Stop withholding, hiding and destroying exculpatory evidence that you are required to disclose under the Constitution.
Stop! Stop colluding with police officers to suborn perjury.
Stop! Stop bringing prosecutions that ethical prosecutors would decline.
Stop! Stop practicing law in any shape or form.
Stop! Stop doing evil for the sake of your political aspirations.
You are a drain on the reputation of ethical prosecutors everywhere and the very integrity of our criminal justice system.
42
All this sounds like what happens when the police shoot someone: nothing. When prosecutors misbehave, what happens? Nothing. Everyone has immunity but the victims.
24
The wrong woman went to jail.
25
We need to be sending prosecutors to prison for misconduct. That might change the system. This is such a sad story. Noura looses her mother than has to suffer prison as well. The Supreme Court overturns and still the system keeps her locked up. This sounds like something out of the 18th century England.
16
I certainly hope there are ramifications for Weirich here.
She should be relieved of her duties (if not disbarred).
She should be relieved of her duties (if not disbarred).
14
Amy Weirich is a liar, quite simply. She is a predatory DA and should be disbarred.
26
Emily Bazelon's article points to one of the big unmet challenges of our criminal justice system: how to keep the DAs more accountable. Clearly the reform needs to occur at the federal level given the wide disparity in the state statutes.
Yet it also seems many readers outraged by this case have forgotten that this article has the same goal as those under its scrutiny: to tell a coherent, convincing, and compelling story through a carefully constructed presentation, which ALWAYS involves an omission of elements that hinder that goal. While the facts and opinions contained in the article pull us in one direction, we don't really know if Amy Weirich and Stephen intentionally withheld Brady material because the article has many important gaps in its coverage of the crime, the investigation and the trial.
What we do know is that murder cases are often events of great complexity that unfold over many years and through many minds and interests. As much as they are presented to us in black & white terms (in the courtroom and in the media), they are rarely that simple in real life.
Yet it also seems many readers outraged by this case have forgotten that this article has the same goal as those under its scrutiny: to tell a coherent, convincing, and compelling story through a carefully constructed presentation, which ALWAYS involves an omission of elements that hinder that goal. While the facts and opinions contained in the article pull us in one direction, we don't really know if Amy Weirich and Stephen intentionally withheld Brady material because the article has many important gaps in its coverage of the crime, the investigation and the trial.
What we do know is that murder cases are often events of great complexity that unfold over many years and through many minds and interests. As much as they are presented to us in black & white terms (in the courtroom and in the media), they are rarely that simple in real life.
4
You seems to not comprehend something Ms Weirich wants you to not comprehend.
The truth cannot subvert itself. No you do not have to eliminate anything to tell a coherent tale you only have to remove your ego driven desire for an outcome the facts do not support.
The truth cannot subvert itself. No you do not have to eliminate anything to tell a coherent tale you only have to remove your ego driven desire for an outcome the facts do not support.
1
Yesterday there was the Times story about how criminal bankers are not sent to prison even when there is admission that they stole millions and would reoffend at the first chance while there's certainly doubt about this poor woman's guilt from the start. Is there something wrong with our system?
305
The answer to your question is obvious. Yes there is something wrong with our system. That thing is the fact that we have allowed bad actors in our system (reagan republicans) to make it impossible to hold bad actors under color of authority to account.
1
It's almost as though . . . people with education, status, and/or money . . . can get away with a lot of horrible things . . .
1
No, there isn't "something" wrong with the system; it is the system that is wrong.
So disturbing. How can a prosecutor legally conduct business like that??? And the evidence anyways was pretty lame. It seems that the severity of a murder case would require a preponderance of clear evidence not just a lot of talk about a person's demeanor. Since when does being a teenager and fighting with your parent make you a murderer? Put that Weirich in jail for the amount of time Noura was in.
6
The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt
Prosecutors like to have desperate defendants plead guilty in situations like this because it covers them legally. With a guilty plea there will be no lawsuit and no judicial examination of the prosecutor's misconduct. An excellent way to safely bury a past transgression.
8
Economists claim that incentives influence decisions and actions.
Why not stop awarding prosecution / arrest stats and begin punishing misconduct? This isn't about being soft on criminals but it is about requiring more professionalism and humanity from police officers, attorneys, and judges.
Also why not try to make jail more rehabilitative instead of simply punitive?
Why not stop awarding prosecution / arrest stats and begin punishing misconduct? This isn't about being soft on criminals but it is about requiring more professionalism and humanity from police officers, attorneys, and judges.
Also why not try to make jail more rehabilitative instead of simply punitive?
3
Not only should the prosecutor be relieved of her duties she should also be charged and tried for obstruction.
8
I hate to tell you folks, but I was a legal reporter for the predominant legal publication in the state of Missouri. The malpractice by country DAs is rampant. There were at least a half dozen cases we were covering in different parts of the state, all of which alleged blatant wrongdoing by local authorities, including county prosecutors.
We have a long way to go for justice to be blind.
We have a long way to go for justice to be blind.
7
The word "error" is Orwellian, and even the term "prosecutorial conduct" is malapropos. In a capital case, the prosecutor is guilty of attempted murder; on lesser charges, of conspiracy to do irreparable harm to the victim. We need jail sentences for those prosecutors who knowingly withhold evidence; and like some of the contributors to this discussion, I see the justice of matching the time that the prosecutor spends in prison to the time that the defendant would have spent in prison. It would be a helpful further step if malignant judges could be reined in. A mistrial should have been declared the next second after Weirich shouted "Just tell us where you were!" There was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial a second time; and denying bail in the interim was despicable and grounds for removal from the bench.
5
Blind Justice, here is displayed with a very warped meaning and it should not continue to be ignored. Innocent people are suffering. Prosecution misconduct is the ultimate zero-sum.
1
Excellent article and I wish Noura the best! Weirich should be the one in prison for trying to further her career!
5
There was just an article in Vanity Fair summer's edition in which a man was incarcerated for 10 years in Nevada. The prosecution had phone records that would have proved his innocence that only surfaced years later. He, too, was tricked into accepting the Alford option.
What's going on here? Do these prosecutors have ties with privatized prisons? I'd like to see an article that compares private prisons to public ones.
What's going on here? Do these prosecutors have ties with privatized prisons? I'd like to see an article that compares private prisons to public ones.
10
Last night with friends we were discussing Trump's advice to law enforcement advocating rough handling of detainees. I said that just because someone is arrested doesn't mean they're guilty. And just because someone is prosecuted doesn't mean they're guilty. And just because someone is convicted doesn't mean they committed the crime. I said that sometimes prosecutors and police pursue convictions based on no evidence or even flawed evidence. When someone asked why a prosecutor, a member of the bar sworn to uphold the law, would do such a thing, I replied that some prosecutors would rather win than see justice done. I rest my case.
WEIRICH NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL.
WEIRICH NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL.
10
As someone who worked as an investigator for defense attorneys, I believe when you are in a courtroom, both sides are lying. If they are not lying, then they are obscuring truth. This is not about justice - it is only about winning.
97
Winning WHAT?
The right to destroy an innocent person's life ...entire family?
Who even would or could actually call anything like that, Winning?
A Psychopath?
The right to destroy an innocent person's life ...entire family?
Who even would or could actually call anything like that, Winning?
A Psychopath?
1
the defense's goal is to avoid justice, so lying is to be expected. the prosecutor, however, should never lie if his/her aim is to enforce justice. unfortunately, not all polices and prosecutors aim thus.
The purpose of law is justice. The obligation of law is honesty. Unfortunately law in this country, criminal or civil, is in the hands and under the control of too many people who see the law as a money making enterprise rather than an honest profession. Justice is not criminal attorneys withholding pertinent evidence in court or extracting plea bargains from people who cannot afford bail for petty charges. And It is not about civil lawyers inundating TV and covering buses with adds about how much money they can get for you. I have reviewed over 200 medical malpractice cases for the defense, and truth is absent more often than not in the vast majority of these cases. Why can't we fix the dysfunctional parts of our legal system? We don't even talk about it. I guess it must be against the law!
3
Sometimes I have to wonder who are the bigger criminals, the accused, or the prosecutors and district attorneys who withhold and ignore evidence of the accused's innocence just because they feel challenged to get convictions instead of doing the right thing.
4
This story is a perfect illustration of why the death penalty is wrong - prosecutors can make a career on a high profile murder case which gives a strong motive for them to go for convictions based on flimsy, or worse, contradictory evidence in which the contradictions are conveniently "lost" and are not aired in court. Our criminal justice system is only as good as the people who make it work, and since we are all human, and humans are fallible, our justice system is inherently not error free. How can we use a flawed system to put someone to death? Noura was lucky she was not tried as a capital murder case - she might have been executed before her case was overturned.
One often hears complaints about and insults directed at defense attorneys. "How can someone defend someone they know is guilty?" They ask. "They are only interested in winning their cases not in justice" They say. "Lawyers and loopholes are the problem" They believe. Apart from not recognizing or understanding the importance of making the state prove its case, to have its evidence questioned and tested and challenged, some people fail to grasp the fact that prosecuting attorneys are lawyers as well playing the same game as defense attorneys. Prosecutors are not immune to the temptation of gaming the system for their own career/political advancement since more than a few dream of someday becoming an attorney general, then governor, and then who knows. Cases won, criminals locked away, provide the "tough on crime" political foundation that all former prosecutors who run for office rely upon. Most are not corrupt but those who are in my mind are far more dangerous than corrupt defense attorneys. Prosecutors have the power of the state at their disposal defense attorneys do not.
2
Many years ago, while in law school in Boston, I heard DA's opine that even if they learned they were prosecuting the wrong person, it really didn't matter because if the bad guy hadn't done the particular crime they were accused of this time, they had almost certainly done something similar or worse in the past and had not been caught. That really is the mindset of many prosecutors-they see themselves as heroes who are cleaning out a boar's nest of drug dealing, thieving, murdering criminals, and there's no need to be conscientious about the details or the due process rights of the accused.
8
At the root of this horrifying story is the absurd principle (all too common in the US) that the prosecutors are not public servants but politicians who have to woo the public to get elected and consequently never have justice as their main objective. The whole idea of 'the Hammer' epitomizes what is wrong with American jurisprudence - if it can be called that. And that it would take a century and a half for America to modernize the rules! Appalling.
When I read this, I felt happy that I - as a European - would never be at the mercy of some power-hungry prosecutor.
When I read this, I felt happy that I - as a European - would never be at the mercy of some power-hungry prosecutor.
285
Just to clarify: the vast majority of American prosecutors are not elected officials. Most aren't even *appointed* officials: they're career public servants, most of whom have voluntarily opted to become prosecutors -- despite being able to make far more money in the private sector, even as a defense attorney -- for entirely noble reasons.
The DA's office in a large American city may have hundreds of individual assistant DAs who prosecute cases. (In some locations they're referred to as deputy DAs instead of "assistant.") Despite how they're depicted in cinema and on television, DAs themselves virtually never try cases personally (though nearly all of them are elected, at least at the municipal level).
This case represents a bit of an anomaly: Shelby County apparently has a single, appointed Deputy District Attorney, a position that had been bestowed to Amy Weirich at the time of Jackson's trial. (In other cities such a position might instead be called First Assistant District Attorney.) While she has since become the Shelby County District Attorney, she was nonetheless originally appointed as a DDA on the basis of (ostensible) merit, not politics.
All that said, I completely agree that Weirich's "Hammer Award" and an anything-to-"win" mentality are entirely inappropriate for any DA office. The end goal should ALWAYS be justice, not "victory," though some are clearly blind to the reality that the terms are not synonymous.
The DA's office in a large American city may have hundreds of individual assistant DAs who prosecute cases. (In some locations they're referred to as deputy DAs instead of "assistant.") Despite how they're depicted in cinema and on television, DAs themselves virtually never try cases personally (though nearly all of them are elected, at least at the municipal level).
This case represents a bit of an anomaly: Shelby County apparently has a single, appointed Deputy District Attorney, a position that had been bestowed to Amy Weirich at the time of Jackson's trial. (In other cities such a position might instead be called First Assistant District Attorney.) While she has since become the Shelby County District Attorney, she was nonetheless originally appointed as a DDA on the basis of (ostensible) merit, not politics.
All that said, I completely agree that Weirich's "Hammer Award" and an anything-to-"win" mentality are entirely inappropriate for any DA office. The end goal should ALWAYS be justice, not "victory," though some are clearly blind to the reality that the terms are not synonymous.
"western" European, not all of Europe, justice system seems to be the best (not perfect).
The comment is absolutly correct, "prosecutorial misconduct" must be dropped, and in its place try, prosecutorial malfeasants, or even "crime."
2
The power and lack of accountability of prosecutors in this country has gotten out of control. It is the principal cause of unjust sentencing and our current overcrowded prisons. Prosecutors routinely exercise their enormous power in our criminal justice system by over-charging arrested persons. They justify this abuse of their power by arguing it facilitates plea bargaining and deals, thereby sparing an overtaxed trial court system. Studies have shown that even more than our unfair drug laws, it is this over-charging of defendants that has turned America into the world's greatest system of imprisonment.
Withholding of of exculpatory evidence is clearly another unjustifiable abuse of prosecutorial power. I wish I could say it was only prosecutors who engage in the win at any cost method of litigating. But I cannot. For it is routine in the civil justice field for lawyers to withhold evidence when discovery rules mandate its disclosure. The difference is, however, that guilty prosecutors are more morally culpable when they withhold evidence and someone's liberty or life is at stake, not merely money or property in the civil context.
But withholding evidence in criminal and civil cases is just another part of the adversarial process constituting this winner-take-all, free-market, laissez faire capitalist society of America today, as personified by our president and exemplified by the business practices of Wall Street. People like Weirich are the winners; Noura the loser.
Withholding of of exculpatory evidence is clearly another unjustifiable abuse of prosecutorial power. I wish I could say it was only prosecutors who engage in the win at any cost method of litigating. But I cannot. For it is routine in the civil justice field for lawyers to withhold evidence when discovery rules mandate its disclosure. The difference is, however, that guilty prosecutors are more morally culpable when they withhold evidence and someone's liberty or life is at stake, not merely money or property in the civil context.
But withholding evidence in criminal and civil cases is just another part of the adversarial process constituting this winner-take-all, free-market, laissez faire capitalist society of America today, as personified by our president and exemplified by the business practices of Wall Street. People like Weirich are the winners; Noura the loser.
If corrupt prosecutors were routinely imprisoned and heavily fined for this very common practice of wanting to win, no matter the damage, we'd see much less of this.
4
Weirich should be fined, sentenced to jail, and disbarred for life. How many other Nouras has she done this to? How many other men and women are in prison who are innocent but judged guilty because of a prosecutor's decision not to share all the information so that they can have another notch added to their belt of convictions? How many true criminals get lesser sentences in return for telling prosecutors what they want to hear or because they were bullied into telling prosecutors the same? How many make false confessions based upon lies told to them by police, the DAs, etc.?
Justice is supposed to blind but in America it seems as if the police and the prosecutors are playing judge, jury, and executioner. What else can it be called when they threaten and badger innocent people into taking plea bargains or they withhold exculpatory evidence? Weirich should be publicly shamed as well because her actions let someone else escape punishment for Noura's mother's murder. And she should have to pay, out of her own pocket, for the years Noura lost in prison.
Justice is supposed to blind but in America it seems as if the police and the prosecutors are playing judge, jury, and executioner. What else can it be called when they threaten and badger innocent people into taking plea bargains or they withhold exculpatory evidence? Weirich should be publicly shamed as well because her actions let someone else escape punishment for Noura's mother's murder. And she should have to pay, out of her own pocket, for the years Noura lost in prison.
21
The debate is falsely, and dishonestly, framed as "being tough on criminals" versus "being soft on criminals." The reality is that we are talking about the accused, who are not yet criminals.
And every time an innocent person is convicted of something, especially murder ---- the person who really did it is still out there, perhaps planning to do it again. Is THAT really the policy that is "soft" on criminals? How does that protect the public? Those who promote "the accused are almost always guilty" are the ones who use their blood lust, or corrupt desire for power, to help real criminals stalk the streets.
And every time an innocent person is convicted of something, especially murder ---- the person who really did it is still out there, perhaps planning to do it again. Is THAT really the policy that is "soft" on criminals? How does that protect the public? Those who promote "the accused are almost always guilty" are the ones who use their blood lust, or corrupt desire for power, to help real criminals stalk the streets.
100
The so called "good guys" are sometimes anything but. We should always keep this in mind, especially when we hear our so called "leaders" mindlessly blabber about "law and order".
23
This is clear_cut Prosecutorial_Malfeasance. Let the prosecutor(s) 'enjoy' 9 years in jail!
42
Perhaps if the prosecutors had to complete the sentences of their victims they would be more ready to follow the law. Lifetime disbarment is to light a punishment for the damage and harm caused by this unethical,and illegal behviour.
36
I used to be in favor of the death penalty. That was before i became a lawyer, and before the Innocence Project. And then the awful disparity of results connected to race. It's clear that the system is deeply flawed. I'm sure it always has been. We do need a system. But it is not good enough to allow it to kill people. Too bad, as there are people who deserve to die. But there is no way to reliably separate them from people who don't even deserve to be in prison. And for better and for worse, being locked up may be worse than death. It's only virtue when there is a mistake is that it is reversible.
354
Truly excellent comment. As an ardent opponent of the death penalty, this is the most thoroughly and thoughtfully articulated opportunity I have seen for opponents and proponents of it to come together.
3
David,
I too find terrible flaws in the death penalty process in this country, and for the most part I would rule it out. But, I do think we can separate the true monsters. Of course the system would have to be reformed to do so.
My issue is the example of Ted Bundy. In Bundy you had a clear sociopathic genius who first killed, then escaped incarceration not once, but twice, only to kill again after each escape. Somewhere between 30 to 50 innocent women were brutally murdered by him.
The only solution to someone like this is truly draconian measures of police incarceration and justice, or the death penalty. He was an irredeemable sociopathic monster and a genetic and neurological mutant.
I am about 99.8% against the death penalty, but it seems there may be a place for it with people like Bundy, Gacey, Dahmer etc. I am open to the idea of research being served by keeping these types alive, but I see both sides of this coin. What about the death penalty on the larger scale for Pol Pot, for Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, and their ilk and henchman?
Is it moral for us to let the prisoners exact the justice as they did on Dahmer?
I respect and largely agree with your argument, but I am not sure it provides justice or safety in every case.
I too find terrible flaws in the death penalty process in this country, and for the most part I would rule it out. But, I do think we can separate the true monsters. Of course the system would have to be reformed to do so.
My issue is the example of Ted Bundy. In Bundy you had a clear sociopathic genius who first killed, then escaped incarceration not once, but twice, only to kill again after each escape. Somewhere between 30 to 50 innocent women were brutally murdered by him.
The only solution to someone like this is truly draconian measures of police incarceration and justice, or the death penalty. He was an irredeemable sociopathic monster and a genetic and neurological mutant.
I am about 99.8% against the death penalty, but it seems there may be a place for it with people like Bundy, Gacey, Dahmer etc. I am open to the idea of research being served by keeping these types alive, but I see both sides of this coin. What about the death penalty on the larger scale for Pol Pot, for Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, and their ilk and henchman?
Is it moral for us to let the prisoners exact the justice as they did on Dahmer?
I respect and largely agree with your argument, but I am not sure it provides justice or safety in every case.
2
You had me until you mentioned what people "deserve," counsellor, which always has an eye-for-an-eye ring to it.
I have always believed the over zealous prosecutors will do any thing to bag a case in their resume. I also believe at least 50% of the prisoners on myrder charges probably never committed the act. The police will use any tactics to make the accused to accept the non truth
4
Real justice would require that Prosecutors like those in this case serve prison time. The fact that this doesn't happen indicates that our justice system is a farce.
22
One reason why I would NEVER vote for the death penalty.
Many prosecutors, judges and police are corrupt (police kill unarmed citizens without almost complete impunity).
Innocent people ARE executed.
Many prosecutors, judges and police are corrupt (police kill unarmed citizens without almost complete impunity).
Innocent people ARE executed.
17
Wow! This is a very frightening story. It breaks your heart. I would encourage everyone to read it and think about it and the problems it presents. Rush to judgement occurs on the part of the public as well as prosecutors seeking advancement in their careers. Innocent until proven guilty is part and parcel of our country. We must remember this.
9
And it's why when the President of the United States publicly encourages police to be abusive towards suspects "who just killed somebody" that we need to remember the Nouras of the world.
Posted without comment.
Giuliani served as the Federal prosecutor for Manhattan.
Christie served as the Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer in New Jersey.
:: https://shugerblog.com/2017/07/07/the-rise-of-the-prosecutor-politicians...
Giuliani served as the Federal prosecutor for Manhattan.
Christie served as the Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer in New Jersey.
:: https://shugerblog.com/2017/07/07/the-rise-of-the-prosecutor-politicians...
7
A mistrial should have been declared and the case pulled from the office the day the note was "discovered" and turned over. And the prosecutors investigated, the whole case dissected.
14
The criminal justice system in this country is broken.
7
Prosecutors throughout the United States of America routinely withhold exculpatory evidence, as do police departments, and on the bench judges continue to allow these criminal acts to continue, most often in collusion with prosecutors, and police departments, and when exculpatory evidence is "discovered", more often than not, judges still uphold convictions obtained through fraud at the hands of prosecutors and police.
America has become a corrupted ideal, continuing it's early history of denial of basic human rights.
Look at us now, laughingstock of the planet, ruled by imbecilic authoritarians.
America has become a corrupted ideal, continuing it's early history of denial of basic human rights.
Look at us now, laughingstock of the planet, ruled by imbecilic authoritarians.
19
When will we wake up and realize that the "Revolution" the Progressives and Conservatives call for is not metaphorical! Our system- judicial, political and economic- is corrupt, beyond redemption. You will not vote out the malfeasance that infest our system. You will not convict them of their crimes. What is left?
1
Articles like this one are what we have left. This tragic story would never have been told, and read by so many justifiably outraged readers, without the magnificent free press. When criminals occupy the upper echelons of government, case like these multiply. When right minded people, who value the Rule of Law, are at the helm, the hope is that better justice will be enacted. Let's also hope that Weirich does not make it it to the Governor's Mansion. Surprised that she is a Republican?
1
Why doesn't the law promote both the defense and prosecuting lawyers to work together to find the truth, rather than working against each other in order to "win". Oh right.....the profit motive. Trumps ethics and morality every time.
5
Civil law systems have something akin to that with the concept of an "investigating magistrate". Unlike the zealous prosecutor in the adversarial common law systems, the investigating magistrate has a more neutral obligation to get to the bottom of the matter.
1
Amy Weirich should have been put in the cell Noura vacated. There's still time.
BTW: Christopher Wray, our soon-to-be head of the FBI also helped to withold evidence in the bridgegate case. No one could find Christie's cell phone but once the case was closed, it turned up in Wray's office.
BTW: Christopher Wray, our soon-to-be head of the FBI also helped to withold evidence in the bridgegate case. No one could find Christie's cell phone but once the case was closed, it turned up in Wray's office.
15
Honest mistakes or errors are different than deliberate prosecutorial misconduct. Of course, trials in this country are only partly about justice and truth. Mostly it's about theater, winning, and checkbooks, with the hope that in the end everything turns out OK.
I guess what we have beats the Star Chamber, scripted show trials with predetermined outcomes, kangaroo courts, sanctioned torture, frame-ups, vigilante mobs, etc., to name only a few of my least favorite things.
Wait. Have we gotten rid of all that stuff? Hopefully those CIA-sponsored shrinks will receive a fair trial in Federal Court in Spokane, Wash.
I guess what we have beats the Star Chamber, scripted show trials with predetermined outcomes, kangaroo courts, sanctioned torture, frame-ups, vigilante mobs, etc., to name only a few of my least favorite things.
Wait. Have we gotten rid of all that stuff? Hopefully those CIA-sponsored shrinks will receive a fair trial in Federal Court in Spokane, Wash.
4
Focusing on the conduct of the prosecutor, the legal process and precedent, should not obscure the double tragedy in this case: One, a murderer has not been brought to justice. Two, the person who was wrongly convicted has not been made whole by the institutions that in one way or another were complicit in her conviction and imprisonment.
I found these passages of the story the most chilling: "Everyone in prison talks about going home...but it was different for me. I didn’t have my old home to go back to." and, "Noura decided to move to Nashville to live with her girlfriend, whom she met in prison. As ex-felons, they had trouble finding an apartment at first."
Despite her exoneration, notwithstanding her innocence, Nora is an ex-felon who had nowhere to go.
I found these passages of the story the most chilling: "Everyone in prison talks about going home...but it was different for me. I didn’t have my old home to go back to." and, "Noura decided to move to Nashville to live with her girlfriend, whom she met in prison. As ex-felons, they had trouble finding an apartment at first."
Despite her exoneration, notwithstanding her innocence, Nora is an ex-felon who had nowhere to go.
13
Nora was not exonerated. She entered a guilty plea instead of pursuing the new trial that she won on appeal. She had reasons to do that, but she is an ex-feoln because she agreed to be one through her guilty plea.
1
That's exactly what I was hoping someone would say. It is so easy to parse exoneration or the even more troubling "innocent" into procedural steps, which enables the system and its minions to march on. Meanwhile, the impact on actual people, in this case an innocent person, becomes a forgotten detail.
"Agreed."
Justice done? Hardly. Withholding evidence ought to be a crime, as prosecutors try to win a case without looking at all the pieces, and the extra 'honest' work it requires.
5
This is an excellent article about our legal system, the part the Innocence Project and devoted lawyers have played in the reversal of wrongful convictions. Thank you, Emily Bazelon, for presenting the history of work done to distance unfair legal practices from many cases like Noura Jackson's.
The great tragedy here as that all who study law and engage its system are not passionate about the thorough search for justice, are not committed to the discipline of their profession that requires them to embrace the tenet that justice is blind, and that we cannot depend on law enforcement to faithfully uphold the law. Prejudice has too free a hand in our system.
And, here we are at the ethical juncture of it all that can lead the way to the execution or incarceration of someone who is innocent. May all who have been ill used by our flawed criminal justice system and the flawed lawyers and judges who secure its definition of being unfair, receive true justice.
This dashes all aspirations for residence in the governor's mansion, one hopes. A nice tiny cell would be more suitable for DA Weirich. Maybe even one for Judge Craft, or at least removal from his bench.
The great tragedy here as that all who study law and engage its system are not passionate about the thorough search for justice, are not committed to the discipline of their profession that requires them to embrace the tenet that justice is blind, and that we cannot depend on law enforcement to faithfully uphold the law. Prejudice has too free a hand in our system.
And, here we are at the ethical juncture of it all that can lead the way to the execution or incarceration of someone who is innocent. May all who have been ill used by our flawed criminal justice system and the flawed lawyers and judges who secure its definition of being unfair, receive true justice.
This dashes all aspirations for residence in the governor's mansion, one hopes. A nice tiny cell would be more suitable for DA Weirich. Maybe even one for Judge Craft, or at least removal from his bench.
10
In around 2000 a NYC taxi driver said to me "prosecutors are there to put people behind bars". The year before he had been set up by a prosecutor and his lawyer who had unlawfully provided the prosecutor documents about the driver's case and without the driver knowing it.
In Noura's case now, the question arises of why the state judge allowed the infamous prosecutor the final exclamation. Having followed similar cases over decades, I have seen judges allowing politically "flavored" prosecutors to ride the law.
Do we need an amendment to get rid of certain prosecutors who after their misdeeds in court continue to enjoy public support and political or government jobs. it's a shame.
In Noura's case now, the question arises of why the state judge allowed the infamous prosecutor the final exclamation. Having followed similar cases over decades, I have seen judges allowing politically "flavored" prosecutors to ride the law.
Do we need an amendment to get rid of certain prosecutors who after their misdeeds in court continue to enjoy public support and political or government jobs. it's a shame.
7
Most depressing to me is the fact that when it is revealed that prosecutors erred and convicted an innocent person, they never apologize. They double down, and continue to attack their victim.
14
When you read stories about prosecutors failing to release someone in prison even after they are exonerated by DNA evidence, then something is seriously broken in our system. It is the kind of "broken" that spawns a return to "maximum sentencing," calls for police to "play rough" with people they have arrested, use civil forfeiture as a piggy bank, uses stop and frisk as continual harassment, secretly condemns immigrants to immediate deportation without access to legal representation, and uses bail laws to enforce a form of fiscal slavery,
It is, in other words, the world view of Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump. It is the world view of dictators and despots.
It is, in other words, the world view of Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump. It is the world view of dictators and despots.
6
It's too bad that the punishment for this type of prosecutorial misconduct is not the not the same was as administered in the Count of Monte Cristo. There is no real life affecting penalty for this type of injustice and there should be.
2
I had a family member charged with murder just because the prosecutors didn't do their due diligence and examine evidence properly. They sat in jail for months based on false evidence. What the police thought was a boot mark on a jacket was in fact a tire mark from the person being run over. Months later when this was discovered they were let out of jail. This type of stuff happens ALL the time.
10
Prosecutorial "error?" This is not an error, it is an intentional abuse of power. If anything should be prosecuted, it is this violation of the right to a fair trial.
14
Amen. A true system of justice would send this Prosecutor to prison.
Hinted at in this excellent piece is the careerist nature of prosecutors' offices. District Attorneys have created a militaristic, hierarchical culture of us-against-them, we must win against the bad guys, which reflects many aspects of official culture in a polarized America. Think Congress. . .
How can a young prosecutor fail to fall in line? It would be career suicide.
How can a young prosecutor fail to fall in line? It would be career suicide.
9
The reward structure for prosecutors seems to be the whole problem here: too many prosecutors think that career advancement comes from convictions. There must be some way to adjust the reward structure for prosecutors so that their motivations are aligned with the behavior we want from them. The prosecutor Eric Gonzales says: '"My job is about doing justice, and that doesn’t just mean winning convictions." His is certainly a better model of the behavior we want from prosecutors than the corrupt and abusive behavior of Weirich. Don't tell me it's not possible to design a better system! The "justice" system is a deeply flawed human construct, and we ought to be taking advantage of the latest advances in behavioral research, instead of living in the dark ages.
6
What does the prosecutor care? There are no repercussions for their behavior. I don't know how someone who does something like this can live with themselves.
6
Why aren't prosecutors held to account for their wrongdoing that causes serious harm? For the same reason that cops are rarely punished for beating up and even killing suspects. Because we, the people, value perceived security over justice. The police and prosecutors are giving us just what we want.
4
I've come to a point where I can't distinguish between Russian and American society.
3
This "win at all costs" mentality has stolen years, decades, even lifetimes from innocent men and women. Is it zeal that makes prosecutor bury crucial evidence and continue the case in front of them instead of admitting they have the wrong guy? A belief that the evidence is wrong or just muddies the water of who so obviously did the crime? Or have they lost sight of their charge to represent the People in pursuing justice, which includes putting the actual perpetrator behind bars?
It's white collar crime at best and absolute evil at worst. If a prosecutor knowingly hides evidence that should free the accused, they must be punished. Like those who scam people out of their life savings, these dirty prosecutors end life of the innocent as they know it. After the trial, conviction, and time spent in prison, things will never be the same for them. They can never get that time back.
And yet, before we go storming the castle and punishing everyone in sight, let's not forget that mistakes can happen to the best of us and that not every prosecutor who convicted an innocent person did so on purpose. It's a difficult job with plenty of pressure to keep the criminals off the streets and to give the victim and the public some peace, while making certain the person they're prosecuting is actually guilty. Most of them deserve our thanks and praise. The others, however, need to be removed.
It's white collar crime at best and absolute evil at worst. If a prosecutor knowingly hides evidence that should free the accused, they must be punished. Like those who scam people out of their life savings, these dirty prosecutors end life of the innocent as they know it. After the trial, conviction, and time spent in prison, things will never be the same for them. They can never get that time back.
And yet, before we go storming the castle and punishing everyone in sight, let's not forget that mistakes can happen to the best of us and that not every prosecutor who convicted an innocent person did so on purpose. It's a difficult job with plenty of pressure to keep the criminals off the streets and to give the victim and the public some peace, while making certain the person they're prosecuting is actually guilty. Most of them deserve our thanks and praise. The others, however, need to be removed.
2
What the prosecutor considered to be another notch in her briefcase to promote her career (which she is apparently zealous about), meant something much more precious to her victim. There should be some penalty, although it won't help the accused. Perhaps a transfer of considerable funds from the prosecutor to the wrongfully prosecuted.
6
Prosecutorial misconduct and holding back of evidence happens all the time.
2
The only thing remarkable about this story is that the subject is a white woman. In an era in which people spend a good deal of time discussing privilege, one group of privileged individuals has tended to side-step critical commentary: white women. But when it comes to interactions with law enforcement and with the criminal justice system white women are by far and away the most leniently treated and most unlikely to be sent to prison for their crimes. This includes the many white women teachers who are caught having sex with teenage boys to women who commit (or participate) in violent crimes.
Highlighting prosecutorial misconduct through the story of a wrongly convicted white woman is like the changing narrative on drugs in America. When it was young black men using drugs, it was a problem that required giving military equipment and wide powers to local police department, coupled with lengthy prison sentences. However, as soon as the face of drug use became young white women, the narrative was changed to an "opioid crisis" requiring government resources for treatment and rehabilitation.
As a nation, we a loath to incarcerate white women, and the facts surrounding Noura Jackson's conviction do not change that reality.
Highlighting prosecutorial misconduct through the story of a wrongly convicted white woman is like the changing narrative on drugs in America. When it was young black men using drugs, it was a problem that required giving military equipment and wide powers to local police department, coupled with lengthy prison sentences. However, as soon as the face of drug use became young white women, the narrative was changed to an "opioid crisis" requiring government resources for treatment and rehabilitation.
As a nation, we a loath to incarcerate white women, and the facts surrounding Noura Jackson's conviction do not change that reality.
3
Sad, but common in every state and at the federal level. The myth that it is the rare prosecutor who does this is dangerously naïve.
What makes this newsworthy is not that it occurred, but that it was exposed and corrected. Yes, it happens more to the poor and minorities who are generally out-resourced, but the wealthy and powerful are often victims of prosecutorial misconduct too because they are bigger trophies to bag. Remember the late Sen. Ted Stevens? Until prosecutors and judges are punished severely for this kind of thing, it will continue.
What makes this newsworthy is not that it occurred, but that it was exposed and corrected. Yes, it happens more to the poor and minorities who are generally out-resourced, but the wealthy and powerful are often victims of prosecutorial misconduct too because they are bigger trophies to bag. Remember the late Sen. Ted Stevens? Until prosecutors and judges are punished severely for this kind of thing, it will continue.
5
How many withheld evidence cases do you think ended up with a death sentence? How do you undo that?
8
Here in God fearing country we have the highest convictions! Even if your innocent.
1
On top of the tragic situation which occurs when the innocent are falsely imprisoned and prosecutors go scott free, the tax-payers get stuck with both the cost of imprisonment and often huge financial settlements not to mention the loss of a potentially productive member of society. And the bar wants to eliminate the term "prosecutorial misconduct"? Let them pick up the tab!
9
To many prosecutors getting convictions is like a sport. Guilt or innocence is secondary.
They forget that they are public servants and that their missions is so set everything right and not to feed their own competitive egos.
When they encounter a defendant whom they think is innocent the right thing to do is to get the case dismissed and not proceed.
They forget that they are public servants and that their missions is so set everything right and not to feed their own competitive egos.
When they encounter a defendant whom they think is innocent the right thing to do is to get the case dismissed and not proceed.
12
Eric Gonzales says it all: being a prosecutor is supposed to be about finding the truth, not racking up convictions in a testament to their egos. But not many prosecutors understand that any more, and public figures like Nancy Grace have blurred the lines even more. The job of the prosecutor is to find the truth in the evidence supplied by the police, and the job of the defense attorney is to make sure that the evidence presented is sufficient for a conviction. If we remembered that, our justice system would be a lot less likely to imprison the innocent while simultaneously allowing the trail of the guilty to go cold.
6
In response to michele,Toronto:
You brought up another aspect, that of the local police who are equally motivated by shadowy reasons to aid a prosecutor in convictions only. I still have to see a policeman or the city he works for to be punished for withholding evidence from the prosecutor (who knows it) or supplying the prosecutor with false evidence while he knows it. When such cops and prosecutors are brought before the very same judge who decided the case, well, maybe our justice system will be better.
You brought up another aspect, that of the local police who are equally motivated by shadowy reasons to aid a prosecutor in convictions only. I still have to see a policeman or the city he works for to be punished for withholding evidence from the prosecutor (who knows it) or supplying the prosecutor with false evidence while he knows it. When such cops and prosecutors are brought before the very same judge who decided the case, well, maybe our justice system will be better.
While I take issue with minimizing the pain of nine lost years by calling the victim a "pouty white princess" it is true that this happens far more often, and disproportionately to working class people of color. Consider:
If someone is caught drunk driving, it probably means they do it a lot and only a small percentage get caught. Why assume that? Because if even 1/10 got caught and punished, people would stop doing it. The odds of getting caught are too high. If someone is caught "shoplifting" from a store, chances are they do it a lot. Why assume that? Because if even 1/10 shoplifting attempts get caught, word would get out and people would not want to take that chance. Same is true of heroin or cocaine dealers -- chances are for every one that gets caught, there must be at least ten incidents -- maybe twenty, who knows -- where someone never gets caught, because who would take that risk if the chances on getting caught are so high?
So what does that imply about the publicized cases of intentional police or court misconduct?
If someone is caught drunk driving, it probably means they do it a lot and only a small percentage get caught. Why assume that? Because if even 1/10 got caught and punished, people would stop doing it. The odds of getting caught are too high. If someone is caught "shoplifting" from a store, chances are they do it a lot. Why assume that? Because if even 1/10 shoplifting attempts get caught, word would get out and people would not want to take that chance. Same is true of heroin or cocaine dealers -- chances are for every one that gets caught, there must be at least ten incidents -- maybe twenty, who knows -- where someone never gets caught, because who would take that risk if the chances on getting caught are so high?
So what does that imply about the publicized cases of intentional police or court misconduct?
3
Because a million died-
What?!? Your comment makes no sense at all. Your first paragraph makes it sound like your second is going to be about "working class people of color". However, your second paragraph is about something completely different, and it borders on incomprehensible.
What?!? Your comment makes no sense at all. Your first paragraph makes it sound like your second is going to be about "working class people of color". However, your second paragraph is about something completely different, and it borders on incomprehensible.
1
quite ambitious people are caught up in their own record and career that they forget about the the other people whose life they often destroy. this is the problem with our system.
1
In response to Bjk,Istanbul:
they don't just get caught up in their careers, they just do it on purpose.
they don't just get caught up in their careers, they just do it on purpose.
This is top-notch writing, a compelling story and much food for thought.
13
Three and a half years in jail awaiting trial??! Goes strongly against the 6th Amendment to the u.s. Constitution.
19
I have no faith in the criminal justice system and would be very afraid if I ever found myself caught up in it. And I am white, middle aged with resources.
17
Noura Jackson's predicament is not unusual and has been going on for a long time. See Miller vs. Pate, 386 U.S. 1. Prosecutors are the only agency of government who get no supervision and no criticism from legislatures. Prosecutors willingly put on cases which, if tried by civil lawyers on the same facts, would result in sanctions.
And John/Joanna Q. Public doesn't care what prosecutors do or don't do unless and until s/he has to deal with one.
And John/Joanna Q. Public doesn't care what prosecutors do or don't do unless and until s/he has to deal with one.
5
Based on bitter personal experience in civil matters and this being a chapter in a book I am writing on the social contract, I do have a comment. The foundational issue in matters like this regardless of they being a civil or criminal case is what I call the "lawyerly reflex". That reflex being the overwhelming need to "win" as opposed to seeking justice. The truth of this is borne out in Brian's comments below - 75% of prosecutors seek to "win" rather than seek the truth. And, the same is true for civil cases where future employment depends on "success" not truth and much less justice. The net result of this being the undermining of the already ragged and diminished American socil contract thanks to lawyers.
6
While they may not talk until their deathbeds, a very interesting and revealing study may be to ask those prosecutors what their motivation was. Was it to close a case? To gain prominence? To prove to the public their worth? Hatred and bigotry for whatever reason?
One's brain never likes to think of oneself as either bad nor making bad choices, with change being not a sign of wisdom and study, but of error early on. Therefore we continue to manipulate what we know so we see it as supporting our behavior and inner gut feelings.
In these cases, might it be that the prosecutors let their egos and their inability to say they were wrong or got started on a wrong path, thereby dooming innocent people to serve time or worse, death, with no real consequences upon themselves? Can they sleep at night?
One's brain never likes to think of oneself as either bad nor making bad choices, with change being not a sign of wisdom and study, but of error early on. Therefore we continue to manipulate what we know so we see it as supporting our behavior and inner gut feelings.
In these cases, might it be that the prosecutors let their egos and their inability to say they were wrong or got started on a wrong path, thereby dooming innocent people to serve time or worse, death, with no real consequences upon themselves? Can they sleep at night?
86
In response to Dale, Wisconsin:
Forget about the serve and protect when it comes to prosecutors and the police. They eye personal interests and the serve political interests, justice takes second stage.
Forget about the serve and protect when it comes to prosecutors and the police. They eye personal interests and the serve political interests, justice takes second stage.
I have another answer for you. Prosecutors and police often feel that these suspects are bad people. With that judgement as a starting point they decide that the suspect is probably guilty; but even if not guilty of this crime, they still belong in jail, so society and justice are still well served by locking them up.
While I'm sure there are likely some more nefarious examples of prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense, I would suspect that often it is a case of the prosecutor being so convinced of the defendant's guilt that they simply do not believe the evidence in question is material and needs to be turned over. The simple solution to that is, of course, the open file system that is mentioned in this article. But, as also pointed out by this article, the problem with an open file system is that it only works/is fair if the file is complete. While it would be incredibly hard to prove that exculpatory evidence were missing from a file, to the extent you could that would certainly look more damning than the situation with a system where the prosecutor has discretion to turn the evidence over.
1
Eventually certain prosecutors are criminals protected by the judiciary system.
7
NO, she went to jail because her prosecutor and judge wanted to put her in jail w/o evidence.
There seems to be no standard of "Beyond reasonable doubt" here.
It's a career and fame game for prosecutor and judges while playing with people's lives.
There seems to be no standard of "Beyond reasonable doubt" here.
It's a career and fame game for prosecutor and judges while playing with people's lives.
7
Agreed. Neither the Prosecutor or the Judge in this case are fit to practice law.
2
Do prosecutors really want justice? An innocent person was convicted, but it is also important to remember that someone got away with murder.
9
"By the time Noura Jackson’s conviction was overturned, she had spent nine years in prison. This type of prosecutorial error is almost never punished" (NYT). The purpose of law is justice. The duty of lawyers is the production of justice. This includes both criminal and civil justice. This does not require the hiding of pertinent evidence or the forcing of plea bargains on innocent victims. This also does not require media adds bragging on both sides of a bus how much money the lawyer got for a client nor that they are an "A Aggressive Attorney". I am a retired physician and I have reviewed over 200 medical malpractice suits. Very few of them had any merit. The lies and distortion blatently presented as truth to a carefully selected lay person jury by plaintiffs' attorneys is truly mind boggling. Medical tort reform, necessary for any kind of affordable care act to succeed, has been blocked by the lawyers' lobbying strength for decades. It is possible for a legal system to provide justice, but not until it places justice before personal gain. Don't lawyers have this fundamental duty to all of our citizens????
4
Wonder if a Federal Civil rights violation suit against Amy Weirich and the Memphis prosecutor's office for their part in setting a pattern of this kind of evidence tampering would fly?
In some states in might work well for the victim. What about Tennessee?
Sometimes there are Legislative immunity protections of these prosecutors.
At any rate, the practice is SO commonplace simply because accountability is not a public concern of local or state government. Guilty until proven otherwise is really the underlying mode of op and the public want to know that crime does not pay and the perps get their just desserts. The key issue always seems to be "closed DA files" holding hidden or distorted evidence that defense lawyers cannot access and thus are blindsided.
So Weirich's blatant disregard of Noura's right to remain silent should have caused a motion for declaration of a mistrial granted and a new trial set.
Here we have a beautiful young lady whose life was ruined, whose PTSD and loss of personal identity will haunt her for the rest of her life and nothing can be done?
No mention in the article of civil remedies or any path to justice.
When if ever will this end?
In some states in might work well for the victim. What about Tennessee?
Sometimes there are Legislative immunity protections of these prosecutors.
At any rate, the practice is SO commonplace simply because accountability is not a public concern of local or state government. Guilty until proven otherwise is really the underlying mode of op and the public want to know that crime does not pay and the perps get their just desserts. The key issue always seems to be "closed DA files" holding hidden or distorted evidence that defense lawyers cannot access and thus are blindsided.
So Weirich's blatant disregard of Noura's right to remain silent should have caused a motion for declaration of a mistrial granted and a new trial set.
Here we have a beautiful young lady whose life was ruined, whose PTSD and loss of personal identity will haunt her for the rest of her life and nothing can be done?
No mention in the article of civil remedies or any path to justice.
When if ever will this end?
211
Prosecutors are one of the least accountable abusers of enormous power in this country. Here is a story of one such prosecutor that will turn your stomach if you are one who believes injustice should never be countenanced. I think a prosecutor who routinely over-charges people in order to facilitate plea deals or who withhold potentially exculpatory evidence ought to be given a taste of his or her own unjust medicine: a mandatory lengthy prison sentence. Maybe then we'd see people charged and prosecuted for crimes they actually committed; acquitted when they deserved to be; or found guilty after a genuinely fair trial.
There is a civil rights case available, but it is only civil damages. No direct or even indirect negative consequences for the prosecutor, who, I am sure, is popular because she gets convictions. Although we pay lip service to due process and presumption of innocence, the fact is that our society has a lot of punishers in it who would rather destroy an innocent life than let any guillty person go free.
1
The last time I looked, federal civil rights cases against prosecutors were not permitted (Imbler v Pachtman).
This case is gut-wrenching. Do American prosecutors have a low moral profile? Since I read about similar cases in different states I get the darn feeling it might be so.
5
A " Law and Order" Candidate, a wanna-be Governor, and certainly a Republican. You, Madam, belong in a Cell. With NO appeals, commutation
Or pardon. Seriously. This was an excellent, informative and wrenching story. Thank you.
Or pardon. Seriously. This was an excellent, informative and wrenching story. Thank you.
7
It seems that Ms. Jackson is more than just a survivor. It would have been nice to have seen a photo that portrayed her as a woman and not some sad-eyed waif. Otherwise, very good account of her case and the legal background to the laws that led to her freedom.
57
Uh, she is a woman. That she is sad-eyed goes without saying, and being skinny isn't against the law. Judge people much?
2
A picture might be an invasion of her privacy. We don't all need to see her in order to sympathize with what has happened to her in the State of Tennessee.
if you read the whole article, she wasn't exonerated. She took a plea thinking she would be released and somehow got spend more sweet time in prison. The fact that she was prosecuted again seems like a ego rematch that prosecutor played. A tool.
We've got to rein in police and prosecutors. For law-abiding citizens, it is easy to dismiss the problem of rogue police and prosecutors as it-will-never-happen-to-me. But it is not a rare event and it can happen to almost anyone other than the wealthy. And this problem is having a negative impact on the rule of law and democracy. Police and prosecutors should be civilly liable for their actions, just as doctors, lawyers, hair-dressers, and almost anyone else is. This would go a looooong way towards solving the problem.
4
Prosecutorial misconduct (manipulating evidence, failing to prosecute vigorously, failing to charge at all, manipulating grand jury outcomes) can also work to favor those defendants with whom the prosecution sympathizes, for example in police misconduct cases. George Zimmerman would have been convicted for the murder of Trayvon Martin if a determined prosecutor had presented the evidence differently.
5
Weirich disagrees, saying ‘‘Every assistant is told to do the right thing every day for the right reasons.’’ -- except her 'right reasons' are to get a conviction. The question is whether justice is better served by leaning towards convictions which sometimes include the innocent or towards acquittals which sometimes include the guilty. But in the former case, the guilty still get away with murder.
3
In this case the guilty did get away with murder, because the Prosecutor was more concerned with "winning" a trial than finding a murderer. It's a tragedy that the defendant was wrongly convicted, but it's a crime against society that prosecutorial misconduct ensured the real murderer (s) got away with it.
1
Sick and sad. Way too many Prosecutors use the office to leap frog into political power. It's a trend that we all need to be very skeptical of.
From Rudy Giuliani in NYC to Charles "Chuck" Rhoades Jr.,in Billions and hundreds of prosecutors in between, this trend is a springboard for ambition run amok, if not actual criminality.
From Rudy Giuliani in NYC to Charles "Chuck" Rhoades Jr.,in Billions and hundreds of prosecutors in between, this trend is a springboard for ambition run amok, if not actual criminality.
8
What a devastating article. This young woman's potential was destroyed out of other people's greed and need for glory. And they did this in the name of seeking justice for the woman who probably would have done anything to protect her daughter? Unbelievable. I hope Wierich is prosecuted and everyone involved, including the family members who assisted in Noura's character assassination, pay dearly. I even hope the sentence haunts the jury-- that they daily question whether or not they did what they could for this young woman. But most of all, I hope that having this very public article--now read around the world-- will help Noura somehow begin to recover, though she will never get back what was taken from her.
13
What's most devastating about this article from people who have followed the case for years is how biased and one sided it is. Please do research outside of this article people!
"Only a tiny number of prosecutors have been disbarred or jailed for withholding evidence."
Although a beautifully written article, I am disappointed with a glaring omission. Ms. Bazelon, how do you omit the DA (Mike Nifong) from the Duke Lacrosse case as a gross example of evidence withholding? Nifong withheld DNA, resulting in jail and disbarment. The cases that you refer to in your article garnered no where near as much attention. Thinking back to a recent podcast of yours in which you sparred with David Plotz about that case, it really comes as no surprise you omitted it.
Although a beautifully written article, I am disappointed with a glaring omission. Ms. Bazelon, how do you omit the DA (Mike Nifong) from the Duke Lacrosse case as a gross example of evidence withholding? Nifong withheld DNA, resulting in jail and disbarment. The cases that you refer to in your article garnered no where near as much attention. Thinking back to a recent podcast of yours in which you sparred with David Plotz about that case, it really comes as no surprise you omitted it.
1
How does your post have any bearing on the quote you post it under? I think you want to say something else but some how have missed or conflated that
NYT, please follow up this case! Let the readers know what happens next after the DNA samples are run through federal and state databases.
If the cops find a match and figure out who else may have been at the murder scene, that would be of tremendous importance, both to the case, the defendant and the public at large.
This case is fascinating from the perspective of false prosecutions, and also from the fact that daughters killing their mothers is extremely rare.
Given the circumstance and the facts, why did prosecutors carry a bias towards this woman, in this case?
Hopefully, more evidence and a possible DNA match will give us answers. And perhaps a clear and final exoneration for the defendant.
If the cops find a match and figure out who else may have been at the murder scene, that would be of tremendous importance, both to the case, the defendant and the public at large.
This case is fascinating from the perspective of false prosecutions, and also from the fact that daughters killing their mothers is extremely rare.
Given the circumstance and the facts, why did prosecutors carry a bias towards this woman, in this case?
Hopefully, more evidence and a possible DNA match will give us answers. And perhaps a clear and final exoneration for the defendant.
6
This type of egregious conduct that violates Constitutional protections has most likely a simple origin: cheating in law school. The general public is totally unaware of how academic cheating is rampant in law schools today. What a first-year law student learns even in law school in Washington, D.C. is that cheating pays off. That behavior culminates in wrongful convictions from suppressed evidence years later--from academic cheating to prosecutorial cheating. And the legal profession does nothing, just as it did when the cheat cheated in the first place.
2
I am "shocked" that prosecutors did this. Actually, I'm not.
Most, as I have had the good fortune to work with, are good, upstanding and very, very decent people.
The ones noted in this article? Not so much.
Occasionally, some see the need to notch a "Win" as more important than facts or common decency. Hopefully your article sheds light on her case, AND the shameless craven actions of those who put her in jail to get that "Win".
Most, as I have had the good fortune to work with, are good, upstanding and very, very decent people.
The ones noted in this article? Not so much.
Occasionally, some see the need to notch a "Win" as more important than facts or common decency. Hopefully your article sheds light on her case, AND the shameless craven actions of those who put her in jail to get that "Win".
2
As a practicing criminal defense attorney in Nashville I worry how pervasive this horror is around Tennessee and the country. The Jackson case is, fortunately rare, because it dwells on withheld evidence and prosecutorial misconduct during a trial. The only thing worse would have been a defense lawyer who didn't protect Jackson's rights on appeal. Jackson was lucky because her lawyer was aggressive and pushed the envelope. When folks disparage defense lawyers they should first read this article. Bravo. David Raybin, Nashville.
152
Connick v. Thompson 563 US 51 (2011).
1
I don't see how the U.S. is any better than Russia. Our criminal justice system is abused for personal gain - in this case, the prosecutor's political career - just like theirs.
1
What a fabulously written story. Unfortunately, my hopes of feeling good at the end as justice finally won, were dashed, as the sad state of our criminal justice system was laid out on display in all its ugly colors, and the sad story of an unjustly ruined life tear at the heart.
I hate to say it, but as the decency of our overall society continues to drop, so do the standards of our justice system - despite the fact that the laws on the book are much more favorable to the innocent victim than they ever were. The judges protect their own and the system. The law committees will not censure their fellow lawyers. The prosecutor will cheat if it will get him a conviction. And juries, which 30 years ago could be counted on making the right decision 90% of the time, can feel comfortable sending someone to a life in prison based on such an incredibly evidence-free case, simply because someone has to pay.
I hate to say it, but as the decency of our overall society continues to drop, so do the standards of our justice system - despite the fact that the laws on the book are much more favorable to the innocent victim than they ever were. The judges protect their own and the system. The law committees will not censure their fellow lawyers. The prosecutor will cheat if it will get him a conviction. And juries, which 30 years ago could be counted on making the right decision 90% of the time, can feel comfortable sending someone to a life in prison based on such an incredibly evidence-free case, simply because someone has to pay.
Vote for me, I'm tough on crime. Now, back to the local news sensationalizing a crime.
That's how the system works.
That's how the system works.
4
This is a very long account written, I believe, without a single quote from Ms. Weirich or anyone sympathetic to her. The writer describes herself as a liberal progressive voice on the law, Obviously, she's not going to sympathize with a Republican prosecutor. But she might offer her a chance to make a statement. I read another, briefer piece attacking Ms. Weirich -- she is definitely a controversial figure. But the other piece included pointed quotes from Ms. Weirich, telling her side of the story.
Ms. Bazelon, the author, is guilty of the same offense with which she charges Ms. Weirich -- not telling the whole story.
Ms. Bazelon, the author, is guilty of the same offense with which she charges Ms. Weirich -- not telling the whole story.
59
The value of this comment is summarized in the use of "Republican prosecutor", as if guilt or innocence depends on political affiliation. Pretend this is a
"Democratic prosecutor", would this then be a story of prosecutorial corruption?
"Democratic prosecutor", would this then be a story of prosecutorial corruption?
5
Except the reporters error is NOT a crime.
Free press means we expect different opinions and interpretations. Only if Ms. Bazelon willfully suppressed evidence resulting in false conviction of Ms. Weirich and 9 years of false incarsaration will there have been equivalency.
Weirich's suppression of evidence resulting in imprisonment is a felony.
Free press means we expect different opinions and interpretations. Only if Ms. Bazelon willfully suppressed evidence resulting in false conviction of Ms. Weirich and 9 years of false incarsaration will there have been equivalency.
Weirich's suppression of evidence resulting in imprisonment is a felony.
4
She interviewed Weirich last spring (see paragraph 8) and included several quotes from her in the story. The piece includes quotes from other representatives of the DA's office in support of Weirich's methods as well.
Ms. Bazelon and DA Weirich are not "guilty of the same offense," because Bazelon is not charging Weirich with "not telling the whole story". She is charging her with prosecutorial misconduct and the deliberate suppression of evidence damaging to the state's case in a murder trial. This suppression and misconduct are materially relevant to the subsequent finding of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Ms. Jackson spent nine years in prison as a result of Weirich's omissions. At worst, Bazelon's article will increase public outcry to open an inquiry into Weirich's practices as DA. If she is indeed above reproach in that regard she has nothing to worry about. If a judge were to find cause for criminal prosecution of Weirich this article would be LEGALLY suppressed as evidence in any proceeding. Weirich would benefit from the full presumption of innocence - a presumption she denied to Jackson.
Even if Bazelon and Weirich were "guilty" of the same offense, attorneys and courts bear the responsibility to uphold the precepts of the constitution and the right of the accused to due process. When a prosecutor ignores this it is a an abuse of power and an assault on the constitution. When a reporter does, it is cause for a civil libel case.
Ms. Bazelon and DA Weirich are not "guilty of the same offense," because Bazelon is not charging Weirich with "not telling the whole story". She is charging her with prosecutorial misconduct and the deliberate suppression of evidence damaging to the state's case in a murder trial. This suppression and misconduct are materially relevant to the subsequent finding of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Ms. Jackson spent nine years in prison as a result of Weirich's omissions. At worst, Bazelon's article will increase public outcry to open an inquiry into Weirich's practices as DA. If she is indeed above reproach in that regard she has nothing to worry about. If a judge were to find cause for criminal prosecution of Weirich this article would be LEGALLY suppressed as evidence in any proceeding. Weirich would benefit from the full presumption of innocence - a presumption she denied to Jackson.
Even if Bazelon and Weirich were "guilty" of the same offense, attorneys and courts bear the responsibility to uphold the precepts of the constitution and the right of the accused to due process. When a prosecutor ignores this it is a an abuse of power and an assault on the constitution. When a reporter does, it is cause for a civil libel case.
10
Unless we criminalize and enforce mandatory sentences for police planting false evidence and prosecutorial suppressing evidence there will be NO justice in America. The punishment should be equal to the years of false conviction plus a punitive doubling of the years resulting from fake convictions. This is a rare case where mandatory sentences would be an effective deterrent. Mandatory sentences for fake convictions will go a long way to raise the prestige of the police and entire judicial system and gain the trust of the public.
5
This is a well-written, thoughtful, and absorbing story. Very well done!
1
I have to disagree. As a native Memphian that has studied the case for years this article is very one sided, painted the way the author wants it to appear, and lacks so much information such as evidence in the trial that directly tied Noura to the murder.
Any prosecutor caught withholding evidence, whether they deem it crucial or otherwise, must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and imprisoned. Too many prosecutors are working to built their win/loss ratios so that they can either run for office, or be hired on by private law firm. That's not what the job's about, it's not what Justice is about, and it's not what the US Constitution is about.
2
As an attorney who has handled many of these cases, I can verify that these cases happen much more frequently than one would expect. Prosecutors and police officers withhold exculpatory evidence with surprising frequency. Often people ask, why would they risk their reputations and careers just to win a case? I don't have the answer to that. Most prosecutors and police officers are ethical, but one bad apple can send many innocent people to prison to serve life sentences.
2
This is a beautifully written and heartbreaking article. Thank you for publishing it. I don't know how to process DA Weirich's conduct, because I could never imaging working so diligently and destructively against Noura in these circumstances. I hope that Tennessee voters will keep this story in mind whenever they are asked to make decisions about her future as a public servant.
1
I worked as a trial attorney in the Criminal Division of the US DOJ in the early 1980s. In all the cases I was involved in prosecuting, open file discovery was the policy and the practice. I was proud to be part of all the high standards of seeking justice by the DOJ, especially as a young lawyer. I am confident these standards still are employed by career Justice lawyers. I hope the same ethics are finding their way to the top of the Department.
93
Interestingly enough, when we hear about such cases, they're usually at the state and local level, and not the federal level.
That alone is food for thought.
That alone is food for thought.
If you read a book titled License to Lie by Sidney Powell, published in 2014, you will change your mind. In considerable detail it lays out the extraordinary degree of corruption engaged in by DOJ lawyers in the course of prosecutions related to the Enron scandal and to the suborned perjury prosecution of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. All of their many convictions were tainted and later dumped, most notably for massive Brady violations but also for all sorts of other misconduct. At least as remarkable is that none of the offenders were disciplined; indeed, their careers flourished both in and out of the DOJ. The foreword to the book is by Chief Justice, ret., Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
This has been my experience at the federal level as well. In fact, I find that federal prosecutors more often err on the side of being not aggressive enough for fear the weaknesses of their case are exposed at trial. But that's in a well-functioning judicial system with incredibly bright prosecutors and a highly skilled judiciary and defense bar. The criminal justice system at the state level is another story entirely -- in some states, the local judiciary and DAs wouldn't have lasted a day at the kinds of law schools federal prosecutors go to. And they far more frequently hold people's lives in their hands. I do not know how they sleep at night.
I once did criminal defense work in upstate NY. Although most of the judges attempted to reach just decisions, there were others who obviously, for whatever reason, didn't. The same held true for prosecutors.
Authority breeds abuse in certain personalities. The impacts on innocent victims don't matter at all.
Authority breeds abuse in certain personalities. The impacts on innocent victims don't matter at all.
2
I've read stories such as this before, and it's the reason I will never serve on a jury.
4
This case is a microcosm of a much larger cancer of the US justice system. Culturally and politically, it reflects the false assumption that the US justice system is better than most other countries. The truth is prosecutorial misconduct is widespread and underreported. It is often corrupted by the symbiosis relationships between police and prosecutors. Consequently, the people who end up in prison are often innocent and poor.
When the innocents are wrongly convicted and sent to prison, the question that must be asked is is this system any different than the people's courts in China or the courts in Saudi Arabia or any authoritarian countries?
When the innocents are wrongly convicted and sent to prison, the question that must be asked is is this system any different than the people's courts in China or the courts in Saudi Arabia or any authoritarian countries?
344
I am saddened to read this story. Michael Morton has been a trailblazer for Texas, and his story continues to reverberate here. But there remains a reluctance for prosecutors in this state to admit their errors of fact, judgement, and justice served. Improvements, perhaps, but no wholesale change in a judicial process of winning over truth-seeking.
1
Yes, Paul, it is very different. There is no legal system in Saudi Arabia; Sheiks are the law known as Sharia. China is not much better, since the Central Government controls all aspects of civilian life. It is difficult to find a defense atty. who will take a case and who then might end up being prosecuted. The U.S. is based on Common Law and Civil Law, brought over from England and The Netherlands. We are not as fair as those European countries which allow a defendant to accompany the prosecution when they interview witnesses. And, at bottom, we have a hideous private prison system which operates on the basis of a guaranteed number of prisoners for profit. That is a big incentive for prosecutors to convict, even in minor marijuana cases. In fact, there are a disproportionate number of young black men whose only crime was selling pot on the street; these are not big time cartel dealers, they are poor minor players making street money. We need to go back to public prisons, Federal and State; we need to take the profit out of it. This is no different than the attempt to sell our public highways to the Saudis so they can collect tolls on our roads. We need to examine the current plutocracy in charge of the Federal government; we need to look closely at State legislatures and how they administer and pay for prisons. Isn't it enough that prisoners work producing items for sale, with little or no advantage for themselves, except for the pleasure of the work itself?
Some one who only wants to win, at all cost, is a poor excuse for a human. Especially if they are in law. Those type need to be sent to a country where there is a dictatorship, so they can hang every one,and feel they won every case.
I don't know the facts of the criminal justice system but it is plausible that 1 of 2 incarcerated either were totally without guilt in their convictions or were denied exculpatory evidence that would have denied their prosecutors a case.
That the premise of innocence is withheld is a common presumption, "otherwise than guilty, why would the defendant have been charged?"
There are principled prosecutors and defense attorneys whose case decisions backfire in unexpected ways. Nonetheless, this description of events illustrates the commonness of cases whose contrary dispositions were not at all unexpected, in many cases by the prosecution. How do they sleep?
Many of us do not have perfect vision and are haunted by ignominies that cannot be rationalized. Reason is un uneasy bedfellow, however it is our last, best defense against injustice. Those practicing reasonable arguments have the moral imperative to speak the truth else all hell breaks loose.
Noura Jackson's lost and damaged life cannot be healed, but we can offer our prayers that she will live another lifetime yet that will provide her with a stairway out of darkness.
That the premise of innocence is withheld is a common presumption, "otherwise than guilty, why would the defendant have been charged?"
There are principled prosecutors and defense attorneys whose case decisions backfire in unexpected ways. Nonetheless, this description of events illustrates the commonness of cases whose contrary dispositions were not at all unexpected, in many cases by the prosecution. How do they sleep?
Many of us do not have perfect vision and are haunted by ignominies that cannot be rationalized. Reason is un uneasy bedfellow, however it is our last, best defense against injustice. Those practicing reasonable arguments have the moral imperative to speak the truth else all hell breaks loose.
Noura Jackson's lost and damaged life cannot be healed, but we can offer our prayers that she will live another lifetime yet that will provide her with a stairway out of darkness.
4
There will never be any justice as long as money and power is so deliciously honored by our culture. Noura you deserve to have one hell of a happy miracle enter your life. Thank you Ms. Bazelon for pursuing this and I hope that you can stay with this kind of injustice research.
9
"Nina Morrison, of the Innocence Project, recently agreed to represent Noura in a bid to use DNA advancements over the last decade to determine *** who killed her mother***."
That's the flip side of this rush to imprison based on faulty evidence and prosecutor zeal: The guilty go free.
The law-and-order prosecutors don't mention that much, do they?
Disgusting.
That's the flip side of this rush to imprison based on faulty evidence and prosecutor zeal: The guilty go free.
The law-and-order prosecutors don't mention that much, do they?
Disgusting.
7
Exactly. The people who made this only child an orphan and set in motion the immense trauma and injustice she has ultimately suffered at the hands of the court not only go unpunished, but know they will remain unpunished. The state is not looking for them.
Prosecutors and others who favor strict "law and order" say that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the justice system. As this tragic case shows, nothing could be further from the truth. It is one of the reasons I donate to the Innocence Project.
54
How does a prosecutor live with herself after deliberately withholding evidence and going after someone who is innocent?!
How could she sleep comfortably at night or with her conscience -- especially knowing that the the real killers in these cases remain at large and free because she went after and convicted the wrong people simply to rack up points and publicity?!
Frighteningly, the prosecutor in question has repeatedly done this and even set a standard for doing it by her subordinates!
At one level, one wishes for karma; that she be prosecuted and jailed for something she didn't do... maybe then she'd see that she has been the evil one.
But we have the mercy she lacks. Truly, she should be removed from her position and find another line of work, perhaps as a legal assistant at low pay helping overturn convictions and freeing those wrongly convicted by immoral overzealous prosecutors!
What sets this article apart is its fascinating look at the history of the evolving standards of criminal proceedings -- and how backwards and laggardly the U.S. has been. It should give pause to all those who try justifying the status quo while ignoring how it oppresses people and devastates the innocent. We can and must do better in the criminal justice system and the social system at large!
How could she sleep comfortably at night or with her conscience -- especially knowing that the the real killers in these cases remain at large and free because she went after and convicted the wrong people simply to rack up points and publicity?!
Frighteningly, the prosecutor in question has repeatedly done this and even set a standard for doing it by her subordinates!
At one level, one wishes for karma; that she be prosecuted and jailed for something she didn't do... maybe then she'd see that she has been the evil one.
But we have the mercy she lacks. Truly, she should be removed from her position and find another line of work, perhaps as a legal assistant at low pay helping overturn convictions and freeing those wrongly convicted by immoral overzealous prosecutors!
What sets this article apart is its fascinating look at the history of the evolving standards of criminal proceedings -- and how backwards and laggardly the U.S. has been. It should give pause to all those who try justifying the status quo while ignoring how it oppresses people and devastates the innocent. We can and must do better in the criminal justice system and the social system at large!
723
Especially if we're going to stalk around the world accusing other nations of "human rights abuses" and taking measures against them as if we were some paragon of virtue.
1
How could she live with her conscience? Not unlike the person inhabiting the highest office in the land, she likely doesn't have one.
I wonder if this might be genetic in origin...
I wonder if this might be genetic in origin...
She can sleep at night because she's a Republican. Disregard for the truth seems to be in their DNA.
1
Amy Weirich and Judge Craft are apparently awful, awful people. I do believe in an afterlife and hope they will have to give account for this terrible thing they have done.
48
Godspeed, Ms. Jackson.
14
Imagine this is a white girl from a good family....then tell me people of color get a fair break by the mostly white prosecutors
51
As tragic as this is, there is nothing new here. It's important that stories like this get published, but a Google search for "wrongful convictions" will show that this has gone on for decades. Until legislatures are willing to pass laws to punish prosecutors, it will continue.
34
This piece is exemplifies thoroughness, precision and impeccable
presentation — commendable!
presentation — commendable!
27
If your were previously familiar with the case I promise you you would disagree. Ms. Bazelon, the author, is guilty of the same offense with which she charges Ms. Weirich -- not telling the whole story. Please do your research outside of this article. Substantial amount of important evidence and testimony casually not mentioned.
Heartbreaking story. An almost exact story as Rectify, the incredible series about a teenage wrongly convicted for murder
The DA is a disgrace. One can only hope that what goes around, comes around
The DA is a disgrace. One can only hope that what goes around, comes around
14
Prosecutors are rewarded for convictions, not justice. And legislatures are always willing to give them, and the police, more resources, while public defenders are starved.
Heaven help those unjustly accused and convicted. Willful railroading a defendant should be punished by a jail term equal to that wrongly served by their victim.
Heaven help those unjustly accused and convicted. Willful railroading a defendant should be punished by a jail term equal to that wrongly served by their victim.
82
Sadly, this has been going on a long time. Remember the Central Park Jogger case?
27
Judges have the authority to correct injustices in cases where exculpatory evidence (Brady material) is intentionally withheld. However, they rarely do. State court judges, most of whom face some form of election, are reluctant to reverse a conviction on a "technicality." It makes them look soft on crime. Most federal judges, though appointed for life, have been prosecutors. They simply look for reasons to affirm convictions. In the 11th Circuit, where I practice (Fla., Ga., Ala.) a reversal basic upon a Brady violation is virtually nonexistent. Not only must we prove exculpatory evidence was withheld, we must also establish that it would have affected the outcome and would have resulted in an acquittal. Having proven that, the conviction will likely be affirmed on "harmless error" grounds, since the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Welcome to my world.
40
The problem is broader than the withholding of evidence. The belief that the adversarial process will reliably lead to a just outcome is flawed, and one should never rely on information obtained through such a process. If called for jury duty you should tell the court you will not make a decision about whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty based on information filtered through the trial process. If you do, you will be shooting in the dark. You will be unable to effectively evaluate the honesty of witnesses, ignorant of decisions to exclude evidence, unaware of undiscovered evidence, and will be swayed by your own prejudices and ignorance. On appellate review any challenge to the honesty of a prosecutor or to an erroneous conviction will be heard by a judiciary predisposed to uphold the conviction so as to reinforce the credibility of the judicial system. Not only is there a seious question of whether the system is effective at discovering the truth, but there is also a question of basic fairness - with overcharging, mandatory minimum sentences, and racial disparities, once a jury does reach a guilty verdict, the punishment will often not fit the crime. When the failures are made more apparent by forensic advances, prosecutors often seek to limit the use of science in the courtroon as was shown by Attorney General Sessions in his decision to not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science.
36
This story makes one feel so helpless. Getting involved in the Innocence Project is one way to work with the emotions that come up from reading the story. The reader experiences in a small way the same frustration and pain that the defendant must have felt in being unable to testify on her own behalf, unable to even allow herself the grief of her mother's death. And then taking the lower road at the end in order to be released...
All cases like this, no matter who is involved, demonstrate the extreme fragility of our communal welfare. We are dependant on a system that needs constant maintenance and improvement and oversight. It's a good system, but it can't run on its own momentum without vigilance. Thank you for this article.
All cases like this, no matter who is involved, demonstrate the extreme fragility of our communal welfare. We are dependant on a system that needs constant maintenance and improvement and oversight. It's a good system, but it can't run on its own momentum without vigilance. Thank you for this article.
299
I'm sorry, but the fact that people like the prosectors in this case are allowed to get away with their crimes makes me question your assessment that we have a "good system."
1
The "Plea Bargain" must be ended. The fact that the prosecutors could keep her jailed for years and years even though all evidence pointed to her innocence waiting for and during a new trial is the only reason she took the plea. This is the same reason 99.9999999998% of defendants take pleas.
What about keeping her in jail for 3 years awaiting her first trial! There is something very wrong in how the system is being used by Judges and prosecutors.
What about keeping her in jail for 3 years awaiting her first trial! There is something very wrong in how the system is being used by Judges and prosecutors.
1
And it can't be run by those who refuse to follow The Golden Rule. I can't think of another profession where that principle is as paramount as it is must be in our courtrooms.
Prosecutors who withhold evidence should be prosecuted themselves. This kind of behavior not only breaks the law but brings it into disrepute. Win and lose cannot be the measure of prosecutorial success. Justice must be.
Once sees so many of these examples and then we compare those cases wherein the Rick and powerful never even get charged! It's appalling. No one should be "too big to jail".
Once sees so many of these examples and then we compare those cases wherein the Rick and powerful never even get charged! It's appalling. No one should be "too big to jail".
25
Great article. A big key to reforming our justice system concerns changing the role of prosecutors who must work to seek the truth in cases rather than to win at all costs.
10
In my amateur understanding, in England suspects are not required to answer police questions, but they are warned that a jury may hold their recalcitrance against them. Here, in America, refusal to cooperate is free, since juries are instructed not to hold lack of cooperation against defendants. So lawyers strongly advise almost all clients to say nothing, throwing giant barriers in the way of law enforcement..
I understand why suspects might need a lawyer by their side when being questioned; after all police often overstep. But in the vast majority of crime investigations, the British rule seems more effective in solving crimes while still minimizing injustice.
I understand why suspects might need a lawyer by their side when being questioned; after all police often overstep. But in the vast majority of crime investigations, the British rule seems more effective in solving crimes while still minimizing injustice.
2
"Here, in America, refusal to cooperate is free, since juries are instructed not to hold lack of cooperation against defendants. So lawyers strongly advise almost all clients to say nothing, throwing giant barriers in the way of law enforcement.."
"But in the vast majority of crime investigations, the British rule seems more effective in solving crimes while still minimizing injustice."
We fought a war of independence against the British and wrote a Constitution to deal with these issues (among other things).
Please go read the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in part "nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment
So far, the Supreme Court has upheld this.
"But in the vast majority of crime investigations, the British rule seems more effective in solving crimes while still minimizing injustice."
We fought a war of independence against the British and wrote a Constitution to deal with these issues (among other things).
Please go read the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in part "nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment
So far, the Supreme Court has upheld this.
It seems to me that there could be a big difference between a suspect answering police questions versus a defendant deciding whether or not to take the stand. At least on American TV, the reason why suspects are told not to say anything unless their lawyer is present is that American police are allowed to use trickery, including outright lies, to elicit information from suspects. The presence of a lawyer tends to mitigate that practice and to ensure that the suspect's rights are protected. Once a case is in court, the decision whether or not to have the defendant testify on their own behalf is largely strategic: what is the best way to present the defense's response to the accusations, and how best to undercut the prosecution's case. Sometimes the testimony of the defendant isn't necessary and by not testifying, the defendant avoids being cross-examined. In England, the main significance of the caution regarding using a suspect's silence against them in court is that they can claim the defendant had time to make up a story. Any competent trial lawyer (or literate adult, for that matter) could easily and honestly defend against the logic underlying such an attack (e.g., “For some reason, the police seemed to think that I committed this crime. Before I said anything, I knew that I needed to understand how in the world they could have reached such a ridiculous conclusion.”).
1
The price we pay for our bill of rights is not cheap. Some guilty may escape but I am willing to pay the price to keep the bill of rights
1
Every system is perfectly designed to deliver the outcomes it does...In the case of the criminal justice system the reward system drives guilty verdicts. If the rewards for prosecutors were equally attractive for guilty and non-guilty verdicts we probably would see a drastically lower number of guilty verdicts which are based on prosecutorial misbehavior.
13
Once the decision has been made to prosecute, the prosecutor represents the government side trying to prove guilt. The defense side represents the other side. Until the decision is made to prosecute, no stance is taken, only looking at evidence is done to see if a case needs to be brought forward. We don't hear about the cases that are not seen as being viable usually. Many different people maybe looked at as to who may have done something. What does need to done is harsh punishment for any intentional prosecutor malfeasance. And yes with prosecutors sometimes being elected in places, guilty verdicts brings rewards. Much easier to run saying I solved and got a guilty verdict as to this or that case rather than saying I found nobody to charge.
The prosecutors and police I have known (and I have known many) all consider the law as something they use, not something they live under. A prosecutor and a policeman never met a person who wasn't guilty. This deep-seated cynicism also causes their moral bankruptcy. They break the law because they don't respect it. They are in the club, the club that is on the inside, that protects them. It's all a game, and they are the refs.
Welrich merely reflects the cookie-cutter of the politically ambitious DA shark.
Welrich merely reflects the cookie-cutter of the politically ambitious DA shark.
40
And the reason it continues is because prosecutors are not punished for this behavior. Attorneys that engage in this type of behavior need to (1) lose the right to practice law and (2) face criminal and civil penalties.
Until there are severe punishments many staff attorneys may succumb to pressure to get the conviction on the case that is all over the media.
Until there are severe punishments many staff attorneys may succumb to pressure to get the conviction on the case that is all over the media.
27
Sadly, the court system is just another racket controlled by prosecutors and plaintiff's attorneys in many states.
6
Plaintiffs are parties in CIVIL cases. This is a criminal case.
I know that. Prosecutors and plaintiff's attorneys both militate for judges who consider defendants guilty until proven innocent . They are the ranks many judges come from.
1
A travesty; lawyers need to be held accountable for their behavior, and not by other lawyers, by a system of logic and reason. No one should use a case to bolster their career, and that's what this lawyer did. Shame on the prosecutor and the judge.
13
The politicisation of prosecutorial office's in the USA is a large part of the problem. The UK model is that the Government appoints a Director of Public Prosecutions after a competitive interview process. All the people who work for the DPP are civil servants - there is no incentive to over prosecute, no incentive to seek victory at the expense of justice. Crucially, the DPP hires attorneys (barristers) to prosecute specific cases in conjunction with their office - this means the lead advocate is a self employed attorney who works for either side depending on the case. They may even do civil law cases too. No incentive for anyone to abuse the system.
The public have faith in the system without the need for political oversight of the prosecutors office. It means prosecutors aren't public figures.
There is simply no reason why a District Attorney should be an elected office. And if it is, there is no reason for every prosecutor to be full time employees of that office.
The public have faith in the system without the need for political oversight of the prosecutors office. It means prosecutors aren't public figures.
There is simply no reason why a District Attorney should be an elected office. And if it is, there is no reason for every prosecutor to be full time employees of that office.
18
Land of the free*.
* Conditions apply. Federal and State Governments reserve the right to remove freedom when in the interest of the careers of Federal and State Government employees. Freedom once removed may not be returned. Level of freedom may go down as well as up. Citizens may not receive all their freedoms back upon the event of administrative error. Your statutory rights are badly effected.
* Conditions apply. Federal and State Governments reserve the right to remove freedom when in the interest of the careers of Federal and State Government employees. Freedom once removed may not be returned. Level of freedom may go down as well as up. Citizens may not receive all their freedoms back upon the event of administrative error. Your statutory rights are badly effected.
6
Should there not be a law that states when a person in the enforcement industry (from police through judge) is found guilty by a jury to have withheld, altered, manipulated, or destroyed evidence contrary to the benifit of the defendant, the enforcement person should face the same punishment as if they were the original defendant?
7
EJ, there is such a law: If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong...the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother...Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 19:16-19.
However perjury laws, like taxes, are only for the "little people." They certainly doesn't apply to cops or prosecutors, who can and do get away with murder--often literally.
However perjury laws, like taxes, are only for the "little people." They certainly doesn't apply to cops or prosecutors, who can and do get away with murder--often literally.
3
This is a brilliant and moving article. I try to imagine those years in prison and marvel that a person wrongfully accused could live through them without losing herself entirely. I'm hoping Noura finds a way forward--somehow ends up in a family since family love is what she craves. The story of those nine/ten years keeps playing in my mind.
15
Withholding evidence should be a crime, with no government immunity protection of individual prosecutors, and the penalty should be the same imprisonment or punishment suffered as a result of the withholding.
15
I'm not qualified to judge the complexity that servants of the criminal justice system (both prosecutorial and defense) must operate under.
I can however state, unequivocally, that I feel deeply for this young woman who has lost so much of her past, present and future to the machinations of a system that she surely could not have understood.
I hope for better things in her future. I hope she is able to find some path to a happy life.
I can however state, unequivocally, that I feel deeply for this young woman who has lost so much of her past, present and future to the machinations of a system that she surely could not have understood.
I hope for better things in her future. I hope she is able to find some path to a happy life.
507
And the prosecutor gets to move on to the next victim?
That's what a happy ending is supposed to look like?
That's what a happy ending is supposed to look like?
1
Would it change your mind if you learned about more incriminating evidence against Noura that was not covered in this article?
Anyone wonder what happened to her mothers estate. Who got the money and property. May have been a motivation to portray this young women as an "out of control" person by some family members.
Everyone in this case seems to have had a motivation and something to gain by her conviction. Even the possible REAL killer. Cases like this make no logical sense but when in the hands of highly motivated prosecutors conviction of a totally innocent person is a slam dunk. Given that the States' Attorney is judged on convictions and not being an honest broker looking for the truth makes the entire system suspect. Judges should be more diligent in overseeing what is presented within their courtrooms. Everyone seems to profit by conviction except the innocent. Convicting an innocent individual should come with way more consequences then it currently does.
Everyone in this case seems to have had a motivation and something to gain by her conviction. Even the possible REAL killer. Cases like this make no logical sense but when in the hands of highly motivated prosecutors conviction of a totally innocent person is a slam dunk. Given that the States' Attorney is judged on convictions and not being an honest broker looking for the truth makes the entire system suspect. Judges should be more diligent in overseeing what is presented within their courtrooms. Everyone seems to profit by conviction except the innocent. Convicting an innocent individual should come with way more consequences then it currently does.
1
Culpability in this case begins with Weirich, includes the second prosecutor, Jones, Judge Craft and whomever misled the defense attorneys.. This gang of pros were more interested in self-aggrandizing, hammering convictions, protecting themselves by any means necessary than the responsibility of seeking justice and ethical behavior. What role did local news organizations fanning fears of the public demanding this crime be solved play? It is a problem in the process of seeking justice but the decision to commit crimes against the people by misbehavior or criminal act seems to be the acts of unethical officers of the court. In ethics classes in law school one hopes they consider the role of dual relationships, the slippery slope and the costs to the defendants of secondary gain. No doubt, the people deserve better.
5
I agree with the author that progress is being made in the operation of our criminal justice system. But we have to remember that the baseline from which we are measuring this change is one that consistently fell below our constitutional standards. We are only now getting to where we should have been in 1963.
Also the use of ethics charges against prosecutors remains extremely rare. And even when it is used the results, like this case are often a simple reprimand or no punishment at all. This is not much of a deterrent for overzealous offices that often launch political careers.
I'm not arguing that every case that's overturned because of a Brady violation should go to an ethics committee. Honest mistakes do happen. But while honest mistakes may lie at one end of the spectrum, negligence and 'intentional mistake' lie at the other and like Noura can cost years of an innocent persons life.
Last week President Trump complained that the laws were against the police. Any fair reading of our criminal law and procedure point in the exact opposite direction. Nora's case is but one of very many examples of that.
Hopefully this trend toward reform will continue. It is long overdue and like Noura has wrecked many lives, including those of victims who discover that their or their loved ones real assailant is still at large.
Also the use of ethics charges against prosecutors remains extremely rare. And even when it is used the results, like this case are often a simple reprimand or no punishment at all. This is not much of a deterrent for overzealous offices that often launch political careers.
I'm not arguing that every case that's overturned because of a Brady violation should go to an ethics committee. Honest mistakes do happen. But while honest mistakes may lie at one end of the spectrum, negligence and 'intentional mistake' lie at the other and like Noura can cost years of an innocent persons life.
Last week President Trump complained that the laws were against the police. Any fair reading of our criminal law and procedure point in the exact opposite direction. Nora's case is but one of very many examples of that.
Hopefully this trend toward reform will continue. It is long overdue and like Noura has wrecked many lives, including those of victims who discover that their or their loved ones real assailant is still at large.
6
There is no such thing as an "honest mistake." That phrase conflates the idea of intent (or the lack thereof) with error. An error is an error, no mens rea is required to commit one. The idea of "honest mistakes" is often use to dismiss or minimize the impact that mistakes have on the lives of actual people.
If a prosecutor commits a mistake they should be held accountable for it. We can of course determine the severity of the punishment doled out for a mistake considering factors such as the impact that it had on others and the likelihood of the prosecutor committing the same mistake in the future but let's not give a pass on harm by adding the word "honest" in front of it.
If a prosecutor commits a mistake they should be held accountable for it. We can of course determine the severity of the punishment doled out for a mistake considering factors such as the impact that it had on others and the likelihood of the prosecutor committing the same mistake in the future but let's not give a pass on harm by adding the word "honest" in front of it.
3
Do not overlook the fact that she spent THREE and A HALF YEARS in jail awaiting trial. Her crime? Not being rich enough to afford bail. She was jailed for years just because she had no money. How can we deprive citizens of their freedom? Is innocent before proven guilty only for the rich?
143
And then it took how many years for the state Supreme Court to overturn the conviction?
Thank you for doing something that our democracy allows: using the voice of the press to tell the story. It is not a legal adjudication, but it is a compelling narrative that engenders compassion for Noura, and truth and compassion together are so powerful. It is crucial for our community to remember the inherent "wonkiness" of the law, and the fragility of condemnation. And the forces of redemption, including narratives like this one.
7
Anyone who doesn't feel the US justice system isn't broken has had no experience with it. There really are templates that are used by public defenders, who often show up in court to represent 50 people they've never met. They meet with them just before they go before the judge and advise them to plead guilty because there is no chance they will win. Even if you have the money to pay for a defense, getting someone competent is an issue unless you can afford a very large retainer and fee. So there may be justice, but only for those who can afford it.
14
I really do not understand how someone can be so predatory with other's lives and not hate themselves to their very core.
In my view, the sole difference between most criminals and most law enforcement - especially prosecutors - is who gets the legitimacy of government and courts. The behaviors between the two groups very often are identical.
In my view, the sole difference between most criminals and most law enforcement - especially prosecutors - is who gets the legitimacy of government and courts. The behaviors between the two groups very often are identical.
11
Agreed. People like Ms Weirich have no moral compass and are, consequently, a danger to our society on par with the "criminals" they prosecute.
2
This is part of the reason I oppose the death penalty. It's too easy for prosecutors, especially agressive, ambitious prosecutors, to convict innocent people. The police do their part, too, coaching witnesses to be more positive in their testimony than they have the right to be, for instance. Enforcing the death penalty is irrevocable, even if the defendant is later proven to be innocent.
21
I have had my experience with prosecutorial misconduct in a case where the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting a young teen. I was a witness for the defense and the prosecutor in that case approached me when I was standing in a corridor of the courtroom, to ask me inappropriate questions about what I was going to say, suggesting she would deal if I had dirt on the defendant. I refused to talk to her but the experience was chilling, all the worse because it happened in the courtroom. Prosecutorial misconduct is not at all uncommon. Witness intimidation, implicit bias, blind ambition to rack up convictions, collusion with the police, plainly cooking up evidence, withholding vital evidence, not believing evidence that is obviously exculpatory, and a messianic zeal for putting away "bad folks" to clean up society, all play a role in prosecutorial misconduct. This bad behavior on the part of prosecutors must be deterred by prosecuting prosecutors who are scofflaws, trying them and removing their licenses to practice law. The law boards do not want to move against one of their own. There can be no worse crime than putting someone in jail for something they did not do. Weirich was a zealot and she took nine years of Noura's life and all she suffered was impunity. Open file policy should be mandated in every state. When the wrong person is sent to jail for a serious crime, then the criminal goes free and the purpose of justice is ill served twice.
16
At the beginning of every felony trial the presiding judge should require that the investigating police and the prosecuting attorneys should be forced to make an opening statement under oath that they have given all evidence in the case to the defendant's attorneys under penalty of automatic loss of job for the police and disbarment for the attorney.
District attorneys should be appointed not elected. Hammer awards should not exist in a "Justice" system.
"Criminal Justice" should not mean that the prosecutors are criminals.
District attorneys should be appointed not elected. Hammer awards should not exist in a "Justice" system.
"Criminal Justice" should not mean that the prosecutors are criminals.
9
Why is there no regulatory agency to oversee prosecutors? Most fields that have power over people's lives (e.g., medicine) are heavily-regulated.
9
The regulatory agency is the same for all lawyers: the state bar association. Prosecutors engaging in deliberate misconduct like this should be permanently disbarred.
In the case of prosecutor error, their minimum mandatory punishment should be immediate and permanent disbarment. If it can be established that their actions were intentional, they should have to serve a sentence identical to that of the falsely accused (plus disbarment).
10
Lawyers judging lawyers. Cops judging cops. Medical malpractice boards made up of doctors.
Why do we allow groups to regulate and discipline their own members' malfeasance? And why is everyone surprised when the outcome is no punishment?
It's especially egregious in the case of prosecutorial misconduct as there's no neutral space to evaluate it.
Why do we allow groups to regulate and discipline their own members' malfeasance? And why is everyone surprised when the outcome is no punishment?
It's especially egregious in the case of prosecutorial misconduct as there's no neutral space to evaluate it.
4
I was so moved by Noura's plight and feel strongly that Weirich has harmed many lives by her prosecutorial misconduct that I just called her office to leave a message expressing those feelings. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one picked up the phone and her voice mail is full and cannot accept new messages.
11
I just called Amy Weirich's office and left a message with a human being, expressing disgust and horror regarding her conduct as a prosecutor. Told the person on the phone that I read the story in today's New York Times. Was asked for my phone number, gave it and my full name. Likely it will mean nothing to Amy Weirich, but I feel better for getting that off my chest.
Oh lovely Noura, how I pray that every day you have will be better than the dark days of the past. May all you have lost be restored to you, inshallah.
Oh lovely Noura, how I pray that every day you have will be better than the dark days of the past. May all you have lost be restored to you, inshallah.
1
Please educate yourself more on this crime. This article is very biased and leaves out so much information and evidence that directly linked Noura to the crime. I am from Memphis and everyone here knows she is guilty. The trial is online..as well as transcripts. She is not innocent and never showed remorse for her dear mother.
When I first met my divorce lawyer, he asked me "Who do you know?" Later I figured out what this (ham-handed thought it was) meant. Since it seemed like I was not connected to powerful people, he could take it easy on my case and not worry about repercussions.
This is a small example of the bias that makes the criminal justice system so unfair to minorities and the poor and anyone unlikely to be able to fight back, The disparities every step of the way, from pulling someone over to arrest to sentencing, are horrifying.
In Noura's case there were more injustices than just the prosecution's conduct. The lack of medical care is in humane. And if she had gone to trial and been exonerated, would she have received reparations for her years in prison?
In my case, at the last minute, I discovered that the man leading a church group I was in was a close friend of the judge and he agreed to come to the trial with me. My lawyer tried to discourage me from bringing him, trying to save his own reputation at my expense. If you're not the "right" sort of person, you are in great danger from our justice system.
This is a small example of the bias that makes the criminal justice system so unfair to minorities and the poor and anyone unlikely to be able to fight back, The disparities every step of the way, from pulling someone over to arrest to sentencing, are horrifying.
In Noura's case there were more injustices than just the prosecution's conduct. The lack of medical care is in humane. And if she had gone to trial and been exonerated, would she have received reparations for her years in prison?
In my case, at the last minute, I discovered that the man leading a church group I was in was a close friend of the judge and he agreed to come to the trial with me. My lawyer tried to discourage me from bringing him, trying to save his own reputation at my expense. If you're not the "right" sort of person, you are in great danger from our justice system.
6
There need to be real consequences for prosecutors who do this. They've essentially held someone captive for years unjustly--if someone who didn't work for the government did this, they'd be charged with kidnapping or assault.
Considering another front page story today (about sexual assault of inmates by corrections officers), prosecutors who send innocent people to jail are doing a lot worse than just depriving of their liberty.
Considering another front page story today (about sexual assault of inmates by corrections officers), prosecutors who send innocent people to jail are doing a lot worse than just depriving of their liberty.
4
This is not a Prosecution "Mistake". This is willful Prosecutorial Misconduct which is rewarded. It is time that this form of misconduct is punished; making Prosecutors liable for serving out the sentences of those who they illegally place behind bars with their violation of our Justice system. This should apply to Law Enforcement who are found to have withheld or Destroyed Evidence, as well.
Scott E. Torquato, MS, LCSW
Scott E. Torquato, MS, LCSW
8
The problem is at the top. The Supreme Court has virtually immunized prosecutors and police for their own wrongdoings. As the article displays young prosecutors are taught to win at all costs in order to advance their careers. The process is more like sport than a search for justice. Again elections have consequences and determine who is on the Supreme Court and whether the Constitution is enforced.
2
Morton spent 20+ years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife. When the public realized the enormity of the prosecutor's misconduct of withholding evidence (the real killer murdered another woman after Morton's wife) public opinion turned against the prosecutor, Ken Anderson, like a pack of guard dogs let off their leash.
As a result, prosecutors throughout the state are now really and truly afraid to misbehave, and that is a very good thing.