Fabrications

Should an obvious and outright fabrication of evidence by a police officer while under oath sink a prosecution? This guy thinks so.

Interesting read. A secondary, bonus message: exactly how much time, effort, and money is wasted to obtain a conviction for selling ten dollars worth of smack. Hey, let’s hear it for the War on Drugs! We’re winning, right?

4 Responses to “Fabrications”

  1. Dan says:

    It’s incredible how the legal system resembles the goal review procedure of the NHL.

    “We know the puck is under the goalie’s leg, and we know the goalie’s leg is inside the goal past the goal line. But we don’t ever actually *see* the puck go across the line because that leg that we know it’s under is in the way.”

    I’m surprised this $10 smack case didn’t get sent to Toronto for review.

  2. BrianN says:

    Of course, the cop could also have had binoculars. Just a thought.

    Also, the guy being charged had $10 in his pocket, so that’s what they charged him for. It’s not unlikely he did much more business, and passes of the money to another in order to keep the amount in his pockets low.

    Probably the people in the neighborhood want the drug dealers out, however much business they do; and maybe some conceited white juror who doesn’t have to live near them kept that from happening.

  3. Dan says:

    @BrianN,

    I thought a bit of that. Also, while I like the fact that this guy took his jury duty job seriously, there’s a point where it gets ridiculous. Like, you know, recreating 12 Angry Men and running experiments on whether he can tell if a bottle is Sprite or Ginger Ale from 172 feet.

  4. matt says:

    @BrianN

    If the cop had binoculars, why didn’t he say so during the trial? Hell, why didn’t he just bring a camera with a decent lens and get rid of the whole argument?

    Yes, it’s an open-and-shut slam dunk of a case, and the guy is clearly guilty as hell. But I agree with the article writer that allowing someone to be convicted partially on obviously fabricated police testimony is a pretty awful precedent to set.

Leave a Reply