Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Thomas Goldstein, an ex-marine who was convicted of murdering his neighbor.Goldstein served 24 years before his conviction was thrown out when the main witness against him was shown to have lied. That witness was a lifelong criminal who was given a deal on his own charges in exchange for testimony that Goldstein confessed to him in a jail cell. Goldstein alleges that the district attorney's office that prosecuted the case routinely used the testimony of so-called "jailhouse snitches" prosecutors knew or should have known weren't reliable.
Goldstein's case is unusual because he's not suing the prosecutor who convicted him, but John Van de Camp, the district attorney who supervised that prosecutor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed Goldstein's case to go forward, causing the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear it.
Reason
sounds loke some good common sense.djw
ReplyDeleteIt happens all of the time. Nefarious prosecutors will to do ANYTHING to win a case. It does not matter to some of them whether the defendant is innocent. The prosecutors who use weak and unreliable 'testimony' or 'expert witnesses' should be held accountable and be put in the orange jump suits. Their acts ARE criminal. They have no consciense regarding the lives they ruin to promote their own. FELONS!!!
ReplyDelete