• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debra Milke conviction overturned

Draca

Graduate Poster
Draca
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
1,222
Debra Milke conviction overturned after 22 years on Arizona Death Row.

Brady bill violated by undisclosed history of misconduct of officer Armando Saldate.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-womans-death-sentence-thrown-22-years-death/story?id=18732077


Here's the Court of Appeals judgement:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/03/14/07-99001 web - corrected.pdf


I like this part :D:

"The Phoenix Police Department and Saldate’s
supervisors there should be ashamed of having given free rein
to a lawless cop to misbehave again and again, undermining
the integrity of the system of justice they were sworn to
uphold. As should the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office,
which continued to prosecute Saldate’s cases without
bothering to disclose his pattern of misconduct."
 
Last edited:
"The judge and jury believed Saldate," said Kozinski of the verdict and sentence. "But they didn't know about Saldate's long history of lying under oath and other misconduct." "The state knew of the evidence in the personnel file and had an obligation to produce the documents," Kozinski said. "... There can be no doubt that the state failed in its constitutional obligation."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/justi.../arizona-death-sentence-overturned/index.html
 
So, now that this innocent woman has lost 22 years of her life due to a policeman who lied under oath, does the state of Arizona intend to: (a) compensate her monetarily for stealing a bit over two decades of her life or (b) take legal action, leading to prison, against the lying cop?
 
TimCallahan said:
So, now that this innocent woman has lost 22 years of her life due to a policeman who lied under oath, does the state of Arizona intend to: (a) compensate her monetarily for stealing a bit over two decades of her life or (b) take legal action, leading to prison, against the lying cop?
Click to expand...

They are not saying the cop lied in her trial, just that the defense should have been aware of his history. According to the story, the cop has already been disciplined for his actions (although sometimes they didn't do much) -- there's no reason to charge the detective now that I can see.
 
Draca said:
Brady bill violated by undisclosed history of misconduct of officer Armando Saldate.
Click to expand...
A little legal pedantry from someone who's not a lawyer: The Brady Bill was a gun control act of Congress. A Brady violation during a criminal case means that the prosecution failed to reveal potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense and has nothing to do with the wounded White House Press Secretary. :D
 
I thought it was a southwestern nick name, like 'Pecos Bill'.
 
marplots said:
They are not saying the cop lied in her trial, just that the defense should have been aware of his history. According to the story, the cop has already been disciplined for his actions (although sometimes they didn't do much) -- there's no reason to charge the detective now that I can see.
Click to expand...

Having read the opinion, there is little doubt he lied about Milke not requsting a lawyer, and about her waiving her Miranda rights. And he probably materially mischaracterized what she said. Come on, he was told to record the interview and not only did he not record it, he destroyed his notes after he wrote his report.

I want to know the names of the prosecutors who tried this case. They need to be publicly shamed. I appeal to you, O internets, for help. Because as satisfying as Judge Kozinski's opinion was, I cannot understand why prosecutors who do things like this almost never get called out by name in judicial opinions detailing their misconduct.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
If police lie or if prosecutors knowingly withhold evidence, they should serve the sentence of the accused when their lies are detected.
Click to expand...

That will never happen, just because it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
 
Freddy said:
If you chose (c) appeal the decision to the Supreme Court in an attempt to keep her in prison, then you win the grand prize!
Click to expand...

According to the story, the state has 30 days to determine whether they want to seek a retrial; without such a finding, she's free. I can't imagine under what circumstances they would want to gather up 22 year old scattered evidence and witnesses to go over it all again. Arapio was voted in in 1992; this predates him by a year or two, even.

I'm sure there will be no lack of attourneys willing to apply their skills to a civil suit.
 
Last edited:
shadron said:
According to the story, the state has 30 days to determine whether they want to seek a retrial; without such a finding, she's free. I can't imagine under what circumstances they would want to gather up 22 year old scattered evidence and witnesses to go over it all again. Arapio was voted in in 1992; this predates him by a year or two, even.

I'm sure there will be no lack of attourneys willing to apply their skills to a civil suit.
Click to expand...


Maybe thirty days is enough for them to gin up some more bogus evidence.
 
shadron said:
According to the story, the state has 30 days to determine whether they want to seek a retrial; without such a finding, she's free. I can't imagine under what circumstances they would want to gather up 22 year old scattered evidence and witnesses to go over it all again. Arapio was voted in in 1992; this predates him by a year or two, even.

I'm sure there will be no lack of attourneys willing to apply their skills to a civil suit.
Click to expand...

They are appealing the ruling ordering them to do that. If the Supreme Court were to reverse, the execution would be back on. Don't worry, though, as that will not happen.

By the way, my advice is never to trust journalists reporting on legal matters to have any clue what they are talking about. Always go to the primary source, as you will likely do a better job figuring things out for yourself. In this case, that wouldn't have helped, but nearly every news article I read about legal topics has at least one materially incorrect statement.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
If police lie or if prosecutors knowingly withhold evidence, they should serve the sentence of the accused when their lies are detected.
Click to expand...

and all their property and investments turned into cash and given to the person they fraudulently caused to be jailed - if none, they get executed aND tHE PARTS USEFUL FOR MEDICAL REPLACEMENT OR AS BIOCHEMICALS SOLD FOR SAME. Don't mess with justice!!!
 
So not only the did the prosecution get a conviction knowingly using a liar as a key witness, they went after (and got) the friggin death penalty?

This is not simply unscrupulous DAs, these folks are bloody evil. They clearly have no conscience at all to do something like that.
 
pgwenthold said:
So not only the did the prosecution get a conviction knowingly using a liar as a key witness, they went after (and got) the friggin death penalty?
Click to expand...
Using the liar may not have been their choice. If the cops wouldn't get rid of the liar and continued to use him to investigate cases, all the prosecution can do is use him.
This is not simply unscrupulous DAs, these folks are bloody evil. They clearly have no conscience at all to do something like that.
Click to expand...
Maybe, or maybe, despite everything, they believed him. It doesn't make what they did in any way right, but some people are convincing liars. In a case like this where a 4-year-old kid was murdered, people can lose their perspective. Just look at how nuts people got (and in some cases remain) over Casey Anthony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom