Texas man cleared of rape after 23 years of a life sentence

[faeryedark]

Originally Posted by _redbird_

Maybe he went to jury trial. A plea bargain normally results in a lesser sentence in exchange for a guilty plea.

Which is why so many innocent people are scared into taking plea agreements. A person has to be willing to gamble with their life, if they are falsely accused

[purehuman]

faeryedark...that's because they're ignorant and they're trusting their ignorant lawyer.

[faeryedark]

Originally Posted by purehuman

faeryedark...that's because they're ignorant and they're trusting their ignorant lawyer.

No, it's because the deck is stacked against them in the first place...many can only afford a PD and have no choice. Also the DA will try and throw the whole pot at them and see what sticks.
My loved one went to trial, found out that DA was all about trying to get a win for her career and was willing to twist the truth to that end. she managed to keep a lot of our evidence out..got it swept under the rape shield. She was unable to keep out a few key pieces though and because of it, he got a hung-jury...that infuriated her and she stormed down the hall past us afterward vowing to retry and this time she was gonna make sure it didn't get in.

Well, 2 weeks later, he was offered 3 mos. in jail...he took it. I can't blame him. he was facing 20+ years if found guilty... 20 years of not seeing your kids grow up or spending time with your wife and other family just so you can have the satisfaction of saying "I'm not guilty..yet here I sit in jail, treated as if I am."
No, I don't blame him

[purehuman]

faeryedark...yes...it's very sad indeed!!I understand he chose the lesser of two evils.....a criminal record, and 3 months in jail verses possibly 20plus years...it's very unjust, and very cruel.

[nighthouse66]

Originally Posted by markg91359

There are many reasons for these kinds of convictions. Without reading the trial transcript its difficult to say for sure. I will bet that something like this happened:

1. The victim was very adamant that this man raped her even though she had never met him before and had limited opportunity during the crime to observe him.

2. Unlike the prosecutor who readily agreed to the defendant's release when the DNA proved he could not be the rapist, the prosecutor during this trial was more interested in a conviction than arriving at the truth of what happened.

3. The defendant probably had a criminal record of some sort, maybe had substance abuse problems, and was generally thought of by authorities as a "no account bum". To be crude, he was "disposable".

4. The defense attorney was probably an overworked public defender. He probably had tried to plea bargain the case and his client--being innocent--didn't want to bargain. When he cross-examined the victim in court, she may have cried and fussed and that caused him to "back off" a bit instead of doing a rigorous cross examination.

5. Texas has a practice that I thoroughly disapprove of that is called "jury sentencing". Juries, not judges usually fix the penalties in cases. If a perpetrator is guilty of this than it is truly a severe crime. Even so, I don't believe it calls for a life sentence. I would say it calls for a penalty of between 10 and 20 years in prison. The jury just didn't like this defendant. They didn't believe anything he or his counsel said. So, they basically just locked him and threw the key away. Sentences in criminal cases should be based on the harm done and the likelihood of the perpetrator's guilt. A judge is simply better suited to insure fairness and uniformity in sentencing.

I am sorry for the victim of this crime. However, she accomplished worse than nothing by having the wrong person sent away for her rape.

In cases like this, I hope that the victim, the prosecutor, and others who were so convinced this man was guilty suffer a little heartburn at night over what they did. People who screw up like this deserve to wake up in the middle of the night sweating over the results of their stupidity.

I won't go so far as to say a conviction always needs to be based on more than eyewitness testimony. However, such cases often shouldn't be brought in the first place. When they are brought juries should be more willing than they seem to be to apply the "reasonable doubt" standard and refuse to convict the defendant. That's the way it ought to work. We need to find out why it doesn't work that way more often.

THIS is the reason i keep coming back to this forum. thank you for a very informative post.

[goldengrain]

I suppose we hate to think that crimes go without being solved - ever. Because of fear of that we might pick the most likely suspect.

If we think of crimes unsolved and add to that those wrongly convicted, I wonder how we might change our minds concerning our criminal justice system?