Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to a press release by the district attorney's office, the attacker had covered the girl's face with a towel but she was able to remove it three times to see the man's face. She later identified Wiggins as her rapist.
This just demonstrates once again that "eyewitness testimony" is often total garbage, and jurors have a moral duty to keep that in mind. The police, prosecutors, and jurors in this case failed to do their jobs properly, and 23 years later, we know it for certain.
Thankfully, at least, there was no death penalty for first-time alleged rapists at the time of his trial (Texas used to have a death penalty provisions for multiple rape convictions against victims under 14, but that was struck down in 2008).
This just demonstrates once again that "eyewitness testimony" is often total garbage, and jurors have a moral duty to keep that in mind. The police, prosecutors, and jurors in this case failed to do their jobs properly, and 23 years later, we know it for certain.
I wouldn't assume that. You have to have something to work with, and they often have nothing BUT an eyewitness ID, distorted by the victim's terror.
I agree with tablemtn....Cliffie, no one should be convicted based solely on eyewitness ID, if there's "nothing to work with" ,does that make it excusable?
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.
Jurors often have a very difficult time accepting that a victim's sincere testimony might simply be flat-out wrong. They give the "benefit of the doubt" to the victim/eyewitness, which is the opposite of their actual legal duty.
This just demonstrates once again that "eyewitness testimony" is often total garbage, and jurors have a moral duty to keep that in mind. The police, prosecutors, and jurors in this case failed to do their jobs properly, and 23 years later, we know it for certain.
I wonder what this girl thinks now that she knows she GOT THE WRONG GUY IN TROUBLE FOR IT......
I always feel terrible when I read the stories of people who have spent decades in prison wrongfully convicted.
I saw a show recently about a man who was wrongfully convicted at age 30 and was finally released at age 60. They were also going to pay him $350,000.
Can you imagine missing the middle 30 years of your life like that?
I am thankful that DNA testing is available so that at least some of these people get released.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
