Guy who was convicted for murder proved innocent is doing an AMA on Reddit

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/27ehyu/i_spent_18_years_in_prison_for_a_murder_i_didnt/

It took him 18 years to prove it himself. I believe 5 others were also convicted along with him, not all of them guilty.

"He was universally thought of as a model prosecutor"

That is the most chilling part - as it shows that the whole system has been overrun with these revolting sociopaths who destroy innocent lives for their private gain, and that they all believe their own BS.

For a long time, I have thought I have the perfect solution for this: have the prosecutor bet his freedom (s)he is right. If you put the innocent in jail, you serve the time they were unjustly confined.

End judicial immunity. He should be liable for the harm he has caused. It's not unreasonable to prosecute the police and the prosecutor under RICO for engaging in a criminal conspiracy to deprive the defendant of his freedom and his property.

While I admit what this DA did was wrong. It is the Defense attorney's job to introduce exculpatory evidence at the trial.

Why wasn't this done?

By law, Leeper was obligated to turn that material over to Fleming's lawyer. But he had disclosed none of it.

So take him out and hang him from the lamp post in front of the court house with piano wire and leave him like that for several days as an example to the rest.

Isab asks Why wasn't this done?

Kind of hard to introduce evidence that you don't know about. Dontcha think?

That is the most chilling part - as it shows that the whole system has been overrun with these revolting sociopaths who destroy innocent lives for their private gain, and that they all believe their own BS.

It does give you that impression. The thing is, the burden of the argument appears to have been that it was just conceivable that he traveled back and did this. It is difficult to imagine the mentality of a man who would seek to have someone jailed for decades arguing that his alibi had to be hermetically sealed 'ere you decided the whole scenario was too improbable to credit. (There's a salesman named Jason Young who was imprisoned in North Carolina for the murder of his wife with just such an argument).

That there is documentation demonstrating that the prosecutor knew damn well the defendant was innocent (or the prosecutor was too careless to review the evidence) leaves you in such a state that you would not care if he were taken out by organized crime in the most gruesome manner.

Isab asks Why wasn't this done?

Kind of hard to introduce evidence that you don't know about. Dontcha think?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at June 6, 2014 7:42 AM

Nothing prevents the defendant from giving exculpatory evidence directly to his defense attorney. Why did he rely on the prosecutor to do it for him, since he had to be the one who offered the alibi with corroborating evidence to the DA in the first place?

This is what I don't understand.

It could have been evidence that even the defendant didn't know about. A witness who could have confirmed his alibi, or something like that. The prosecutor is supposed to turn all that stuff over to the defense attorney during discovery. That he failed to do so ought to, at the very least, get him disbarred.

Nothing prevents the defendant from giving exculpatory evidence directly to his defense attorney.

The defense attorney grilled the arresting officer at trial about what happened to the receipts taken off the defendant at the time of his arrest, and about whether he'd promised the defendant he would make Xerox copies. The defense attorney knew. If the cop had forgotten, he had it dangled in front of him. Not much excuse for this prosecutor. If it was not self-conscious concealment, it was gross gross gross negligence.

"Nonetheless, Leeper confronted the defense straight on: Yes, the defendant, a man named Jonathan Fleming, could have been in Florida around the time of the murder, Leeper conceded to the jury. But Fleming had ample opportunity to fly back to New York, kill Rush and return to his family vacation, Leeper argued. In fact, Leeper told the jury, there were 53 possible airline flights Fleming could have taken to do just that."

This is the problem here. The receipts apparently didn't provide an airtight alibi.

Especially in the case of murder for hire, where the dependent was, doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

The example given was not a failure of the system. it was a deliberate wrongful act by one person, James Leeper.

The system required him to share potentially exculpatory evidence with the defense. He did not.

He chose to bring to trial a case that was shaky at best and already unraveling.

He rated winning the trial more important than the truth. And a murderer went free because of his actions.

==============================

The jury deserves some of the blame here, too.

The basis our legal system is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Providing 53 possible flights the defendant could have taken is not proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even in 1990, it was difficult to fly from Orlando to New York (assume LaGuardia), get to Brooklyn, get a gun, find a guy, shoot him in front of a housing project, and fly back - all within a few hours and with no paper trail, no suspicious time gaps in one's alibi, no witnesses, and no blabby co-conspirators.

And the jury convicted him because the DA argued he could have done this since there were regular flights between the two cities.

Yes, he could have, but absent any other evidence, the possibility that he could have is not enough to convict.

==============================

Finally, Leeper's coworkers and superiors in the DA's office bear some blame.

The article details the slimy and crooked dealings of the Brooklyn DA's office over the years. This is the kind of legal environment that tolerated (and probably created) James Leeper.

His coworkers and superiors saw his subsequent descent into alcohol problems, missed court dates, and accusations of prosecutorial misconduct in multiple cases, and the best they could do was demote him, but still left him with a portfolio of cases handle and try.

And in the face of the inevitable proven charges of misconduct, all they can say is what a wonderful guy he was.

He was finally suspended three weeks ago. How much damage has he done in the meantime?

Every case this guy tried and won is now suspect.

"The basis our legal system is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"

I have to trust regular people that I meet everyday, average schmos to understand the meaning of that. Great.

If I ever get accused of anything I'm going to become a wealthy pro-athlete and make sure I rally my people with cries of racism while hiring an obscenly expensive legal team.

Oh wait I'm a woman, never mind my sentence will be lighter by default anyways. I'll brutally stab my husband and claim he was emotionally abusive, while looking pretty.

>>Oh wait I'm a woman, never mind my sentence will be lighter by default anyways. I'll brutally stab my husband and claim he was emotionally abusive, while looking pretty.

Slam your face into the wall afterwards, cry physical abuse and you will get away with it.
Or you can shoot him in the back while he sleeps and let him bleed out while crying abuse because he made you wear uncomfortable shoes.

The main article does point out that Fleming was not a completely innocent Joe Citizen. He had previous convictions for robbery and weapons possession. The guilty verdict probably relied more on this than the speculation that he could have gotten on a flight and come back.

I agree it was prosectorial misconduct that put him in prison, but not having a clean background probably didn't help.

not having a clean background probably didn't help.

Utterly immaterial. There was exculpating evidence.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 6, 2014 4:06 PM

Not really, all jury trials involve judgment about the strength of the evidence.

Exculpatory evidence is not the same as exoneration., like someone else's DNA was all over the rape victim, and none of mine was.

If he didn't have a criminal background, and ties to the victim, he would never have been looked at for the crime. So no, his background isn't immaterial.