Missouri governor pardons couple who aimed guns at BLM protesters

[Dill]

(08-06-2021, 12:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I guess GM's lack of reading comprehension is contagious.  Do you think you know everything there is to know about the other case?  Do you think there just might be more to the story than what is contained in a probably page and a half article?  If it was as cut and dry as stated why wouldn't the governor pardon the man?  I'm sure someone like you will immediately go to racism, but maybe, just maybe, there's more to this story?  

As for ranking tiers of injustice, we can definitively prove the McClosky's were the victims of gross prosecutorial misconduct.  We know that because the DA's office admitted to it.  Maybe that's the issue, and not your little buddy's outrage that someone would point out that victim's of gross prosecutorial misconduct should have their charges dropped.  I guess when the facts aren't on your side outrage and thinly veiled accusation of racism is all you've got left in your arsenal.

Lastly, if the man in prison is indeed innocent then I hope he is released, but that has no bearing on the correct decision made in the McClosky case.

"Might be" is not a particularly strong argument, nor an explanation for why the governor would/did pardon in one case that didn't require it, but wouldn't/didn't in the other, which was a strong candidate for it. 

And "maybe more to the story" is not a good principle for defending one-sided political and legal decisions in a liberal democracy, especially in such one-sided fashion.

We should indeed be able to 'rank' injustice, in this case the difference between 43 years in prison on a false conviction and a case in
which defendants pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. Dismiss charges, fine. Overturn the convictions. I am sure that happens often enough in Missouri--but I am not sure that pardons for misdemeanors are a regular occurrence.

So how does "pardon" become the "correct decision" in this MISDEAMEANOR case? It cannot simply be because of "prosecutorial misconduct" that could easily overturn the conviction, leaving nothing to pardon.

Perhaps the distinction between "dismissal/overturn" and "pardon" has always been material to the issue here, and why the latter was chosen in the McCloskey case. Pretty sure THAT'S what my ugly little buddy's "outrage" turns around right now. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2021, 01:11 PM)Dill Wrote: "Might be" is not a particularly strong argument, nor an explanation for why the governor would/did pardon in one case that didn't require it, but wouldn't/didn't in the other, which was a strong candidate for it. 

And "maybe more to the story" is not a good principle for defending one-sided political and legal decisions in a liberal democracy, especially in such one-sided fashion.

Ugh.  I'm not defending anything.  What I am saying is that you're basing you position on this topic on a single, extremely brief, news article.  Now, because I'm talking to you I have to explain this before I continue.  The comparison I am about to make is not intended to be a direct parallel between the circumstances of the convicted person.  It is solely being used to demonstrate how important details can, and are, omitted from this type of story.

Do you recall the case of Cyntoia Brown?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/us/tennessee-cyntoia-brown-granted-clemency/index.html

When this story first became a topic of national attention it was framed as a teenage girl killing her "john".  Who wouldn't be sympathetic to that?  Then more details emerged when the prosecutor became displeased at the one sided nature of the reported story that omitted rather pertinent details.  Details such as the man was asleep when she shot him in the head, and thus in no position to harm anyone.  Additionally, the fact that she then proceeded to rob him after murdering him.  

Now, am I saying there's this level of important facts about the Missouri case that are being omitted?  No, I am stating that we have nothing but a single article to go on, so assuming that everything in that article is pure fact and that they are telling the whole story is rather short sighted.  It may well be the case that everything is factual and no important details are being omitted, but you don't know that, I don't know that and your buddy doesn't know that.  Hence the position I've had on this subject since it was raised; I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.

Quote:We should indeed be able to 'rank' injustice, in this case the difference between 43 years in prison on a false conviction and a case in
which defendants pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. Dismiss charges, fine. Overturn the convictions. I am sure that happens often enough in Missouri--but I am not sure that pardons for misdemeanors are a regular occurrence.

Probably because most misdemeanor cases don't become national news stories? 

Quote:So how does "pardon" become the "correct decision" in this MISDEAMEANOR case? It cannot simply be because of "prosecutorial misconduct" that could easily overturn the conviction, leaving nothing to pardon.

Why not?  Because Dill says so?  Quite the compelling case you're making.

Quote:Perhaps the distinction between "dismissal/overturn" and "pardon" has always been material to the issue here, and why the latter was chosen in the McCloskey case. Pretty sure THAT'S what my ugly little buddy's "outrage" turns around right now. 

Perhaps.  Maybe we'd know for sure if your little buddy actually explained himself instead of dropping snide hints and insinuations.  But that would mean actually taking a factual stand, which he's shown to be rather averse to, especially in this thread.  BTW, you're leaping to his defense is as predictable as it is amusing.  I am pleased he at least has one friend.

[Dill]

(08-06-2021, 01:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh.  I'm not defending anything.  What I am saying is that you're basing you position on this topic on a single, extremely brief, news article.  Now, because I'm talking to you I have to explain this before I continue.  The comparison I am about to make is not intended to be a direct parallel between the circumstances of the convicted person.  It is solely being used to demonstrate how important details can, and are, omitted from this type of story.

Do you recall the case of Cyntoia Brown?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/us/tennessee-cyntoia-brown-granted-clemency/index.html

When this story first became a topic of national attention it was framed as a teenage girl killing her "john".  Who wouldn't be sympathetic to that?  Then more details emerged when the prosecutor became displeased at the one sided nature of the reported story that omitted rather pertinent details.  Details such as the man was asleep when she shot him in the head, and thus in no position to harm anyone.  Additionally, the fact that she then proceeded to rob him after murdering him.  

Now, am I saying there's this level of important facts about the Missouri case that are being omitted?  No, I am stating that we have nothing but a single article to go on, so assuming that everything in that article is pure fact and that they are telling the whole story is rather short sighted.  It may well be the case that everything is factual and no important details are being omitted, but you don't know that, I don't know that and your buddy doesn't know that.  Hence the position I've had on this subject since it was raised; I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.

Probably because most misdemeanor cases don't become national news stories? 

Why not?  Because Dill says so?  Quite the compelling case you're making.

Perhaps.  Maybe we'd know for sure if your little buddy actually explained himself instead of dropping snide hints and insinuations.  But that would mean actually taking a factual stand, which he's shown to be rather averse to, especially in this thread.  BTW, you're leaping to his defense is as predictable as it is amusing.  I am pleased he at least has one friend.

No one needs proof that news stories can "get it wrong" the first time around. 
So far that's not much of a defense for the McCloskey pardon, even if some mysteriously
hidden evidence comes to light in the other case.

Burning a pardon on misdemeanor case, where no one served jail time, is only unusual because "Dill says so"? 
National attention explains the Governor's choice? 

PS I will speak to Dino privately about snide hints and insinuations. That has to stop!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2021, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: No one needs proof that news stories can "get it wrong" the first time around.

Apparently you and GM do.
 

Quote:So far that's not much of a defense for the McCloskey pardon, even if some mysteriously
hidden evidence comes to light in the other case.

You mean aside from the gross prosecutorial misconduct that has the DA facing possible, even likely, disbarment?  Who knew you were such a hard line, hang 'em high, law and order type to have such a high bar for a pardon.

Quote:Burning a pardon on misdemeanor case, where no one served jail time, is only unusual because "Dill says so"? 

Why, does he only have a certain number he can issue?  If not then there's no "burning" a pardon.

Quote:National attention explains the Governor's choice? 

No, and I can't believe I'm having to repeat this again, gross prosecutorial misconduct does.

Quote:PS I will speak to Dino privately about snide hints and insinuations. That has to stop!

Hahaha, I wonder if you knew what an ass you look like with this smarmy routine.  

[Dill]

(08-06-2021, 02:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Apparently you and GM do.

You mean aside from the gross prosecutorial misconduct that has the DA facing possible, even likely, disbarment?  Who knew you were such a hard line, hang 'em high, law and order type to have such a high bar for a pardon.

Why, does he only have a certain number he can issue?  If not then there's no "burning" a pardon.

No, and I can't believe I'm having to repeat this again, gross prosecutorial misconduct does.

Hahaha, I wonder if you knew what an ass you look like with this smarmy routine.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2021, 01:08 PM)Dill Wrote:

Wow, Dill.  Very impressive refutation of the points made. 


Let's flip the script a bit.  DO you think what happened to the McClosky's is acceptable?  Should they have been prosecuted after the misconduct was admitted?  Should the governor have pardoned them?  Why or why not?


Maybe actually answering pertinent questions will get you out of GMDabo mode.

[Dill]

(08-07-2021, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wow, Dill.  Very impressive refutation of the points made. 

Let's flip the script a bit.  DO you think what happened to the McClosky's is acceptable?  Should they have been prosecuted after the misconduct was admitted?  Should the governor have pardoned them?  Why or why not?

Maybe actually answering pertinent questions will get you out of GMDabo mode.

Er, one doesn't "refute" statements like this: 

Hahaha, I wonder if you knew what an ass you look like with this smarmy routine.

They are not really "points" and certainly not arguments.

And let's NOT "flip the script" if that means treating a case in which no one served jail time and or showed repentance for the crime
to which he/she pled guilty as one which rises to the level of pardon application.

I've already explained why I don't agree with burning a pardon on a misdemeanor case, which didn't require a pardon,
while ignoring so many more deserving cases which do require one. (And the pardon is "burned" because the time and effort spent on it could have been spent on serious cases involving decades of lost freedom for innocents.) 

If you think a pardon should be spent on a misdemeanor case already amenable to other legal resolution, instead of the many more serious applications already on the governor's desk, then you should explain why.

Whether the prosecutors of misdemeanor violations should have been prosecuted is not pertinent to the question of whether the
misdemeanor violations of unrepentant perps should rise to the level of pardon.

So far it does not look like you are interested in the implications of the McCloskey case for the institution of the pardon; you just
want to go over the prosecutorial misconduct in a case involving 2A issues.  

[Dill]

It might bring some focus to the discussion of the Missouri pardons if we remember what executive/parole board pardons are intended to address--namely unjust outcomes which fall through the cracks of the legal system, making extra-legal redress necessary/appropriate, especially in cases where the machinery of the law cannot act in timely fashion, if at all. In some cases a pardon may be granted people who were guilty, but have paid their debt and exhibit contrition. That means that the pardon was not created for, and is not responsibly used, in cases where normal legal remedies are still available and perfectly suitable, or the guilty are unrepentant.

Also the sovereign people of many US states give their governors this awesome power to go above the law on the assumption that it will be exercised in the interest of the people, not in the interest of a governor's party or personal friends. When the latter happens, scandal results.

And that's also why in states which grant governors this power, there is an application and review process, to insure that only the worthiest cases, already strictly vetted, come before a governor. That process is not foolproof, but it increases the likelihood that worthy cases do come before the governor, and decreases the likelihood that governors, given this power by the people, exercise it whimsically or in partisan fashion. (In some states the governor can pardon ONLY those recommended by a parole board; i nothers the power is taken completely out of the governor's hands and placed with a special parole board.)

In states like Missouri, that process currently has a backlog. One reason Parsons has given for not pardoning Strickland involves the 3,000 applications now awaiting adjudication. Parsons' argument is that media attention should not necessarily jump people to the head of the line--even in cases like Strickland's. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/missouri-governor-pardon-decade-inmate-priority-78174382

Given this framework I would pose the following questions for discussion:

1. Is the above characterization of pardon power accurate or inaccurate? (This is not poll, so explain your reasoning.)

2. How well does Parsons' pardon of the McCloskeys align with the intent and traditional exercise of pardon power as described above? Is the pardon in the interests of the people of Missouri?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2021, 03:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Er, one doesn't "refute" statements like this: 

Hahaha, I wonder if you knew what an ass you look like with this smarmy routine.

They are not really "points" and certainly not arguments.

Indeed, and yet the vast majority of the content of my posts, which you have still not addressed, are nothing like that.

Quote:And let's NOT "flip the script" if that means treating a case in which no one served jail time and or showed repentance for the crime
to which he/she pled guilty as one which rises to the level of pardon application.

I'm not treating the circumstances as equal, and never have.  You're arguing against a point I never made.

Quote:I've already explained why I don't agree with burning a pardon on a misdemeanor case, which didn't require a pardon,
while ignoring so many more deserving cases which do require one. (And the pardon is "burned" because the time and effort spent on it could have been spent on serious cases involving decades of lost freedom for innocents.) 

There was minimal "time and effort" expended as the governor had previously stated he would pardon them if convicted.  So, another Dill point shot down.

Quote:If you think a pardon should be spent on a misdemeanor case already amenable to other legal resolution, instead of the many more serious applications already on the governor's desk, then you should explain why.

And here's where you enter peak inanity.  I have done so, explicitly, numerous times in this thread.  This is becoming extremely boring.

Quote:Whether the prosecutors of misdemeanor violations should have been prosecuted is not pertinent to the question of whether the
misdemeanor violations of unrepentant perps should rise to the level of pardon.

It absolutely does and why is easily explainable.  DA's tend to overcharge so they can pull back the serious charges in a plea bargain.  It makes it look like they're giving you a break when, in fact, they're only giving back what shouldn't have been charged in the first place.  This is done to facilitate plea bargaining and free up time on the court docket.  When the DA fabricates evidence to facilitate this you've irrevocably tainted the entire case.  Yes, the McClosky's could have appealed, but that takes time and money, both of which they should not have to spend.  As to why the governor knows about the case, well, that's easy.  It was made a national news story and the corrupt DA used the case to raise funds for her re-election campaign, another huge corrupt no no.  You want to argue why other cases are more deserving of a pardon, fine.  But you've yet to even attempt to explain why a pardon was unwarranted in the McClosky case.  All you've done is use it to paint me as a 2A zealot (which is laughable as Bel is actually more extreme on that subject than I am, yet you never say anything to him.  I wonder why?).  You've made zero attempt to refute any point made as to why the pardon was warranted.

Quote:So far it does not look like you are interested in the implications of the McCloskey case for the institution of the pardon; you just
want to go over the prosecutorial misconduct in a case involving 2A issues.  

A gross fabrication on your part.  You've literally become what you purport to despise.  I guess you stared too long into the abyss.  

[Dill]

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed, and yet the vast majority of the content of my posts, which you have still not addressed, are nothing like that.

And here's where you enter peak inanity.  I have done so, explicitly, numerous times in this thread.  This is becoming extremely boring.

A gross fabrication on your part.  You've literally become what you purport to despise.  I guess you stared too long into the abyss.  

                                                                                   

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:And let's NOT "flip the script" if that means treating a case in which no one served jail time and or showed repentance for the crime
to which he/she pled guilty as one which rises to the level of pardon application.

I'm not treating the circumstances as equal, and never have.  You're arguing against a point I never made.

The cases are "unequal" for a number of reasons, if one follows the usual criteria for pardon consideration, such as gross injustice beyond ready legal repair and sincere repentance.  The Strickland case--a FELONY conviction for a murder involving 43 years wrongly taken from a man's life--has gone through the pardon process and parole board along with many other worthy cases, and so meets the usual criteria. 

The McCloskey case--a MISDEMEANOR conviction of people who indeed committed the crime for which they were accused, never went to jail, and would "do it again"--does not meet any of the usual criteria for pardons. (Has a MISDEMEANOR conviction EVER been pardoned in Missouri?)

The McCloskey case does, however, meet the UNUSUAL criteria of a pardon for political purposes.

 If you argue "the governor did the right thing by them" in raising their misdemeanor to the level of a pardon, then I am not "arguing against a point you never made."

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I've already explained why I don't agree with burning a pardon on a misdemeanor case, which didn't require a pardon,
while ignoring so many more deserving cases which do require one. (And the pardon is "burned" because the time and effort spent on it could have been spent on serious cases involving decades of lost freedom for innocents.) 

There was minimal "time and effort" expended as the governor had previously stated he would pardon them if convicted.  So, another Dill point shot down.

Lol Who would defend a pardon on the grounds "minimal time and effort" were expended in granting it, rather than the ethical/legal merits of the individual pardon itself vis a vis others that might have been granted?  ("Sure Mr. Strickland, you lost 43 years of your life, and sure, you have gone through the proper channels, but signing the McCloskey pardon simply took less time than signing yours would have. Just because you are in the news doesn't mean you should be bumped ahead of the line. The McCloskeys suffered prosecutorial misconduct too!")

How does that "shoot down" the fact that the misdemeanor conviction could have been voided without a pardon? 

[Dill]

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Whether the prosecutors of misdemeanor violations should have been prosecuted is not pertinent to the question of whether the
misdemeanor violations of unrepentant perps should rise to the level of pardon.

It absolutely does and why is easily explainable.  DA's tend to overcharge so they can pull back the serious charges in a plea bargain.  It makes it look like they're giving you a break when, in fact, they're only giving back what shouldn't have been charged in the first place.  This is done to facilitate plea bargaining and free up time on the court docket.  When the DA fabricates evidence to facilitate this you've irrevocably tainted the entire case.  Yes, the McClosky's could have appealed, but that takes time and money, both of which they should not have to spend.  As to why the governor knows about the case, well, that's easy.  It was made a national news story and the corrupt DA used the case to raise funds for her re-election campaign, another huge corrupt no no.  You want to argue why other cases are more deserving of a pardon, fine.  But you've yet to even attempt to explain why a pardon was unwarranted in the McClosky case.  All you've done is use it to paint me as a 2A zealot (which is laughable as Bel is actually more extreme on that subject than I am, yet you never say anything to him.  I wonder why?*).  You've made zero attempt to refute any point made as to why the pardon was warranted.

I've done nothing but explain why a pardon was unwarranted in the McCloskey case.

E.g., I have laid out, ever more explicitly, the traditional criteria for granting pardons, including exhaustion of other legal recourse, sincere repentance, and gross injustice--as in serious harm to the convicted. Even if wrongly convicted by prosecutorial misconduct, a person convicted of a misdemeanor who pays his fine and goes home does not fall into the latter category for pardon purposes, because the scale of harm is so much less than presented in typical pardon cases.

And I've argued the McCloskey case simply does not fit these criteria. Other legal recourse has NOT been exhausted, they are not repentant, and for a MISDEMEANOR they were jumped ahead of the line before people who had suffered serious harm. Pardon or no, the McCloskey's would still be back in their gated community after the conviction.

You, on the other hand, have NOT shown how the McCloskey case meets these criteria. 

Instead, you argue as if really bad, corrupt prosecutors make this case a candidate for pardon, regardless of whether much harm was actually done to people who were guilty as charged for a MISDEMEANOR and unrepentant--people who would be back in their comfortable homes 30 minutes after conviction. Disbarring and prosecuting a corrupt lawyer would serve the people's interest, but how would pardoning people who broke the law and would do it again??

If the prosecutors' misconduct is so plain, why would the defendants' appeal be required to overturn the conviction--unless "there is more to the story"?  And could you justify the McCloskey pardon to Strickland on grounds that appeals take time and money the McCloskey's should not have to spend?

As plainly as possible--what moves injustice to the level of pardon consideration is HARM TO THE DEFENDENT. Prosecutorial misconduct may cause that harm or it may not, but either way, it is the harm that draws the pardon. The guilty McCloskeys would not have an even better pardon case even if you found a link showing that Biden approved the tampering. That you even go in that direction, while ignoring degrees of harm, suggests that you you don't understand the pardon as an institution. That's why you keep trotting out criteria for prosecutorial corruption as basis for the pardon like some Trump card, thereby flattening the great difference in harm between 43 years lost to an INNOCENT in one case and an exciting afternoon as court celebrities for those ACTUALLY GUILTY in the other. 

*Wonder no longer: If Bels says that Trump SCOTUS appointments are more likely to defend our individual freedoms than Hilary appointees would have, I'll grant he is at least as extreme and say something. 

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:So far it does not look like you are interested in the implications of the McCloskey case for the institution of the pardon; you just
want to go over the prosecutorial misconduct in a case involving 2A issues.  

A gross fabrication on your part.  You've literally become what you purport to despise.  I guess you stared too long into the abyss.  

I am not "fabricating" either your inattention to pardon criteria and precedent, or your constant return to "prosecutorial misconduct" as something that should drive a misdemeanor case rather than degree of harm.

So still far short of 'what I purport to despise'.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2021, 04:57 AM)Dill Wrote:                                                                                    


The cases are "unequal" for a number of reasons, if one follows the usual criteria for pardon consideration, such as gross injustice beyond ready legal repair and sincere repentance.  The Strickland case--a FELONY conviction for a murder involving 43 years wrongly taken from a man's life--has gone through the pardon process and parole board along with many other worthy cases, and so meets the usual criteria. 

The McCloskey case--a MISDEMEANOR conviction of people who indeed committed the crime for which they were accused, never went to jail, and would "do it again"--does not meet any of the usual criteria for pardons. (Has a MISDEMEANOR conviction EVER been pardoned in Missouri?)

You have again utterly failed to address the actual reason for the pardon, which is the gross prosecutorial misconduct admitted to by the DA, and which now has the DA in very serious jeopardy of being disbarred.  You fail to address it because you know it proves my point.  Your constant dodging of this most salient point is very telling.

Quote:The McCloskey case does, however, meet the UNUSUAL criteria of a pardon for political purposes.

If so, then it would counter balance the prosecution using the case for political purposes.  You, again, fail to address a major reason for the pardon.  

Quote: If you argue "the governor did the right thing by them" in raising their misdemeanor to the level of a pardon, then I am not "arguing against a point you never made."

Oh no, sorry, Dill.  You in no way substantiate this claim.  You are absolutely arguing a point I never made and your simply stating "nuh uh" doesn't change that.

Quote:Lol Who would defend a pardon on the grounds "minimal time and effort" were expended in granting it, rather than the ethical/legal merits of the individual pardon itself vis a vis others that might have been granted?  ("Sure Mr. Strickland, you lost 43 years of your life, and sure, you have gone through the proper channels, but signing the McCloskey pardon simply took less time than signing yours would have. Just because you are in the news doesn't mean you should be bumped ahead of the line. The McCloskeys suffered prosecutorial misconduct too!")

It is amazing how rapidly you are morphing into Fred.  I didn't defend it based on those grounds, I used that statement to refute your assertion that "time and effort" was expended on the McClosky pardon that you feel would have better used elsewhere.  You don't get to turn my refutation of one of your points into a pillar of my own argument.  Put simply, quite deliberately twisting my argument to suit your purposes.

Quote:How does that "shoot down" the fact that the misdemeanor conviction could have been voided without a pardon? 

You keep using the comparison between the two, completely unrelated, cases as if it somehow invalidates the McClosky pardon.  Either the pardon was warranted or it was not.  My position is that it absolutely was due to the gross miscarriage of justice caused by the severe abuse of the DA's office.  If you disagree, and you've yet to articulate a logical argument as to why, then that's fine.  But don't act like you've provided an ironclad argument against it, because your position is totally lacking in substance.

[jj22]

I wonder if "anyone" would be able to do this and get pardoned.

[GMDino]

Related.  Opinion piece.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/09/why-we-cant-trust-states-prevent-wrongful-convictions/

Quote:Opinion: Why we can’t trust the states to prevent wrongful convictions


Curtis Crosland in Philadelphia on June 24, after his release from prison. Crosland had been imprisoned for 34 years for a crime he didn't commit. (Jessica Griffin/The Philadelphia Inquirer via AP)
Image without a caption
Opinion by 
Radley Balko
Columnist
Yesterday at 9:00 a.m. EDT


123
Curtis Crosland maintained his innocence for his entire 34-year incarceration. After being convicted of murder, he filed nine petitions in state court, and three in federal court. He lost all of them, even though the case for his innocence was compelling. An investigator found witnesses who had identified the real perpetrator to police, but whose names were never turned over to Crosland’s lawyers. Another witness said the real killer had confessed to him.

Crosland was finally released in June when the Conviction Integrity Unit set up by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner examined Crosland’s file and found a trove of exculpatory evidence that Krasner’s four predecessors never disclosed.

Crosland is the 22nd person exonerated by Krasner since he took office in 2018. Another such person, Andrew Swainson, was denied a new trial three times in federal court.

The fact that it took the election of a fairly radical district attorney to unearth and act on these injustices is an indictment of the criminal justice system. But it isn’t an aberration. In 2006, when defense attorney Craig Watkins was elected district attorney of Dallas County, Tex., he set up one of the first conviction integrity units in the country. His office exonerated 35 people.

Dallas and Philadelphia have had some aggressive prosecutors over the years, but no more so than many other cities and jurisdictions. The main reason Watkins, Krasner and other reformist prosecutors have discovered so many wrongful convictions is pretty straightforward: They looked for them.

When Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) in 1996, severely restricting the ability of federal courts to review state convictions, proponents argued that federal review was unnecessary because state courts, prosecutors and attorneys general could be trusted to prevent wrongful convictions.


It’s hard to overstate how wrong they were. Even as the law was being debated, the states themselves were further restricting access to their own courts, cutting funds for public defense and restructuring their judicial systems to limit appeals.

But it was the election of reformist prosecutors about a decade later that showed just how off-base the justifications for the federal law really were. The new wave of prosecutors have not only exposed the misconduct and neglect of their predecessors, they’ve showed how the obsession with “finality” by courts and prosecutors’ obsession has collectively blinded them to injustice.

In a report about the exonerations during his tenure, Krasner’s office writes that prosecutors seeking exonerations have faced outright hostility from some judges, who seemed bewildered as to why his office would cooperate with defense lawyers, even in cases of a clear wrongful conviction. One federal judge even accused the office of ethical violations before later retracting the allegation.


Even the election of a reformist prosecutor often isn’t enough. In Missouri, a state with an abysmal history of wrongful convictions — including in death penalty cases — at least three men remain imprisoned despite the fact that the prosecutors in the jurisdictions where they were convicted have released the evidence of their innocence and the real killers have confessed.

How can that happen? Because the Missouri attorney general’s office, which handles post-conviction cases in the state, has a tradition of defending every conviction, regardless of merit. One infamous example involves Joseph Amrine. In 2001, a state supreme justice asked the prosecutor, “Are you suggesting . . . even if we find that Mr. Amrine is actually innocent, he should be executed?'” The prosecutor responded, “That is correct, your honor.”

The current Missouri attorney general, Eric Schmitt, has continued that aggressive tack. The three men who remain in prison despite local prosecutors conceding their innocence have no legal recourse because that decision is up to the attorney general, whose office has fought to keep them incarcerated.


The Missouri Supreme Court says there’s nothing to be done. “This case is not about whether Johnson is innocent,” the court wrote in the case of Lamar Johnson. “This case presents only the issue of whether there is any authority to appeal.” (Incredibly, 30 elected Missouri prosecutors submitted a brief not only arguing that Johnson should remain in prison despite his innocence, but that St. Louis District Attorney Kim Gardner behaved unethically when she asked a court to release him.)

Indeed, across the country, state attorneys general routinely defend bad convictions by default. They oppose DNA testing, and fight even when there’s overwhelming evidence of innocence or prosecutorial misconduct.

Next term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Barry Jones, an Arizona man sentenced to death for the murder of his then-girlfriend’s daughter. As with the Missouri cases, the issue in Jones’s case isn’t whether the new evidence proves Jones’s innocence. The state is arguing that the federal courts are prohibited from even considering that question, and that the new evidence is irrelevant because Jones is procedurally barred from using it.

What’s truly astonishing is that the state would even make such an argument in the face of a clear injustice. And that exposes the lie at the heart of AEDPA’s restriction on federal court review — that state courts and state officials can be trusted to protect the innocent and respect the rights of the accused. The record is clear: They can’t.

[Dill]

(08-10-2021, 04:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: I wonder if "anyone" would be able to do this and get pardoned.

I think "anyone" who was armed and stood his ground before BLM protestors in Missouri would, yes.

That's why the pardon in this case has so many up in arms.

It defeats the purpose of pardon power to use it for political ends, rather than to 
protect defendants from gross injustice.

That's why people are comparing this case to the Strickland one. 

The guy in prison for 43 years for a crime he didn't commit didn't bother the governor so much
as the gross injustice of the McCloskey's misdemeanor fines. 

[Dill]

(08-10-2021, 05:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Related.  Opinion piece.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/09/why-we-cant-trust-states-prevent-wrongful-convictions/
The Missouri Supreme Court says there’s nothing to be done. “This case is not about whether Johnson is innocent,” the court wrote in the case of Lamar Johnson. “This case presents only the issue of whether there is any authority to appeal.” (Incredibly, 30 elected Missouri prosecutors submitted a brief not only arguing that Johnson should remain in prison despite his innocence, but that St. Louis District Attorney Kim Gardner behaved unethically when she asked a court to release him.)

Indeed, across the country, state attorneys general routinely defend bad convictions by default. They oppose DNA testing, and fight even when there’s overwhelming evidence of innocence or prosecutorial misconduct.

Next term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Barry Jones, an Arizona man sentenced to death for the murder of his then-girlfriend’s daughter. As with the Missouri cases, the issue in Jones’s case isn’t whether the new evidence proves Jones’s innocence. The state is arguing that the federal courts are prohibited from even considering that question, and that the new evidence is irrelevant because Jones is procedurally barred from using it.

What’s truly astonishing is that the state would even make such an argument in the face of a clear injustice. And that exposes the lie at the heart of AEDPA’s restriction on federal court review — that state courts and state officials can be trusted to protect the innocent and respect the rights of the accused. The record is clear: They can’t.

Yow!! This could have been a thread in itself. 

I'd like to take a closer look at some of these legal rationales. 

[Dill]

(08-09-2021, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You have again utterly failed to address the actual reason for the pardon, which is the gross prosecutorial misconduct admitted to by the DA, and which now has the DA in very serious jeopardy of being disbarred.  You fail to address it because you know it proves my point.  Your constant dodging of this most salient point is very telling. . . .

You keep using the comparison between the two, completely unrelated, cases as if it somehow invalidates the McClosky pardon.  Either the pardon was warranted or it was not.  My position is that it absolutely was due to the gross miscarriage of justice caused by the severe abuse of the DA's office.  If you disagree, and you've yet to articulate a logical argument as to why, then that's fine.  But don't act like you've provided an ironclad argument against it, because your position is totally lacking in substance.

Let’s test the bolded statements, starting with the last.

In posts #28, 30 and 31, I’ve explained the purpose of the institution, the theoretical foundation which determines the general criteria to be considered in granting pardons. These do not include helping friends and advancing partisan causes.

The next step: in #30 and 31, I've examined whether the McCloskey case meets the traditional criteria for a pardon. And I conclude it fails to do so—e.g., the convicted have not suffered serious harm (from misdemeanor fines), their legal recourse has not been exhausted; and while actually guilty, they are unrepentant. Parsons himself marked another criterion when he said, regarding the Strickland case, that news attention should not be grounds for pushing cases ahead of the line, given Missouri’s 3,000 case backlog. Difficult to see how the McCloskey case meets that one, either.

And governor Parsons’ stated “actual reason” for pushing the McCloskeys to the head of the pardon queue was to secure the right of Missouri residents to “stand their ground”—a defense of the Castle Doctrine, a partisan political cause.

Anyone familiar with legal reasoning would see a “logical argument” here, systematically expounded upon actual legal theory, precedent and practice. The conclusion regarding the McCloskeys follows from separately articulated premises (legal standards). It is the failure to meet the traditional criteria for pardon that “invalidates” the McCloskey pardon, not the comparison to an “unrelated” case.

You’ve defined neither the purpose nor the criteria for pardon, nor shown how the McCloskey’s have suffered serious harm, exhausted legal recourse, or shown repentance—though they were bumped right to the head of the line.

Instead, you continue to assert there is a “real point,” an "actual reason" for the pardon that others are missing or ignoring or "don't have the balls to address," or are now "dodging."

And that “actual reason” is not the one stated by the governor, but “severe abuse of the DA’s office” which is a “gross miscarriage of justice”—leading to misdemeanor fines.

If your "prosecutorial misconduct" were really the "actual reason,” it would not accomplish any of the usual goals of a pardon. Given you have not yourself articulated any alternative legal theoretical framework which would explain why “prosecutorial misconduct” has created sufficient harm to warrant pardon at all, much less bump the McCloskey’s and their terrible MISDEMEANOR FINES to the head of the line, it looks like you just selected your "actual reason" because of its emotional magnitude for you (as Parsons selected his), and on the basis of your unarticulated and undefended assumption that pardons can be about prosecutors regardless of harm to defendants. Without that legal framework of defined purpose and criteria, you have nothing to measure the case against except your own subjective “impression” -- there has been “gross injustice” because SSF says so.

Finally, it truly "lacks substance" to repeatedly asserting that people are ignoring or misreading or twisting what you say without the capacity to demonstrate you’ve been misread or twisted. You certainly cannot do that if you can’t even show you understand the other fellow’s argument, and you cannot show you understand it without taking some time (I almost said "having the balls") to actually work through the “boring” parts.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-11-2021, 02:57 AM)Dill Wrote: Let’s test the bolded statements, starting with the last.

In posts #28, 30 and 31, I’ve explained the purpose of the institution, the theoretical foundation which determines the general criteria to be considered in granting pardons. These do not include helping friends and advancing partisan causes.

The next step: in #30 and 31, I've examined whether the McCloskey case meets the traditional criteria for a pardon. And I conclude it fails to do so—e.g., the convicted have not suffered serious harm (from misdemeanor fines), their legal recourse has not been exhausted; and while actually guilty, they are unrepentant. Parsons himself marked another criterion when he said, regarding the Strickland case, that news attention should not be grounds for pushing cases ahead of the line, given Missouri’s 3,000 case backlog. Difficult to see how the McCloskey case meets that one, either.

And governor Parsons’ stated “actual reason” for pushing the McCloskeys to the head of the pardon queue was to secure the right of Missouri residents to “stand their ground”—a defense of the Castle Doctrine, a partisan political cause.

Anyone familiar with legal reasoning would see a “logical argument” here, systematically expounded upon actual legal theory, precedent and practice. The conclusion regarding the McCloskeys follows from separately articulated premises (legal standards). It is the failure to meet the traditional criteria for pardon that “invalidates” the McCloskey pardon, not the comparison to an “unrelated” case.

You’ve defined neither the purpose nor the criteria for pardon, nor shown how the McCloskey’s have suffered serious harm, exhausted legal recourse, or shown repentance—though they were bumped right to the head of the line.

Instead, you continue to assert there is a “real point,” an "actual reason" for the pardon that others are missing or ignoring or "don't have the balls to address," or are now "dodging."

And that “actual reason” is not the one stated by the governor, but “severe abuse of the DA’s office” which is a “gross miscarriage of justice”—leading to misdemeanor fines.

If your "prosecutorial misconduct" were really the "actual reason,” it would not accomplish any of the usual goals of a pardon. Given you have not yourself articulated any alternative legal theoretical framework which would explain why “prosecutorial misconduct” has created sufficient harm to warrant pardon at all, much less bump the McCloskey’s and their terrible MISDEMEANOR FINES to the head of the line, it looks like you just selected your "actual reason" because of its emotional magnitude for you (as Parsons selected his), and on the basis of your unarticulated and undefended assumption that pardons can be about prosecutors regardless of harm to defendants. Without that legal framework of defined purpose and criteria, you have nothing to measure the case against except your own subjective “impression” -- there has been “gross injustice” because SSF says so.

Finally, it truly "lacks substance" to repeatedly asserting that people are ignoring or misreading or twisting what you say without the capacity to demonstrate you’ve been misread or twisted. You certainly cannot do that if you can’t even show you understand the other fellow’s argument, and you cannot show you understand it without taking some time (I almost said "having the balls") to actually work through the “boring” parts.

Your long, dithering, responses continue to fail to actually address any point being made.  The pardon was justified (you've failed to argue why it was not), the prosecutorial misconduct (which you still refuse to address) was real and in no way shape or form did the McClosky pardon interfere with or prevent a potential pardon in the other case.

In short, you're arguing just to argue.  You passed boring AF eons ago.

[Dill]

(08-11-2021, 12:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your long, dithering, responses continue to fail to actually address any point being made.  The pardon was justified (you've failed to argue why it was not), the prosecutorial misconduct (which you still refuse to address) was real and in no way shape or form did the McClosky pardon interfere with or prevent a potential pardon in the other case.

In short, you're arguing just to argue.  You passed boring AF eons ago.

LOL sure, I "failed to argue why it was not" when I pointed out that the pardon did not meet the usual criteria of harm, contrition, and exhaustion of legal alternatives. Though it DID meet the negative criteria of political motivation. 

And I "refuse to address" prosecutorial misconduct by pointing out 1) the governor offered an altogether different reason for the pardon (why is he wrong and you're right?), and 2) prosecutorial conduct alone cannot justify a pardon.  The focus has to be on harm to the defendant.  

Should I have BOLDED that entire paragraph so you'd notice? 

No one is arguing that "prosecutorial misconduct" wasn't "real." No need to. But you don't appear to understand why that is the case.

Looks like you cannot follow the legal argument I've presented, let alone refute it. And demonstrating otherwise would be too "boring." 

So call it "boring," or "smarmy," and claim again (and again without demonstration) that it "fails to address the point being made." 
Re-state, without support, your guess that "misconduct" justified the pardon.

Anyone who followed the demonstration in post #37 will see it is not "refuted" by this sort of rinse and repeat.

And you don't have anything else. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-11-2021, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL sure, I "failed to argue why it was not" when I pointed out that the pardon did not meet the usual criteria of harm, contrition, and exhaustion of legal alternatives. Though it DID meet the negative criteria of political motivation.

Irrelevant.  The "usual criteria" is just that, the usual.  It does not, and can not, cover all instances in which one is allowable.  You have yet to make a cogent argument for why a pardon was unjustified in this instance other than it does not fit the "usual criteria".  The very statement allows for instances that fall outside the norm.

Quote:And I "refuse to address" prosecutorial misconduct by pointing out 1) the governor offered an altogether different reason for the pardon (why is he wrong and you're right?), and 2) prosecutorial conduct alone cannot justify a pardon.  The focus has to be on harm to the defendant.  

His stated reason is also irrelevant.  The facts are the facts.  The couple was treated with extreme corruption and misconduct.  This is why you are squirming to avoid this point.  Also, prosecutorial misconduct absolutely can be grounds for a pardon.  Such misconduct irrevocably taints the entire case.  

Quote:Should I have BOLDED the entire paragraph on your "actual reason" so you'd notice? 

The misconduct was advanced as to why I thought the pardon was warranted.  Read my first response in this thread.

Quote:So no one is arguing that "prosecutorial misconduct" wasn't "real." No need to. But you don't appear to understand why that is the case.

Looks like you cannot follow the legal argument I've presented, let alone refute it. And changing that perception would be too "boring." 

No, you cannot follow the logic of how it taints the entire case.  Again, you do so because you have no argument other than the case does not fit the "usual criteria".  

Quote:So call it "boring," or "smarmy," and claim (without demonstration) that it "fails to address the point being made." 
Baldly re-state, without support, your guess that "misconduct" justified the pardon.

I call you boring and smarmy, because you are indeed both those things.

Quote:Anyone who followed the demonstration in post #37 will see it is not "refuted" by this sort of rinse and repeat.

And you don't have anything else. 

Yes, anyone who has followed this "discussion" can see you've got nothing and you're projecting your failures onto me.  And with that, I'm done arguing in circles with you on this subject.  Feel free to win internet points to be redeemed later.