The only reason Mayfield is a free man today is that the Spanish police repeatedly told the FBI that the print recovered from the bag of detonators didn’t match Mayfield’s fingerprints. The FBI, however, continued to stand by its lab’s findings until Spanish authorities conclusively matched the print to the real culprit, Algerian national Ouhane Daoud.
That "only" is not rhetorical -- the guy would probably be entombed in a supermax or frying in the electric chair if he had been flagged for a terrorism case in the US, in which case the FBI would have had sole jurisdiction and there would have been nobody with the power to say that a) you guys are mistaken and b) we've nabbed the actual culprit.
This sort of stuff is deeply worrying because it means that law enforcement are perfectly happy for the actual perpetrator to go free, so long as they tick their boxes. It would be like doctors prescribing the nearest drug to hand without bothering to find out what was wrong with the patient. A restaurant that took your order then brought you whatever was easiest to cook would go out of business in a day!
"This sort of stuff is deeply worrying because it means that law enforcement are perfectly happy for the actual perpetrator to go free, so long as they tick their boxes."
I don't think this case is good evidence of that. The problem was that they really believed he was guilty, not that they were unconcerned with whether he was guilty so long as they had someone to jail.
"It would be like doctors prescribing the nearest drug to hand without bothering to find out what was wrong with the patient."
No, it would be like doctors jumping to a conclusion too early and then prescribing based on that conclusion. That does happen fairly frequently, though, if I understand correctly.
No, they constructed the case. You and I, and everyone else commenting here, is in a database of people who read the news on an "Islamic" website. Add in a few more coincidences, hey presto, a terrorist!
It is rhetorical, because in front a judge, you would have to have actual evidence.
Of course the burden of proof for investigating someone's behavior is lower than to get a conviction: if it wasn't, why would there be investigations? I don't want to defend the FBI's idiotic handling of this (namely ignoring all the evidence against the theory), but acting like the FBI has sole discretion to throw someone into prison with so much evidence against their theory is very bizarre.
The only reason he might not be a free man would be that the court system can be very slow.
Per the WP article on Brandon Mayfield, there was plenty of evidence, it's just that it was 'largely "fabricated and concocted by the FBI and DOJ"'. For example, the fingerprint was described as a "100% match", when it apparently wasn't even close. He was also arrested as a "material witness", not a suspect, meaning he was held incommunicado and without access to a lawyer.
The most disturbing thing for me about the wiki article is the part where an appeals court reversed the 4th Amendment claim on the grounds that Mayfield didn't have standing. As in, a citizen who was jailed unjustly due to an ill-considered, unconstitutional law, doesn't have standing to challenge that law. What a shithole this place has become.
In order to have standing, one must prove that a favorable ruling would provide relief. Mayfield wanted information kept by the government from house searches to be destroyed, and the gov't argued that even if the FISA ammendments and PATRIOT act provisions were declared unconstitutional, that this information could still be kept.
Two arguments are pointed out:
>a Fourth Amendment violation occurs at the moment of the illegal search or seizure, and that the subsequent use of the evidence obtained does not per se violate the Constitution
>the Fourth Amendment does not provide a retroactive remedy for illegal conduct
The first point is based off of this case(http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/crimin...)... it basically says that the notion of illegal evidence only exists in a criminal court setting. In the case mentioned (concerning parole hearings, which are administrative hearings), this evidence can still be admitted. The argument can then continue that the gov't can hold onto the information, they just are not allowed to present it in court (supposedly).
I am not sure of this interpretation, but that was the argument.
Thanks for the explanation, but I'm sure you can understand how one might be disappointed in caselaw that completely vitiates a basic tenet of the Bill of Rights. I mean, if there is no remedy for a violation, why does any asshole cop ever bother with the Miranda warning?
Well the judicial system overturned all of this based from the FBI's own records. I think this proves the point that you would have to try pretty hard to get the false conviction.
I'm not trying to say the state of affairs is OK, I'm saying that even with the FBI's craziness, the courts exist as that final checkpoint where all this can end up being reversed.
> I think this proves the point that you would have to try pretty hard to get the false conviction.
Is that all you're worried about? This article points out some of the problems of being arrested, like concern that others in the jail will find that the arrestee is accused of being a terrorist. There's also the social taint of being so named, which may make employment more difficult.
Even without arrest, there's still the stress of knowing that one is being observed. See what happened to Steven Hatfill, a "person of interest" in the anthrax attacks of 2001, who was never arrested.
Then there's the issue that some huge majority of convictions (95+%?) are plea bargained, and where the prosecutor's strategy is to give as many charges as possible, so it's in the interest of the defendant to plead guilty to a few of the lesser ones rather than the much more expensive trial needed to defend all of the charges.
Also, there's a strong desire to not question a judgement, keep the case open, and preserve information which might otherwise lead to a reversal. Quoting Wikipedia: "In the case of Joseph Roger O'Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, a prosecuting attorney argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O'Dell, "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man." The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed."
We know there's, what, over 300 overturned convictions based on DNA evidence (meaning, that's limited to only those cases where there was physical evidence that could be used).
All this should be evidence that 1) using court judgements is ignoring a large part of the issue, 2) the trial must not be the final checkpoint, and 3) the legal system is not set up to help aid post-trial exonerations.
> I don't want to defend the FBI's idiotic handling of this (namely ignoring all the evidence against the theory), but acting like the FBI has sole discretion to throw someone into prison with so much evidence against their theory is very bizarre.
Maybe bizarre, but true -- consider how many people have been proven innocent and released after sometimes serving decades for crimes they didn't commit.
Quote: "There have been 312 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States."
The above refers only to people proven innocent using DNA analysis. It's certain that many more innocent people remain incarcerated for whom no DNA evidence exists (or has been retained since the investigation) to prove their innocence.
> The only reason he might not be a free man would be that the court system can be very slow.
False. There are many ways to convict a person besides incontrovertible direct evidence of guilt. Here's my favorite:
In summary, a man was convicted of rape by a pathological liar and thrown in jail, served six years and was finally released after his accuser went on to serially accuse many other men of imaginary sex crimes. The woman was admonished by the court and released without serving any time.
Like I said, I'm not condoning the FBI's behavior. I'm just saying the idea that he would have ended up under a guilty verdict if not for the insistence of the fingerprint match shows little faith for the judicial system (which, mind you, is an entirely different branch of government).
> It is rhetorical, because in front a judge, you would have to have actual evidence.
And the anti-terror system is constructed to specifically avoid the process of a suspect appearing in front of a judge and being innocent until proven guilty. See, for instance, Guantanamo bay.
Stop regurgutating that idiotic political spew. Start thinking for yourself or shut the fuck up.
The FBI has no jurisdiction. Courts have jurisdiction.
A single partial fingerprint would have been laughed out of the prosecutor's office. If the prosecutor was idiotic or careless, the judge would have thrown it out. If by some reverse miracle the judge had believed it, the jury, defense lawyer, and expert witnesses would have stopped it.
There are dozens of layers of reviews and protections, not the ignorant "FBI has sole jurisdiction" theory you are spouting.
Honestly, have you never in you life watched a single episode of a police procedural TV show? Even an episode of Cops?
There is also the matter of the DNA that goes along with every fingerprint, which would have definitively exonerated the suspect.
The FBI was simply doing their job: vacuum up as much information as possible and look for patterns. Their only legal obligation to the suspect is to get search warrants before searching and not torture him. Period. Cops incriminate, the rest of the system sorts it out.
You want an investigator that analyzes the value of evidence and lays criminal charges too, you convene a grand jury. But not the FBI, not cops of any kind.
> Honestly, have you never in you life watched a single episode of a police procedural TV show? Even an episode of Cops?
Haha, c'mon. Your supporting evidence is Law & Order?
When there are judges being sent to prison because they themselves were found sending boys to private prisons for money, do you expect people to have confidence in the justice system? Yes, fabulous, the judges were eventually caught. But in the meantime their corruption inflicted serious harm on all involved.
I'm pretty sure you're trolling. I need to believe you are.
The only reason Mayfield is a free man today is that the Spanish police repeatedly told the FBI that the print recovered from the bag of detonators didn’t match Mayfield’s fingerprints. The FBI, however, continued to stand by its lab’s findings until Spanish authorities conclusively matched the print to the real culprit, Algerian national Ouhane Daoud.
That "only" is not rhetorical -- the guy would probably be entombed in a supermax or frying in the electric chair if he had been flagged for a terrorism case in the US, in which case the FBI would have had sole jurisdiction and there would have been nobody with the power to say that a) you guys are mistaken and b) we've nabbed the actual culprit.