NationStates Jolt Archive

Federal District Judge Nancy Gertner issued a ruling today, finding in favor of four defendants and their families in a malicious prosecution case stemming from the involvement of the FBI in framing 4 innocent men for murder in the 1960s. Two of the men died in jail, the other two were released a few years ago after spending more than 30 years in prison. She issued a judgement in excess of $100 million dollars in total.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/wrongful.convictions.ap/index.html)


This case is especially close to me because I know Judge Gertner, and one of her clerks who worked on this case is a law school friend of mine

Already posted a link to this in another thread, only to prove that the FBI has a long history of using informants.
Your point being what? This is a stand alone topic, get over yourself.

Federal District Judge Nancy Gertner issued a ruling today, finding in favor of four defendants and their families in a malicious prosecution case stemming from the involvement of the FBI in framing 4 innocent men for murder in the 1960s. Two of the men died in jail, the other two were released a few years ago after spending more than 30 years in prison. She issued a judgement in excess of $100 million dollars in total.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/wrongful.convictions.ap/index.html)


This case is especially close to me because I know Judge Gertner, and one of her clerks who worked on this case is a law school friend of mine

Already posted a link to this in another thread, only to prove that the FBI has a long history of using informants.

I blogged about this story this morning (sorry--no link. Had a bad experience once), and my take on it was basically that the FBI's argument that the end justified the means was bullshit all the way around.

Already posted a link to this in another thread, only to prove that the FBI has a long history of using informants.

That's like saying peanut butter has a long history of being made from peanuts. stfu

I blogged about this story this morning (sorry--no link. Had a bad experience once), and my take on it was basically that the FBI's argument that the end justified the means was bullshit all the way around.

early on in this case, the FBI basically argued that framing the men was an exercise in police discretion and as such not subject to review. I forget her exact wording but it was something like "in rejecting this argument it seems to me odd that the FBI would argue that is within their discretion to violate the constitution. That, to me, seems rather against the point of it"

While the FBI acted abusively in this case by trying to hide the identity of their informant, and therefore falsely convicting four men

Fixed.

That's like saying peanut butter has a long history of being made from peanuts. stfu

It had to be pointed out - because some of the posters seemed to think that FBI informants were something new, and something illegal and unconstitutional.

While the FBI acted abusively in this case by trying to hide the identity of their informant, and therefore falsely convicting two men, it in no way makes the use of informants illegal or unconstitutional.

The FBI encouraged perjury, helped frame the four men and withheld for more than three decades information that could have cleared them, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner said in issuing her ruling Thursday.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/wrongful.convictions.ap/index.html

The verdict seems just and right.

The FBI seems to have failed completely in their duties in this case.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/wrongful.convictions.ap/index.html

The verdict seems just and right.

The FBI seems to have failed completely in their duties in this case.

I agree.

did the judgement get reduced by the amount of money they would have had to spend to live outside of jail all that time and the cost of holding them?

did the judgement get reduced by the amount of money they would have had to spend to live outside of jail all that time and the cost of holding them?

the vast vast VAST bulk of this award is from punitive damages and paind and suffering, which are not reduced as such. Also to my knowledge there is no reduction for the cost of holding them, but damages of this type are reduced based on money "saved" by not paying for rent and food.

But I've never heard of anyone actually being billed for the government's costs, only what they saved.

But I've never heard of anyone actually being billed for the government's costs, only what they saved.

It's happened in the UK. All a bit of an embarrassment for the home office.

It's happened in the UK. All a bit of an embarrassment for the home office.

No, I remember when that article got posted here. If I recall correctly they were not billed for the cost of the jail cell and food. That is not what happened at all.

Rather, their damages got reduced by the amount they would have spent had they been free. Their lawyer COMPARED it to being billed for being in jail, but that's not what happened. Their damages were reduced by money saved for not being free and paying bills.

That's what happened, it wasn't like they handed them a bill and went "here you go". It was an analogy that the reporting paper took a bit too literally, but that's not what happened (if we're thinking of the same case)

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/wrongful.convictions.ap/index.html

The verdict seems just and right.

The FBI seems to have failed completely in their duties in this case.

It was the Hoover days when this shit went down, man. Fuck all knows what happened inside the Bureau back then. Probably occult ceremonies and a heady dose of transvestitism. That dude was a freeeeaak.

No, I remember when that article got posted here. If I recall correctly they were not billed for the cost of the jail cell and food. That is not what happened at all.

Rather, their damages got reduced by the amount they would have spent had they been free. Their lawyer COMPARED it to being billed for being in jail, but that's not what happened. Their damages were reduced by money saved for not being free and paying bills.

That's what happened, it wasn't like they handed them a bill and went "here you go". It was an analogy that the reporting paper took a bit too literally, but that's not what happened (if we're thinking of the same case)

Well, I can't say I looked into it too much. So you are probably right. I do remember the BBC saying they were billed, and it would come out of their compensation, but what you say makes sense too.

Either way, the home office got egg on its face.

It's a bit disturbing to see how corrupt of an organization the FBI really is.

It's a bit disturbing to see how corrupt of an organization the FBI really is.

Really? I think it is sort of to be expected. It's the sort of job that is going to attract nutters and sickos. Not to mention J. Edgar.

Really? I think it is sort of to be expected. It's the sort of job that is going to attract nutters and sickos. Not to mention J. Edgar.That's just it - the FBI should be watching the nutters and sickos, not composed of them.

That's just it - the FBI should be watching the nutters and sickos, not composed of them.

I don't disagree. But look at the nature of the job, it's just not going attract the type of people you actually want doing it.

And really their screening process isn't all that. This guy I went to college with joined the FBI. He was a fucking nutter, and sad to boot. (He lived with his mom until he was 32, and used to go on about the coming 'race war'. I shit you not).

Sadly, I didn't know him well enough to be part of his background check. Though I can't believe someone didn't point all this out.

did the judgement get reduced by the amount of money they would have had to spend to live outside of jail all that time and the cost of holding them?

Not as far as I could tell in this case. They didn't ask for any particular sum of money, only that the judge think of a suitable number. From the article:

The men's attorneys had not asked for a specific amount in damages, but in court documents they cited other wrongful conviction cases in which $1 million was awarded for every year of imprisonment. Gertner ordered the government to pay $101.7 million.

I don't disagree. But look at the nature of the job, it's just not going attract the type of people you actually want doing it.

And really their screening process isn't all that. This guy I went to college with joined the FBI. He was a fucking nutter, and sad to boot. (He lived with his mom until he was 32, and used to go on about the coming 'race war'. I shit you not).

Sadly, I didn't know him well enough to be part of his background check. Though I can't believe someone didn't point all this out.

as long as he didn't act upon his convictions, it should be ok. also, nothing wrong with living with your parents as an adult.

Not as far as I could tell in this case. They didn't ask for any particular sum of money, only that the judge think of a suitable number. From the article:*Hopes the money is Tax Free*

as long as he didn't act upon his convictions, it should be ok. also, nothing wrong with living with your parents as an adult.


I think if you are living with mom because you lack the emotional maturity to cope with real life, then it probably should bar you from being an FBI agent. Otherwise you might end up acting like this. Linky (http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A12715&status=rate&ratebtn=5)

I think if you are living with mom because you lack the emotional maturity to cope with real life, then it probably should bar you from being an FBI agent. Otherwise you might end up acting like this. Linky (http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A12715&status=rate&ratebtn=5)

Living with one's mother does not signify a lack of emotional maturity. Asking for your mother's approval to do things does.

"Mom, I wanna joing the FBI. Can I please?" :D

Living with one's mother does not signify a lack of emotional maturity. Asking for your mother's approval to do things does.

Well, sure, it depends on the specifics. But this guy wasn't living with mom because of financial problems, or because mom needed care or anything like that.

"Mom, I wanna joing the FBI. Can I please?" :D

I gather that is pretty much how he was.

I don't disagree. But look at the nature of the job, it's just not going attract the type of people you actually want doing it.

And really their screening process isn't all that. This guy I went to college with joined the FBI. He was a fucking nutter, and sad to boot. (He lived with his mom until he was 32, and used to go on about the coming 'race war'. I shit you not).

Sadly, I didn't know him well enough to be part of his background check. Though I can't believe someone didn't point all this out.

I think you can say that about most cops. I'm generally worried about the type of person who feels like he or she would like to make a career out of making sure everyone else follows the rules. Don't get me wrong--they're a necessary part of society--but I wonder about the mindset that causes people to want to go into that line of work.

I think you can say that about most cops. I'm generally worried about the type of person who feels like he or she would like to make a career out of making sure everyone else follows the rules. Don't get me wrong--they're a necessary part of society--but I wonder about the mindset that causes people to want to go into that line of work.

My alma mater is one of the largest law enforcement schools in the state (maybe the country, can't remember specifics) and while a fair number of the students studying law enforcement I wouldn't trust with a badge and a gun if my life depended on it, the others seemed to focus less on "making sure everyone else follows the rules" and more on catching the people that break them and trying to actually do some good.

This is, of course, all wrapped up in the package of "it's also a decent career," so take it as you will.

its a shame that 2 of the men didnt live long enough to be vindicated and that the other 2 are so old that they will get limited enjoyment of their money. i hope they blow every penny before they die.

and its also a shame that the people who railroaded these men arent punished for what they did. its not like the money is coming out of their pockets.

its a shame that 2 of the men didnt live long enough to be vindicated and that the other 2 are so old that they will get limited enjoyment of their money. i hope they blow every penny before they die.

and its also a shame that the people who railroaded these men arent punished for what they did. its not like the money is coming out of their pockets.

Do those people have $100 million between them?

Do those people have $100 million between them?

The government should pay the money, but maybe some criminal charges should have been handed out among the railroaders...

Do those people have $100 million between them?

you mean...the united states federal government?

yeah, I think they can scrounge it up.

The government should pay the money

They are..the lawsuit, and subsequent verdict was against the federal government, courtesy of the Westfall Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00002679----000-.html)

but maybe some criminal charges should have been handed out among the railroaders..

35 years ago, statute of limitations long since lapsed. That's the sad part of all this. The federal government pays the bill, not the actual perpetrators, and they can't be charged because it happened far too long ago.

The actual FBI agents who did this get along scott fee, the worst thing happening to them is that maybe they lose their government pension.

Do those people have $100 million between them?

noooo

which is why its better monetarily to have sued the feds. they have the deep pockets necessary. a $100million judgement against individuals would have netted the aggrieved nothing. thats not good.

but a few years of jail time for the agents who set these guys up would have had a more chilling effect on those who might be inclined to do something like that in the future.

The actual FBI agents who did this get along scott fee, the worst thing happening to them is that maybe they lose their government pension.

That's actually a pretty big deal. It's not enough of course. But it's certainly a huge thing for career government mouth breathers who are already well into retirement.

noooo

which is why its better monetarily to have sued the feds. they have the deep pockets necessary. a $100million judgement against individuals would have netted the aggrieved nothing. thats not good.

It wasn't a choice really. See the westfall act which I linked earlier, specifically:

Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a United States district court shall be deemed an action against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant

suits like this...the government becomes the party, automatically, they COULDN'T sue them if they wanted to, this statute automatically makes them immune and puts the government as a party.

but a few years of jail time for the agents who set these guys up would have had a more chilling effect on those who might be inclined to do something like that in the future.

And like I said, by the time they found this out, the statute of limitations had long since lapsed.

It wasn't a choice really. See the westfall act which I linked earlier, specifically:



suits like this...the government becomes the party, automatically, they COULDN'T sue them if they wanted to, this statute automatically makes them immune and puts the government as a party.



And like I said, by the time they found this out, the statute of limitations had long since lapsed.

oh i understand that.

i just hate it when bad men do bad things and are shielded from the consequences by working for the government.

sigh

at least mr niphong in north carolina is getting his come-uppance.

And like I said, by the time they found this out, the statute of limitations had long since lapsed.

Not to mention that proving who did what (an absolute requirement for a conviction) would be near impossible at this late a date.

They are..
I know.


35 years ago, statute of limitations long since lapsed. That's the sad part of all this. The federal government pays the bill, not the actual perpetrators, and they can't be charged because it happened far too long ago.

The actual FBI agents who did this get along scott fee, the worst thing happening to them is that maybe they lose their government pension.
I know. Hence the "should". Maybe such cases should have a longer limitations period, as they tend to take longer to be brought into the light.

Not to mention that proving who did what (an absolute requirement for a conviction) would be near impossible at this late a date.

There seems to be some very specific documents in this case, so I can't see that it would necessarily be a huge problem.

That's just it - the FBI should be watching the nutters and sickos, not composed of them.

While you are right, keep in mind that the FBI brings in a special kind of nutcase because, like all intelligence agencies, it attracts a fair share of vouyers (not of a sexual kind, per se, but I can't come up with a good equivalent word).

While you are right, keep in mind that the FBI brings in a special kind of nutcase because, like all intelligence agencies, it attracts a fair share of vouyers (not of a sexual kind, per se, but I can't come up with a good equivalent word).I know what you mean. There are people who like to watch other people, even when those other people aren't having sex.

Federal District Judge Nancy Gertner issued a ruling today, finding in favor of four defendants and their families in a malicious prosecution case stemming from the involvement of the FBI in framing 4 innocent men for murder in the 1960s. Two of the men died in jail, the other two were released a few years ago after spending more than 30 years in prison. She issued a judgement in excess of $100 million dollars in total.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/wrongful.convictions.ap/index.html)


This case is especially close to me because I know Judge Gertner, and one of her clerks who worked on this case is a law school friend of mine

Well it's nice to see more of my tax dollars not going to where they're needed.

Well it's nice to see more of my tax dollars not going to where they're needed.

lol

There seems to be some very specific documents in this case, so I can't see that it would necessarily be a huge problem.

Documentation is fine, but without corroborative testimony it's not especially strong. You might be able to get a preponderance of the evidence (the requirement for a civil suit), but getting proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be a stretch.

Documentation is fine, but without corroborative testimony it's not especially strong. You might be able to get a preponderance of the evidence (the requirement for a civil suit), but getting proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be a stretch.

Documentation is actually worth more than testimony. It sould be enough to get beyond reasonable doubt. Depending on the documentation, of course.