Slashdot Mirror
Court Orders Retrial In Google Maps-Related Murder Case
netbuzz writes "Ruling that a judge erred in blocking two computer security experts from testifying that an incriminating Google Maps search record found on the defendant's laptop was planted there, a North Carolina appeals court has ordered a new trial for ex-Cisco employee Bradley Cooper, convicted two years ago in the 2008 strangulation death of his wife Nancy. 'The sole physical evidence linking Defendant to Ms. Cooper's murder was the alleged Google Map search, conducted on Defendant's laptop, of the exact area where Ms. Cooper's body was discovered,' wrote the appeals court. 'We hold ... that erroneously preventing Defendant from presenting expert testimony, challenging arguably the strongest piece of the State's evidence, constituted reversible error and requires a new trial.'"
Next time I murder my wife
uhm... that does somewhat beg the question as to how many times you've murdered her already.
Judge makes reversible error. Case overturned on appeal. Nothing to see here. Move along.
If it were you who was locked up in prison for the rest of your life
for a crime you did not commit and there was evidence of a technical
nature that the ( obviously stupid ) judge refused to allow, you'd be thinking
a lot differently, buddy.
I think it IS newsworthy for two reasons : first, it shows yet another example of how utterly
fucked the adversarial legal system in the US really is. The goal of this fucked
up legal system is to "win", not to find the truth, and the assholes who prosecuted
this case ought to be disbarred for their enthusiasm toward suppressing crucial evidence.
Second, the news has a technical aspect because the "evidence" of the Google Maps
search may have been planted on the machine Cooper supposedly used. If such
details as info stored in a browser cache can be the point on which a man's freedom
hinges, this is technical news of importance.
- Z
Well, obviously he is a Mormon...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
It literally drives me up the wall when somebody has pour gramer.
What's fucked up is that you can be so clearly and utterly clueless - yet still get modded insightful. The prosecutors didn't suppress evidence - the judge ruled that experts couldn't testify. And that's his bloody job. And reading TFA, I can't say that I think he's entirely in the wrong - because the defense screwed the pooch in the first place. (By not getting a properly qualified expert in the first place, and then by potentially violating the rules of evidence.) Pointing out where the defense screwed up is the prosecutors job, and vice versa.
Now you're getting into the technicalities that are some of what makes the system fucked, so you're really making the his case. No, technically, the prosecutors didn't suppress the evidence, they filed motions to the judge asking him to suppress the evidence. The point here is that the prosecutors did initiate it. That's what's fucked up about the system. The prosecutor's job should be to find the truth, the problem is that finding the truth and justice is not their job, the job is to win and to hell with truth or justice, exactly the point the parent was trying to make.
So they decided the first expert wasn't qualified enough, fine, let's assume they're right, but then if the point of the system is to find the truth and not just to win, then why should they be able to prevent the defendant from finding a different person that the judge can agree is an expert? The point of disallowing a last-minute switch is so that the prosecution has time to check the facts. In this case, they already knew the defendant was going to bring in an expert witness, and what the expert was going to testify to, it shouldn't matter if there was a last-minute switch up, they already had time to check the facts, all they should need is enough time to verify the expert's qualifications.
On another note, the prosecutors also tried to prevent the defense from attempting to examine test data replicating the Google Maps search that was created by investigators by claiming national security! Now that really does sound like they were suppressing (or strong-arming the judge to suppress) potentially exculpatory evidence. Through each of these things, it is clear that the prosecutor is neither serving the public nor justice, their only goal is to win, and that is evidence that the system is totally fucked. If the system were not fucked, then the prosecutors would be disbarred for this.
More people in jail per kapita than Russia.
More people in jail per kapita than North Korea.
More people in jail per kapita than Cuba.
Komrade!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The fact remains that the prosecution is there to convince the judge to place a person in jail for violation of the law. The judge is supposed to presume that person is innocent; therefor it is squarely the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt. This is called "Burden of Proof" and thus the judge should be placing a burden on the prosecution.
As the judge should be willfully placing a burden on one party to prove a fact and accepting from another party to only demonstrate that the prosecution hasn't provided sufficient proof of that fact--and specifically, not to show that the declaration of guilt made by the prosecution is actually wrong--this entire process is by nature biased toward the defense. The judge should be maintaining that bias, forcing the prosecution to squarely shoulder their own damn burden, and supporting the defense where reasonable even when it bends or breaks the technical rules of the court. Discovery rules, for example, are there so that you can't blind-side the other lawyer; but if the other lawyer is reasonably prepared for a type of evidence that is being replaced (expert witnesses) or can reasonably examine the evidence in a reasonable amount of time that the court can offer them during adjournment, then it is appropriate to allow introduction of new evidence that may prove catastrophic to the prosecution's case, as the prosecution should not be allowed to prove guilt based on a fantasy that has no grounding in the real world. This happens all the time.
It really is supposed to work that way. Look at the Zimmerman trial and you see a judge who needs to be executed for treason--the judge in that case put the defense in the hot seat and coddled the prosecution, which was completely and totally inappropriate. You are not guilty until you've shown your innocence.
Support my political activism on Patreon.