Second Link for Anita containing an Appeals Court decision

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

The first link I gave you contained this quote:

"Sir William Blackstone stated famously that it was better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. Place this statement against the background of child abuse allegations, in which 9 out of 10 reports are false, and where therapists are creating a revenue generating class of victims. One must ask who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.

One such case was that of 22 year old Kelly Michaels, in which a counsel who had not even completed law school was appointed to defend her against multiple counts of sexual abuse. Her lawyer's anemic defense allowed the prosecution present evidence to support charges so patently ridiculous that her conviction was a crime.

Fortunately, after spending only five and one half years in prison, an appeals court threw out her conviction, stating that the case presented against her was fraudulent. Most innocent defendants are not so fortunate. "

And here is the link to the court ruling:

"New Jersey v Margaret Kelly Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 642 A2d 1372 (June 13,1994). A unanimous Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ms. Michaels on the basis of science and reliability. The Court stated;

oThe issue we must determine is whether the interview techniques used by the State in this case were so coercive or suggestive that they had a capacity to substantially distort the children's recollections of actual events and thus compromise the reliability of the children's statements and testimony based on their recollections. New Jersey vs. Margaret Kelly Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1377 (June 13, 1994). oIf a child's recollection of events has been molded by an interrogation, that influence undermines the reliability of the child's responses as an accurate recollection of actual events. Michaels 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1377 (June 13, 1994). oWe note that a fairly wide consensus exists among experts, scholars, and practitioners concerning improper interrogation techniques. They argue that among the factors that can undermine the neutrality of an interview and create undue suggestiveness are a lack of investigatory independence, the pursuit by the interviewer of a preconceived notion of what has happened to the child, the use of leading questions, and a lack of control for outside influences on the child's statements, such as previous conversations with parents or peers. 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1377 (June 13, 1994). oA lack of objectivity also was indicated by the interviewer's failure to pursue any alternative hypothesis that might contradict an assumption of defendant's guilt, and a failure to challenge or probe seemingly outlandish statements made by the children. The record is replete with instances in which children were asked blatantly leading questions that furnished information the children themselves had not mentioned. Michaels 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1380 (June 13, 1994) oTo ensure defendant's right to a fair trial a pretrial taint hearing is essential to demonstrate the reliability of the resultant evidence. 136 N.J. 299, 642 A 2d 1372, 1382 (June 13, 1994) 13. Assessing reliability as a predicate to the admission of in-court testimony is a somewhat extraordinary step. Nevertheless, it is not unprecedented. [Citing to Mason v Braithwaite, 432 US 98, 97 S Ct 2243, 53 L Ed2d 140 (1977) & Jackson v Denno, 378 US 368, 84 S Ct 1774, 12 L Ed2d 908 (1964)] 136 N.J. 299,642 A 2d 1372, 1381 (June 13, 1994).

Specific points addressed by the Michaels Court;

oFailure to videotape initial interview; oLack of control for outside (family) influences; oAbsence of spontaneous recall in the supposed victims; oInterviewer bias - A preconceived notion that alleged wrongdoer, "did it"; oRepeated leading questions; oIncessant questioning, either by examiners of by family members; oMultiple interviews; oTransmission of suggestion to children ie: tone of voice; oPositive reinforcement of inculpatory statements; oNegative reinforcement of exculpatory statements; oFailure to probe outlandish statements; oContact with peers and reference to their statements; oUse of mild threats, bribes or cajoling; oVilification of alleged wrongdoer. -- "

http.www.allencowling.com/nojava/false08.htm



-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 08, 2000


Moderation questions? read the FAQ