May it Displease the Court

*/ ?>

Latest Episodes:

Ep. 15 - Bail Reform Is Nothing To Fear May 05, 2021

Show notes

The first episode of Season 2 hosted by Mary welcomes back Erik Teifke, who is the Second Assistant at the Monroe County Public Defender’s Office in Rochester, NY. The episode looks at the effects of New York’s historic 2020 Bail Reform law.

This law took away judges’ ability to set bail on certain charges with the goal of drastically reducing the number of people held pre-trial and pre-conviction. Here are the highlights:

1) The purpose of bail has always been ensuring that a person charged with a crime comes back to court to participate in their defense. For decades judges across the state abused their discretion in setting bail resulting in thousands and thousands of people held in jail during the prosecution of their case simply because they could not afford to post bail, which disrupted their lives, jobs, and families. The cost of jailing pre-trial detainees as well as the economic cost from their disrupted lives is significant prompting the change in the law.

2) Immediately after the law took effect and before any data could be collected on the impact of the law, District Attorneys, Police Departments and Police Unions enacted a coordinated fear mongering campaign to make New Yorkers believe that now dangerous (minority) criminals would be roaming free to victimize them.

3) Four months after the Bail Reform law passed, legislators watered it down by giving judges the ability to set bail on more charges, but the law is still a significant reform that has drastically reduced the amount of people held pre-trial and proven that bail was not needed to incentivize people returning to court, the vast majority come back on their own as required.

Finally, we encourage listeners to advocate for bail reform in their own communities.

Resources

Need More Access

Follow the pod on Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events and let us know your thoughts.
Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com
Subscribe so you don’t miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean, Spotify, Sticher, Vurb, or via RSS.
Rate and Review (5 Stars!) the show to help people find us.

Ep. 14 - Free Speech Hate Speech Counter Speech Apr 20, 2021

Show notes

Free Speech Hate Speech Counter Speech The first crossover episode between May it Displease the Court, which looks at corruption in the courts from judges through dark money anti-democratic far-Right donors, and RhetoricLee Speaking, banishing banality one speech at a time. Your co-hosts, Mary and Lee, look at censorship, free speech vs. hate speech, and counter speech. Here are the highlights: 1) as much as we may want the law to recognize hate speech sometimes when truly vile opinions (in our opinions) are being circulated, the law does not recognize a hate speech exception to the first amendment that guarantees the right to free speech and 2) if there were such an exception it would be used to suppress minoritized people and their fight for civil liberties more often than it would be to silence transphobic, racist, sexist, and other kinds of exclusionary speech. We take you through a few cases that have been instrumental in establishing the “no hate speech” exception including Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS 2011 (Westboro Baptist Church) and Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288 We also look at some personal examples. Mary discusses an experience at the Anne Frank House right after 9-11 and Lee discusses a current campus event where the free speech of a racist and transphobic student is being protected. They also discuss potential alternative terms to replace hate speech, including “racist erasure” and “transphobic erasure.” Finally, Mary explains the issue of “school-sponsored speech,” in which first amendment rights come up against the purpose of educational institutions and the need for more counter-speech on the Left as the corrective for hateful-speech-that-isn’t-hate-speech by the anti-democratic far-Right funded by pro-corporate dark money donors. Check out May it Displease the Court on Apple Podcasts, Podbean, and Spotify! Resources The Dark Money Behind Campus Speech Wars First Amendment | US Constitution Harry CONNICK, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney, etc., Petitioner, v. Sheila MYERS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO ET AL. v. ROE William P. CLARK, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Petitioners v. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE et al. Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues Local and Independent Television Protection Act would overturn a Trump-era rule that’s permitted… Watch Field of Vision - Do Not Split about the suppression of Hong Kong pro-democracy protests Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/free-speech-hate-speech-counter-speech/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee *Subscribe to the show on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have thoughts? Hit me up on social media or Gmail @rhetoriclee Free Speech Hate Speech Counter Speech Mary: I was flying back from France when the planes hit the Twin Towers. After US airspace was closed my plane was turned back to Amsterdam. I spent an extra week in Europe until I was able to get back home. After a few days of securing funds bc I had no money and no credit card. We decided to do a little sight seeing and went to the Ann Frank House. I had been interested in the Holocaust since I was in elementary school and had read and studied it extensively. Set the scene - First you went on a tour and saw the attic where Ann and her family and another family hid out from the Nazis. I saw her bedroom and the pictures she pasted on the walls. We saw the hidden bookcase entrance. It was really emotional to be stranded in another country, far away from family. Describe the exercise –Then you descend into a part of the House that is more like a typical museum exhibit. They have the tour group sit around a table and in front of each person were two buttons, red and green and above the table were two lines of lights. At the end was a screen and on came a film that showed footage of far right Austrian politicians saying racist, hateful things and then the moderator asked whether we thought that speech should be protected, hit the green button or censored hit the red button. We did and the vast majority supported free speech. This process was repeated several more times and each time the speech got more extreme and then they started adding in comments that made it seem as if more people were supporting these hateful politicians and the votes became 50/50 free speech and censorship and by the end the vast majority had shifted from supporting free speech to supporting censorship of speech they didn’t like. I have never been a part of anything like that type of indoctrination before or since. My reactions - I was pretty pissed because it was clearly a pro-censorship propaganda tool and it worked with the people in my group. Kind of soured my opinion of the Ann Frank House. I mean, I’m an American so the 1st Amendment; Freedom of Speech is beat into our collective identity. I was a law student at the time. I had recently taken Constitutional Law and studied this very topic. So I fully believed that the best medicine for hate speech was more speech, not censorship. Now, of course this was 2001, Fox news was 5 yrs old, it was just starting to ruin my former mother-in-law. Charles Koch and his brother were still toiling away in secret trying to remake the way American think. But I did get where the museum was coming from. Some ideas aren’t just offensive, they are dangerous and what do we do with those? What is a Hate Crime? the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” including skin color and national origin. Hate crimes are overt acts that can include acts of violence against persons or property, violation or deprivation of civil rights, certain "true threats," or acts of intimidation, or conspiracy to commit these crimes. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that either criminalize these acts or impose a harsher punishment when it can be proven that the defendant targeted the victim because of the victim's race, ethnicity, identity, or beliefs. A hate crime is more than than offensive speech or conduct; it is specific criminal behavior that ranges from property crimes like vandalism and arson to acts of intimidation, assault, and murder. Victims of hate crimes can include institutions, religious organizations and government entities as well as individuals. 1st Amendment - What does it say? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What is Hate Speech? – Hate speech is subjective, meaning it means different things to different people. It’s a term that is thrown around as if it has a set definition. But, it doesn’t. Hate Speech is not a legally defined term. The 1st Amendment protects the free exchange of ideas even if the expression of those ideas is considered offensive or hateful. Matal v. Tam (2017) SCOTUS 8-0 Held that a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. It does not permit discrimination based on viewpoint and like it or not giving offense is a viewpoint. Any oft repeated idea in Sup Ct case law is "the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers. What do most people mean when they use the term hate speech? Typically it is used to describe speech designed to demean, vilify or incite hatred against a group or class of people because of their race, religion, sexual or gender identity, disability or national origin. If this speech is copacetic with the 1st Amendment, are there any legal limits on speech? Yes Speech becomes criminal when it is a specific threat of violence or incites imminent criminal activity targeted at a specific person or group. “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend. For example, two years ago two students at another SUNY school posted a snapchat of the two of them just lying in bed on Halloween and the caption said “gonna lynch some ni…. tonight.” To me, given the history of lynching, given the way it was phrased, given the use of the racial slur...that should be hate speech. Problems with excluding Hate Speech from 1st Amendment protection So, eventually a Judge is going to have to decide whether specific words are hate speech or not, not a good idea to give Judges this power. Why? Speech that makes people angry, or upset is protected by the 1st Amendment – example the Westboro Baptist Church Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS 2011 (Westboro Baptist Church) for 20 yrs this group has picketed military funerals to express their belief that God hates the US bc of it’s tolerance for homosexuality. Fred Phelps is the leader the other members are all his relatives. They traveled to Maryland and picketed 1,000 feet from the Church, on public property, in accordance with instruction from local law enforcement by silently holding up signs for 30 minutes that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” “Fags Doom Nations” “Priests Rape Boys” “You are Going to Hell''. The soldier’s father filed suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded him millions in damages. The 4th Circuit reversed the conviction holding that the 1st Amendment shielded them from civil liability because the statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric. “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers , 461 U. S. 138 . Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” id., at 146, or when it “is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public,” San Diego v. Roe , 543 U. S. 77 . Court must independently examine the “ ‘content, form, and context,’ Even protected speech is “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.” Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288 . Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case. Robert’s opnion – 8-1 (Alito dissenting) Lee: and when you listen to these examples like Westboro Church of course you want to call it hate speech. I want to call it hate speech. But we always have to remember that even though the law does NOT equally apply to everyone, it pretends as if it does and so any law you want to make would apply to everyone. So you can only imagine what would happen if hate speech were enforceable and Black Lives Matter protests happened… So while I can really understand wanting the law to step in and shut down some of these vile opinions, I also realize that if hate speech were regulated then it would be used against minoritized persons WAY more often than it would against homophobic speech, racist speech, etc. How do we get social change if hate speech isn’t a crime? Punishing people for speech we don’t like – slippery slope – Watch Hong Kong Doc – Oscar Nom Don’t Split This is what happens when an authoritarian government – China, wants to stifle pro-democracy speech and to criminalize it. The GOP are authoritarian and anti-democratic as evidenced by their attempts to overthrow the government, propagate the big lie to undercut democracy and the 361 voter suppression bills currently being pushed by Republican state legislatures. What will they do to speech they don’t like if they get back in power? Counter Speech is the antidote for hate speech – examples, strategies – in the US we believe that the remedy is more speech, not stifling speech. The First Amendment protects the right to advocate and agitate for a change in 1st Amendment law. And you could argue that the law should be changed to exclude hate speech, but this advocacy needs to define what constitutes hate speech, bc it is an undefined term and highly subjective. If the law is changed then it will be up to Judges to apply the new definition of hate speech to whatever circumstances brings about an alleged violation. Eugene Volokh who teached free speech law at UCLA law school, and used to clerk for Sup Ct justice Sandra Day O’Connor and also 9th Cir Judge Alex Kozinski (side note he retired after several law clerks accused him of workplace sexual misconduct including showing them porn at work on multiple occasions) suggests advocates of this expanded area of non-protected speech “should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two.” Problems with continuing to say hate speech when it just legally isn’t defensible --keeps us trapped in a binary of free speech/hate speech. so one side says hate speech the other side says free speech and it’s so obvious a slam dunk for whatever side claims free speech. --in fact, quote-unquote “american” who protect “free speech” are hoping you’ll scream about hate speech because they know it strengthens their position. I’ll give you an example on my campus a bit later when we talk about school sponsored speech So I actually put a post on my Facebook page asking my rhetoric/communication scholar hive mind what options they suggest for navigating this binary between hate and free speech. What other options are there. Here are some of the terms they suggested. Symbolic racism. Aversive racism. Implicit racism. the step below racism “racial animus.” symbolic racial violence overt racism racist erasure The point isn’t to choose any one of these. The point is that when you’re willing to agree that the binary isn’t working and that counter speech is the only action we have THEN you start getting creative about inventing language to create arguments that short circuit the free speech logics of the opposition. Sure, it’s free speech. That isn’t the point. It’s also racism. One thing I’ve heard a lot is “hateful speech” because it’s not “hate speech” but it’s close. To me, it’s too easily perverted. The other one suggested by Judith Butler and Wendy Brown is "injurious…

Full show notes at the publisher

Ep. 13 - Blue Lives and Black Lives Actually Don’t Matter & a Daniel Prude Feb 15, 2021

Show notes

Host Mary Whiteside, is joined by returning guest, attorney Don Thompson, who provides an update on what is happening with the various Daniel Prude cases, which include prosecutions of the Police Officers, civil lawsuits, and the independent investigation into the official governmental response. Don also updates us on the federal and state prosecutions following the violent police crackdown of the Black Lives Matter protests that erupted after the coverup of Daniel Prude’s death was revealed.

Next Don and Mary discuss the violent, deadly insurrection incited by Trump on January 6th. As we know, an overwhelmed, understaffed, under-equipped, and ill-prepared Capitol Police force were thrust into hand-to-hand combat akin to an hours long medieval battle against armed Trump supporters without backup. The police were overtaken and the insurgents swarmed the Capitol, stopping Congress's certification of President Biden’s election and sending the Legislative Branch and support staff running and hiding for their lives. Don and Mary discuss the infiltration of white supremacists in the police and military, the revelation that Blue Lives actually don’t matter, and the social media silence of the Blues Lives Matter/All Lives Matter crowd in the aftermath. They discuss possible ways to combat extremism and how to remove dangerous officers from police forces.

Finally, Mary and Don discuss the Trump Administration’s restarted Federal executions after a 17 year moratorium so they could rush to execute 13 people in the last few months of Trump’s term. Facilitated by the Department of Justice who enacted new and untested execution protocols and blessed by the Right Wing Justices of the Supreme Court. These executions were fast tracked through the Supreme Court’s emergency Shadow Docket. Justice Breyer and Sotomayor blistering dissents in the last case highlight how their colleagues ignored black letter law, as well as refused to let lower courts decide meritorious legal claims so that these executions could be completed before President Biden, who is against the death penalty, was inaugurated.

Need more? Follow the pod on Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events.

Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com
Subscribe so you don’t miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, on Spotify, or via RSS.
Rate and Review the show to help people find us.

Links to research cited in this episode

Ep. 12 - Democrats Win Republicans Revolt Feb 03, 2021

Show notes

We are back with the first of two Season 1 Bonus Episodes

In this first Bonus episode, Mary and Lee discuss this momentous time in history where the Democrats improbably won the Executive and Legislative trifecta kicking Trump and McConnell out of power. Trump and McConnell each responded true-to-form with Trump promoting a big lie that he won the election, with no evidence to support his claim, and then he incited a violent coup attempt, backed by Republicans and bankrolled by wealthy donors who wish to remain in the shadows. McConnell has dug his talons into the majority gavel and is obstructing the Democrats from taking power in the Senate by refusing to agree to the rules that will govern the transfer. Republicans want to move on and sweep that whole murderous coup-thing under the rug. While, moderate Democrats are killing the Democrats’ legislative momentum by refusing to change the rules to prevent McConnell from stopping the government from functioning. Then, people might actually realize that the government can work to help people, and not just rich, white people. Frankly, there is just too much going on for Lee and Mary to stay silent. As a bonus to this bonus you also get a sneak peek at Season 2, and what Mary and Lee are doing in the off-season.

Need more? Follow the pod on Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events.
Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com
Subscribe so you don’t miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, on Spotify, or via RSS.
Rate and Review the show to help people find us.

Ep. 11 - The Stakes Moving Forward Nov 10, 2020

Show notes

Find us on Twitter @courtpod

Welcome to the Season One Finale of May it Displease the Court. For our final episode, we’re gonna look at where the election stands in the courts, major upcoming court battles, shadow dockets, the crucial fight to rebalance the courts, and what we’ve got in store for next season!

Biden and Harris may have won but the court takeover by Trump and McConnell is going to be a huge problem. A Democratic administration isn’t enough--we need the Senate and we need to rebalance the courts.

We will still be active on Twitter as we prepare for season 2 @courtpod. Keep us in your podcast feed or subscriptions so that you also get teasers and announcements for Season 2, which will release sometime in mid to late 2021.

We’d love to hear from you on Twitter or you can email us displeasethecourt@gmail.com. Let us know your thoughts on the season, ideas for episodes for next season. We take your comments to heart so drop us a review. And once again we really want to extend our appreciation to all of you who have taken the time to listen.

References used in this episode:

Ep. 10 - Coded Communication: Signalling, Auditioning, and Amicus Briefs Oct 26, 2020

Show notes

In this episode we dive into a question that has been driving us nuts all season: HOW is the new Right coordinating this massive court takeover? I mean all those politicians, judges, big money donors...where is the paper trail? You’ve got 80, 5-4 Supreme Court decisions in favor of corporate interests. And that is ALL of the court cases. How are they managing to all get on the same page with absolutely NO record of meetings or conspiracies and ALL of this money exchanging hands? Here’s the theory: Coded Communication. The money--the power--communicates to the foot soldiers. By foot soldiers I mean McConnell, Trump, the Supreme Court Justices--all the people you think are at the height of power but are actually bowing to the money. And in this episode we’re gonna lay out what we think are the three cornerstones of that communication code: Signalling (how Fox News is used to coordinate across the foot soldiers and the base), Auditioning (how Judges let the new Right know their opinions are for sale), and Amicus Briefs (“friends of the court” statements that the Money uses to tell Judges how to judge).

Click here to visit the episode on our website

Click here to see a transcription of the episode

Links to references in this episode:

Ep. 9 - Fighting for Daniel Prude: Police Brutality and Protestor Rights with Don Thompson and Jill Paperno Oct 20, 2020

Show notes

This episode looks at the tragic and unnecessary death of Daniel Prude, a black man suffering from a mental health crisis when he was killed by police in March 2020 in Rochester, NY. However, the true nature of his death was concealed by police and possibly the city government until police body camera footage was released to the family and made public in September.

Rochestarians and activists like Free The People Roc and BLack Lives Matter, who protested the death of George Floyd, returned to the streets to demand justice for Daniel Prude. The police responded to the protests with a violent, militarized crackdown causing serious, and in some cases permanent damage to protesters.

Mary and Lee wanted to tell the story of Daniel Prude and Rochester’s response, because of their personal connections to the community. But more importantly, because what happened here can and is occurring across the country.

Mary interviews two attorneys involved with lawsuits and legal representation of Daniel Prude’s family and protesters seeking justice and accountability for Daniel Prude’s death. Don Thompson returns to the pod as a lawyer representing Daniel Prude’s family and protesters who were seriously injured as part of the protests. He is also part of litigation that is aimed at holding the government accountable for its failures, as well as changing police practices and the treatment of those who need assistance during a mental health crisis. Jill Paperno, First Assistant Public Defender at Monroe County Public Defender’s Office joins us to discuss her role in defending protesters.

The last part of the episode focuses on ways to protect yourself if you protest. What rights do protesters have? What types of charges could you face if you are at a protest that becomes contentious? What can you do if you are stopped or detained by police, if you witness an arrest, or if you are being arrested? What should you do after you are arrested? Valuable information to have especially give the hostility the Trump Administration and Attorney General Barr have towards protesters.

Resources mentioned in this episode:

Ep. 8 - The Difficulty of Removing Judges feat. Michael Moodian Oct 12, 2020

Show notes

Our legal system gives Judges power over trivial matters as well as over life or death. But who judges the Judges? The answer varies with the jurisdictions. In this episode Mary and Lee speak with Assistant Professor Michael Moodian who was appointed by the Governor of California, Jerry Brown, to the 11-member State of California Commission on Judicial Performance in 2015 and reappointed Mike for a four-year term in 2017. The commission investigates judicial misconduct and complaints and disciplines state judges. This is a behind the scenes look at the process of investigating judicial complaints including who files complaints, how investigations proceed, and what types of sanctions are available to deal with judicial misconduct. Is it going to be a private letter, or a public reprimand, all the way up to removal from the bench. Mary shares her experience with Judges who, perhaps, crossed the line of propriety. Mary, Lee, and Mike wrap up the episode discussing the benefits of a systemic change to include proactive judicial monitoring with financial and assets disclosure requirements that could help expose and deter judicial corruption. Find us on Twitter @courtpod Click here to see the episode on our website

Resources mentioned in this episode:

https://www.chapman.edu/our-faculty/michael-moodian https://cjp.ca.gov/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686/pa-judge-sentenced-to-28-years-in-massive-juvenile-justice-bribery-scandal

Ep. 7 - Courage for Profit: How the Modern Right has Weaponized Language Oct 05, 2020

Show notes

In this episode we’re looking at specific strategies that the anti-democratic revolutionary libertarian right, the McConnell-Trump-Koch/Dark money axis of evil for short, redefines particular words such as “liberty” and “courage” and “conservatives” so that they can dupe their supporters into believing they are getting one thing--more liberty, more courage, more conservatism--while they’re in fact getting less.

With help from Ian Haney López, author of Merge Left, and Nancy McLean, author of Democracy in Chains, this episode explores how the radical anti-democratic libertarian Right has exploited “religious liberty” and “conservatism” and how “courage” is being redeployed to mean pro-corporation and anti-democracy.

Mary revisits the ever important issue of court packing, following some Koch surrogates like Carrie Severino of the Heritage Foundation. We unpack the word “courage” popping up in strange ways to describe the judicial quality that the Trump administration has been looking for in their nomination list of Federal Judges. Looking across excerpts not only Severino but also Justica Scalia, Don McGahn (former White House Council, and Leonard Leo, it’s clear that courage is joining liberty and conservative as code words for the willingness to undermine democracy in favor of the rich getting richer.

Click here for the episode transcript

Click here to see the episode on our website

Resources mentioned in this episode:

Follow the show on Twitter @courtpod

Ep. 6 - Innocent Then ”Proven” Guilty: Wrongful Conviction Exoneration with Don Thompson Sep 29, 2020

Show notes

We tell ourselves that prisons are populated by guilty people. We justify treating prisoners poorly, harshly because they "deserve to be there". There is a long tradition underlying this myth. Ben Franklin reportedly said "it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than one guilty man be convicted". The advent and continued improvement of DNA technology has proven that wrongful convictions are a regular part of our criminal justice system. Mary and Lee welcome award winning attorney Don Thompson who is unfortunately an expert in wrongful conviction exonerations. Don has had five post conviction exonerations. They are amazing successes born out of epic systemic failures. Don joined forces with The Innocence Project, out of New York City, which works to exonerate people based on DNA evidence.Here are some facts about exonerations pulled from The Innocence Project website: "The first exoneration occurred in 1989, to date there have been 375 more. The average number of years served before exoneration is 14. 21 of those people had been on death row. 44 pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. All but 15 of the exonerations involved some form of false confession. 60% of those exonerated were Black and 31% were white." In a functioning system the appellate system would conduct meaningful reviews of convictions and would catch wrongful convictions in short order, but it doesn't and that is in large part because Judges and District Attorneys fight tooth and nail to oppose meaningful review of the evidence to keep these convictions intact. Don discusses his representation of Valentino Dixon who was wrongfully convicted of murder even though another man confessed on camera within a day of the shooting. Mr. Dixon's conviction was affirmed by the appeals courts. He served 28 years before being released and it was in large part because of the interest taken by Golf Digest, of all publications. It is a truly fascinating and frustrating saga. Wrongful convictions hurt everyone, the innocent person loses years, decades of their life that can never be recovered, the victim and the public are decided and are sold a false sense of security while the true culprit remains free to commit more crimes, creating more victims, and tax dollars are spent incarcerating an innocent person. DNA does not exist in every case and there is no guarantee that it was preserved if it was collected begging the question, how many more innocent people are populating our crowded prisons? Click here to see the episode on our website Resources mentioned in this episode

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

May it Displease the Court

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected