[...]just a few interesting websites really worth seeing. All of us recommend the whole viewers move and check these types of out[...]……

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……

[...]some interesting sites worth visitng. We recommend all our readers go and check these out[...]……

I don't know the Banks case, but if you are interpreting it in the same manner as you did on these other cases, I bet you need to re read the decsions.

(Lawyers for the two prosecutors counter that there is no constitutional right “not to be framed.” )

WITHOUT legal parsing, prosecutors lawyer's arguments can simply be interpreted “they believe that prosecutors are untouchable”. Other than Nifong, rampant prosecutor misconduct without action creates appearance of absolute immunity. In Pennsylvania crooked judges are now asserting their judicial immunity, again, the average person is left to wonder.

“Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.”

What do you think the justices were considering in the case of Delma Banks in Texas? Delma has been scheduled to be executed 15 times. In March 2003, he came within 10 minutes of being killed before the U.S. Supreme Court granted him a stay.

As for Justice Scalia's statement:
Scalia: Constitution Doesn't Recognize Claims of Innocence After Verdict

Dershowitz: Scalia's Death Penalty Remarks a “Betrayal” of Constitution and Church

I don't know the Banks case, but if you are interpreting it in the same manner as you did on these other cases, I bet you need to re read the decsions.

(Lawyers for the two prosecutors counter that there is no constitutional right “not to be framed.” ) WITHOUT legal parsing, prosecutor's lawyers argument can simply be interpreted “they are untouchable”. Other than Nifong, rampant prosecutor misconduct without action creates appearance of absolute immunity. In Pennsylvania crooked judges are now asserting their judicial immunity, again, the average person is left to wonder.

“Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.”

What do you think the justices were considering in the case of Delma Banks in Texas? Delma has been scheduled to be executed 15 times. In March 2003, he came within 10 minutes of being killed before the U.S. Supreme Court granted him a stay.

A lot of folks misinterpret that.

Scalia and O'Connor are both referring to the entire Court. They are both correct that the Court has never so forbidden.

Per O'Connor: “Accordingly, the Court has no reason to pass on, and appropriately reserves, the question whether federal courts may entertain convincing claims of actual innocence. That difficult question remains open. If the Constitution's guarantees of fair procedure and the safeguards of clemency and pardon fulfill their historical mission, it may never require resolution at all.”

You wrote: “Justice Scalia's revelation that it is NOT unconstitutional to executed an innocent, there isn't much need for discussion is there?”

You misinterpret. What they are saying is that the Court has not ruled on that issue, yet. They haven't forbidden or accepted the issue. It hasn't been ruled on.

You left out the next sentence in Scalia's quote, which is: “Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.”

“unresolved”

I suspected that you made up that prosecutors stated that “We have a legal right to frame innocent people”.

They can't say they “have a legal right to frame innocent people.”, because no such right exists, obviously. That is why I knew you were in errors. Rights have to be given and promulgated.

The quote from the article, which I have no way of knowing is accurate, states: “Lawyers for the two prosecutors counter that there is no constitutional right “not to be framed.”

There is no claim that there is a “right” to “frame innocent people”. I knew that wasn't the case, that is why I challenged you.

What there lawyer is saying, in slightly different language, is that there is no specific language in the constitution which says it is unconstitutional “to be framed.”

Legally, what you “wrongly” said and what is “actually” being argued are very different points.

The legal problem for these a-holes is that there is a whole bunch of things not said in the constitution – that doesn't mean that something is constitutional ONLY because it isn't specifically prohibited in the constitution.

It is a stupid legal point which will not win the case for them and for which SCOTUS will beat the dickens out of them in the opinion, IF they don't think it is too stupid to respond to and IF this article is accurate. Hard to imagine that stupid of an argument. But . . .

The real issue in this case is if such an incredible violation is protected by sovereign immunity. For a whole bunch of reasons, I can't imagine how SCOTUS will vote on this one, particulalry, without reading all of the arguements. I have a guess.

“Do prosecutors have total immunity from lawsuits for anything they do, including framing someone for murder? That is the question the justices of the Supreme Court face Wednesday (Nov 4).”

“Lawyers for Mr. McGhee and Mr. Harrington argue in their briefs that police officers who fabricate evidence do not enjoy such absolute protection from a civil lawsuit. They say prosecutors who actively participate in the pre-trial investigation of a case must be held to the same standard as police officers, detectives, and agents, who can be sued if they violate clearly-established constitutional rights.

“When law enforcement officers fabricate evidence with an intent to use it to deprive innocent citizens of their liberty, they violate the Constitution,” writes Paul Clement, a former US Solicitor General who is arguing the case for McGhee and Harrington.

“The framing of innocent African-American citizens for a crime they did not commit, lies at the core of what Congress sought to prevent in the Civil Rights statutes,” Mr. Clement says in his brief.

Lawyers for the two prosecutors counter that there is no constitutional right “not to be framed.”"

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads…

Then, read the last paragraph of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's concurrence in Herrera on this issue, below. As well as her entire concurrence at

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328…

“Ultimately, two things about this case are clear. First is what the Court does not hold. Nowhere does the Court state that the Constitution permits the execution of an actually innocent person. Instead, the Court assumes for the sake of argument that a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence would render any such execution unconstitutional and that federal habeas relief would be warranted if no state avenue were open to process the claim. Second is what petitioner has not demonstrated. Petitioner has failed to make a persuasive showing of actual innocence. Not one judge–no state court judge, not the District Court Judge, none of the three Judges of the Court of Appeals, and none of the Justices of this Court–has expressed doubt about petitioner's guilt. Accordingly, the Court has no reason to pass on, and appropriately reserves, the question whether federal courts may entertain convincing claims of actual innocence. That difficult question remains open. If the Constitution's guarantees of fair procedure and the safeguards of clemency and pardon fulfill their historical mission, it may never require resolution at all.”

Can you provide a link to the case, whereby the prosecutors argued “We have a leagl right to frame innocent people”? I didn't think so.

There is nowhere near 140 DNA exonerations from death row.

9 inmates have been removed from death rows because of DNA exclusion.

The near 140 (really 139) is a blatant anti death penalty fraud whereby they claim 139 exonerated from death row because of innocence (DNA & other).

Death penalty opponents make up their own, deceptive definition of exonerated.

The reality, based upon a number of published reviews, is in the 25-35 range. I combined three of the studies and found that 25 would be the realistic number of actual innocents released from death row, because of an 83% error rate in the death penalty opponents “exonerated” or “innocence” claims.

It is impossible to get most of the media to fact check, clarify or correct this, as with the Guardian.

Interestingly, the New York Times recognized this blatant deception and found about a 75% error rate in these fraudulent anti death penalty claims.

There is no growing evidence of an innocent executed in Texas. The reality is that all of the reports critical of the trial forensics in the Willingham case concluded that the origin of the fire was undetermined. However, that is without the full rebuttals of various state agencies, all of which are pending.

The reality is, based upon all of the facts that are known, today, the fire may have been arson and it may have been an accident, based upon the most critical reports.

No evidence of an innocent executed exists with Willingham, nor is it growing or pending.

Based upon all we know, today, that case cannot “become the first officially acknowledged miscarriage of justice which led to a man being executed.” At worse, it will remain in the undetermined category. However, there is much additional evidence for guilt in the case.

Again, reality intervenes. The New Mexico Governor conceded that he may be wrong on the facts he gave to justify repeal. He was. He also conceded that the death penalty may actually save innocent lives. The anti death penalty leadership in New Mexico admitted that the reason the repeal passed was because more Democrats were elected in the last voting cycle.

Why did Gov. Richardson repeal the death penalty? His legacy.
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/31/why-did…

Rebuttal to Governor Richardson – Repeal of the Death Penalty in New Mexico
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/19/rebutta…

Regarding Illinois, first, I suspect most state death rows have released more from death row than they have executed. Nationally, 34% of death penalty cases are overturned on appeal. 15% result in execution.

Secondly, in Illinois, the claim was that 13 actual innocents had been freed from death row, while there had been a total of 12 executions. This goes to anti death penalty deceptions and the lack of fact checking.

“The Death Penalty Debate in Illinois”, JJKinsella,6/2000, http://www.dcba.org/brief/junissue/2000/art0106…

This article was not accurate in all of their case reviews, as we now know, but it makes the point that a number of the innocence claims were either false or there was no evidence for such claims, just like the 139 fraud.

I was not a founder of Justice For All and have not been with them for many years.

Yes, the death penalty is a greater protector of innocents.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-dea…

LOL!!! :>) :>)

THANKS 4 your BACK-UP!! :>) :>)

Their names should NOT appear in the SAME sentence!! :>)

I know this is hardcore, but it breaks my heart to imagine what that Angel went through and not understanding why.