Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Quotes of the Day, special edition

From Daily Peloton Forums, by a judge who presides over murder trials, after reading some of the correspondance series:

Whether you like due process, hate it or ignore it, any rule adopted by an organization which precludes any inquiry into the truth that goes beyond the organization's charging documents is more akin to a star chamber than a fact finding hearing.

From another thread, by another attorney,
Being an attorney myself, I can certainly make an argument for the civil system's use of the adversarial system. However, in this type of enforcement / quasi-criminal proceeding, the USADA must be motivated by Truth and Justice. All too often we hear in the news about prosecutors withhold or misrepresenting evidence to get a conviction (=winning) regardless of whether the defendant is guilty. Recently, my state released a guy spent 15+ years in jail for a rape that he didn't commit. THAT's a terrible false positive and it happens all the time.

In another case many years ago I had a case where a Federal judge sanctioned a US attorney for lying and dressed her down in open court. He summed it up well - the prosecution must get to the Truth of the matter in order to get Justice. The danger is increased when the prosecution doesn't care about Truth to find Justice and is only motivated by getting a conviction. 1 - an innocent is jailed and 2 - a criminal is still out there to harm again.

So to those of you complaining about the Floyd's argument being focused on technicalities, remember they are there to provide due process, protect the innocent and to force the prosecution (in this case USADA) to play by the rules. It's telling that they will not give over all their data/documentation -- in the criminal context we call exoneration evidence "Brady Material" and it must be disclosed to the defense. What if your son/daughter was being tried for a crime and was innocent and the prosecution hid a witness who described someone else as the "perp" or hid the fact that another person's fingerprints were on the weapon? Don't fool yourself, it happens.

If USADA is playing to "win" rather than find out whether you doped or not, then they are failing in their mission and not advancing toward the goal of clean competition.

(link, post #93)