Prosecutors cover up testilying in gun cases. Why?
Perhaps because a cop who lies well is a valuable asset in close cases and keeps the prosecutor's conviction record up.
It's not just cops who are dirty in the CJ system. THIS is why the exclusionary rule, which removes the prize for lying, is the only disincentive that cops respect.
>>>
NYC Cops Lack Credibility in Gun Arrests: …But a closer look at those prosecutions reveals something that has not been trumpeted: more than 20 cases in which judges found police officers’ testimony to be unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The judges’ language was often withering: “patently incredible,” “riddled with exaggerations,” “unworthy of belief.” …The judges’ rulings emerge from what are called suppression hearings, in which defendants, before trial, can argue that evidence was seized illegally. The Fourth Amendment sets limits on the conditions that permit a search; if they are not met, judges must exclude the evidence, even if that means allowing a guilty person to go free….
Other than suppression, the outrage stopped there. With few exceptions, judges did not ask prosecutors to determine whether the officers had broken the law, and prosecutors did not notify police authorities about the judges’ findings. The Police Department said it did not monitor the rulings. So no officers were disciplined. <<<
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/nyreg ... wanted=all
