“FIASCO IN TALLAHASSEE: THE WEAK CASE AGAINST HENRY SEGURA LIMPS ON”

You ought to read the post quoted above that is from Fault Lines (Mimesis Law) today written by Ken Womble. Here is the link.

In fact, the post should be required reading for criminal defense lawyers who worry about the integrity of crime lab scientists and their supervisors. Be sure to click on the link found at these words, “this bombshell of exculpatory evidence on the eve of trial.” The link will take you to some scary shit. (Per crime lab supervisor, don’t follow up on DNA found in a relevant place from someone other than the defendant–an international drug dealer–even though the FBI recommends it.)

By the way, both the substance and quality of the writing in Fault Lines has caused me to look forward to the daily e-mails telling me what’s up next. Since I am both old and jaded, that is high praise indeed! (I suspect that the estimable Scott Greenfield is secretly the editor-in-chief of Fault Lines.)

RGK

3 responses

  1. I feel compelled to ask you, your Honor: “What should be done do/with the judge(s) that have allowed what certainly appears to be a fiasco to continue, assuming – here’s the key part to my question – that it is shown that the story you cite is basically correct in its assertions?”

    Please note that I completely understand that my feeling compelled to ask does not mean I feel you are compelled to answer and it certainly doesn’t mean that you are so compelled.

    PS – if you haven’t yet read Brumfield v. Cain, your thoughts (in a separate post, of course) would be interesting.

    PPS – Hope the shingles shit is, um, less shitty and shinglly. There’s a chipped-beef-on-toast joke there somewhere…it’ll come to me…

  2. Before Gideon, Henry Segura would not have had a lawyer to fight the system’s systematic obstruction and denial of his rights.

  3. Dear Brother Holmes,

    First, thank you for your kindness. I am feeling better, but I look like one of the rotting walking dead in the popular TV series.

    Second, if, assuming the facts are true, a judge knew before defense counsel about the exculpatory material and the judge did nothing about it, he or she should be removed from office. But, I doubt very much that is the case.

    Third, as to the pending motion to dismiss the case, and, once again assuming that the post is accurate, I would grant the motion to dismiss and let the State appeal. I would probably be reversed on appeal and, in that event, I would give defense counsel wide latitude to flesh out before the jury everthing that was concealed.

    All the best.

    RGK

%d bloggers like this: