A look at what's going on in Trinidad, on H Street, and in the larger area north of Capitol Hill.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
FBI & MPD Team Up For Arrests
Apparently the MPD and FBI were out in force yesterday arresting wanted suspects in Trinidad. I have reports of them on Montello, as well as on Morse.
15 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I used to get excited about news like this -- "maybe the absolutely ridiculously insane crime rate in this city will go down," that kind of thought -- but not anymore. For that to happen: 1) the police have to have caught the right guys; 2) the U.S. attorney's office has to decide that they don't have anything better to do (like rearranging their sock drawers), or they'll just release them instead of prosecuting them; and 3) the city has to stop making new criminals faster than old ones give up crime either voluntarily or forcibly. I don't know what the percentages are on #1. But #3 sometimes seems overwhelming, while #2 is one of the most depressing things about D.C.
#4. The U.S. attorneys need to actually prepare for a case that goes to prosecution. I recently sat on a jury where we quickly voted to acquit a guy who, we all agreed, may well have committed the crime. The prosecution was so unbelievably and inexplicably weak on evidence that there was no way the guy could be convicted.
Well, at least at the front end of the pipeline, I can say the cops *were* all over the neighborhood. There was a van that just seemed to be cruising around all day.
Re: #2 and #4, sometimes I honestly think that the U.S. attorney's office's reluctance to prosecute anyone for crime in D.C. is out of a politically-motivated desire to see D.C. stay a shithole, at least when it comes to crime.
You can't prosecute a case where you don't have a case. You need evidence. sometimes they can't get enough, or maybe it isn't admissible. I can't imagine anyone from that office would sacrifice their ethics the way that you suggest (I kind of find it offensive, because they do work very hard). I'd guess that there are commonly problems with admissibility, or tying evidence to suspects. I'd also guess that you've never been behind the scenes (even after the fact, on an investigation/prosecution) of one of their cases.
Your point is well taken. In the case that I sat on, there were some obvious pieces of evidence that were not followed up on. For example, a cell phone that was stolen as a part of a larger crime was used to place a number of calls within an hour of the crime. Did the prosecution cross-check the numbers to see who was being called? Nope.
In the videotaped interrogation on the day of the crime, the guy's alibi hinged on the fact that he was at a carry out place, which he named, and that he bought a specific type of sandwich for a specific price. Did they verify that the place sells this kind of sandwich for that price? Nope.
I could go on. There were two retired lawyers on the jury and their take was that it was that the prosecution totally bungled the case.
Two things I have learned whilst living in these parts:
1) The factors preventing a "built case" from becoming a "made case" are complex. People don't snitch. Teary grandmothers show up in court rooms. Church leaders make public demands.
2) There is no shortage of candidates available to take over business should someone get put in jail.
3) It is incredibly difficult to take a house, regardless of crimes committed.
Kenny G, I was actually responding to Anon 11:04 & 11:50. Sometimes there are cases like that and the prosecution bungles it. Sometimes the cops bungle it. Sometimes that crucial piece of evidence doesn't get in. It sucks when the first two happen. I like to think the first one isn't too common.
Elise: what are the circumstances where a police officer can come upon someone being assaulted, pull the assailant off the victim, arrest the assailant, have both the victim willing to press charges and the testimony of the arresting officer available, and nevertheless have insufficient evidence to press charges?
The circumstances could be that the victim has prior convictions that are used to impeach her; that no photos were taken of the victim's injuries, and so the jury is less trustworthy; that the defendant says he was beating the victim out of self defense which puts a burden on the government to disprove the self defense claim; that the victim isn't a great witness on the stand and acts really defensive; that the victim and the defendant knew each other and had prior beefs.
One thing I will say is that people in this city REALLY REALLY distrust police officers; and that the CSI effect has made DC jurors crazy. Officers can find a gun in the defendant's pocket and the jury doesn't care. They STILL want fingerprints!! It costs a lot of money to go get the video and get it before it's taped over; and it costs money to get prints, which really aren't necesssary in a gun in the pocket case. But the juries here are so, so demanding. And the USAO has SO many cases, that they have to prioritize resources.
As an example of sandwiches sold at the restaurant too: in order to prove that a certain sandwich is sold or not the governmetn has to get someone from the sandwich shop to come down and testify, or get a menu put into evidence which must be authenticated by a sandwich shop owner/employee. it's hard to get witnesses to come down adn commit to waiting around, especially from some of these smaller liquor stores, business etc. they often ignore subpoenas. that puts the USAO in the position of having to drag a witness down on a arrest warrant which DEFINITELY makes them want to testify for government.
Ah, the sandwich defense -- many a promising prosecution has been brought down by it. If the sandwich don't fit, you must acquit.
Seriously, I wasn't at the hearing so I don't know all the details (and I'm sure there were many), but you may want to consider that the prosecution checked the sandwich issue and found that, in fact, there was a sandwich on the menu for that price. Hence, the sandwich issue wouldn't help with whether the guy's alibi checked out. For all you know, the guy goes to that sandwich shop all the time and knows his favorite sandwichs and their prices. That doesn't put him there on the day of the crime, however.
For every story I've heard about prosecutors not prosecuting cases, I've heard 5 stories about DC juries (or individual jurists) being predisposed to acquitting defendants on a flimsy theory despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So is it the prosecutors or the juries? I say more often than not its the juries.
Well people don't witness. And having been called as a witness, I can say there's not support for people that are called to witness crimes. I used to think people were making excuses, being lazy, or afraid.
But the way I was treated validated with they were saying. I can't say that I would help out by being a witness again.
15 comments:
I used to get excited about news like this -- "maybe the absolutely ridiculously insane crime rate in this city will go down," that kind of thought -- but not anymore. For that to happen: 1) the police have to have caught the right guys; 2) the U.S. attorney's office has to decide that they don't have anything better to do (like rearranging their sock drawers), or they'll just release them instead of prosecuting them; and 3) the city has to stop making new criminals faster than old ones give up crime either voluntarily or forcibly. I don't know what the percentages are on #1. But #3 sometimes seems overwhelming, while #2 is one of the most depressing things about D.C.
I also think the ATF (right down the street) should practice getting the bad guys in their own backyard (trinidad).
Anon 11:04 -- you forgot to include:
#4. The U.S. attorneys need to actually prepare for a case that goes to prosecution. I recently sat on a jury where we quickly voted to acquit a guy who, we all agreed, may well have committed the crime. The prosecution was so unbelievably and inexplicably weak on evidence that there was no way the guy could be convicted.
Well, at least at the front end of the pipeline, I can say the cops *were* all over the neighborhood. There was a van that just seemed to be cruising around all day.
Re: #2 and #4, sometimes I honestly think that the U.S. attorney's office's reluctance to prosecute anyone for crime in D.C. is out of a politically-motivated desire to see D.C. stay a shithole, at least when it comes to crime.
You can't prosecute a case where you don't have a case. You need evidence. sometimes they can't get enough, or maybe it isn't admissible. I can't imagine anyone from that office would sacrifice their ethics the way that you suggest (I kind of find it offensive, because they do work very hard). I'd guess that there are commonly problems with admissibility, or tying evidence to suspects. I'd also guess that you've never been behind the scenes (even after the fact, on an investigation/prosecution) of one of their cases.
Elise:
Your point is well taken. In the case that I sat on, there were some obvious pieces of evidence that were not followed up on. For example, a cell phone that was stolen as a part of a larger crime was used to place a number of calls within an hour of the crime. Did the prosecution cross-check the numbers to see who was being called? Nope.
In the videotaped interrogation on the day of the crime, the guy's alibi hinged on the fact that he was at a carry out place, which he named, and that he bought a specific type of sandwich for a specific price. Did they verify that the place sells this kind of sandwich for that price? Nope.
I could go on. There were two retired lawyers on the jury and their take was that it was that the prosecution totally bungled the case.
Two things I have learned whilst living in these parts:
1) The factors preventing a "built case" from becoming a "made case" are complex. People don't snitch. Teary grandmothers show up in court rooms. Church leaders make public demands.
2) There is no shortage of candidates available to take over business should someone get put in jail.
3) It is incredibly difficult to take a house, regardless of crimes committed.
Kenny G,
I was actually responding to Anon 11:04 & 11:50. Sometimes there are cases like that and the prosecution bungles it. Sometimes the cops bungle it. Sometimes that crucial piece of evidence doesn't get in. It sucks when the first two happen. I like to think the first one isn't too common.
Elise: what are the circumstances where a police officer can come upon someone being assaulted, pull the assailant off the victim, arrest the assailant, have both the victim willing to press charges and the testimony of the arresting officer available, and nevertheless have insufficient evidence to press charges?
The circumstances could be that the victim has prior convictions that are used to impeach her; that no photos were taken of the victim's injuries, and so the jury is less trustworthy; that the defendant says he was beating the victim out of self defense which puts a burden on the government to disprove the self defense claim; that the victim isn't a great witness on the stand and acts really defensive; that the victim and the defendant knew each other and had prior beefs.
One thing I will say is that people in this city REALLY REALLY distrust police officers; and that the CSI effect has made DC jurors crazy. Officers can find a gun in the defendant's pocket and the jury doesn't care. They STILL want fingerprints!! It costs a lot of money to go get the video and get it before it's taped over; and it costs money to get prints, which really aren't necesssary in a gun in the pocket case. But the juries here are so, so demanding. And the USAO has SO many cases, that they have to prioritize resources.
As an example of sandwiches sold at the restaurant too: in order to prove that a certain sandwich is sold or not the governmetn has to get someone from the sandwich shop to come down and testify, or get a menu put into evidence which must be authenticated by a sandwich shop owner/employee. it's hard to get witnesses to come down adn commit to waiting around, especially from some of these smaller liquor stores, business etc. they often ignore subpoenas. that puts the USAO in the position of having to drag a witness down on a arrest warrant which DEFINITELY makes them want to testify for government.
Ah, the sandwich defense -- many a promising prosecution has been brought down by it. If the sandwich don't fit, you must acquit.
Seriously, I wasn't at the hearing so I don't know all the details (and I'm sure there were many), but you may want to consider that the prosecution checked the sandwich issue and found that, in fact, there was a sandwich on the menu for that price. Hence, the sandwich issue wouldn't help with whether the guy's alibi checked out. For all you know, the guy goes to that sandwich shop all the time and knows his favorite sandwichs and their prices. That doesn't put him there on the day of the crime, however.
For every story I've heard about prosecutors not prosecuting cases, I've heard 5 stories about DC juries (or individual jurists) being predisposed to acquitting defendants on a flimsy theory despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So is it the prosecutors or the juries? I say more often than not its the juries.
re: juries.
I'm part of the problem.
I've been called down to the courthouse four times in the last decade, and I've managed to wriggle out of service each time.
While I'm willing to serve for a day (or two), there's just no way I'm going to sit on a jury for a week or a month. It would bankrupt my family.
"People don't snitch."
Well people don't witness. And having been called as a witness, I can say there's not support for people that are called to witness crimes. I used to think people were making excuses, being lazy, or afraid.
But the way I was treated validated with they were saying. I can't say that I would help out by being a witness again.
-Robby
Post a Comment