August 15, 2014



Things Are Scary In The Courts, Too

A Baltimore man was charged with a robbery (after his photo was picked out of an array of photos by the victim).



(Researchers Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons point out in The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us how unreliable such eyewitness accounts can be.)

The wee snag in this charge against the man is that he was in jail on another robbery charge when the crime took place.

Could there be a better alibi?

Well, no. Not to the salivating prosecutor and lax judge. (As for the judge...apathy? Comatose?)

The prosecutor refused to drop the charge and insisted on trying the man and the judge, disgustingly, went along with this -- agreeing that a trial was needed.

Law prof Jonathan Turley notes:

The real story is the initial position of the prosecutors and the ruling of the court. Exactly what is the trial supposed to show. Could a jury decide that Threatt could have been both in custody and miles away at the same time?

He continues:

There is no mention of any investigation, let alone discipline, for the detective or the prosecutor for such negligence. There is also no mention of the name of the judge who agreed that a trial is warranted when the accused was locked away at the time of the crime.

Those of you who believe that the police are there to solve crimes and judges are there to find justly (or even plausibly), well, please check your naivete at the courthouse door. You'll get it back upon leaving.

More from the Baltimore Sun article by Ian Duncan.

*