Here in Minnesota, we had a recent case where a man, implicated in a (statutory?) rape of a 14 year old girl, barricaded himself in a home with (his?) seven children and killed two police officers and a paramedic. The suspect is deceased, but thankfully none of his children are physically hurt.
That noted, what's of note in my mind is that while the suspect's record is not remarkable--a misdemeanor disorderly conduct conviction, some traffic convictions (also misdemeanors), and a 2007 felony assault conviction--there is an interesting pattern of "what was not done?" that merits discussion. Specifically, at least two women requested protection orders after being involved with him since 2013, a reality that a judge honored when he refused to restore the man's firearm rights, but an interesting question comes to mind:
Did the judge look up the man's criminal history and ask the applicants for protection orders whether the man owned or possessed firearms, and did anyone visit afterwards if a positive answer was given?
I've done a bit of thinking about what is to be done about under-investigation of allegations, which of course benefits the guilty and hurts the innocent, and how to persuade the criminal justice system to take investigation seriously. I can think it might have to do with:
- Jurors might refuse to convict based on very thin investigations.
- Defense lawyers might point out a thin investigation as evidence the prosecution hadn't done its job per Brady v. Maryland and Kyles v. Whitley.
- Prosecutors might say the same to the police when cases are handed over.
- Judges might rebuke prosecutors who bring thinly sourced cases to court.
- The state might impose audits of cases to make sure cases are getting adequate investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment