1.
They say that justice
is not a privilege but a right
How am I to believe this
when I'm locked up day and night

2.
Away from my loved ones
my family and friends.
The pain, the grief,
the heartache
never ever ends

3.
But if you'd only listen
like they used to do
Now you're just a number
no one believes in you

4.
But if you'd just listen
listen carefully and hear.
I'm sure you would believe
I really shouldn't be here

5.
Send away this innocent man
keep him under lock and key
Send him off to prison
to protect the likes
of you and me

6.
We're all too quick
to judge and condemn
Especially if it's not
happening to us
but only happening to them

7.
These miscarriages of justice
keep happening every year
Everybody listens
but how many really hear

8.
Years of fighting
to right all the wrongs
The guilty one walks free
instead of where he belongs

9.
Think of all the others
Who fought this terrifying fight
Yet still nothing has been done
To make the system right

10.
We could all sit back
and do nothing
And think the system is fine
Next time the pain and heartache
Could be yours instead of mine.

By Danny Mansell
British Prisoner

Civil-Criminal-Death Penalty

Legal Harmful Error From The Angolite; Jan/Feb/Mar 2004 Issue The following examples of prosecutable misconduct were held by appellate courts to be grounds for reversing sentences, convictions or dismissing the changes: ^ Hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records: ^ Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence: ^ Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses: ^ Improper behavior during grand jury proceedings: ^ Excluding jurors on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or other discriminatory grounds: ^ Making inappropriate or inflammatory comments in from of the jury: ^ Introducing or trying to introduce inadmissible or inflammatory evidence: ^ Mis-characterizing evidence or facts to the court or jury: ^ Making improper closing arguments: ^ Harassing, displaying bias toward or having a vendetta against a defendant or defense lawyer, including denial of speedy trial and selective or vindictive prosecution. Source: "Harmful Error: Investigating America's Local Prosecutors" (2003), Center for Public Integrity, Washington D.C.

Eyewitness/Misidentification Reports:

Research Shows: • Over 230 people, serving an average of 12 years in prison, have been exonerated through DNA testing in the United States, and 75% of those wrongful convictions (179 individual cases as of this writing) involved eyewitness misidentification. • In 38% of the misidentification cases, multiple eyewitnesses misidentified the same innocent person. • Over 250 witnesses misidentified innocent suspects. • Fifty-three percent of the misidentification cases, where race is known, involved crossracial misidentifications. • In 50% of the misidentification cases, eyewitness testimony was the central evidence used against the defendant (without other corroborating evidence like confessions, forensic science or informant testimony). • In 36% of the misidentification cases, the real perpetrator was identified through DNA evidence. • In at least 48% of the misidentification cases where a real perpetrator was later identified through DNA testing, that perpetrator went on to commit (and was convicted of) additional violent crimes (rape, murder, attempted murder, etc.), after an innocent person was serving time in prison for his previous crime.

JUNK SCIENCE:

Definition:: Junk science occurs when scientists or researchers move beyond simply fooling themselves (as with pathological science) and create arguments or ideas which confuse and fool other scientists, the public, and even lawmakers. What we have here are ideas which could be true but which have little or no supporting evidence that should cause anyone to think they are true. 10 Definitions of Junk Science: 1. Bad policy based upon (8.8%) 2. Experts with agendas (7.0%) 3. False data (surprisingly or not surprisingly a mere 1.8%) 4. No data or unsubstantiated claims (14.0%) 5. Failure to cite references (5.3%) 6. Using non-certified experts (3.5%) 7. Poor methodology (as determined by whom?) (21.1%) 8. Too much uncertainty to arrive at conclusions drawn (14.0%) 9. Revealing only that data which supports findings (7.0%) 10. Non-peer reviewed claims (7.0%) When you have junk science in a case, it’s like pouring poison into a punch bowl. You aren’t going to get the poison out. So you have to pour out the punch, clean the bowl, and start all over again. ~ Texas Attorney Kathryn Kase Junk Science in the Courtroom: Juries usually believe expert witnesses. Unfortunately, juries rarely understand the expert testimony they hear, and don't know what weight -- if any -- to give to terms like "consistent with" and "matching" and "virtually excluded." The lawyers and the judge rarely understand the science that is presented by these experts, either. Our criminal justice system is adversarial and often dog-eat-dog. When the expert falls short of the minimum standards of the profession, or worse, is an outright fraud, it can spell disaster for the wrongly accused.