Actual innocence Prison

Your brother will be MUCH better off listening to his attorney. There is nothing for you to do here.

 

If your brother was wrongly convicted, your brother hires a lawyer to file an appeal.

It's that simple.

If he can't, or won't, do that, then your protestations go nowhere.

 

Not sure what you hope to accomplish by posting here. Your posts are full of conclusory statements, but we have no way of assessing whether your conclusions are reasonable or meaningful. Heck...you didn't even tell us when the trial and conviction occurred or what he was convicted of doing. No one who isn't thoroughly familiar with the facts and evidence relevant to your brother's case can provide any sort of intelligent assessment.

 

I suspect that you don't actually understand Miranda.

Irrelevant.

Based on what you've said here, I'm going to go with "no". If your brother wants to have ANY hope at this, he'll need an attorney. There really is nothing more to be said.

 

Contact the Innocence Project and see if they'll take it on.

Contact - Innocence Project

If not, then your brother stays in prison until you can hire an attorney to get this back in court.

Was your brother convicted by a jury or did he take a plea bargain?

 

Is there anyone living in the USA today who doesn't know he or she isn't required to speak to law enforcement officials?

Are there living human beings in this country who don't know that all a suspect has to do to avoid self incriminating is to keep his/her piehole shut?

If the copper has you locked in that little room, recording you, all you need to do is remain silent and request to speak to an attorney.

Better yet, obey society's laws and you'll never end up in that barren, little room.

 

Serving in our army for 35 years was one of most rewarding things I've ever been allowed to do.

Receiving the Distinguished Service Cross and three Silver Star Medals are among my most treasured achievements, besides living to talk about it.

This is the freest, greatest nation on the planet.

My thanks goes out to all the draftees who served this nation when called to serve and defend her.

Those are the real patriots, citizen-soldiers.

This law professor summarized it very well.

By the way, the police are ENCOURAGED and LEGALLY PERMITTED to LIE to a suspect to get the subject to ADMIT and/or CONFESS to the CRIME(s).

Never talk to the police.

Use your right to REMAIN SILENT.

Speak about the charges and circumstances surrounding the charges ONLY with your attorney.

















....

 

Do that and you are less likely to end up in that little room, certainly. But stating that it would never happen assumes a level of perfection that our cops have yet to achieve and very likely never will. Sadly there are still today persons who are prosecuted and convicted of crimes they did not actually commit. All the more reason to exercise your right to remain silent.

 

Incredible discussion - Matthews and Professor Duane.

 

1. Police are allowed to lie.
2. Contrary to what you know from watch TV shows, Miranda isn't necessary on arrest, just before custodial questioning.

 

All the brave souls choosing to "protect and serve" the citizenry derive from those they serve.

That is to say, law enforcement officers are human beings, too.

The vast majority do walk the straight and narrow path their profession requires in order to retain their badge, commission, and weapon.

If a person gets arrested, transported to HQ, and ends up in an interview room blabbing, he or she should accept the blame.

Any suspect can end the interrogation by saying the follow phrase: "I want a lawyer."

Heck, even if a suspect simply kept his/her mouth closed, it serves the same end.

 

I don't want to engage in a debate about a matter for which we have zero factual information. However, in my experience, laypersons often see problems that, to one with knowledge and training in the law, are not at all problematic. The Miranda issue is a prime example. Over the past 20+ years on forums like this, I've seen dozens (maybe hundreds) of posts by folks who incorrectly think a Miranda violation has occurred because the warnings weren't read at the time of arrest and that the remedy for that violation is the dismissal of charges. However, Miranda warnings are not required solely because of an arrest and, even where a Miranda violation has occurred, the remedy is exclusion of any incriminating statements from evidence.

 

Not according to the US Supreme Court, as was pointed out by Professor Duane in the interview. Watch it again. It's in there

 

I disagree. Sure, the person should accept the consequences of what he/she says, but if the person has committed no crime he or she certainly should not "accept the blame" for winding up in that interview room.

 

When I was a kid, my best friend, unbeknownst to me, stole something from my parents (a valuable something). I was interviewed by the police, but nothing ever came of it because I had no knowledge or involvement.