Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7pagv5 wrote

Reply to comment by ak47workaccnt in Exonerees in Mass. state drug lab scandal want their seized property and money back by ak47workaccnt

It’s utterly insane, and I’m sure most people don’t even know about it.

36

BostonUniStudent t1_j7ppjy7 wrote

What's even more insane is that these people were convicted on faked scientific evidence. And the state still doesn't want to give their money back.

The tricky thing is, I get it, some of them may have been guilty. But corners were cut on the evidence.

30

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q0kh2 wrote

Absolutely. And the coverup went higher up the food chain. AND people are essentially forced j to plea deals, regardless of guilt, so they system is rigged even without false or possibly contaminated results.

10

BostonUniStudent t1_j7q10d7 wrote

The only fair way to do it is retrials without the tainted evidence. And it looks like the state decided not to retry a lot of the cases. Okay ... Well, those people should be considered "Not Guilty" now.

2

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q1993 wrote

I think that’s what happened? For all non violent convictions which were affected by certain years at the two labs with the two corrupt workers

2

BostonUniStudent t1_j7q2975 wrote

It's a little wonky. The men can be treated as innocent and the evidence be treated as associated with a criminal activity still. Civil asset forfeiture has a separate standard of proof and even a separate trial.

So weirdly, the money can be found guilty. Or more accurately "more probable than not that it was associated with criminal activity." Which I'm told can be represented by a greater than 50% chance. Whereas guilt in the criminal context is closer to 99% (some lawyers put a closer to 85%, it just depends on your definition of reasonable doubt).

6

the_falconator t1_j7rawnf wrote

It's like OJ winning the criminal trial and still losing the civil case, different standards of proof.

2

BostonUniStudent t1_j7rc0x9 wrote

It's kind of like that inasmuch as it's civil and not criminal. And it's been awhile since I've read up on that case. But I think he was found civilly liable for a wrongful death.

These civil asset forfeiture cases require no such finding of individual guilt or innocence (responsible or not responsible). This is trial against the evidence itself.

It might be like State of New York v. Yacht.

2

sydiko t1_j7qra58 wrote

You should watch the video of a cop taking a man's life savings under civil forfeiture. It took him 8 months to get his money back.

6

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7qxh5f wrote

Well, that made me furious and nauseated. How fucking disgusting.

At least this guy got his money back but I’m sure that’s super rare.

3

sydiko t1_j7r9ii2 wrote

Its crazy isn't it? Reminds me be cautious around law enforcement all the time.

2

Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7ra0dw wrote

No doubt. And he got pulled over because he was NOT speeding. That just happened to me a couple months ago. I was going 30 in a 35 on rural MA roads at night in the rain. In the end I didn’t get a ticket but the cop tried telling me that I had had a ticket in MA in the past - totally not true. I told him so and he just backed down and said “ok have a nice night.” But the whole time I was fuming and it was all I could do to keep my mouth shut and be “polite.”

2

phoenixofsevenhills t1_j7u2q6c wrote

Wow .. so messed up! He kept his composure too, I mean I would have definitely snapped and been arrested! That's a TON of cash to drive with in your rental trunk!!!

1