Derrick Deacon Is Finally Free

Derrick Deacon just got released from prison in New York, after serving almost twenty-five years behind bars for a murder he did not commit. After new testimony and new evidence surfaced, Deacon was granted a new trial. It took a jury all of nine minutes to find Deacon "Not Guilty" with the new evidence. Congratulations to Derrick Deacon for standing up for himself all these years, but why did he get convicted in the first place? It seems that the district attorney's office in Kings county, New York, didn't have the balls to go after a gang member who shot a teenager during a robbery, so police arrested a homeless man, Deacon, instead. A young woman by the name of Colleen Campbell saw the actual killer, and told law enforcement. While she did not know the identity of the actual killer, she knew who Deacon was, and that he did not commit the murder. This should have been sufficient, in the absence of any other evidence, to rule Deacon out. but not so fast......gangs are dangerous and notorious for vengeance, and homeless people do not put up much of a fight when coerced and pushed around, and Kings County needed a conviction, right? A homeless man is much safer to victimize than a gang member, so the prosecutor saw to it that Deacon was arrested and prosecuted for the crime, instead of the guilty party. When Campbell didn't want to convict an innocent man, investigators and prosecutors threatened to have her children removed from her home!

"Deacon's case raises troubling questions about how he was convicted in the first place. The Village Voice reports that Deacon was convicted after investigators coerced a witness named Colleen Campbell, who knew he hadn't commited the crime.

At Deacon's retrial, Campbell said authorities had threatened to take her kids away if she testified that she knew Deacon wasn't the killer, according to the Village Voice. Another witness testified that Deacon did commit the shooting, which was enough to convict him."......Mike Krumboltz, Yahoo News.

Since when does testifying in court, or not testifying in court, or telling the truth, for that matter.....equal child abuse or child neglect? This stunt of threatening the children of witnesses in order to gain untruthful testimony seems to be a prosecutor's ace in the hole, these days! Is this the true role of Child Protective Services, assisting prosecutors in the attainment of wrongful convictions by threatening to hold hostage the children of witnesses? That might help explain why caseloads are bursting at the seams, and why Child Protective Services isn't always available to the child who actually needs them! Taxpayers are forced to pay them to enforce the whims of crooked court officials! Sad, but apparently true.

Twenty-five years of an innocent man's life.

 

Selective Application Of Laws In Marshall County, Kansas

"EQUAL PROSECUTION. CM spoke about an example of a juvenile crossing private property cutting donuts with a vehicle. She talked about prosecution and restitution and asked why some people are singled out for the exact crime and some are not. CA McNish said Municipal Court has no jurisdiction over juveniles. CM asked CA McNish to comment on fair and equal prosecution in town. CA McNish said he has been more than fair. No decisions were made."

Above is a quote from a recent city council meeting in Marysville, Kansas.  City Attorney (CA) McNish was asked a direct question about underage drivers, often unlicensed, driving through  fields, lawns, and gardens, and occasionally running over mailboxes. Marshall County Kansas will often throw the book at a teen for this, but then, sometimes not. City Attorney McNish spoke truthfully enough when he stated that the city of Marysville has no jurisdiction over juveniles, but what he did not discuss is the fact that his spouse, Laura McNish, is the county attorney, and it is the office of the county sheriff who would handle the arrest of a juvenile tearing up a lawn or field with a vehicle, or the arrest of a juvenile drinking alcohol. Often enough, children who do these things are duly prosecuted, but what happens if an underage witness, in a case against someone else being tried by the county attorney, is caught drinking beer? As it happened in May of 2013, the underage witness was not arrested, even though she was obviously drunk. Her changing testimony at the trial, which, by the way, the county attorney lost, was deemed too important to risk losing her cooperation by arresting her, as indicated by the law. What happens if the driver of a vehicle being driven over private property, and destroying the same, belongs to the son or daughter of someone in a position of authority in Marshall County or Marysville, Kansas? Do those young people live by the same rules? Apparently, a portion of the citizenry in Marysville think not; otherwise the question would not have been brought up at a city council meeting. County Attorney is an elected position, here in Kansas, and selective application of laws is not a way for elected officials to remain in office.

The Kansas Judicial Branch site has this to say about personal and public matters involving lawyers:

[5] A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer's duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process.

Anyone wishing to file a complaint with the Kansas Bar Association can print this complaint form and mail the hard copy to Disciplinary Administrator, 701 Jackson Street, First Floor, Topeka, Kansas, 66603-3729. All complaints must be written and snail mailed.

 

Another Stupid Prosecutor

What is going on with stupid prosecutors these days? In Colorado, there is a young and inexperienced prosecutor named Todd Risberg, who requested discovery of all the evidence in possession of all parties involved in a case he tried. Everyone complied, but Risberg still felt somehow cheated, so he filed a motion about it. During court, the judge ruled that the prosecution had all the evidence it needed, and that the defendant's attorney did not have to supply the prosecutor with any more so-called "evidence"; which, in this case, was a penned letter to one of the defendant's friends. Had the judge ruled otherwise, and had the defense still refused, someone would have been in contempt of court then and there; but no one was in contempt of court, because all of the judge's orders were followed. So what does Risberg do? He files criminal charges against the defense attorney for not handing over the letter the judge said he did not have to hand over! He feels that this step is necessary to "send a message" to defense attorneys in his area. Where's the eye-rolley when I need it?

I do not believe Risberg's dumbass case will go anywhere. No defendant, represented by an attorney or not, has a legal obligation to fork over evidence, including written or oral statements, to help the State prosecute a case. The fourth and fifth amendments to our Constitution are quite clear about this. Many of the defense attorneys in Risberg's area are in solidarity against this case, and against these tactics, and it will not surprise me a bit if the case is dismissed with prejudice. Sadly, it will also not surprise me a bit if Risberg finds a way to take his nonsense to civil court, when criminal court fails to give him his own way.

This is the kind of stuff about which ethics complaints are written to Bar Associations. And I would certainly write one if I were involved in this case.