Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Old Dec 10, 10, 12:12 am
  #1051  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Originally Posted by greentips View Post
Well, sometimes the prosecutors in an apparent quest for fame and glory wait until midway through a trial before they turn over exculpatory evidence.
Do you mean rebuttal evidence? Anything else would need to be provided well ahead of time as part of discovery, wouldn't it?
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 12:30 am
  #1052  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by greentips View Post
Well, sometimes the prosecutors in an apparent quest for fame and glory wait until midway through a trial before they turn over exculpatory evidence. Sometimes, they even wait until after they've selectively asked their police witness in open court questions to mislead a jury and then slip the report to the defense attorney while the cross examination is underway. In this case, the Ingham County prosecutor got a murder conviction by providing the defense counsel a report of an exculpatory surveillance tape while he was cross-examining the witness and sent an innocent man to prison.

Took years to get the innocent man sprung, but hey, ya know if they charged him he musta done somthin' wrong.
It not ok regardless of which side does it.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 6:53 am
  #1053  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
It not ok regardless of which side does it.
I disagree. If the defense has evidence of guilt, they are not required to turn it over to the prosecution, nor should they be. Both sides do not have equal power and the burden of proof is very strong on the side of the government. Did you really mean to write what you did?
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 7:25 am
  #1054  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
Do you mean rebuttal evidence? Anything else would need to be provided well ahead of time as part of discovery, wouldn't it?
As I understand the here is the situation: It was rebuttal evidence. Apparently (from Lansing State Journal reports), the evidence was a report of a video camera which caught the accused on camera at another location on the other side of Lansing at the time of the murder/rape. There was reliance in indictment and prosecution by the prosecutor on statements that the defendant McCollum made during police questioning. The exculpatory report was discussed with the family, apparently prior to the commencement of the trial by the prosecutor.

The result was an innocent man was sentenced to life/no parole, and served time before his sentence was overturned on appeal. The prosecutor was later fired for misconduct, faced a bar action which went nowhere and criminal charges brought by the Michigan attorney general, which also went nowhere. Now, he's just another PI lawyer looking for an ambulance, in my opinion.

Matwiejczyk went forward with the trial despite his knowledge that the new evidence demonstrated McCollum's innocence. Matwiejczyk's response -- he didn't believe the new evidence was accurate, even though it was furnished to him by the police. Link
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
It not ok regardless of which side does it.

FB
On this we agree. Completely. Not that I'm trying to bribe a fed or anything, but I'd like to buy you a beer. It'd be good conversation.

Last edited by greentips; Dec 10, 10 at 7:51 am Reason: added link
greentips is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 9:50 am
  #1055  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
exculpatory, inculpatory, and rebuttal evidence

We're off-topic, but this is an interesting discussion.

Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
Originally Posted by greentips View Post
Well, sometimes the prosecutors in an apparent quest for fame and glory wait until midway through a trial before they turn over exculpatory evidence. Sometimes, they even wait until after they've selectively asked their police witness in open court questions to mislead a jury and then slip the report to the defense attorney while the cross examination is underway.
It not ok regardless of which side does it.
I disagree. If the defense has evidence of guilt, they are not required to turn it over to the prosecution, nor should they be. Both sides do not have equal power and the burden of proof is very strong on the side of the government. Did you really mean to write what you did?
Richard, Greentips referred specifically to exculpatory evidence, but you're discussing the lack of requirement that the defense turn over inculpatory evidence (that which tends to indicate guilt) to the prosecution.

Originally Posted by greentips View Post
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
Originally Posted by greentips View Post
Well, sometimes the prosecutors in an apparent quest for fame and glory wait until midway through a trial before they turn over exculpatory evidence.
Do you mean rebuttal evidence? Anything else would need to be provided well ahead of time as part of discovery, wouldn't it?
As I understand the here is the situation: It was rebuttal evidence. Apparently (from Lansing State Journal reports), the evidence was a report of a video camera which caught the accused on camera at another location on the other side of Lansing at the time of the murder/rape. There was reliance in indictment and prosecution by the prosecutor on statements that the defendant McCollum made during police questioning. The exculpatory report was discussed with the family, apparently prior to the commencement of the trial by the prosecutor.
It's my understanding that what you described would be rebuttal evidence if, for instance, a prosecution witness testified that the defendant was in location A but the evidence showed that the defendant was in location B. Without knowing anything about how our legal system works, it's understandable that such evidence need not be presented ahead of time, because its utility becomes evident only at the time at which the prosecution witness testifies. It does seem that if the defense expected a prosecution witness to provide testimony for which direct evidence to the contrary existed, and the defense did not intend to use that evidence for any purpose other than to rebut the potential testimony, defense would have no obligation to provide it to the prosecution prior to trial. Can any legal experts here confirm or deny this?

The Wikipedia article on Rebuttal (someone please correct and/or provide a better source if you can) states:

In law, rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party. By analogy the same term is used in politics and public affairs to refer to the informal process by which statements, designed to refute or negate specific arguments put forward by opponents, are deployed in the media.

In law, special rules apply to rebuttal. Rebuttal evidence or rebuttal witnesses must be confined solely to the subject matter of the evidence rebutted. New evidence on other subjects may not be brought in rebuttal. However, rebuttal is one of the few vehicles whereby a party may introduce surprise evidence or witnesses. How it works is this: Both sides of a controversy are obliged to declare in advance of trial what witnesses they plan to call, and what each witness is expected to testify to. When either a plaintiff (or prosecutor) or defendant brings direct evidence or testimony which was not anticipated, the other side may be granted a specific opportunity to rebut it. In rebuttal, the rebutting party may generally bring witnesses and evidence which were never declared before, so long as they serve to rebut the prior evidence.
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 10:06 am
  #1056  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Programs: EY-Gold LH-SEN AA-Gold HHonors-Gold National-ES
Posts: 1,520
Originally Posted by VegasCableGuy View Post
1 min 15 seconds: Ouch, right in the sack.
0:35 somebody coped a feel as well.
openflync is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 10:27 am
  #1057  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
I disagree. If the defense has evidence of guilt, they are not required to turn it over to the prosecution, nor should they be. Both sides do not have equal power and the burden of proof is very strong on the side of the government. Did you really mean to write what you did?
You can tell when I am posting with my cell phone which I hate to do. The posts become very short which I don't believe have shown to be characteristic for my usual posts here.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 12:51 pm
  #1058  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 257
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian View Post
Not exactly sure what your "ignored" inquiry was. If you want to ask me something and make sure I see it send me a PM. I'm flying, on average 1.5 hours a day, and can't check forums every few hours. That being said, when did I make any statement about RS, or the "full extent of the law"? Maybe I just want to see him prosecuted because I am mean (not the reason BTW) or because I disagree with his actions 110% (one reason).

Question for you-How do you think this is going to change the TSA or its policies? (hint-it isn't)
PMocek is not a Patrick Henry, or Rosa Parks type, trailblazing for our rights versus the TSA's inane and inept policies. If anything, in a small way, this distracts & takes away from the legit fight against the TSA lunacy. Maybe PMocek is your posterboy for fighting TSA abuse. He is certainly not mine. I'd rather take actions that could actually affect changes in national level policy. This small episode of checkpoint drama is not that.

Ciao,
FH
Certainly not Patrick Henry, and more Sarah Louise Keys than Rosa Parks. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
MrClean is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 2:21 pm
  #1059  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: American Airlines AAdvantage, Rapids Reward
Posts: 34,158
Originally Posted by tom911 View Post
I see him on the news and He was arrested at security checkpoint. Hmmm. I think the case will dismissed against Phil. Also, I saw his photos over the news and he have a beard.
N830MH is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 2:34 pm
  #1060  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 257
Can someone please provide a short update on Phil's case so I don't have to go back 20 pages?
C. Howitt Fealz is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 2:44 pm
  #1061  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Catania, Sicily/South Jersey (PHL)/Houston, Texas/airborne in-between
Programs: United Global Svcs, AA ExecPlat, WN RR, AZ Freccia Alata+, Hilton gold, SPG/Marriot Gold, Hertz Prez
Posts: 3,190
Originally Posted by C. Howitt Fealz View Post
Can someone please provide a short update on Phil's case so I don't have to go back 20 pages?
Short short version- It is delayed until January.

Ciao,
FH
FlyingHoustonian is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 4:16 pm
  #1062  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL DM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy Titanium, Hyatt Explorist, others
Posts: 11,509
Exculpatory evidence: a videotape that shows the defendant was 50 miles away at the time.

Rebuttal evidence: a videotape that shows that the witness who claims he saw the defendant commit the crime was 50 miles away at the time.

Without that witness's testimony, the rebuttal evidence is meaningless.

I'm wondering what video the prosecution wasn't aware of. (Does the "knew or should have known" standard apply?)
sethb is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 4:43 pm
  #1063  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by sethb View Post
Exculpatory evidence: a videotape that shows the defendant was 50 miles away at the time.

Rebuttal evidence: a videotape that shows that the witness who claims he saw the defendant commit the crime was 50 miles away at the time.

Without that witness's testimony, the rebuttal evidence is meaningless.

I'm wondering what video the prosecution wasn't aware of. (Does the "knew or should have known" standard apply?)
Though I don't do criminal law, my recollection is that, though the prosecution has an obligation to share exculpatory evidence it discovers with the defense, there is no reciprocal obligation requiring that the defense share exculpatory evidence with the prosecution. I'm not sure there is any relevance to whether or not the prosecution was aware of the existence of the evidence though, of course, they will always ask for additional time because they were "surprised."
PTravel is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 5:09 pm
  #1064  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: media roundup

Originally Posted by C. Howitt Fealz View Post
Can someone please provide a short update on Phil's case so I don't have to go back 20 pages?
I've been advised not to talk about it, so I won't. But others have written about it (after the FAQ, these are roughly in reverse order of publication):
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 10, 10, 5:15 pm
  #1065  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by PTravel View Post
Though I don't do criminal law, my recollection is that, though the prosecution has an obligation to share exculpatory evidence it discovers with the defense, there is no reciprocal obligation requiring that the defense share exculpatory evidence with the prosecution. I'm not sure there is any relevance to whether or not the prosecution was aware of the existence of the evidence though, of course, they will always ask for additional time because they were "surprised."
Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963) held that withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense violates due process.

There is no reciprocal obligation on the defense to disclose inculpatory evidence. That would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

However, in most states, if the defense has evidence that it intends to present at trial, then it must provide discovery to the prosecution prior to trial. Time limits vary by jurisdiction.
TWA884 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: