The last sentence changes this whole topic. If they find evidence that proves innocence, they won't reveal it. It's not about protecting the guilty, it's about stopping false imprisonment.
"The state" exists to enforce the law. Only a corrupt state disregaurds the law. The problem is that incarceration has been nothing more than human traffiking for the entire history of our country. There are a hundred ways prisoners earn money that goes into the pockets of special interests while the cost to fund the system is on tax payer dollars.
When he says prosecutors he also means judges who have been DA’s in Orange County , they haven’t said anything about this snitch info line …….4 decades means it’s INSTITUTIONAL corruption ….heres the question that nobody’s asking How do you fix it ?
@@microcolonelThe police are not searching or interviewing in this case. They're actually doing whats legal save for not turning over exonerating evidence. This man is making a more blanket claim implying that having an informant is somehow wrong or unjust. Just like he said you're getting inside information. He also points out getting information or evidence that they didn't have previously. So even when he knows his client is guilty his issue seems to be you found out my client di guilty and so it kills my win loss ratio.
@@kymaeryk the problem is that their methods of investigation can not be assessed, when they can conceal the original source of their evidence, and make up a new one if they find something juicy. It essentially opens up a whole new world of undetectable illegal searches.
@@crispy9175 brother I genuinely don't think it's possible other than with vixlence. Grand indictments don't exist anymore. The court of the people is gone. We need armed people uprising, which is almost impossible in the surveillance state
We do have charges for corruption and civil charges for prosecutorial misconduct, but withholding evidence should be a felony offence, on par with perjury
I know a guy that was convicted of rape based partly on a jailhouse snitch's false testimony. The snitch was on his 4th felony conviction , but was let off if he testified against the accused. He was told what to say by the prosecutor. This all came out in court 10 years later. The guy was totally framed and spent almost 10 years in jail. If they had done that to me they would never walk again.
I've heard about that strategy. The counter to it is to give them false personal information. For example if they have obviously wrong information then they will discredit the prosecutors or the informant's info will be ignored.
Doesn't work... they literally coach informants on *exactly* what to say when on the stand 💯 The "informant:could literally be someone the accused _never even talked to..._ It's all about padding their "conviction stats"👍 When they are trying to get a "high-level conviction", they'll take a random guy convicted on petty charges and offer him a sweet deal just to memorize the story they're *given* 💯
It’s not just the cops, which I think a lot of Americans don’t get. It’s the cops. It’s the prosecutors, it’s their staff, it’s the judges, it’s the jail guards.
@@b0b5m1th you are missing the point. If you had, let’s say, 100,000 examples of ALL the testimony from some informants ….does that mean you have 100,000 admissions of guilt? Or is there a chance you would have quite a few that gathered evidence that helped the defense? If you aren’t a narcissist- even you could recognize - it would be a mix of information that supports the prosecution and the defense right? But when it’s ONLY information that helps one side that makes it to court….that means shady shit is going on. Obviously. The prosecution is required to bring forward any testimony or evidence that helps the defendant. Kinda one of the big deals of our justice system. Just zero accountability in holding people to that standard.
When your sitting in a cell in Theo Lacy... There's a call button on the wall. These devices are recording everything said in the cell, non stop, using a technology from a company based in McLean VA. The inmates who know don't say shit.
There's something I find infuriating beyond normal, that their entire argument boils down to, "Well, we would've won anyway, therefore it doesn't matter that we broke the rules."
The reasonable expectation of privacy is that that's an overheard conversation between you and your lawyer or private conversation. But if an inmate is talking about what their lawyer is going to do motion wise or evidence wise then they're going to report back to the cops and that's illegal because that is privileged information between the inmate and lawyers.
@@DustyAlexander-de7td I don’t think that’s the point he’s trying to make. I think what you guys are missing is he’s saying that out of the hundreds of thousands of instances informants have been used in 40+ years….not a single bit of evidence has been disclosed to the defense that HELPS the defendant. (Which the prosecution would be legally obligated to turn over if found)
@@chazlabreckSince you say the cops are bad how do you envision a world without cops? Without prisons? And don't throw your bumper sticker "end qualified immunity" slogan you heard from some limousine liberal spouting on UA-cam. Tell me how society functions like that. We're lucky to have as much as we do already with imperfect humans running it. You've just got a chip on your shoulder for a ticket or something you ACTUALLY did and now you're on a crusade.
@@userunknown7675 I know that they gave enough evidence to convince a judge to get in there, and then they're freely admitting to crimes to other "inmates".
@@Excalibur2 "Oh no, a wrongly convicted person provided information supporting their innocence and rather than turn it over to the defense as legally obligated, the prosecution sat on it!" I fixed your sarcasm, because you missed the point of the video.
The defense Lawyer can be told by the client ... They did it... When they did it... How they did it... Why they did it... What they did it for... If anyone helped doing it... A full confession and admission of guilt motive and expectations of gains ... What does the Laeyer say... "Not guilty your honor"
It's morally wrong not to provide them the best possible ethical and truthful defence possible. Just like doctors need to treat patients even if they are bad people. Lawyers need to do the same even for bad people.
Idk man it seems like these criminals just love to brag about their crimes in jail, if you wanna brag about it then do the time for it chief. It’s not my fault you got snitched on because you couldn’t keep your mouth shut😂
The last sentence changes this whole topic. If they find evidence that proves innocence, they won't reveal it. It's not about protecting the guilty, it's about stopping false imprisonment.
Actually even if they have evidence that could imply innocence they're required to turn it over under law. Brady v. maryland
@@paulpalmer1690 Yeah, thats why the guy is complaining. If you can get away with it, why stop doing it?
@@paulpalmer1690the fact that criminals exist already proves laws aren't always followed. The state can brake the law too
"The state" exists to enforce the law. Only a corrupt state disregaurds the law. The problem is that incarceration has been nothing more than human traffiking for the entire history of our country. There are a hundred ways prisoners earn money that goes into the pockets of special interests while the cost to fund the system is on tax payer dollars.
@@paulpalmer1690 But they never do.
It blows me away that prosecutors care more about their win loss ratio than they do justice.
People are greedy and selfish. They become lawyers because they want money not justice.
When he says prosecutors he also means judges who have been DA’s in Orange County , they haven’t said anything about this snitch info line …….4 decades means it’s INSTITUTIONAL corruption ….heres the question that nobody’s asking How do you fix it ?
I'm not against Getting information.
I am against not sharing information that exonerates people accused of crimes.
You will unfortunately never know, which is why it is so important to control when the police are allowed to search or interview.
.
@@microcolonelThe police are not searching or interviewing in this case. They're actually doing whats legal save for not turning over exonerating evidence. This man is making a more blanket claim implying that having an informant is somehow wrong or unjust. Just like he said you're getting inside information. He also points out getting information or evidence that they didn't have previously. So even when he knows his client is guilty his issue seems to be you found out my client di guilty and so it kills my win loss ratio.
@@microcolonelif you're guilty keep your mouth closed and you wont have this issue
@@kymaeryk the problem is that their methods of investigation can not be assessed, when they can conceal the original source of their evidence, and make up a new one if they find something juicy.
It essentially opens up a whole new world of undetectable illegal searches.
The system is rotten to core from the cops to the judges!
even the president is crooked, broken society
We need a way to prosecute prosecutors.
2a
@@mikem5475 I meant before we get there lol
@@crispy9175 brother I genuinely don't think it's possible other than with vixlence. Grand indictments don't exist anymore. The court of the people is gone. We need armed people uprising, which is almost impossible in the surveillance state
@@mikem5475 there are peaceful remedies. We need to educate the populace.
We do have charges for corruption and civil charges for prosecutorial misconduct, but withholding evidence should be a felony offence, on par with perjury
I know a guy that was convicted of rape based partly on a jailhouse snitch's false testimony.
The snitch was on his 4th felony conviction , but was let off if he testified against the accused. He was told what to say by the prosecutor.
This all came out in court 10 years later.
The guy was totally framed and spent almost 10 years in jail.
If they had done that to me they would never walk again.
This is absolutely problematic and an affront to justice.
Point being, don't talk about your case in jail. Don't trust NOBODY.
i learned that one the hard way
Concept album
Law enforcement does the same, 'evidence can be used against you' not for you.
I've heard about that strategy. The counter to it is to give them false personal information. For example if they have obviously wrong information then they will discredit the prosecutors or the informant's info will be ignored.
But what If they just exclude that
Doesn't work... they literally coach informants on *exactly* what to say when on the stand 💯
The "informant:could literally be someone the accused _never even talked to..._ It's all about padding their "conviction stats"👍 When they are trying to get a "high-level conviction", they'll take a random guy convicted on petty charges and offer him a sweet deal just to memorize the story they're *given* 💯
"You have the right to remain silent." Hint: Shut up.
"You have a right to remain silent." doesn't mean that if you do talk no one will use it against you.
If fact I think they say the opposite.
Really... Sleazy cops doing what they do best...
It’s not just the cops, which I think a lot of Americans don’t get.
It’s the cops. It’s the prosecutors, it’s their staff, it’s the judges, it’s the jail guards.
You mean getting felons convicted of crimes they've admitted to? What's the problem with that?
@@b0b5m1th you are missing the point.
If you had, let’s say, 100,000 examples of ALL the testimony from some informants ….does that mean you have 100,000 admissions of guilt?
Or is there a chance you would have quite a few that gathered evidence that helped the defense?
If you aren’t a narcissist- even you could recognize - it would be a mix of information that supports the prosecution and the defense right?
But when it’s ONLY information that helps one side that makes it to court….that means shady shit is going on. Obviously.
The prosecution is required to bring forward any testimony or evidence that helps the defendant. Kinda one of the big deals of our justice system. Just zero accountability in holding people to that standard.
Calling this sleazy sure shows how much you love gang members.
There is no other kind.
When your sitting in a cell in Theo Lacy... There's a call button on the wall.
These devices are recording everything said in the cell, non stop, using a technology from a company based in McLean VA.
The inmates who know don't say shit.
its so complicated at this point that nobody woupd ever understand
There's something I find infuriating beyond normal, that their entire argument boils down to, "Well, we would've won anyway, therefore it doesn't matter that we broke the rules."
I've watched this happen on 60 days in.
*Harris County has left the chat.*
Because there is no way the informant is going to lie.
Sick Ill intentions
🙏🙏🙏🌎Amen
Uhh... If your client is telling confidential information to random strangers it's not confidential anymore.
Trash with badges! When are people going to understand when you give the average man that badge, they become a demon!
Yep. They'll act buddy, buddy with you too. Don't talk to anyone about your private life that you don't know.
So there is not rule saying you cant get inmates to work for you to help exonerated people im just saying
Lesson is keep your mouth shut and never say anything you don't want people to know.
Police lie? No way!
And snitches also lie because they have an incentive to lie.
Crooks mostly lie
It’s all about their drugs and money and loose women who have no self esteem or respect for their bodies.
Then tell your clients to SHUT UP! The jail/prison is not reasonable expectations of privacy.
No but clearly they're legally required to disclose where they're getting information from
The reasonable expectation of privacy is that that's an overheard conversation between you and your lawyer or private conversation.
But if an inmate is talking about what their lawyer is going to do motion wise or evidence wise then they're going to report back to the cops and that's illegal because that is privileged information between the inmate and lawyers.
It's dirty but it's the game. You should know not to open your mouth in jail. Any good lawyer will tell you don't talk about your case.
Jailhouse snitches don't hear anything of note. They claim they do to get a reduction on their sentence.
@@DustyAlexander-de7td I don’t think that’s the point he’s trying to make. I think what you guys are missing is he’s saying that out of the hundreds of thousands of instances informants have been used in 40+ years….not a single bit of evidence has been disclosed to the defense that HELPS the defendant. (Which the prosecution would be legally obligated to turn over if found)
👏
Not to much different than the CIA
If they are guilty then i dont mind
Don't go to jail. No problem.
Wow everything is just flying over your head
Bro thinks police do no wrong😂😂🐑🐑🤡🤡
Bro, you could go to your cousin's house, who bought weed once, take a picture of him doing it, and bam-guilty by association, you just got 20 years.
Explain how Julian Assange should've done that.
@@fliteshare sausage sandwich please
Poor criminals, so sad.
Yeah so sad the cops are crimnals too
The whole premise of this just goes right over your head der eh bud
Exactly, who cares. I haven't known anyone who got into trouble with the law who wasn't setting themselves up for trouble.
@@chazlabreckSince you say the cops are bad how do you envision a world without cops? Without prisons? And don't throw your bumper sticker "end qualified immunity" slogan you heard from some limousine liberal spouting on UA-cam. Tell me how society functions like that. We're lucky to have as much as we do already with imperfect humans running it. You've just got a chip on your shoulder for a ticket or something you ACTUALLY did and now you're on a crusade.
People in jail often havent been convicted of anything , theyre as innocent as anyone under the law
.
Maybe because they were guilty.
Oh no, someone think of the criminals who tell on themselves! Such a scandal
You don't know if they are guilty or not.
@@userunknown7675 I know that they gave enough evidence to convince a judge to get in there, and then they're freely admitting to crimes to other "inmates".
@@Excalibur2 "Oh no, a wrongly convicted person provided information supporting their innocence and rather than turn it over to the defense as legally obligated, the prosecution sat on it!" I fixed your sarcasm, because you missed the point of the video.
@@avocadoarmadillo7031 oh, that makes more sense than what I understood.
People like this guy is why our streets are not safe!
The defense Lawyer can be told by the client ...
They did it...
When they did it...
How they did it...
Why they did it...
What they did it for...
If anyone helped doing it...
A full confession and admission of guilt motive and expectations of gains ...
What does the Laeyer say...
"Not guilty your honor"
Everyone snitches
So your argument is criminals have never been helped by informants therefore enforce are bad? Maybe your criminals are bad.
Boo hoo, guilty people getting convicted of their crimes. Defending a felon that you know to be guilty is morally wrong.
@@fliteshare banana and custard please.
@@fliteshare elephant howdah.
@@fliteshare excuse me? I thought you were joining in with non-sequitur day.
@@b0b5m1th Yep, your feeble ego is shining through alright. Why would a precious soul like you deal with real questions that make your head hurt.
It's morally wrong not to provide them the best possible ethical and truthful defence possible.
Just like doctors need to treat patients even if they are bad people. Lawyers need to do the same even for bad people.
Idk man it seems like these criminals just love to brag about their crimes in jail, if you wanna brag about it then do the time for it chief. It’s not my fault you got snitched on because you couldn’t keep your mouth shut😂
Super weird boot licking in here. Over half of officers engage in SA and Domestic A.
That’s a wild claim. Where did you come by that knowledge?