Scooter Libby found guilty of perjury
Wed 7 Mar 2007
White House aide found guilty of lying
A FORMER White House aide was convicted yesterday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the
FBI in an inquiry into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Dick Cheney, the vice-president of the United
States, was accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of Valerie
Plame's identity to reporters. Her husband is a prominent Iraq war critic...
by MICHAEL SNIFFEN AND MATT APUZZO
IN WASHINGTON
The Scotsman
Wed 7 Mar 2007
White House aide found guilty of lying
A FORMER White House aide was convicted yesterday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the
FBI in an inquiry into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Dick Cheney, the vice-president of the United
States, was accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of Valerie
Plame's identity to reporters. Her husband is a prominent Iraq war critic...
by MICHAEL SNIFFEN AND MATT APUZZO
IN WASHINGTON
The Scotsman
Suborning
perjury
Power of attorneys website
Now if a lawyer coaches or
instructs his or her client
to not tell the truth in
court, this is called
subornation of perjury –
which is basically helping
the client to commit
perjury. But that’s no big
deal either, since the act
of suborning perjury is
almost never prosecuted.
Since lawyers know full
well that the legal
community barely raises
an eyebrow when the
topics of perjury or
suborning perjury are
brought up, they figure
that skirting the truth and
fabricating the facts may
well be worth the minimal
risk. So why not roll the
dice and lie your ass off in
court? Why not indeed.
The Truth, The Whole
Truth and Nothing But The
Truth.
...If you’ve ever been in a
courtroom or have at least
watched the festivities
played out on television,
you know that witnesses
are required to raise their
right hand and swear to
tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the
truth. In reality, the
testimony being proffered
by many of these
witnesses is nothing
remotely close to the truth.
Lying under oath is known
in the legal arena as
perjury.
The truth of the matter is,
ironically, that the truth
doesn’t really matter much
anymore. This is
especially true when
people are involved with
lawyers and legal
proceedings. Stretching
the truth in the legal arena
to a lawyer is as American
as apple pie, since many
lawyers fervently believe
that the truth has very little
to do with the law anyway
– or getting paid for that
matter.
The legal field is replete
with lawyers who have
become virtual virtuosos in
the fine art of deception
and deceit. And as far as
their profound propensity
for obfuscating,
prevaricating and
equivocating at every turn,
aren’t we being a little
picky?
When you get right down
to the nitty-gritty,
fabricating the facts,
twisting the truth and
finagling the figures are
requisite tricks of their
trade and no self-
respecting lawyer would
leave home without them.
Whether we like it or not,
lying has become an
integral facet of our legal
system. And lawyers, by
and large, wouldn’t have it
any other way.
Since perjury is rarely
prosecuted, telling the
truth under oath has
become more or less
optional. The message is
clear: if the truth hurts you
in court, then don’t tell it. If
you’re going to bring a
frivolous lawsuit in the first
place, you sure as heck
can’t be worried about
letting the truth stand in
the way of a potential
score, can you? Of course
not. Come on, in order for
there to be a lawsuit in the
first place, somebody
involved somewhere along
the line is not telling the
whole truth.
While there may well be
two sides to every story,
especially when lawyers
get involved, there can
only be one true
story. This is where the
rest of us fit in quite
handily. The inalienable
rights we enjoy as
American citizens include
life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. With lawyers
lurking at every corner,
that saying should be
amended to say life, liberty
and the right to sue the
heck out of each other.
Lawyers regularly coach
their clients prior to
depositions and trials.
Everybody openly admits
to this, more or less.
However, sometimes this
coaching goes way over
the line as the lawyer
meticulously instructs the
witness on how to answer
the questions posed. Let’s
face it, sometimes the
facts are the last thing the
lawyer wants on the table.
Don’t act shocked. Lying
and lawyers go together
like the pea and the pod.
Granted, these lawyers
are quick to tell anyone
and everyone within
earshot that they would
never, ever instruct their
clients to be anything less
than 100% truthful while
giving testimony. Are their
noses growing? While that
poppycock may play well
to the masses, most of us
who can fog a mirror know
that this horse poop that
the lawyers are dishing out
is a lie as well. You see,
these lawyers just can’t
help themselves.
Whenever you see their
lips moving, you had
better put your boots on
since it’s going to get real
deep real quick.
In our highly acclaimed
book, It’s Time to Wake Up
and Smell the Lawyers, we
debunk this tell the truth
facade the lawyers having
been spewing for years
(click here to review
excerpts of Chapter Six
which is entitled Liar, Liar,
Pants on Fire).
Now if a lawyer coaches or
instructs his or her client
to not tell the truth in
court, this is called
subornation of perjury –
which is basically helping
the client to commit
perjury. But that’s no big
deal either, since the act
of suborning perjury is
almost never prosecuted.
Since lawyers know full
well that the legal
community barely raises
an eyebrow when the
topics of perjury or
suborning perjury are
brought up, they figure
that skirting the truth and
fabricating the facts may
well be worth the minimal
risk. So why not roll the
dice and lie your ass off in
court? Why not indeed.
Innocent people who find
themselves embroiled in a
lawsuit learn very quickly
that telling the truth doesn’
t give them much of a leg
up in court. In fact, telling
the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth
can sometimes be a
distinct disadvantage, as
goofy as that sounds.
Think about it for a
moment. If the other party
is lying through their teeth
and the opposing lawyer
somehow manages to get
the judge or jury to buy
into the swill they’re
dishing out, you may find
yourself up the proverbial
creek without a paddle.
In the Attorneys and the
Unwritten Law section of
our web-site, we outline
the various unwritten laws
of America’s legal system
(click Attorneys and the
Unwritten Law to view).
One of the unwritten laws
is “you don’t have to be
wrong to get sued.”
Innocent people get sued
every day of the week.
Another unwritten law is
“you don’t have to be right
to win.” Innocent people
lose in court every day as
well. Lying, deceitfulness
and dirty, dishonest
dealings play an integral
part in this process.
perjury
Power of attorneys website
Now if a lawyer coaches or
instructs his or her client
to not tell the truth in
court, this is called
subornation of perjury –
which is basically helping
the client to commit
perjury. But that’s no big
deal either, since the act
of suborning perjury is
almost never prosecuted.
Since lawyers know full
well that the legal
community barely raises
an eyebrow when the
topics of perjury or
suborning perjury are
brought up, they figure
that skirting the truth and
fabricating the facts may
well be worth the minimal
risk. So why not roll the
dice and lie your ass off in
court? Why not indeed.
The Truth, The Whole
Truth and Nothing But The
Truth.
...If you’ve ever been in a
courtroom or have at least
watched the festivities
played out on television,
you know that witnesses
are required to raise their
right hand and swear to
tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the
truth. In reality, the
testimony being proffered
by many of these
witnesses is nothing
remotely close to the truth.
Lying under oath is known
in the legal arena as
perjury.
The truth of the matter is,
ironically, that the truth
doesn’t really matter much
anymore. This is
especially true when
people are involved with
lawyers and legal
proceedings. Stretching
the truth in the legal arena
to a lawyer is as American
as apple pie, since many
lawyers fervently believe
that the truth has very little
to do with the law anyway
– or getting paid for that
matter.
The legal field is replete
with lawyers who have
become virtual virtuosos in
the fine art of deception
and deceit. And as far as
their profound propensity
for obfuscating,
prevaricating and
equivocating at every turn,
aren’t we being a little
picky?
When you get right down
to the nitty-gritty,
fabricating the facts,
twisting the truth and
finagling the figures are
requisite tricks of their
trade and no self-
respecting lawyer would
leave home without them.
Whether we like it or not,
lying has become an
integral facet of our legal
system. And lawyers, by
and large, wouldn’t have it
any other way.
Since perjury is rarely
prosecuted, telling the
truth under oath has
become more or less
optional. The message is
clear: if the truth hurts you
in court, then don’t tell it. If
you’re going to bring a
frivolous lawsuit in the first
place, you sure as heck
can’t be worried about
letting the truth stand in
the way of a potential
score, can you? Of course
not. Come on, in order for
there to be a lawsuit in the
first place, somebody
involved somewhere along
the line is not telling the
whole truth.
While there may well be
two sides to every story,
especially when lawyers
get involved, there can
only be one true
story. This is where the
rest of us fit in quite
handily. The inalienable
rights we enjoy as
American citizens include
life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. With lawyers
lurking at every corner,
that saying should be
amended to say life, liberty
and the right to sue the
heck out of each other.
Lawyers regularly coach
their clients prior to
depositions and trials.
Everybody openly admits
to this, more or less.
However, sometimes this
coaching goes way over
the line as the lawyer
meticulously instructs the
witness on how to answer
the questions posed. Let’s
face it, sometimes the
facts are the last thing the
lawyer wants on the table.
Don’t act shocked. Lying
and lawyers go together
like the pea and the pod.
Granted, these lawyers
are quick to tell anyone
and everyone within
earshot that they would
never, ever instruct their
clients to be anything less
than 100% truthful while
giving testimony. Are their
noses growing? While that
poppycock may play well
to the masses, most of us
who can fog a mirror know
that this horse poop that
the lawyers are dishing out
is a lie as well. You see,
these lawyers just can’t
help themselves.
Whenever you see their
lips moving, you had
better put your boots on
since it’s going to get real
deep real quick.
In our highly acclaimed
book, It’s Time to Wake Up
and Smell the Lawyers, we
debunk this tell the truth
facade the lawyers having
been spewing for years
(click here to review
excerpts of Chapter Six
which is entitled Liar, Liar,
Pants on Fire).
Now if a lawyer coaches or
instructs his or her client
to not tell the truth in
court, this is called
subornation of perjury –
which is basically helping
the client to commit
perjury. But that’s no big
deal either, since the act
of suborning perjury is
almost never prosecuted.
Since lawyers know full
well that the legal
community barely raises
an eyebrow when the
topics of perjury or
suborning perjury are
brought up, they figure
that skirting the truth and
fabricating the facts may
well be worth the minimal
risk. So why not roll the
dice and lie your ass off in
court? Why not indeed.
Innocent people who find
themselves embroiled in a
lawsuit learn very quickly
that telling the truth doesn’
t give them much of a leg
up in court. In fact, telling
the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth
can sometimes be a
distinct disadvantage, as
goofy as that sounds.
Think about it for a
moment. If the other party
is lying through their teeth
and the opposing lawyer
somehow manages to get
the judge or jury to buy
into the swill they’re
dishing out, you may find
yourself up the proverbial
creek without a paddle.
In the Attorneys and the
Unwritten Law section of
our web-site, we outline
the various unwritten laws
of America’s legal system
(click Attorneys and the
Unwritten Law to view).
One of the unwritten laws
is “you don’t have to be
wrong to get sued.”
Innocent people get sued
every day of the week.
Another unwritten law is
“you don’t have to be right
to win.” Innocent people
lose in court every day as
well. Lying, deceitfulness
and dirty, dishonest
dealings play an integral
part in this process.
How often do court witnesses lie?
How often do police, public officials or employees lie under
oath?
How often do police, public officials or employees lie under
oath?
Overlawyered
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Lawyer charged with suborning perjury
According to the email sent by the DUI defense lawyer:
"they won't have anyone there to testify how much you had to drink. You won't be charged
with perjury. I've never seen them charge anyone with perjury, and everybody lies in criminal
cases, including the cops. If you want to tell the truth, then we'll just plead guilty and you can
get your jail time over with."
(Nate Morabito, "Tri-Cities Attorney Arrested For Contempt Of Court", News Channel
11/Tricities.com (Tenn./Va.), Nov. 30). It's almost unheard-of for lawyers to be prosecuted for
telling clients to lie on the stand -- see here, for example -- but it looks as if it may happen this
time. (via Volokh who got it from CrimLaw)
Posted by Walter Olson on December 20, 2005 12:09 AM | Permalink
Comments
They're applying the law...? To LAWYERS??!??!? What IS the world coming to?!?
Posted by: Deoxy | December 20, 2005 10:12 AM
They aren't mad because he told his client to lie. They are pissed because he told the truth
"everybody lies in criminal cases, including the cops.".
Posted by: Dave | December 20, 2005 12:55 PM
The highest duty an attorney has is "candor toward the tribunal" or honesty to the Court. As
officers of the Court, we cannot lie to the Court and we cannot instruct our clients to lie. Our
system of justice, as flawed as it may be, would implode if perjury or the subornation of perjury
went unpunished.
Posted by: Duqlaw98 | December 20, 2005 03:38 PM
Duqlaw98,
The only problem with what you said was the verb tense.
(Hint: notice above, "It's almost unheard-of for lawyers to be prosecuted for telling clients to lie
on the stand.")
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Lawyer charged with suborning perjury
According to the email sent by the DUI defense lawyer:
"they won't have anyone there to testify how much you had to drink. You won't be charged
with perjury. I've never seen them charge anyone with perjury, and everybody lies in criminal
cases, including the cops. If you want to tell the truth, then we'll just plead guilty and you can
get your jail time over with."
(Nate Morabito, "Tri-Cities Attorney Arrested For Contempt Of Court", News Channel
11/Tricities.com (Tenn./Va.), Nov. 30). It's almost unheard-of for lawyers to be prosecuted for
telling clients to lie on the stand -- see here, for example -- but it looks as if it may happen this
time. (via Volokh who got it from CrimLaw)
Posted by Walter Olson on December 20, 2005 12:09 AM | Permalink
Comments
They're applying the law...? To LAWYERS??!??!? What IS the world coming to?!?
Posted by: Deoxy | December 20, 2005 10:12 AM
They aren't mad because he told his client to lie. They are pissed because he told the truth
"everybody lies in criminal cases, including the cops.".
Posted by: Dave | December 20, 2005 12:55 PM
The highest duty an attorney has is "candor toward the tribunal" or honesty to the Court. As
officers of the Court, we cannot lie to the Court and we cannot instruct our clients to lie. Our
system of justice, as flawed as it may be, would implode if perjury or the subornation of perjury
went unpunished.
Posted by: Duqlaw98 | December 20, 2005 03:38 PM
Duqlaw98,
The only problem with what you said was the verb tense.
(Hint: notice above, "It's almost unheard-of for lawyers to be prosecuted for telling clients to lie
on the stand.")
Political consultant faces 19 perjury charges
January 31, 2008
By JOHN F. BERRY
The Press-Enterprise
SAN BERNARDINO
A political consultant faces 19 perjury charges involving bogus signatures on
a 2005 voter initiative to restrict metal-shredding facilities in Colton, district
attorney's officials announced Thursday.
San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos announced the
charges against Joon Il Kim, 30, who is accused of signing affidavits on
petitions declaring that he had witnessed each signature.
Kim remains at large. His bail has been set at $100,000. If convicted, Kim
faces up to 76 years in prison. Each perjury count has a sentencing range of
two to four years.
"The citizens of Colton are outraged," Ramos said.
Kim was an independent political operative who contracted with Burnside &
Associates, a Los Angeles political firm managing the petition drive for Pick
Your Part Auto Recycling, based in Anaheim.
Thursday afternoon, company President Susan Burnside said Kim's job was to
oversee the collection of signatures for a ballot referendum. She said his work
involves traveling the country.
"I'm really shocked, actually," Burnside said about the charges. "He's a good
human being."
Burnside said she has known Kim since 2004 and last saw him in 2007.
Story continues below
Joon Il Kim
Burnside said her firm, which works entirely for Democrats, has helped
re-elect Rep. Joe Baca, D-Rialto.
The 19 perjury charges against Kim stem from an affidavit on 19 petition
sheets, each of which can hold up to 40 signatures, she said. In 2005, Colton
City Clerk Carolina Padilla said she could verify only 875 of 2,369 signatures
on the petitions.
The controversy over metal-shredding facilities ignited in 2004 when Pacific
Rail Industries received the Colton City Council's approval to install a vehicle
shredder at its scrap-metal facility in south Colton.
The initiative, sponsored by Pacific Rail competitor Pick Your Park Auto
Recycling, sought to prohibit metal-shredding facilities within one mile of
homes, schools, parks and churches.
Representatives of Pick Your Part did not return messages seeking comment.
At the Thursday news conference, Deputy District Attorney John Goritz said
he had no information linking Kim's contractor or Pick Your Part to illegal
behavior.
He said the zoning measure could have gone before the voters had election
officials not discovered the invalid signatures.
The falsified petition came to light in 2005 when a Colton resident contacted
the district attorney's office, a news release said.
On Thursday, Padilla said the invalid signatures were easy to identify for
many reasons, including failure to match voter registration records. She said
she is glad someone is being held responsible.
"It will set an example," Padilla said. "They need to follow the rules instead of
taking shortcuts."
County Registrar of Voters Kari Verjil, whose office assisted in the
investigation, said signatures on petitions are screened against voter
registration records, and eliminated if they don't match.
"We want our citizens to know we check every single signature," Verjil said at
the news conference.
January 31, 2008
By JOHN F. BERRY
The Press-Enterprise
SAN BERNARDINO
A political consultant faces 19 perjury charges involving bogus signatures on
a 2005 voter initiative to restrict metal-shredding facilities in Colton, district
attorney's officials announced Thursday.
San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos announced the
charges against Joon Il Kim, 30, who is accused of signing affidavits on
petitions declaring that he had witnessed each signature.
Kim remains at large. His bail has been set at $100,000. If convicted, Kim
faces up to 76 years in prison. Each perjury count has a sentencing range of
two to four years.
"The citizens of Colton are outraged," Ramos said.
Kim was an independent political operative who contracted with Burnside &
Associates, a Los Angeles political firm managing the petition drive for Pick
Your Part Auto Recycling, based in Anaheim.
Thursday afternoon, company President Susan Burnside said Kim's job was to
oversee the collection of signatures for a ballot referendum. She said his work
involves traveling the country.
"I'm really shocked, actually," Burnside said about the charges. "He's a good
human being."
Burnside said she has known Kim since 2004 and last saw him in 2007.
Story continues below
Joon Il Kim
Burnside said her firm, which works entirely for Democrats, has helped
re-elect Rep. Joe Baca, D-Rialto.
The 19 perjury charges against Kim stem from an affidavit on 19 petition
sheets, each of which can hold up to 40 signatures, she said. In 2005, Colton
City Clerk Carolina Padilla said she could verify only 875 of 2,369 signatures
on the petitions.
The controversy over metal-shredding facilities ignited in 2004 when Pacific
Rail Industries received the Colton City Council's approval to install a vehicle
shredder at its scrap-metal facility in south Colton.
The initiative, sponsored by Pacific Rail competitor Pick Your Park Auto
Recycling, sought to prohibit metal-shredding facilities within one mile of
homes, schools, parks and churches.
Representatives of Pick Your Part did not return messages seeking comment.
At the Thursday news conference, Deputy District Attorney John Goritz said
he had no information linking Kim's contractor or Pick Your Part to illegal
behavior.
He said the zoning measure could have gone before the voters had election
officials not discovered the invalid signatures.
The falsified petition came to light in 2005 when a Colton resident contacted
the district attorney's office, a news release said.
On Thursday, Padilla said the invalid signatures were easy to identify for
many reasons, including failure to match voter registration records. She said
she is glad someone is being held responsible.
"It will set an example," Padilla said. "They need to follow the rules instead of
taking shortcuts."
County Registrar of Voters Kari Verjil, whose office assisted in the
investigation, said signatures on petitions are screened against voter
registration records, and eliminated if they don't match.
"We want our citizens to know we check every single signature," Verjil said at
the news conference.
Former RISD school board president Gloria Reyes-Garcia was
reindicted by the same grand jury in an alleged $35,000 extortion
plot
Raymondville Chronicle News
Texas
by ROBERT WILCOX
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct suspended Willacy County Judge Eliseo
"Cheyo" Barnhart with pay on Monday morning, after they learned of his indictment
on Sept. 13th for aggravated perjury. Barnhart reportedly made conflicting statements to a
prior grand jury and the Texas Rangers in a 1-1/2 year old sexual molestation case.
Former RISD school board president Gloria Reyes-Garcia was reindicted by the same grand
jury in an alleged $35,000 extortion plot against Barnhart. Her niece, Andrea Sias-Espinosa,
and her niece's husband were also reindicted in the incident that reportedly took place on
Feb. 24, 2006.
At issue are allegations by Sias-Espinosa that Barnhart fondled her without her consent, and
exposed his genitals to her in their office after work hours on Feb. 3, 2006.
Barnhart was a justice of the peace and a Raymondville ISD teacher in April of 2006; when
Sias-Espinosa filed criminal charges and a $250,000 civil damages lawsuit against him.
Earlier this month, the grand jury sealed five indictments, that were unsealed by Presiding
District Judge Banales late Monday afternoon.
Andrea Sias-Espinosa; Attempted Theft, Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Theft, and
Aggravated Perjury.
However, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel "Johnny" Guerra leaked an unsigned
and unofficial copy of only Barnhart's indictment to selected Rio Grande Valley media on Sept.
17, 2007...
reindicted by the same grand jury in an alleged $35,000 extortion
plot
Raymondville Chronicle News
Texas
by ROBERT WILCOX
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct suspended Willacy County Judge Eliseo
"Cheyo" Barnhart with pay on Monday morning, after they learned of his indictment
on Sept. 13th for aggravated perjury. Barnhart reportedly made conflicting statements to a
prior grand jury and the Texas Rangers in a 1-1/2 year old sexual molestation case.
Former RISD school board president Gloria Reyes-Garcia was reindicted by the same grand
jury in an alleged $35,000 extortion plot against Barnhart. Her niece, Andrea Sias-Espinosa,
and her niece's husband were also reindicted in the incident that reportedly took place on
Feb. 24, 2006.
At issue are allegations by Sias-Espinosa that Barnhart fondled her without her consent, and
exposed his genitals to her in their office after work hours on Feb. 3, 2006.
Barnhart was a justice of the peace and a Raymondville ISD teacher in April of 2006; when
Sias-Espinosa filed criminal charges and a $250,000 civil damages lawsuit against him.
Earlier this month, the grand jury sealed five indictments, that were unsealed by Presiding
District Judge Banales late Monday afternoon.
Andrea Sias-Espinosa; Attempted Theft, Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Theft, and
Aggravated Perjury.
However, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel "Johnny" Guerra leaked an unsigned
and unofficial copy of only Barnhart's indictment to selected Rio Grande Valley media on Sept.
17, 2007...
Why This Website
Sweetwater UHSD
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Sweetwater UHSD
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
How to Catch a
Liar: The
Cognitive Clues to
Deceit
Huffington Post
Wray Herbert
04/12/11
...But scientists are still
working to improve on
that, and among them is
cognitive psychologist
Aldert Vrij of the University
of Portsmouth, in the U.K.
Vrij has been using a key
insight from his field to
improve interrogation
methods: The human
mind, despite its
impressive abilities, has
limited capacity for how
much thinking it can
handle at any one time.
So demanding additional,
simultaneous thought --
adding to cognitive "load"
-- compromises normal
information processing.
What's more, lying is more
cognitively demanding
than telling the truth, so
these compromised
abilities should show up in
detectable behavioral
clues.
Why is lying more
demanding? Well, imagine
for a few minutes that
you're guilty of a murder,
and Gibbs is
cross-examining you. To
start, you need to invent a
story, and you also have
to monitor that tale
constantly so that it's
plausible and consistent
with the known facts. That
takes a lot of mental effort
that innocent truth-tellers
don't have to spend. You
also need to actively
remember the details of
the story you've
fabricated, so that you
don't contradict yourself
at any point.
Remembering a fiction is
much more demanding
than remembering
something that actually
occurred.
That's just to start.
Because you're naturally
worried about your
credibility, you're most
likely trying to control your
demeanor. Surprisingly,
"looking honest" saps
mental energy. And what's
more, you're not just
monitoring yourself;
you're also scanning
Gibbs' face for signs that
he's seeing through your
lie. Like an actor, you
have the mental demands
of staying in character.
And finally, you have to
suppress the truth so that
you don't let some
damning fact slip out,
another drain on your
mind's limited supply of
fuel. In short, telling the
truth is automatic and
effortless, and lying is the
opposite of that. It's
intentional, deliberate and
exhausting.
So how can Gibbs exploit
the differing mental
experiences of liars and
truth-tellers? Here are a
few strategies that Vrij
and his colleagues have
been testing in the
laboratory, which they
describe in the most
recent issue of the journal
Current Directions in
Psychological Science.
One intriguing strategy is
to demand that suspects
tell their stories in
reverse. Narrating
backward increases
cognitive load because it
runs counter to the
natural forward
sequencing of events. It
also disrupts the normal
reconstruction of past
events using mental
schemas, which give
coherence to isolated
events. Since liars already
have depleted cognitive
resources, they should
find this unfamiliar mental
exercise more taxing than
truth-tellers do -- which
should increase the
likelihood that they will
somehow betray
themselves. And in fact,
that's just what happens
in the lab: Vrij ran an
experiment in which half
the liars and truth-tellers
were instructed to recall
their stories in reverse
order. When observers
later looked at videotapes
of the complete
interviews, they detected
more clues to deceit in the
liars who were burdened
by this mental task.
Indeed, observers
correctly spotted only 42
percent of the lies in the
control condition -- way
below average, which
means they were hard to
spot -- but a remarkable
60 percent when the liars
were compromised by the
reverse storytelling.
Another strategy for
increasing liars' cognitive
burden is to insist that
suspects maintain eye
contact. When people
have to concentrate on
telling their story
accurately -- which liars
must, more than
truth-tellers -- they
typically look away to
some motionless point,
rather than directly at the
conversation partner.
That's because keeping
eye contact is distracting,
and makes narration more
difficult. Vrij also tested
this strategy in the lab,
and again observers
detected more clues to
deceit in those who were
required to look the
interrogator in the eyes.
Liar: The
Cognitive Clues to
Deceit
Huffington Post
Wray Herbert
04/12/11
...But scientists are still
working to improve on
that, and among them is
cognitive psychologist
Aldert Vrij of the University
of Portsmouth, in the U.K.
Vrij has been using a key
insight from his field to
improve interrogation
methods: The human
mind, despite its
impressive abilities, has
limited capacity for how
much thinking it can
handle at any one time.
So demanding additional,
simultaneous thought --
adding to cognitive "load"
-- compromises normal
information processing.
What's more, lying is more
cognitively demanding
than telling the truth, so
these compromised
abilities should show up in
detectable behavioral
clues.
Why is lying more
demanding? Well, imagine
for a few minutes that
you're guilty of a murder,
and Gibbs is
cross-examining you. To
start, you need to invent a
story, and you also have
to monitor that tale
constantly so that it's
plausible and consistent
with the known facts. That
takes a lot of mental effort
that innocent truth-tellers
don't have to spend. You
also need to actively
remember the details of
the story you've
fabricated, so that you
don't contradict yourself
at any point.
Remembering a fiction is
much more demanding
than remembering
something that actually
occurred.
That's just to start.
Because you're naturally
worried about your
credibility, you're most
likely trying to control your
demeanor. Surprisingly,
"looking honest" saps
mental energy. And what's
more, you're not just
monitoring yourself;
you're also scanning
Gibbs' face for signs that
he's seeing through your
lie. Like an actor, you
have the mental demands
of staying in character.
And finally, you have to
suppress the truth so that
you don't let some
damning fact slip out,
another drain on your
mind's limited supply of
fuel. In short, telling the
truth is automatic and
effortless, and lying is the
opposite of that. It's
intentional, deliberate and
exhausting.
So how can Gibbs exploit
the differing mental
experiences of liars and
truth-tellers? Here are a
few strategies that Vrij
and his colleagues have
been testing in the
laboratory, which they
describe in the most
recent issue of the journal
Current Directions in
Psychological Science.
One intriguing strategy is
to demand that suspects
tell their stories in
reverse. Narrating
backward increases
cognitive load because it
runs counter to the
natural forward
sequencing of events. It
also disrupts the normal
reconstruction of past
events using mental
schemas, which give
coherence to isolated
events. Since liars already
have depleted cognitive
resources, they should
find this unfamiliar mental
exercise more taxing than
truth-tellers do -- which
should increase the
likelihood that they will
somehow betray
themselves. And in fact,
that's just what happens
in the lab: Vrij ran an
experiment in which half
the liars and truth-tellers
were instructed to recall
their stories in reverse
order. When observers
later looked at videotapes
of the complete
interviews, they detected
more clues to deceit in the
liars who were burdened
by this mental task.
Indeed, observers
correctly spotted only 42
percent of the lies in the
control condition -- way
below average, which
means they were hard to
spot -- but a remarkable
60 percent when the liars
were compromised by the
reverse storytelling.
Another strategy for
increasing liars' cognitive
burden is to insist that
suspects maintain eye
contact. When people
have to concentrate on
telling their story
accurately -- which liars
must, more than
truth-tellers -- they
typically look away to
some motionless point,
rather than directly at the
conversation partner.
That's because keeping
eye contact is distracting,
and makes narration more
difficult. Vrij also tested
this strategy in the lab,
and again observers
detected more clues to
deceit in those who were
required to look the
interrogator in the eyes.
County loses $4.9 million lawsuit challenge over
lying social workers
April 21st, 2011
Kimberly Edds
The Orange County Register
The County of Orange lost its battle in the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to
overturn a record-setting $4.9 million judgment awarded to a Seal Beach
woman, after two county social workers lied to a juvenile court
commissioner in order to take away the woman’s two daughters.
It took Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick 6 ½ years to regain custody of her children.
The jury award given to Fogarty-Hardwick included damages against the two
social workers. The Supreme Court also upheld $1.6 million in attorneys fees
for Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorneys, but that could end being as much as $3
million, Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorney Shawn McMillan said.
The county and the two social workers will also be responsible for paying
interest which has accrued on the $4.9 million jury award over the last four
years, bringing the grand total close to $9.3 million, McMillan said.
Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorneys had offered to settle with the county for
$500,000.
Orange County Social Services social workers Marcie Vreeken and Helen
Dwojak filed false reports and held back evidence which would have cleared
Fogarty-Hardwick, an Orange County jury found. Vreeken would later be
promoted, according to county records.
A third social worker was found not liable.
According to court papers, Vreeken threatened that if Fogarty-Hardwick did
not “submit” to her will, she would never see her children again. The social
workers also tried in 2000 to coerce Fogarty-Hardwick to sign a document
saying she was a bad parent by threatening to take her daughters away,
Fogarty-Hardwick alleged.
She refused. A county commissioner ordered Fogarty-Hardwick’s daughters,
6 and 9, taken from their mother and put in Orangewood Children’s Home.
The girls were later put in foster care.
Fogarty-Hardwick gave her ex-husband full custody in 2002, hoping to protect
her daughters. She was then allowed two supervised visits a month for two
years. She eventually won 50-50 custody in 2006.
Fogarty-Hardwick sued the county in 2002, arguing the Social Services
Agency and its two social workers violated her civil rights. A jury ruled against
her.
She sued again, arguing this time county’s policies violated her constitutional
rights, including her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Fogarty-Hardwick’s accused the county of violating her constitutional rights by
removing her children without making a finding of imminent danger
or serious physical injury; interviewing her daughters without a
parent present; holding her children without cause; fabricating
evidence; and failing to properly train employees about parents’
constitutional rights.
An Orange County jury voted 10-2 in 2007 in favor of Fogarty-Hardwick and
awarded her $4.9 million.
The county appealed the judgment.
In the Fourth District Court of Appeal opinion, Justice William
Bedsworth wrote, “the evidence adduced at trial obviously caused
both the jury and the judge to conclude not only that something
seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also
that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident.”
“Despite Fogarty-Hardwick’s complaints, and the concerns expressed
by others about the handling of this dependency case, SSA did not
investigate the situation or consider assigning different social
workers to the matter. Neither of the social workers involved was
disciplined. Instead, Vreeken was promoted to supervisor in 2001,”
Bedsworth wrote.
The Watchdog is looking into whether Vreeken and Dwojak still work for the
county.
“What the county and these social workers did to her was horrendous and
she deserves to be compensated in full measure,” McMillan said.
“It’s a big deal for a private citizen to take on the government all the way to
the United States Supreme Court,” McMillan said. “(Fogarty-Hardwick)
poured her whole life into this case. She provided a valuable service to
Orange County and to other parents for having the tenacity to stick with it.”
lying social workers
April 21st, 2011
Kimberly Edds
The Orange County Register
The County of Orange lost its battle in the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to
overturn a record-setting $4.9 million judgment awarded to a Seal Beach
woman, after two county social workers lied to a juvenile court
commissioner in order to take away the woman’s two daughters.
It took Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick 6 ½ years to regain custody of her children.
The jury award given to Fogarty-Hardwick included damages against the two
social workers. The Supreme Court also upheld $1.6 million in attorneys fees
for Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorneys, but that could end being as much as $3
million, Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorney Shawn McMillan said.
The county and the two social workers will also be responsible for paying
interest which has accrued on the $4.9 million jury award over the last four
years, bringing the grand total close to $9.3 million, McMillan said.
Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorneys had offered to settle with the county for
$500,000.
Orange County Social Services social workers Marcie Vreeken and Helen
Dwojak filed false reports and held back evidence which would have cleared
Fogarty-Hardwick, an Orange County jury found. Vreeken would later be
promoted, according to county records.
A third social worker was found not liable.
According to court papers, Vreeken threatened that if Fogarty-Hardwick did
not “submit” to her will, she would never see her children again. The social
workers also tried in 2000 to coerce Fogarty-Hardwick to sign a document
saying she was a bad parent by threatening to take her daughters away,
Fogarty-Hardwick alleged.
She refused. A county commissioner ordered Fogarty-Hardwick’s daughters,
6 and 9, taken from their mother and put in Orangewood Children’s Home.
The girls were later put in foster care.
Fogarty-Hardwick gave her ex-husband full custody in 2002, hoping to protect
her daughters. She was then allowed two supervised visits a month for two
years. She eventually won 50-50 custody in 2006.
Fogarty-Hardwick sued the county in 2002, arguing the Social Services
Agency and its two social workers violated her civil rights. A jury ruled against
her.
She sued again, arguing this time county’s policies violated her constitutional
rights, including her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Fogarty-Hardwick’s accused the county of violating her constitutional rights by
removing her children without making a finding of imminent danger
or serious physical injury; interviewing her daughters without a
parent present; holding her children without cause; fabricating
evidence; and failing to properly train employees about parents’
constitutional rights.
An Orange County jury voted 10-2 in 2007 in favor of Fogarty-Hardwick and
awarded her $4.9 million.
The county appealed the judgment.
In the Fourth District Court of Appeal opinion, Justice William
Bedsworth wrote, “the evidence adduced at trial obviously caused
both the jury and the judge to conclude not only that something
seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also
that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident.”
“Despite Fogarty-Hardwick’s complaints, and the concerns expressed
by others about the handling of this dependency case, SSA did not
investigate the situation or consider assigning different social
workers to the matter. Neither of the social workers involved was
disciplined. Instead, Vreeken was promoted to supervisor in 2001,”
Bedsworth wrote.
The Watchdog is looking into whether Vreeken and Dwojak still work for the
county.
“What the county and these social workers did to her was horrendous and
she deserves to be compensated in full measure,” McMillan said.
“It’s a big deal for a private citizen to take on the government all the way to
the United States Supreme Court,” McMillan said. “(Fogarty-Hardwick)
poured her whole life into this case. She provided a valuable service to
Orange County and to other parents for having the tenacity to stick with it.”
Lenny Dykstra indicted on fraud, obstruction of
justice charges
LA Times
May 6, 2011
Former baseball star Lenny Dykstra was indicted by a federal grand jury
Friday on charges including bankruptcy fraud and obstruction of justice, for
allegedly sneaking away more than $400,000 in property that should have
gone to his creditors, then lying about it under oath.
Dykstra, 48, a former Mets and Phillies outfielder known to his fans by the
nickname “Nails,” is accused of stealing, hiding and destroying items such as
chandeliers, artwork, sconces and sports memorabilia about himself from his
$18-million Ventura County mansion, according to the indictment.
He later filed declarations under oath and lied in bankruptcy court about
having received money from selling off the items, the indictment alleged.
Dykstra’s attorney, Mark Werksman, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
If convicted of all 13 counts in the indictment, Dykstra could face a maximum
of 80 years in prison, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.
Dykstra, who fashioned himself as a financial guru and entrepreneur after
retiring from his baseball career, filed for bankruptcy protection in July 2009
when business ventures started failing and debt began piling up. He was
soon pushed into court-ordered liquidation by his creditors.
Bankruptcy trustee Peter C. Anderson called Dykstra’s alleged crimes “an
egregious abuse of the bankruptcy system,” and said they would “not be
tolerated,” according to a statement released by prosecutors. Dykstra’s
bankruptcy case remains pending.
justice charges
LA Times
May 6, 2011
Former baseball star Lenny Dykstra was indicted by a federal grand jury
Friday on charges including bankruptcy fraud and obstruction of justice, for
allegedly sneaking away more than $400,000 in property that should have
gone to his creditors, then lying about it under oath.
Dykstra, 48, a former Mets and Phillies outfielder known to his fans by the
nickname “Nails,” is accused of stealing, hiding and destroying items such as
chandeliers, artwork, sconces and sports memorabilia about himself from his
$18-million Ventura County mansion, according to the indictment.
He later filed declarations under oath and lied in bankruptcy court about
having received money from selling off the items, the indictment alleged.
Dykstra’s attorney, Mark Werksman, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
If convicted of all 13 counts in the indictment, Dykstra could face a maximum
of 80 years in prison, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.
Dykstra, who fashioned himself as a financial guru and entrepreneur after
retiring from his baseball career, filed for bankruptcy protection in July 2009
when business ventures started failing and debt began piling up. He was
soon pushed into court-ordered liquidation by his creditors.
Bankruptcy trustee Peter C. Anderson called Dykstra’s alleged crimes “an
egregious abuse of the bankruptcy system,” and said they would “not be
tolerated,” according to a statement released by prosecutors. Dykstra’s
bankruptcy case remains pending.
California Penal Code
section 127 states, “Every
person who willfully
procures another person
to commit perjury is guilty
of subornation of perjury,
and is punishable in the
same manner as he would
be if personally guilty of
the perjury so procured.”
section 127 states, “Every
person who willfully
procures another person
to commit perjury is guilty
of subornation of perjury,
and is punishable in the
same manner as he would
be if personally guilty of
the perjury so procured.”
Perjury
Michael Carlson and
atty Deborah K. Garvin
Michael Carlson and
atty Deborah K. Garvin
Jury relied on testimony of Phoenix police Detective Armando
Saldate Jr.who had committed perjury four times before, resulting
in four previous cases being dismissed.
Debra Milke, Arizona woman who had murder conviction tossed, freed
By Greg Botelho
CNN
September 6, 2013
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
A judge tossed her conviction; the jury didn't know a detective's "history of
misconduct"
Arizona's attorney general vowed to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court
(CNN) -- For the first time in well over a decade -- and in the months since a federal judge
overturned her murder conviction -- Debra Milke is free...
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said in March that his office would appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court the judge's decision to toss her conviction and the death sentence that
went with it.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ruled this spring that Milke did
not receive a fair trial.
Milke still faces charges and was released on bond pending the possibility of a retrial...
Milke's legal team will at some point address the media about their client's release, though
it's not known when, said one of the lawyers, Lori Voepel.
A jury convicted Milke of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, child abuse and kidnapping
on October 12, 1990, less than a year after her 4-year-old son was found dead. She was
sentenced to death a few months later.
A day after seeing Santa Claus at a mall, young Christopher Milke asked his mother if he
could go again. That was the plan, she said, when the boy got into the car with Milke's
roommate, James Styers.
Styers picked up a friend, "but instead of heading to the mall, the two men drove the boy
out of town to a secluded ravine, where Styers shot Christopher three times in the head,"
according to Kozinski's summary of the case. Styers was convicted of first-degree murder
in the boy's killing and sentenced to death.
During her trial, "no ... witnesses or direct evidence (linked) Milke to the crime"
other than Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate Jr., according to Kozinski.
The detective questioned Milke -- an interrogation that wasn't recorded or seen by anyone
else -- and later claimed she'd confessed to her role in the murder conspiracy, saying it
was a "bad judgment call."
But Milke offered a vastly different view of the interrogation and denied that she had
admitted to any role in a murder plot.
"The judge and jury believed Saldate," Kozinski wrote in his March ruling overturning
Milke's murder conviciton. "But they didn't know about Saldate's long history of lying
under oath and other misconduct."
The judge explained that he'd made his decision because prosecutors did not disclose the
"history of misconduct" of its key witness.
Unbeknown to the defense or to the jury, previous judges had tossed out four
confessions or indictments because Saldate had lied under oath, among other
issues.
Horne, the Arizona attorney general, has argued the woman should remain on death row,
given his understanding of what happened.
"After dressing him up and telling him he was going to the mall to see Santa Claus, Milke
was convicted of sending her young son off to be shot, execution style, in a desert wash,"
he said.
Saldate Jr.who had committed perjury four times before, resulting
in four previous cases being dismissed.
Debra Milke, Arizona woman who had murder conviction tossed, freed
By Greg Botelho
CNN
September 6, 2013
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
A judge tossed her conviction; the jury didn't know a detective's "history of
misconduct"
Arizona's attorney general vowed to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court
(CNN) -- For the first time in well over a decade -- and in the months since a federal judge
overturned her murder conviction -- Debra Milke is free...
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said in March that his office would appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court the judge's decision to toss her conviction and the death sentence that
went with it.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ruled this spring that Milke did
not receive a fair trial.
Milke still faces charges and was released on bond pending the possibility of a retrial...
Milke's legal team will at some point address the media about their client's release, though
it's not known when, said one of the lawyers, Lori Voepel.
A jury convicted Milke of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, child abuse and kidnapping
on October 12, 1990, less than a year after her 4-year-old son was found dead. She was
sentenced to death a few months later.
A day after seeing Santa Claus at a mall, young Christopher Milke asked his mother if he
could go again. That was the plan, she said, when the boy got into the car with Milke's
roommate, James Styers.
Styers picked up a friend, "but instead of heading to the mall, the two men drove the boy
out of town to a secluded ravine, where Styers shot Christopher three times in the head,"
according to Kozinski's summary of the case. Styers was convicted of first-degree murder
in the boy's killing and sentenced to death.
During her trial, "no ... witnesses or direct evidence (linked) Milke to the crime"
other than Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate Jr., according to Kozinski.
The detective questioned Milke -- an interrogation that wasn't recorded or seen by anyone
else -- and later claimed she'd confessed to her role in the murder conspiracy, saying it
was a "bad judgment call."
But Milke offered a vastly different view of the interrogation and denied that she had
admitted to any role in a murder plot.
"The judge and jury believed Saldate," Kozinski wrote in his March ruling overturning
Milke's murder conviciton. "But they didn't know about Saldate's long history of lying
under oath and other misconduct."
The judge explained that he'd made his decision because prosecutors did not disclose the
"history of misconduct" of its key witness.
Unbeknown to the defense or to the jury, previous judges had tossed out four
confessions or indictments because Saldate had lied under oath, among other
issues.
Horne, the Arizona attorney general, has argued the woman should remain on death row,
given his understanding of what happened.
"After dressing him up and telling him he was going to the mall to see Santa Claus, Milke
was convicted of sending her young son off to be shot, execution style, in a desert wash,"
he said.
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
LAPD officer gets community service, probation for lying under
oath
By Ryan Menezes
April 9, 2014.
A Los Angeles police officer convicted of perjury and conspiracy after lying
about the details of an arrest in court was sentenced Wednesday to community
labor and three years' formal probation.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge George G. Lomeli ordered Manuel Bernardo
Ortiz to perform 900 hours of California Department of Transportation work or graffiti
removal.
Ortiz, 40, was charged in 2009 along with two fellow officers of lying under oath
during a criminal trial about the details of an arrest in Hollywood.
Ortiz was convicted of a single count of perjury for his statements during a
preliminary hearing.
Former officers Evan Samuel and Richard Amio were convicted of multiple counts of
perjury for testifying falsely during different court proceedings. Samuel also wrote a
probable cause report that contained inaccuracies.
All three officers also were convicted of one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Like his fellow officers, Ortiz avoided prison time, receiving a suspended three-year
sentence. He received more hours of community labor than the other two. A different
judge ordered Samuel to perform 750 hours and gave Amio 500 hours.
Defense attorney Bill Seki asked Lomeli to reconsider the number of hours for Ortiz,
saying his client did not deserve the toughest sentence because "his culpability was far
less than the other two." But the judge refused.
Prosecutors had asked for prison sentences for all three.
Amio and Samuel were convicted in November 2012, but a jury deadlocked on the
charges against Ortiz. He was tried again this year, and a jury found him guilty in February.
Ortiz’s sentence comes five years after the criminal trial in which he, Samuel and Amio
committed perjury. Charges against the defendant in that case, Guillermo Alarcon Jr.,
were abruptly dropped when Alarcon’s defense attorney presented in court a video that
contradicted all three officers’ testimony.
Ortiz's fellow officers testifed that they saw Alarcon throw away a sharp black object while
they chased him into his Hollywood apartment. The officers said in court that former officer
Samuel had quickly located the box and found it stuffed with crack and powder cocaine.
But the video showed that in fact it took multiple officers about 20 minutes of searching to
find the box. The video also featured officers talking about Ortiz finding the box, which
directly contradicted Ortiz's testimony during the preliminary hearing in which he claimed
he did not participate in the search.
oath
By Ryan Menezes
April 9, 2014.
A Los Angeles police officer convicted of perjury and conspiracy after lying
about the details of an arrest in court was sentenced Wednesday to community
labor and three years' formal probation.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge George G. Lomeli ordered Manuel Bernardo
Ortiz to perform 900 hours of California Department of Transportation work or graffiti
removal.
Ortiz, 40, was charged in 2009 along with two fellow officers of lying under oath
during a criminal trial about the details of an arrest in Hollywood.
Ortiz was convicted of a single count of perjury for his statements during a
preliminary hearing.
Former officers Evan Samuel and Richard Amio were convicted of multiple counts of
perjury for testifying falsely during different court proceedings. Samuel also wrote a
probable cause report that contained inaccuracies.
All three officers also were convicted of one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Like his fellow officers, Ortiz avoided prison time, receiving a suspended three-year
sentence. He received more hours of community labor than the other two. A different
judge ordered Samuel to perform 750 hours and gave Amio 500 hours.
Defense attorney Bill Seki asked Lomeli to reconsider the number of hours for Ortiz,
saying his client did not deserve the toughest sentence because "his culpability was far
less than the other two." But the judge refused.
Prosecutors had asked for prison sentences for all three.
Amio and Samuel were convicted in November 2012, but a jury deadlocked on the
charges against Ortiz. He was tried again this year, and a jury found him guilty in February.
Ortiz’s sentence comes five years after the criminal trial in which he, Samuel and Amio
committed perjury. Charges against the defendant in that case, Guillermo Alarcon Jr.,
were abruptly dropped when Alarcon’s defense attorney presented in court a video that
contradicted all three officers’ testimony.
Ortiz's fellow officers testifed that they saw Alarcon throw away a sharp black object while
they chased him into his Hollywood apartment. The officers said in court that former officer
Samuel had quickly located the box and found it stuffed with crack and powder cocaine.
But the video showed that in fact it took multiple officers about 20 minutes of searching to
find the box. The video also featured officers talking about Ortiz finding the box, which
directly contradicted Ortiz's testimony during the preliminary hearing in which he claimed
he did not participate in the search.
Blog posts re perjury (SDER)
Blog posts re perjury (Role
Model Lawyers)
Model Lawyers)
Debra Milke, who spent 22 years on Arizona death row,
has murder case tossed
By Saeed Ahmed and Greg Botelho, CNN
March 24, 2015
CNN
There was no evidence tying her to the crime, but a detective said she
confessed
This detective had a "history of misconduct," including lying under oath
Debra Milke spent 22 years on death row, convicted of conspiring with two other men to
kill her son allegedly for an insurance payout.
On Monday, a judge ruled that the Arizona woman is innocent and dismissed all
charges against her.
This makes Milke only the second woman exonerated from death row in the United
States.
More importantly, the judge's decision finally clears Milke after years of legal
back-and-forth in a case where she steadfastly maintained her innocence.
Key to the case's dismissal was prosecutorial misconduct, mainly
that of a detective, Armando Saldate, who said Milke
confessed to the crime to him -- even though there was no
witness or recording.
Prosecutors withheld from the jury Saldate's personnel record which showed
instances of misconduct in other cases, including lying under oath.
The two men with whom Milke was accused of conspiring were tried separately and are
still on death row.
The killing
A day after seeing Santa Claus at a mall on December 1, 1989, young Christopher Milke
asked his mother if he could go again.
Milke's roomate, James Styers, took the boy; then called Milke saying Christopher had
disappeared.
Instead, Styers and a friend drove the boy out of town to a secluded ravine where Styers
shot Christopher three times in the head, prosecutors said.
Styers and the friend were convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Milke's 'role
Milke was implicated based on alleged testimony from Styer's friend, Roger Scott.
The detective, Saldate, said Scott told him that Milke was involved in a plot to kill her
son. And during her trial, prosecutors floated a likely motive: A $5,000 life insurance
policy she had taken out on the child.
But neither Scott nor Styers testified to a plot in court.
No other witnesses or direct evidence linked Milke to the crime other than Saldate's
testimony.
Milke's 'confession'
Saldate further said that Milke confessed to her role in the murder plot during
interrogation and said it was a "bad judgment call."
There was no recording of the interrogation, no one else was in the room or watching
from a two-way mirror, and Saldate said he threw away his notes
shortly after completing his report.
Milke offered a vastly different view of the interrogation and denied that she had
confessed to any role.
The trial became a he-said/she-said contest between the two.
Ultimately, the jury believed the detective and convicted Milke of murder.
Saldate's past
What prosecutors didn't tell the court was the detective's long history of lying under oath
and misconduct.
Saldate had been suspended five days for taking "liberties" with a female motorist and
lying about it to his supervisors. Four confessions or indictments had been tossed out
because Saldate had lied under oath. Judges suppressed or vacated four other
confessions because Saldate had violated a person's constitutional rights.
In 2013, after more than 20 years in jail, an appeals court overturned Milke's conviction.
"The Constitution requires a fair trial," Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the federal 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals wrote. "This never happened in Milke's case."
"The state knew of the evidence in the personnel file and had an obligation to produce
the documents," Kozinski said. "... There can be no doubt that the state failed in its
constitutional obligation."
Milke was released on bail, and the court said she couldn't be tried again.
The state appealed the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.
The ending
Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. And on Monday, all
charges against Milke were finally dropped.
The ankle bracelet she had been wearing while on bail was removed. And Milke left the
court room, sobbing in relief.
The case is now closed. Debra Milke is finally a free woman.
has murder case tossed
By Saeed Ahmed and Greg Botelho, CNN
March 24, 2015
CNN
There was no evidence tying her to the crime, but a detective said she
confessed
This detective had a "history of misconduct," including lying under oath
Debra Milke spent 22 years on death row, convicted of conspiring with two other men to
kill her son allegedly for an insurance payout.
On Monday, a judge ruled that the Arizona woman is innocent and dismissed all
charges against her.
This makes Milke only the second woman exonerated from death row in the United
States.
More importantly, the judge's decision finally clears Milke after years of legal
back-and-forth in a case where she steadfastly maintained her innocence.
Key to the case's dismissal was prosecutorial misconduct, mainly
that of a detective, Armando Saldate, who said Milke
confessed to the crime to him -- even though there was no
witness or recording.
Prosecutors withheld from the jury Saldate's personnel record which showed
instances of misconduct in other cases, including lying under oath.
The two men with whom Milke was accused of conspiring were tried separately and are
still on death row.
The killing
A day after seeing Santa Claus at a mall on December 1, 1989, young Christopher Milke
asked his mother if he could go again.
Milke's roomate, James Styers, took the boy; then called Milke saying Christopher had
disappeared.
Instead, Styers and a friend drove the boy out of town to a secluded ravine where Styers
shot Christopher three times in the head, prosecutors said.
Styers and the friend were convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Milke's 'role
Milke was implicated based on alleged testimony from Styer's friend, Roger Scott.
The detective, Saldate, said Scott told him that Milke was involved in a plot to kill her
son. And during her trial, prosecutors floated a likely motive: A $5,000 life insurance
policy she had taken out on the child.
But neither Scott nor Styers testified to a plot in court.
No other witnesses or direct evidence linked Milke to the crime other than Saldate's
testimony.
Milke's 'confession'
Saldate further said that Milke confessed to her role in the murder plot during
interrogation and said it was a "bad judgment call."
There was no recording of the interrogation, no one else was in the room or watching
from a two-way mirror, and Saldate said he threw away his notes
shortly after completing his report.
Milke offered a vastly different view of the interrogation and denied that she had
confessed to any role.
The trial became a he-said/she-said contest between the two.
Ultimately, the jury believed the detective and convicted Milke of murder.
Saldate's past
What prosecutors didn't tell the court was the detective's long history of lying under oath
and misconduct.
Saldate had been suspended five days for taking "liberties" with a female motorist and
lying about it to his supervisors. Four confessions or indictments had been tossed out
because Saldate had lied under oath. Judges suppressed or vacated four other
confessions because Saldate had violated a person's constitutional rights.
In 2013, after more than 20 years in jail, an appeals court overturned Milke's conviction.
"The Constitution requires a fair trial," Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the federal 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals wrote. "This never happened in Milke's case."
"The state knew of the evidence in the personnel file and had an obligation to produce
the documents," Kozinski said. "... There can be no doubt that the state failed in its
constitutional obligation."
Milke was released on bail, and the court said she couldn't be tried again.
The state appealed the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.
The ending
Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. And on Monday, all
charges against Milke were finally dropped.
The ankle bracelet she had been wearing while on bail was removed. And Milke left the
court room, sobbing in relief.
The case is now closed. Debra Milke is finally a free woman.