After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime Freed, challenged by Kamala Harris

Jul 2011
61,917
12,483
“Stay Down”
#1
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime Freed


During his trial, Larsen’s now disbarred attorney did not call a single witness to the stand, including up to nine who could testify that they saw someone else — not Larsen — throw the knife, the Innocence Project said.

His conviction was overturned in 2009 when a federal judge ruled that his constitutional rights had been violated.

The court found that Larsen had shown he was "actually innocent," that the police officers at Larsen’s trial were not credible, and that his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call witnesses on his behalf.

But before he was released, California Attorney General Kamala Harris is challenging Larsen's release, saying he hadn't presented proof that he was innocent quickly enough, the Innocence Project said.

After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************




Ok so I am going to try this a different way. In this particular case an innocent man who wasn't properly represented was later declared "innocent" by a judge. Now Presidential candidate, knowing the man was innocent, attempted to keep this innocent man in prison because he did not bring his proof that he was innocent "quickly enough".


Let that sink in for a moment. innocent man, represented poorly by a now disbarred lawyer is declared innocent, Instead of doing the right thing Kamala harris challenged his release on the technicality that he did not prove he was innocent "quickly enough".

Does that not sound, barbaric on Kamala's part?
 
Dec 2018
4,229
1,592
Florida
#2
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime Freed


During his trial, Larsen’s now disbarred attorney did not call a single witness to the stand, including up to nine who could testify that they saw someone else — not Larsen — throw the knife, the Innocence Project said.

His conviction was overturned in 2009 when a federal judge ruled that his constitutional rights had been violated.

The court found that Larsen had shown he was "actually innocent," that the police officers at Larsen’s trial were not credible, and that his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call witnesses on his behalf.

But before he was released, California Attorney General Kamala Harris is challenging Larsen's release, saying he hadn't presented proof that he was innocent quickly enough, the Innocence Project said.

After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************




Ok so I am going to try this a different way. In this particular case an innocent man who wasn't properly represented was later declared "innocent" by a judge. Now Presidential candidate, knowing the man was innocent, attempted to keep this innocent man in prison because he did not bring his proof that he was innocent "quickly enough".


Let that sink in for a moment. innocent man, represented poorly by a now disbarred lawyer is declared innocent, Instead of doing the right thing Kamala harris challenged his release on the technicality that he did not prove he was innocent "quickly enough".

Does that not sound, barbaric on Kamala's part?
Absolutely. Context is important of course. Challenging release based on not producing evidence fast enough is ridiculous. Stating that the man went to prison because of it? That would be another (because it is technically true). Sucks. Either way? Glad he is out. His lawyer should be facing serious civil suits if that is the case.
 
Jul 2011
61,917
12,483
“Stay Down”
#3
Absolutely. Context is important of course. Challenging release based on not producing evidence fast enough is ridiculous. Stating that the man went to prison because of it? That would be another (because it is technically true). Sucks. Either way? Glad he is out. His lawyer should be facing serious civil suits if that is the case.

Agreed and I think because it was declared his constitutional rights had been violated that kamala and the AG office, the state should pay restitution, Kamala should have been disbarred for it.
 
Likes: ripskater

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
75,823
44,733
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#5
Challenging release based on not producing evidence fast enough is ridiculous.
It is, however, the law. Not the only law, but there are legal requirements to this stuff.
His lawyer should be facing serious civil suits if that is the case.
If his lawyer has been disbarred (as the OP indicates), he is probably judgment-proof.
Agreed and I think because it was declared his constitutional rights had been violated that kamala and the AG office, the state should pay restitution, Kamala should have been disbarred for it.
The constitutional violation was the ineffective assistance of counsel provided by his attorney. Harris argued the law, nothing more, and cannot be disbarred for that, or for representing her client (i.e., the state). There is such a thing as overzealous representation when it comes to prosecutors (though not always in those words) ... see California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8(a).

Restitution? Probably. A bad conviction is a bad conviction even if there was not prosecutorial misconduct, and here the defendant's lawyer did not really do much.
 
Jul 2011
61,917
12,483
“Stay Down”
#6
It is, however, the law. Not the only law, but there are legal requirements to this stuff.

If his lawyer has been disbarred (as the OP indicates), he is probably judgment-proof.

The constitutional violation was the ineffective assistance of counsel provided by his attorney. Harris argued the law, nothing more, and cannot be disbarred for that, or for representing her client (i.e., the state). There is such a thing as overzealous representation when it comes to prosecutors (though not always in those words) ... see California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8(a).

Restitution? Probably. A bad conviction is a bad conviction even if there was not prosecutorial misconduct, and here the defendant's lawyer did not really do much.

Maybe it doesn't meet the requirments for disbarrment but the moral and ethics of her fighting to keep a declared innocent man in prison on a technicality, is abhorrent.
 
Dec 2018
4,229
1,592
Florida
#7
It is, however, the law. Not the only law, but there are legal requirements to this stuff.

If his lawyer has been disbarred (as the OP indicates), he is probably judgment-proof.

The constitutional violation was the ineffective assistance of counsel provided by his attorney. Harris argued the law, nothing more, and cannot be disbarred for that, or for representing her client (i.e., the state). There is such a thing as overzealous representation when it comes to prosecutors (though not always in those words) ... see California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8(a).

Restitution? Probably. A bad conviction is a bad conviction even if there was not prosecutorial misconduct, and here the defendant's lawyer did not really do much.
I understand that there may be legal requirements, but a person shouldn’t be held for a crime they didn’t commit just because they “failed to produce evidence.” If they are not guilty of the crime? What is the point of holding them?

As for disbarred? I don’t know if that should matter or not. One person loses their freedom and likely will have to deal with all kinds of ramifications of being wrongly convicted.
 
Jan 2018
831
474
Houston, TX
#8
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime Freed


During his trial, Larsen’s now disbarred attorney did not call a single witness to the stand, including up to nine who could testify that they saw someone else — not Larsen — throw the knife, the Innocence Project said.

His conviction was overturned in 2009 when a federal judge ruled that his constitutional rights had been violated.

The court found that Larsen had shown he was "actually innocent," that the police officers at Larsen’s trial were not credible, and that his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call witnesses on his behalf.

But before he was released, California Attorney General Kamala Harris is challenging Larsen's release, saying he hadn't presented proof that he was innocent quickly enough, the Innocence Project said.

After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************




Ok so I am going to try this a different way. In this particular case an innocent man who wasn't properly represented was later declared "innocent" by a judge. Now Presidential candidate, knowing the man was innocent, attempted to keep this innocent man in prison because he did not bring his proof that he was innocent "quickly enough".


Let that sink in for a moment. innocent man, represented poorly by a now disbarred lawyer is declared innocent, Instead of doing the right thing Kamala harris challenged his release on the technicality that he did not prove he was innocent "quickly enough".

Does that not sound, barbaric on Kamala's part?
It was ass-backwards. Innocent until proven guilty. Typical Kamala Harris stoking her own resume.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
75,823
44,733
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#9
I understand that there may be legal requirements, but a person shouldn’t be held for a crime they didn’t commit just because they “failed to produce evidence.” If they are not guilty of the crime? What is the point of holding them?
He was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial. There are rules regarding time periods and appeals and the provision of exculpatory evidence. It becomes an issue as to when that evidence was known and/or discovered. The problem here seems to be (and I have not looked into it in detail, but can reasonably extrapolate from what I know) that the defendant's attorney was a schmuck who didn't do his job, and that affects getting a new trial (as one option) if you can show the probability of getting a different result. This stuff is complex and not something that can be disposed of with a simple political one-liner, and I would not do so myself without reading the documents, having written and argued "ineffective assistance of counsel" issues in law school. My point is that a snap judgment because one disapproves of the result is not called for. Harris at the time was a lawyer doing her job. Now, of course, she is a politician and must defend that, but that is an entirely different issue and problem.
As for disbarred? I don’t know if that should matter or not. One person loses their freedom and likely will have to deal with all kinds of ramifications of being wrongly convicted.
True enough. But she cannot be disbarred (or otherwise disciplined by the bar) for taking a legal position and arguing it, so long as she is not misrepresenting the law to the tribunal. (That is to say, the argument has to be reasonable, whether or not it wins. Reasonable minds can and do differ.)
It was ass-backwards. Innocent until proven guilty. Typical Kamala Harris stoking her own resume.
Not at all. The defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This had to do with reversing a conviction on appeal, and the standards there are completely different.
 
Likes: Friday13
Jan 2018
831
474
Houston, TX
#10
He was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial. There are rules regarding time periods and appeals and the provision of exculpatory evidence. It becomes an issue as to when that evidence was known and/or discovered. The problem here seems to be (and I have not looked into it in detail, but can reasonably extrapolate from what I know) that the defendant's attorney was a schmuck who didn't do his job, and that affects getting a new trial (as one option) if you can show the probability of getting a different result. This stuff is complex and not something that can be disposed of with a simple political one-liner, and I would not do so myself without reading the documents, having written and argued "ineffective assistance of counsel" issues in law school. My point is that a snap judgment because one disapproves of the result is not called for. Harris at the time was a lawyer doing her job. Now, of course, she is a politician and must defend that, but that is an entirely different issue and problem.

True enough. But she cannot be disbarred (or otherwise disciplined by the bar) for taking a legal position and arguing it, so long as she is not misrepresenting the law to the tribunal. (That is to say, the argument has to be reasonable, whether or not it wins. Reasonable minds can and do differ.)

Not at all. The defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This had to do with reversing a conviction on appeal, and the standards there are completely different.
But if exculpatory evidence was withheld then it is a miscarriage of justice. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" provision is mute.