This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Judicial Hypocrisy
The entire process was controversial and tainted, including circumstantial evidence that never should have been allowed pertaining to the defendants' political beliefs, ones held by millions in the country, then and now.
In addition, their fingerprints weren't on the alleged dynamite, skin tests performed to detect traces were negative, and according to former Omaha police officer, Marvin McClarty, an improper search procedure found it. Then shortly after the mens' conviction, we Langa's house mysteriously burned down, eliminating any chance for a post hoc accuracy check of police testimony.
In addition, in 1974, a federal court ruled the search illegal, cited inconsistencies in a police lieutenant's testimony authorizing it, admitted the dynamite might have been planted, and ordered a new trial, upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1975.
However, in 1976, the Supreme Court applied a post hoc jurisdictional technicality to deny it by ruling that when states provide full and fair Fourth Amendment litigation opportunities (a dubious conclusion in this case), the Constitution warrants no habeas relief. Later rulings blocked the appellate process, and the statutory time limit for filing in Nebraska courts expired while the men awaited the federal outcome.
A major obstacle is that the Court of Appeals won't address whether the men were fairly tried, whether tainted evidence was introduced, whether key witnesses committed perjury, only if under legal system standards the process was fair, true or not.
Most important, the likelihood that political targets can get due process and judicial fairness is nil when authorities want to convict and have complicit judges allowing it. The courts today are corrupted with them, hanging ones of the worst kind, so what chance have two black men under a system structured against them and always has been.
On June 19, 2009, the Nebraska Supreme Court showed it by denying Poindexter a new trial despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence as well as we Langa's - with added closing statement emphasis saying:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
