20 Years Stolen: Michelle Murphy

[heironymouspasparagus]

You asked for it. A long, boring answer full of lawyerly gobbledegook follows.

If there is evidence tending to prove each element of the offense, judges will not dismiss criminal cases just because they don't believe the evidence is credible. Credibility is an issue for the trier of fact - the jury.

Also, in Oklahoma judges operate within a political environment that mandates that they err on the side of caution, meaning that cases get tried rather than summarily disposed of by the judge. This is even true in civil cases. State court judges are much more averse to granting motions for summary judgment than federal court judges. Can you imagine the prospects for the judge's future retention if he or she became known for dismissing criminal cases, denying the state the defendant's right to trial by jury? Yes, I intended to say it that way.

One thing that might have led to a different result was the judge's admission of the expert lab testimony. Judges have always served as gatekeepers to limit opinion evidence to those who have sufficient expertise to enable the jury to understand technical evidence, but they weren't always rigorous about it. Let me put it another way. They were almost never rigorous about it. In recent years expert testimony has been subjected to much more scrutiny before being admitted at trial.

20 years ago, all that had to be shown was that the witness had training, experience, and a record of being accepted by courts as an expert. Now, the testimony has to meet a higher standard provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, which requires the expert's technique or theory to be considered according to the following criteria:

1. Whether the witnesses approach or theory is testable;
2. Whether the theory had been subjected to peer review;
3. The known or potential error rate of the theory or method;
4. The existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and
5. Whether the theory or technique was generally accepted in the scientific community.

Though Daubert is technically a federal standard, state courts have used a similar approach. The lab expert who testified in the Murphy case very likely would not be allowed to testify under similar circumstances today because of inadequate education and problems with applicable standards and controls.

If in fact Harris hid exculpatory evidence from the defense, he violated a clearly established constitutional standard that should give Murphy a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, which provides a damages remedy when a person's civil rights have been denied by anyone acting under color of state law. Harris and the Governor (the state cannot be sued directly) would be defendants. The damages would be paid by the taxpayers. I read earlier today that the City of New York had paid half a billion dollars in damages because of police misconduct over some period of time. All of those damages were paid by the taxpayers.

Harris could also be subject to discipline by the bar association. Intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence is a violation of professional standards.

Thanks!  Pretty much what I have been told from friends...just couldn't get traction here with someone we all know and love!

Harris has been a mess for a long, long, time....still is!

[Vashta Nerada]

All that power and he still doesnt have the guts to stand up to any of the police unions, so the baddest of the bad get a free ride.

[Conan71]

Thanks!  Pretty much what I have been told from friends...just couldn't get traction here with someone we all know and love!

Harris has been a mess for a long, long, time....still is!

What puzzles me beyond that discussion in chambers since the account is all parties were present, is why didn't the defense make a motion for a mistrial?  There are so many red flags on this case it's unreal, as well as later bungling and/or concealment of evidence which would have exonerated her and gotten her out of the pen close to ten years ago.

Talk about a defendant who got foobared like a tied goat.

[heironymouspasparagus]

What puzzles me beyond that discussion in chambers since the account is all parties were present, is why didn't the defense make a motion for a mistrial?  There are so many red flags on this case it's unreal, as well as later bungling and/or concealment of evidence which would have exonerated her and gotten her out of the pen close to ten years ago.

Talk about a defendant who got foobared like a tied goat.

100% absolute agreement on that one!!

Probably a public defender with an application in at the DA's office...?  Pardon my cynicism....

This is the first paragraph in Tim Harris' biography on the DA's page....

Harris has worked as a prosecutor in Tulsa County for 26 years. Protection of children has always been a focus of Harris' career as a prosecutor. In 1995 Harris was named Tulsa County's first Director of Crimes Against Children.

Except when one of the "chosen ones" - Mark Allan Eaton - tries to enter a guilty verdict for his attempt to murder two children!  (Granted, they were 16 and 17, so almost adults, but that is kinda not the point.)  And now that he and his buds have an unlimited "get out of jail" card, they are still shooting up that neighborhood and really terrorizing people.  Mostly only on holidays and weekend nights when they get all drunk up.  One of the neighbors had a kid murdered, and this neighbor kinda freaks every time they have their little "shoot-fests"....  Driving over the neighbors yards.  Parking their stuff on the neighbors yards.  Last time I visited the area, a couple weeks ago, they had the street blocked so much with so many vehicles that some vehicles driving through the area had to turn around and go another way.   I know, I know,...they should just call the cops and report them for being a nuisance!!  Oh, wait....

I know Daddy's gotta be proud!!   But at least they aren't in his gated community!!


Back to Murphy;
At least they didn't execute her.  Like they would have in Texass...like they have done in Texass...executing innocent people.