Texas 7 member Michael Rodriguez volunteering for execution this week
01:42 PM CDT on Saturday, August 9, 2008

* * *

At his capital murder trial, defense lawyers argued Rodriguez should be spared because of sexual abuse he suffered while attending Central Catholic High School in San Antonio.

It was all a lie, he said.

Rodriguez said the clergyman, a Catholic teaching brother, "didn't do a thing to me."

"I felt so horrible, the depth of evil I fell into," he said. "That whole thing, then going gay, that was a lie. It's not true. We just had to come up with something. It was a big fabrication.

"It really bothers me."

[Ed. Wonder if his lawyers were bothered?]

Dallas Morning News Article

[This message was edited by JohnR on 08-09-08 at .]

I am simply astounded...hard to believe a murderer would lie to try to save himself.

[This message was edited by Greg Gilleland on 08-09-08 at .]

What struck me was the frank admission of the complicity of his lawyers in presenting false testimony that even the defendant was ashamed of.

It is stark. I can't believe he said this:

"At some point in our lives you have to have some sort of accountability. I can't see how people in my sitution deny that."

And does anyone believe that an Innocence Project will look upon this and say, "We have to do more to make sure we are not just pawns of guilty people seeking to manipulate the criminal justice system. While there are innocent people, there are also very guilty people who will use their lawyers to present falsehoods."

If we are honest about wanting to making sure of the integrity of convictions, doesn't that include acknowledging and exposing falsehoods and mistakes by the defense? I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Barry Scheck to announce his position on this.

I've always wondered why the Innocence Projects don't publish the lies they expose when screening a case for their support. Why isn't that process subject to some sort of public scrutiny, just as a conviction is subject to public scrutiny? Is it because they fear that the negative publicity would destroy the public support, just as they have used that same negative publicity to degrade public opinion for prosecution of a case?

I think it would be nice if anyone regularly reported the cases where post-conviction DNA testing confirmed guilt. I know Dallas Morning News reported one. I'm sure it happens more often than that.

It's really the disparity in follow up. There may be a big media splash on a guy requesting the testing, but you only get the same level of splash when the follow up favors the defendant. Even if they report on the confirmation of guilt, it's usually buried deep in the paper (and definitely below the fold).

Man bites dog.

I wonder if their donors would like to know the percentage of each dollar that goes to help somebody who is really innocent.

The murderer's and lawyers' lies aren't even the subject of the article. They're just a passing comment deep within the piece. That, in and of itself, speeks volumes about the media's view on the issue.

quote:

---

If we are honest about wanting to making sure of the integrity of convictions, doesn't that include acknowledging and exposing falsehoods and mistakes by the defense?

---

People expect that the system will work. So it is not really news when it does. When it does not work, that, of course, is news - especially when you constently hear stories about people getting released after 10, 15, or 20+ years.

I am sure that it sucks being locked up and/or railroaded. But if you have to do time, then it is far better to be doing the time in the U.S. of A as opposed to, say, China, Russia, or Mexico. There ain't no such animal as a Section 1983 lawsuit in any of those countries!