by Deb Cupples | Whether Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has a legal right to appoint Barack Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate is still up for debate.
His choice for Obama's replacement (former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris) is also up for debate -- apparently based on Burris' fitness or lack thereof. Politico reports:
"Public fury over the governor's alleged misconduct has masked the once lively debate over Burris' decision to continue to prosecute, despite the objections of one of his top prosecutors, the wrong man for a high-profile murder case.
"While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.
"But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris' own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.
"Burris refused. He was running for governor." (Politico)
ProPublica also has the story.
A prosecutor's job is not simply to wrack up convictions: it's to carry out Justice -- even when Justice requires that innocent people go free. Not all prosecutors understand this principle.
Back in 2007, for example, former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton testified before Congress that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had ordered Charlton to pursue the death penalty, even in cases where evidence was lacking (Washington Post). Charlton described a murder case in which he had decided against the death penalty because he didn't have a murder weapon, DNA or the victim's body. Sensibly enough, Charlton didn't want to risk killing the wrong person.
He believed the victim's body was buried in a landfill and asked the
Justice Department to pay $500,000+ to retrieve it. The Department
refused, and Gonzales ordered Charlton to pursue the death penalty
anyway (WaPo). Yes, that does seem both imprudent and heartless.
We've seen other evidence of questionable conduct by prosecutors. (See e.g., fired U.S. Attorneys scandal and questionable prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman.)
If the Burris story is true, it's downright bone-chilling that he went after an innocent person simply to maintain his political image as "tough on crime."
Here's the Gun Toting Liberal's take on the Burris Story:
"You
see, there was this nice, innocent guy by the name of Rolando Cruz who
was convicted a couple of times by Chicago, Illinios juries for raping
and murdering a nine-year-old girl. Cops and prosecutors ended up
resigning due to the fact the juries only had the pleasure of ruling
the way they did because of all of the evidence proving Cruz’ innocence
was kept from the juries.
"Over the years, prosecutors and defense
attorneys alike wound up resigning their positions because Senator
Burris wanted the governorship so bad, he chose to purposely ignore
conclusive DNA PROOF and a confession to the commission of the crime by another man SCUMBAG by the name of Brian Dugan (Chicago Tribune). The reason Senator Burris stuck to his guns by demanding the murder of Mr. Cruz? Again — personal and political gain.
"...Since there is no statute of limitations in attempted murder crimes, Senator Burris should be arrested IMMEDIATELY and brought to justice before a jury of MY (not HIS) peers."
Liberty Street's take: "Our country does not need a Senator who will cave in to avoid losing votes."
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Media Puts Questionable Number on Shareholders' 2008 Losses
* Minnesota Recount Update: Coleman Tactic Skews Absentee Count
* Justice Dept. Should Investigate Post-Katrina Killings
* Cleaning up Corporate & Political Culture Could Help Economy
.
Comments