How do prosecutors get away with this?
Recently Chicago prosecutors agreed to dismiss charges against Maurice Patterson, who had been convicted in 2004 of murder and sentenced to 30 years. He was back in court because it was discovered that blood on a knife found near the murder contained the victim's blood, along with another person. That was important because at trial prosecutors claimed there was no blood on the knife, and therefore it was not connected to the murder.
in reporting the dismissal the State's attorney said the prosecutors acted in good faith, and noted that the judge found there was no intentional misconduct. They also took offense at any suggestion of misconduct, saying it was "wrong and unfair" to make such claims. They say that, without ever offering an explanation for what happened.
It appears that the lab reports showed blood, which was then tested. So did the prosecutors look at the lab report and mis-interpret the statement that blood was found on the knife? Did they not get the report? If they didn't have the report, then they were certainly reckless in saying no blood was on the knife - without actually knowing that. Did the police lie about blood being on the knife. I don't know what happened, and while I can't think of a plausible excuse, maybe one exists. What bothers me is this is business as usual. Prosecutors are free to misrepresent evidence without any consequences. We've seen it time and time again. The explanation that it was an honest mistake is accepted without question. Whatever the real reason in this case, at best the prosecutor played fast and loose with the truth.
One thing is for sure - whatever the reason, Mr. Patterson spent six years in jail for nothing. At the very least, he should get an explanation.
