BREAKING NEWS: David Swain Wins Appeal Against Murder Conviction

[vladimir]

Yes, presumably the civil trial is an objective indication of his guilt. Or was that also a miscarriage of justice?

 

[AfterDark]

deleted duplicate

 

[AfterDark]

Correct me if I am wrong.

1. Swain was found responsible for the death of his wife in a civil trial in Rhode Island.
2. The burden of proof in a civil trial (proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence) is marginally less than that in a criminal proceeding (beyond a reasonable doubt, that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.).
3. Thus you can hardly claim that his criminal conviction being overturned on a technicality is any sort of a determination or even indication of innocence, he was, in fact, found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.

Apples and oranges. Most of the "evidence" used in the civil trial would have been thrown out in a criminal trial here in the USA. The snorkel missing the mouthpiece for example, last year I was diving with someone that had the same snorkel. When we surfaced the mouthpiece was missing. there was no attempt made to murder this person. The missing snorkel mouthpiece was evidence that the snorkel(s) aren't assembled very well, not of a life and death struggle. The broken mask was found much later after the body was recovered. Was it recovered were the body was found? Nobody testified to that fact only that it was recovered in that area. Was the mask on Shelly when the body was recovered? Again . Did it get ripped off and broken when her body was brought aboard the boat by Dave nd his friend? There are more shadows that could've have been cast but the judge didn't allow any questions of this nature to be brought up or asked. I thought you live in a world of science and facts? Seems your slipping here.

 

[Thalassamania]

We are talking about the rules of evidence in the US of A, to wit, the civil trial that was held in Rhode Island.

The law is not a world of science and facts, despite what you may see on TV.

 

[AfterDark]

We are talking about the rules of evidence in the US of A, to wit, the civil trial that was held in Rhode Island.

So? The US AG declined to take the criminal case to a US court even though he had that option. AG's don't take cases unless they think they can win, he knew he couldn't win. The proof? BVI ultimetly lost.

 

[SadiesMom]

Correct me if I am wrong.

1. Thus you can hardly claim that his criminal conviction being overturned on a technicality is any sort of a determination or even indication of innocence, he was, in fact, found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.

You're wrong (hey - you said to correct you).
a) The judge's error was not a "technicality" - as you can see from the Appeals Court ruling as state in the three articles I posted above, the judge biased the jury with her summation. The Honorable Ola Mae Edwards "stated that the High Court Judge in her summation to jurors said that the prosecution had stated that the woman died at the hands of her husband, while the defense stated that it was due to drowning which stemmed from medical reasons. However, in her final direction, she told the jurors that they heard all about self defense and accident, but neither of which have any place in the trial.

She said the jurors did not receive proper direction from the Judge."

The reason the conviction was overturned is that there was no way to know whether the jury would've convicted David Swain if the jury had not been tainted by the trial judge's bias in the summary. That's not a "technicality" - that's a basic premise of justice - that the trial be fair and the judge isn't allowed to bias the jury. Whether or not you believe David is innocent, you HAVE to believe in the right of any defendant to a fair trial or you might as well just believe in lynching without benefit of a trial at all...

b) You said: "he was, in fact, found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence." Again - you are wrong. "Guilty" is a term used in criminal proceedings. Since the murder verdict has been overturned, legally he is NOT guilty of murder. And the civil trial here in RI did not determine guilt or innocence of murder. It assessed monetary damages on the basis of what was judged to be David's liability for Shelley's death. That's not in any way shap or form the same thing as guilt of murder. That's why there are two courts - civil and criminal. Criminal conviction requires a much higher burden of proof. And that was not met - not in a fair trial, anyway.

As of yesterday, David Swain was NOT convicted of murder - that's the legal effect of overturning a verdict - the conviction is moot. Period.

 

[Ayisha]

If you remember I posted about being entangled in a monofilment gill net? I posted that one of 3 of us got snared, then I got caught trying to help him. The third guy got us out, the 3rd guy was Swain. Two people are alive today, 4 children got to grow up with their fathers and 2 women didn't lose the husbands they love because of Swain. So whatever side you saw is what it is but the side I saw I like.

So we know that he is capable of effecting a rescue of people that he likes.

 

[SadiesMom]

So we know that he is capable of effecting a rescue of people that he likes.

Well, well, well - aren't we snarky?

 

[Thalassamania]

You guys are obviously committed to your friends side, but inaccuracies need to be corrected.

So? The US AG declined to take the criminal case to a US court even though he had that option. AG's don't take cases unless they think they can win, he knew he couldn't win. The proof? BVI ultimetly lost.

The US AG would not get involved in this, the RI AG might, or more accurately an Asst. RI AG. They will not take the case unless they think that they can first, win a Grand Jury over to vote, "True Bill," and then go on win a guilty verdict before a Petit Jury. Yes, I have served on both Grand Juries and Petit Juries.

You're wrong (hey - you said to correct you).
a) The judge's error was not a "technicality" - as you can see from the Appeals Court ruling as state in the three articles I posted above, the judge biased the jury with her summation. The Honorable Ola Mae Edwards "stated that the High Court Judge in her summation to jurors said that the prosecution had stated that the woman died at the hands of her husband, while the defense stated that it was due to drowning which stemmed from medical reasons. However, in her final direction, she told the jurors that they heard all about self defense and accident, but neither of which have any place in the trial.

She said the jurors did not receive proper direction from the Judge."

The reason the conviction was overturned is that there was no way to know whether the jury would've convicted David Swain if the jury had not been tainted by the trial judge's bias in the summary. That's not a "technicality" - that's a basic premise of justice - that the trial be fair and the judge isn't allowed to bias the jury. Whether or not you believe David is innocent, you HAVE to believe in the right of any defendant to a fair trial or you might as well just believe in lynching without benefit of a trial at all...

b) You said: "he was, in fact, found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence." Again - you are wrong. "Guilty" is a term used in criminal proceedings. Since the murder verdict has been overturned, legally he is NOT guilty of murder. And the civil trial here in RI did not determine guilt or innocence of murder. It assessed monetary damages on the basis of what was judged to be David's liability for Shelley's death. That's not in any way shap or form the same thing as guilt of murder. That's why there are two courts - civil and criminal. Criminal conviction requires a much higher burden of proof. And that was not met - not in a fair trial, anyway.

As of yesterday, David Swain was NOT convicted of murder - that's the legal effect of overturning a verdict - the conviction is moot. Period.

Look up the word technicality ... Swain was let off on a technicality. You may not like the word, you may think that the word carries the wrong connotation, but that is, I believe, the correct word in this case.

I have never suggested that it was "wrong" to let him off on this technicality, in fact I have repeatedly stressed that it is far better to let nine guilty men go free than to lock up one innocent man. So it was right to let him off on this technicality ... but that also does not mean that let him go free was Justice with a capital "J."

You are correct, I misused the word "guilty," when I said that Swain was, "found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence." What I should have said was that Swain was, "found to be responsible for his wife's death, by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence."

So, as far as you are concerned, Swain was "responsible for his wife's death," but not "guilty of her murder." Is that correct?

 

[DandyDon]

So? The US AG declined to take the criminal case to a US court even though he had that option. AG's don't take cases unless they think they can win, he knew he couldn't win. The proof? BVI ultimetly lost.

That really sums it up well. There are many unsolved & not prosecutable crimes, too many innocent in prison or died there, and unknown numbers of unknown crimes. There was not a winnable case, not even clear evidence of a crime, and justice was served. It's good that we don't have more lynchings.

So we know that he is capable of effecting a rescue of people that he likes.

If he sees them, yeah. Solo diving puts risk acceptance in a whole new light, and they both did. Maybe they should have never traveled like that, but they did. There's a famous guy locked up in Aruba now who lost his partner snorkeling with no witnesses, and one could say they shouldn't have been there as well. This whole case puts buddy diving in new light for me too.