Innocence Project Falsifying Evidence

[Ana the Ist]

A jailhouse romance, a recanted murder confession and broken promises

Convicted murderer Maritte Funches says he lied to get Maurice Caldwell exonerated by the Northern California Innocence Project.

sfstandard.com

If you're unfamiliar with "Innocence Project"....they are an activist group that's fairly large and has done some good in getting men who were wrongly convicted freed from jail. The primary goal of the activist group used to be ending the death penalty. It's largely a mix of lawyers and activists.

I'm not entirely sure the main goal is still ending the death penalty....as the last interview I've seen with any spokesman for the group seemed to indicate the woke dogma was both present and running rampant.

After a couple of questionable successful attempts to free convicted murderers....it appears they've broken the law to free a man who is certainly guilty of murder through the attempted bribing of his accomplice who is also behind bard. A romantic relationship between convicted murderer and activist lawyer began and the lawyer convinced the accomplice to confess to responsibility for the entire crime. Hus reward would be a sum of 2 million to hus family from a civil settlement with the state once the murderer was freed.

When the payments stopped....the accomplice ratted out the murderer and the lawyer from the Innocence Project.

Thoughts?

Edit- I want to be clear that while I'm only familiar with a handful of cases where the Innocence Project freed someone under questionable circumstances....I think it's likely the majority of people they free are indeed innocent. This particular case though seems like a clear conflict of interest occurs when the likelihood of a settlement is so certain that it can be used to elicit a false confession before it's even obtained. Perhaps in situations where no wrongdoing by the state can be found (how can the state be responsible for the accomplice's late confession?) attempts to sue the state should be rejected outright?

 

[Hank77]

This particular case though seems like a clear conflict of interest occurs when the likelihood of a settlement is so certain that it can be used to elicit a false confession before it's even obtained.

Did the offending lawyer even believe there was a civil case to be made or did she just convince the accomplice there was? If she was willing to help a murderer get out of jail then lying to his accomplice wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Arcangl86]

Do we have anything besides the claims of this person?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did the offending lawyer even believe there was a civil case to be made or did she just convince the accomplice there was?

I don't think so....I think the only prerequisite is the defendant must have maintained their innocence despite their conviction....but I could be wrong.

The accomplice was convinced by a large bribe, as a significant settlement was expected once the lawyer's client was exonerated by the confession.

If the relative certainty of the cash settlement were less certain....the false confession probably wouldn't have happened.

If she was willing to help a murderer get out of jail then lying to his accomplice wouldn't be a problem.

You mean....."lying about the amount of money his family would receive for the false confession."?