Mr. Reyes argues that Marcus Thorne is directly and fully responsible for the twenty years he lost. He contends that Thorne's lie was the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, and without it, there would have been no conviction. He argues that a lie of that magnitude, told by an officer of the law under oath, is not merely a crime of perjury, but a fundamental betrayal of justice that resulted in the destruction of a life. Mr. Reyes demands a punishment for Thorne that is proportionate to the two decades of freedom that were stolen from him, not just the act of lying.
The Weight of a Word
A man, wrongfully imprisoned for two decades due to a police officer's false testimony, seeks justice, while the officer argues his culpability ends at perjury.
Chapter I: The Account
The Facts
1
Mr. Elias Reyes was convicted of armed robbery and imprisoned for twenty years.
2
The conviction was heavily influenced by Officer Marcus Thorne's testimony about a non-existent informant.
3
New evidence proved Mr. Reyes's innocence.
4
Officer Thorne has admitted to intentionally lying under oath (perjury).
5
Mr. Reyes has been exonerated and released.
The Full Account
Twenty years ago, Mr. Elias Reyes was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. The case against him was circumstantial, but the key to the conviction was the confident and detailed testimony of Officer Marcus Thorne, the lead investigator. Thorne testified under oath that he had an informant who saw Mr. Reyes near the scene of the crime, and that this informant had a history of providing reliable information. Recently, new evidence surfaced in the form of a deathbed confession from a career criminal, who admitted to the robbery and provided details that exonerated Mr. Reyes. An internal investigation was launched, which found no record of any informant in Thorne's case files. When confronted, Thorne admitted that he had fabricated the existence of the informant to strengthen his case and secure a conviction against a man he personally believed was guilty. Mr. Reyes was exonerated and released from prison after serving twenty years for a crime he did not commit.
Chapter II: The Arguments
Accuser:
Mr. Elias Reyes
Defendant:
Retired Officer Marcus Thorne
Retired Officer Thorne admits his guilt in committing perjury and is prepared to accept the legal consequences for that specific crime. However, he argues that his responsibility ends there. His defense is that he is not a murderer, nor did he sentence Mr. Reyes to prison. He lied, which is a crime, but the conviction and the length of the sentence were the decisions of the jury and the judge. He argues that he cannot be held responsible for the entire chain of events that followed his lie, as he did not and could not control the actions of the court. He is guilty of perjury, and will accept punishment for that, but he is not guilty of kidnapping or false imprisonment, and should not be punished as if he were.
Chapter III: Your Deliberation
To what extent is Retired Officer Marcus Thorne responsible for the 20 years Mr. Reyes spent in prison, and what is the just consequence for his actions?
0 deliberating
21 judged