INNOCENT MAN CAN'T GET RELEASED FROM PRISON
By Wesley W. Hoyt
Finally, the proof is in, David Hinkson was falsely accused, falsely tried and
falsely convicted of crimes that never even happened. After the convictions were
reversed in May 2008, David can’t get out of prison. Part of the problem is that
in his Federal Court trial, the judge took away David’s presumption of
innocence. In grammar school we learned that America is a stand-out nation
because the law was on the side of the accused until proven guilty. Isn’t it a
shocker to learn that the presumption of innocence has been replaced with a
presumption that the government is always right. Is the Government “of, by and
for the People” perishing from the earth? Our courts have found an expedient way
to administer justice: simply find everyone guilty as charged. That sort of
“justice” fills the coffers and the prisons, but it doesn’t do much for
individual freedoms.
The presumption of innocence, has been replaced with a new “Presumption of Governmental Correctness” (I’m not joking, this is serious legal doctrine and now is used by almost all judges!!!). Look at the case of Carol Asher, the Idaho County juror who believed we should apply the presumption of innocence in every case. She was prosecuted by the Idaho’s Attorney General for perjury because she failed to disclose to the trial judge that she had a “bias” in favor of innocence. As Americans, we are all supposed to be biased in favor of innocence, but not so in Asher’s case. At the first hearing, the prosecution’s chief witness and Asher’s fellow juror, openly testified she did not disclose to the judge her bias in favor of law enforcement. She actually said that whatever the police would say, she would believe. Did the Attorney General prosecute her for perjury? No, but it got Asher’s case dismissed as total hypocrisy.
In David Hinkson’s case this alteration of justice was carried one step farther as he was prevented from proving his innocence by a judge who "excluded" each piece of evidence that established he was not guilty.
There are judges, like the juvenile court judges in Pennsylvania this past April, who see that they have a financial interest in getting numerous convictions because they get millions of dollars in kickbacks from detention centers that hold the incarcerated. I guess it’s all about the profit motive. (Those two Pennsylvania judges were indicted, no word yet on their outcome.) You see, when a judge does not have a legitimate reason to keep out evidence that can prove the accused is innocent, they simply exclude it for silly reasons, such as “it will confuse the jury."
That is exactly what happened to David Hinkson in 2005. The charge carried a 30 year prison sentence for allegedly soliciting the murder of federal officials (which we now know never happened). David knew he was innocent and he could prove his innocence except that the introduction of his evidence was blocked by Judge Richard C. Tallman, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who was designated to preside over David trial. Actually, Tallman who had recently been a prosecutor before his judicial appointment, never allowed David to present any evidence of his innocence so as not to “confuse the jury.” Thanks to Tallman, the jury only got to hear the fictionalized version of accusations against David and convicted him accordingly.
If you ever wonder what happened to our freedoms, look no further than our court system to realize that judge-made-law has usurped the law-making function of the legislative branch of government and some of our freedoms along with it. We live in perilous times, with lots of enemies from the outside, but now, we are being overcome by an enemy from within. Even though his conviction was reversed, David sits in prison waiting for a decision by an “en bank” panel of 11 judges. This is a no-brainer. Swisher, Hinkson’s accuser, was convicted of forgery, perjury and theft of government property based on the same lies told about Hinkson. Swisher, the false accuser, served a few months in a “country club” type prison and is now in a halfway house, while David, the innocent victim of Swisher’s lies, is still serving hard time. Isn’t life full of ironies?
If you want to read more about David’s case, you can pick up the details on the web at davidhinkson.com or rolandhinksonfiles.com. Hoyt is the former Deputy Prosecutor of Idaho County and helped to defend David Hinkson. He now practices law in Clearwater, Idaho.
The presumption of innocence, has been replaced with a new “Presumption of Governmental Correctness” (I’m not joking, this is serious legal doctrine and now is used by almost all judges!!!). Look at the case of Carol Asher, the Idaho County juror who believed we should apply the presumption of innocence in every case. She was prosecuted by the Idaho’s Attorney General for perjury because she failed to disclose to the trial judge that she had a “bias” in favor of innocence. As Americans, we are all supposed to be biased in favor of innocence, but not so in Asher’s case. At the first hearing, the prosecution’s chief witness and Asher’s fellow juror, openly testified she did not disclose to the judge her bias in favor of law enforcement. She actually said that whatever the police would say, she would believe. Did the Attorney General prosecute her for perjury? No, but it got Asher’s case dismissed as total hypocrisy.
In David Hinkson’s case this alteration of justice was carried one step farther as he was prevented from proving his innocence by a judge who "excluded" each piece of evidence that established he was not guilty.
There are judges, like the juvenile court judges in Pennsylvania this past April, who see that they have a financial interest in getting numerous convictions because they get millions of dollars in kickbacks from detention centers that hold the incarcerated. I guess it’s all about the profit motive. (Those two Pennsylvania judges were indicted, no word yet on their outcome.) You see, when a judge does not have a legitimate reason to keep out evidence that can prove the accused is innocent, they simply exclude it for silly reasons, such as “it will confuse the jury."
That is exactly what happened to David Hinkson in 2005. The charge carried a 30 year prison sentence for allegedly soliciting the murder of federal officials (which we now know never happened). David knew he was innocent and he could prove his innocence except that the introduction of his evidence was blocked by Judge Richard C. Tallman, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who was designated to preside over David trial. Actually, Tallman who had recently been a prosecutor before his judicial appointment, never allowed David to present any evidence of his innocence so as not to “confuse the jury.” Thanks to Tallman, the jury only got to hear the fictionalized version of accusations against David and convicted him accordingly.
If you ever wonder what happened to our freedoms, look no further than our court system to realize that judge-made-law has usurped the law-making function of the legislative branch of government and some of our freedoms along with it. We live in perilous times, with lots of enemies from the outside, but now, we are being overcome by an enemy from within. Even though his conviction was reversed, David sits in prison waiting for a decision by an “en bank” panel of 11 judges. This is a no-brainer. Swisher, Hinkson’s accuser, was convicted of forgery, perjury and theft of government property based on the same lies told about Hinkson. Swisher, the false accuser, served a few months in a “country club” type prison and is now in a halfway house, while David, the innocent victim of Swisher’s lies, is still serving hard time. Isn’t life full of ironies?
If you want to read more about David’s case, you can pick up the details on the web at davidhinkson.com or rolandhinksonfiles.com. Hoyt is the former Deputy Prosecutor of Idaho County and helped to defend David Hinkson. He now practices law in Clearwater, Idaho.