benefit for them. Because police and prosecutors are much better politically connected than the accused. And any time lower-court judges do anything, the voter comes back as a mob with some new law to take push back their power and discretion, like mandatory minimum sentences. If the defendant is held without bond, the defendant will very quickly be broke and often mentally incompetent and have zero friends, and nobody will even know the truth to advocate for the defendant. In Mandi's first six months held without bond, I think the public defender traveled the three hundred feet to the jail to visit with her once. Though it may have been twice, and definitely not more than twice. And of course she was drugged and held in solitary, and even her family would be recorded and used as witnesses if they tried to talk to her. After that point there is no political cost, only a benefit to all parties involved, to falsely convict her and take her life away. Once people who read the newspaper think the defendant is guilty, the executive branch can get away with any crime. Like ordinary Germans, your own neighbors will build the railroad. Boondock greiferin like Stewart Stone will make a career out of it. The trial by jury means nothing, if the lies are constructed before it gets to the jury. The jury is more like a final demographic focus group of registered voters, to test if there will be a political cost or a reward when the innocent are sentenced to death. The average struggling circuit court judge has no political incentive to stick her skinny little neck out. The judges of the Florida Supreme Court, through their Innocence Commission, discovered that prosecutors were victimizing the innocent - literally taking the lives of innocents - by coercing and suboming perjury from jailhouse witnesses. The only appropriate and effective remedy, which would be the prosecution of prosecutors who victimize the innocent, was of course not available to these judges. And the executive branch is never going to do it. So the remedy proposed by The Innocence Commission is the only type of remedy available to the judicial branch, to give an extra "unbiased" jury instruction about jailhouse witnesses. The judges say they are afraid to usurp the power of the jury by simply blocking the jailhouse witness or having a motion hearing to determine if the witness should be allowed. They say if a judge decides which witnesses are reliable, that inappropriately redistributes authority from peers to judges. In fact, this power has already been inappropriately redistributed to prosecutors. A prosecutor can reward and punish a witness who says one thing or another. Certainly the prosecution in Mandi J ackson's case did not reduce the sentence of any inmates who said Mandi Jackson professed innocence. I am a witness to her claims of innocence, and I have been offered nothing. But if I were to drive over to the Dollhouse and start paying people to say one thing, and locking people up in my basement who said another, I would be prosecuted. So the power to decide which witnesses are reliable, has been inappropriately redistributed to the prosecution. It should be illegal to pay witnesses based on what they say. They say paying them is necessary to balance out Julie Madara’s fear that Mandi's father will kill Madara for lying that Mandi confessed. But remember, it is illegal for Mandi's father to discourage Madara's testimony in this way. It should also be illegal to encourage Madara's testimony with reward and punishment by anyone, but most of all by a prosecutor who faces no threat of prosecution from his peers, no sanction whatsoever for wrongdoing. It is almost like this is a unique area of the rules of evidence, where family members of the accused are expected to take matters into their own hands in the street, for the process to be unbiased. They are a fourth branch of government. Mandi's father literally and clearly has to attempt to kill Julie Madara, to balance the reward promised by the prosecution, to get to the theoretical utopian starting point of balance between jury and prosecution, idealized by the participants in the Florida Supreme Court’s Innocence Commission. Meanwhile Jessica Reiche Jones who testified for the prosecution, as well as many other witnesses, lived within a few minutes drive of Mandi's father. None of them were paid to testify, and Mandi's Dad never drove to their house, and nothing bad happened to them. I would be totally in favor of letting the jury who convicts a criminal, also decide if his promise to perjure against an innocent citizen would mitigate his crime or be a cause for mercy to reduce his sentence. And I would be totally in favor of opposing counsels getting to make arguments in front of a jury as to whether a jailhouse witness should receive a reduced sentence based on the quality of his testimony. But the jury doesn't get to decide whether the jailhouse witness gets a reduced sentence. And opposing counsel is not even there to present any counter-arguments, nor are the past victims of the convict informed or consulted, before the judge signs the deal to reduce the sentence of a convicted victimizer. So the very existence of a jailhouse witness is an affront to the jury and due process and justice. And it is a crime against the public when this most aggressive and sociopathic victimizer of the innocent is IV-56