On Evidence, Pt. 2

RECEIVED Thu., Sept. 29, 2016

Dear Editor,
    Some of the evidence that the prosecution is presenting to the jury in my trial, is misleading. The prosecution has decided to present redacted interview evidence in my trial. Which in my book is called tampering with evidence. But the sad thing about this is, my court-appointed attorneys are agreeing with this act of deception, also. When interviews or depositions of testimonies are edited, it alters the content of perception and interpretation of them. This should not be acceptable in a court of law, when they feel it's alright to deceive the jury in presenting any kind of evidence.
    So, what does a juror do when this act of deception takes place in a criminal trial?
    I believe a juror has to read between the lines of evidence, which can lead to misinterpretation of the evidence. This is how the criminal justice system operates nowadays. Do you think this right? I don't. I believe it's unethical.
Mark A. Norwood
   [Ed. note: Mark Norwood is serving consecutive life sentences for the 1986 murder of Christine Morton and the 1988 murder of Debra Baker. This letter was written during the week of Sept. 12, during the first week of the Baker trial, which concluded Friday, Sept. 23. It was sent to the Chronicle on Sept. 24. For a recap of the trial, see "Norwood Found Guilty," Sept. 30.]
One click gets you all the newsletters listed below

Breaking news, arts coverage, and daily events

Can't keep up with happenings around town? We can help.

Austin's queerest news and events

New recipes and food news delivered Mondays

All questions answered (satisfaction not guaranteed)

Information is power. Support the free press, so we can support Austin.   Support the Chronicle