Younes Kaboul Sunderland have announced the signing of defender Younes Kaboul from Tottenham on a four-year deal.The 29-year-old has joined the club for an undisclosed fee after travelling to Wearside for a medical on Thursday.Kaboul is boss Dick Advocaat’s fourth summer signing to date, following in the footsteps of Sebastian Coates, Adam Matthews and Jeremain Lens, and the 67-year-old Dutchman was delighted to have got him.He said: “He is a very experienced player, which is what we need. He has shown that in his time at Spurs and he will be a very good addition to our squad.”Kaboul said: “I’m delighted to be a Sunderland player and it’s an honour to join this club. I would like to thank [sporting director] Lee Congerton and the head coach [Dick Advocaat] for making this move possible, and I can’t wait to start playing for the Sunderland supporters.” 1
- Peerless-AV Partners with BrightSign Again for Touch-Based Indoor Kiosk
Peerless-AV is shipping the second-generation of its all-in-one kiosk powered by BrightSign XT1144 expanded I/O player (KIPICT2555) for indoor applications. This is designed for hospitality, retail, corporate, transportation, entertainment, education and general-purpose applications. The updated kiosk delivers 1080p60 single video decoding, HTML support, networked content playback, as well as an abundant set of features, including interactivity via the GPIO port, remote snapshot, live text, media feeds and multi-zone.With an integrated 55″ commercial LCD display offering ten points of IR touch, the new All-in-One Kiosk fully engages users through a Wi-Fi enabled device, such as a tablet, computer or phone.Other features include:Set-up via micro SD card, USB or cable10-points of IR touchHTML5 engineHDMI input to play content from other devicesFull HD video playback even when in Mosaic ModeAbility to update messaging and interact with the kiosk via Ethernet, Wi-Fi or the BrightSign AppThe use of live data and media feeds to display popular news, finance, weather or social media feedsHere are all the specs on the KIPICT2555.
- What to do about jailhouse snitches with reason to lie?
What to do about jailhouse snitches with reason to lie? Senior EditorThe prison transport van in 1984 held only two inmates: Wilton Dedge, an innocent man facing a retrial for rape, and Clarence Zacke, a notorious jailhouse snitch.Dedge was awaiting a bond proceeding and retrial for the 1981 rape of a 17-year-old girl in Brevard County that he insisted he did not commit. Zacke was a snitch locked in prison for murder, angling for a way out.A little more than a week later, Zacke testified against Dedge at the bond hearing, claiming Dedge had confessed to the rape, and also at the retrial that would land Dedge in prison for two consecutive life sentences. Zacke knew how to work the system. He had testified against convicted serial killer Gerald Stano, had more than a century shaved off his original 180-year sentence, and later recanted that testimony in a telephone interview with a writer. For testifying against Dedge, Zacke later admitted, he’d hoped to receive parole.Another two decades would crawl by as Dedge waited for his exoneration. In 2004, after serving 22 years — more than half his life — his innocence was finally confirmed by DNA evidence. In 2005, the Legislature awarded Dedge $2 million, making him the first DNA exoneree to be compensated in Florida.Dedge’s case serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of using jailhouse snitches who have little to lose when bargaining for favorable treatment in exchange for their testimony. That troubling topic was the focus when the Florida Innocence Commission met in Tallahassee on February 13.Fat notebooks were filled with information about Florida’s three exonerees convicted with false jailhouse informant testimony: Dedge, William Dillon, and Chad Heins. Details included how jailhouse snitches testified in more than 15 percent of wrongful conviction cases later overturned through DNA testing. Of the exonerees released from death row, 46 percent were convicted, in part, due to false informant testimony. Further studies have shown that jailhouse informant perjury was a factor in nearly half of wrongful murder convictions.In trying to prevent future miscarriages of justice, the commission first debated the idea of Florida creating a special pretrial reliability hearing, where a judge would weigh the credibility of a jailhouse informant, much like the vetting done before an expert witness is allowed to testify before a jury. Currently, Illinois law requires such a hearing, only in capital cases, with the exclusion of the informant testimony if the state does not show reliability by a preponderance of the evidence.Creating pretrial reliability hearings on jailhouse snitches testifying in Florida felony cases was championed by former Florida Bar President Hank Coxe.“If it’s important enough for an expert opinion to be qualified by the court before it’s certified to the jury, it certainly should be important enough for someone sitting in jail, with all the motivation in the world to lie or the potential to lie, for the court to say: ‘I want to evaluate the circumstances of this, and, if it meets certain thresholds, I’ll let the jury determine if it’s credible or not,’” Coxe argued.Voting with Coxe were University of Florida College of Law Professor Kenneth Nunn; Second District Court of Appeal Judge Patricia Kelly; Scott Fingerhut, assistant director of the Trial Advocacy Program at Florida International University College of Law; Rep. Ari Porth, D-Coral Springs; and Second Circuit Public Defender Nancy Daniels.Let a Jury Instruction Suffice Lastly, the commission grappled with an amendment to the Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.220 to add informants and snitches to the “Category A” witness list, along with a discovery requirement.That topic was discussed in a subcommittee led by Fingerhut, who said: “If we are going to try to improve the possibility of preventing wrongful convictions, more specific disclosure, akin to expert witness disclosure, is imperative.”But he said the subcommittee wanted “substantial input” from prosecutors.Eighth Circuit State Attorney Brad King held a conference call with a dozen state attorneys, and he said their biggest concern was this proposed requirement in discovery: “an informant’s prior history of cooperation, in return for any benefit, actually known to the prosecuting authority, including the case name, number, and the jurisdiction in which the informant has previously testified.”“We didn’t think the initial burden of discovery should be shifted to the state to go find that information out,” King said. “That is what the discovery process is for. The defense certainly has the ability to take depositions and look at court records, just like we do.”Coxe countered: “We’re just looking for substantial compliance: What do you know about this person, his background — that is actually known to the state? Has he done it four times before? Has he been paid for it before? Has he volunteered to snitch against other cellmates before? If you know that, the idea would be: Lay it out.”But King said that information is not kept in any organized statewide system — not even in the same state attorneys’ offices.“What you require is a difficult, if not impossible communication, first to the other 19 state attorneys: ‘Do you know this witness? How’d they testify?’ Then, those 19 state attorneys to their 1,600 assistants: ‘Do you know this witness? How’d they testify as a result of a plea bargain?’“I don’t think that that’s a realistic position to put the state attorneys in, since even if an assistant had made a deal with this witness three years ago, odds are likely even that assistant state attorney is no longer an assistant state attorney,” King said. “They’ve moved on.” March 15, 2012 Jan Pudlow Senior Editor Regular News But the prevailing majority of commissioners voted that pretrial reliability hearings are unnecessary, as long as jurors receive an adequate cautionary instruction about carefully weighing the credibility of jailhouse informant testimony. The prevailing sentiment on the commission was that requiring such hearings would be too great a burden on an already stretched-too-thin criminal justice system.Gainesville attorney Rod Smith, former state attorney and state senator, said: “Let me get this straight: California is thinking about doing it. New York is thinking about doing it. And Henry Coxe is in favor of it. I start off, ‘No.’ Then I go strongly, ‘No.’ And then I go conclusively, ‘No.’”Laughter filled the meeting room, before Smith continued: “I think it adds tremendously to the expense of cases. I think it adds great difficulty in cases.. . . If I wanted the judge to make the decision, I’d waive the jury trial.”But Smith was strongly in favor of a special jury instruction about weighing the credibility of jailhouse informant testimony, and so was almost everyone else. Only Charlotte County Sheriff Bill Cameron voted against a proposed jury instruction, modeled after one used by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, because he objected to what he considered the “leading” nature of the language: “So while a witness of this kind may be entirely truthful when testifying, you should consider the testimony with more caution than the testimony of other witnesses.”“We’re leaving it up to the jury to decide, but whenever you use words like ‘must’ and ‘should,’ you are almost telling them not to believe the witness or lead them to say their testimony isn’t worth what anyone else’s testimony is worth,” Cameron said, adding that there are plenty of defense witnesses with motives to lie, too, such as the defendant’s mother or girlfriend.Requiring Disclosure What to do about jailhouse snitches with reason to lie?