Ken Klonsky

Outing the Law: a Website on Injustice

Burns/Rafay: Judge’s Shocking Revelation

A Washington State judge who asked for anonymity revealed to me that appeal cases are not, as I used to think, a matter of constitutional judgements on the technicalities of a trial. They are, instead, a thinly veiled prejudicial ruling based upon appeal judges’ prior belief about a person’s guilt or innocence. In our present system, if a majority of judges believe that the defendant (s) is guilty, they will ignore the constitutional violations that took place during the trial. The situation is akin to being in an car crash and discovering that your insurance company has gone out of business.

The trial of Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay was replete with constitutional violations that I felt certain would result in a new trial. Instead, the appeal court cravenly opted to confirm a verdict rather than follow the trail of error and rank ambition that led to the verdict. They believed that the pair were guilty, constitutionality be damned. What were the obvious violations:

1. Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination were voided because their ‘confessions’ were obtained, or, shall I say, extorted, in Canada.

2. The right to present a defense was removed by prejudicial rulings from a misinformed judge. 2a) Expert witnesses were not allowed to come into the courtroom to present facts about false confessions. The judge said that a jury has the ability to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth. All the materials on false confessions say otherwise. Science also says otherwise. Today, even the most sophisticated methods using brain scans cannot, more than 70% of the time, determine whether or not a person is telling the truth. 2b) Alternate theories for the bludgeoning of Rafay’s family were disregarded as too speculative. That such a hideous crime might be attributable to religious fanaticism when compelling evidence existed for such, was negated by the prejudicial rulings of the judge.

3. The jury should not have been told that the death penalty was waived. Doing so is against the law and makes the jury more likely to convict.

4. The summation of the prosecutor was inflammatory–even the appeal court admitted this, but then ruled that Konat was not inflammatory for a long enough period of time. Never mind that Konat, by the time of the appeal verdict,  had already been forced to resign for reasons of racism in another case.

The Washington Supreme Court simply followed suit and refused to reopen the case. These judges (and there must have been at least one exception) could probably see the trial flaws, but likely did not want to reopen such a high profile case. All of these rulings are contingent upon one belief: Burns and Rafay were guilty, despite all evidence to the contrary.

4 thoughts on “Burns/Rafay: Judge’s Shocking Revelation

  1. Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay are murdering bastards and, if you’ve followed this case, you know that Ken. Whatever the appeals court is or isn’t, as long as they keep these 2 animals in jail, they are doing something right.

    1. I have followed this case and have drawn a different conclusion. One day, I hope you’ll discover how wrong you are and how cruel your condemnation.

    2. Too much ad hominem, shallow understanding, and irrationality, Laurie, to allow you any credibility. You obviously don’t know how to study well, or you wouldn’t question whether Ken has followed the case. That is what he does with this site! So my suggestion to you is to learn to study with more rigor and rationality – and to lose some of that vindictiveness.

  2. Much of the public shares Ms. McDonald’s perspective, primarily because the public perception of the Rafay-Burns case has been shaped by sensationalized, incomplete media coverage of faulty trials. Few who take this stance have taken a look at the actual legal problems with how evidence was obtained to convict these young men, and how the case was presented to the jury, from the forced RCMP Mr. Big confessions to the refusal of the courts to allow the jury to see evidence of other suspects. I would ask Ms. McDonald to consider what her sources of information have been concerning this case, and would recommend that she put in the time to read through some of the appeal documentation, such as the amicus brief put together by the Innocence Network in 2011: http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/a01/552171%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf It is a long read, but for those who wish to feel confident that they are espousing a fully-informed opinion, rather than one rooted in emotional responses to media coverage, reading such documentation is crucial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *