Archive for the ‘policy’ Category

« Older Entries

The Too-High Cost of Wrongful Convictions

Anna Fitzpatrick — June 12, 2013 @ 9:14 AM — Comments (3)

About once a year, Florida makes national headlines for righting a wrongful conviction. In recent years alone, more than a dozen men have been exonerated, most serving decades behind bars for crimes they didn’t commit. Florida also leads America in the number of people sentenced to death, only to later be exonerated – 24 people in the past three decades.

Florida may not be a leader in many things, but we are when it comes to stealing lives. We must do better; we must reform our systems.

There is a cost to reformation, but the cost of wrongful conviction is much, much higher. Millions of dollars are spent on holding and caring for innocent inmates, as well as the restitution paid once innocence is proved. There is the mental anguish the wrongfully incarcerated suffer, not to mention that their earnings and social interactions will forever be impaired – it almost like being thrown into a time warp. Scarier still is the fact that wrongful convictions mean the true criminal remains at large.

As Circuit Judge Belvin Perry says, “the consequence of inaction is injustice.” Perry chaired the Florida Innocence Commission, which spent two years studying the issue. The group of experts made concrete suggestions for improving justice:

  • Record suspect interviews so there is no question about technique used to solicit confessions.
  • Get neutral parties to conduct photographic lineups to avoid investigators encouraging witnesses to choose certain suspect, subconsciously or otherwise.
  • Implement stronger guidelines for relying on jailhouse snitches.

The reasons for fixing this are obvious and plentiful, yet politicians have dragged their feet. The wrongfully convicted, you see, are not a powerful lobby. They don’t cut campaign checks, and their stories rarely win votes. But this issue is important, both financially and morally. Encourage your legislator to follow the recommendations of the Innocence Commission.

justice,legislation,policy, , , , ,


Supreme Court Opens Exceptions to Harsh Deadlines

Anna Fitzpatrick — June 05, 2013 @ 10:13 AM — Comments (1)

Last week the Supreme Court ruled on two cases of defendants fighting for the chance to present evidence that could call into question their convictions, even though they have both missed deadlines to make their claims.

Under the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, defendants are required to ask the courts to review their case within a year of discovering new evidence. One defendant, Floyd Perkins, failed to file for a federal court review until nearly eight years after three new witnesses provided testimony that incriminated an acquaintance of his; the other defendant, Carlos Trevino, claims his lawyer failed to represent him adequately during trial – a failure that may mean the difference between life and death. While the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that Trevino missed his opportunity to make this claim during his appeal, his new lawyer has argued that the new evidence should be reviewed by courts since his trial attorney failed to investigate thoroughly.

The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4 in both cases, to widen what it called the “gateway” to reviewing claims actual innocence that are made after the one-year deadline, though that claim of innocence must meet high standards for the gateway to open. It also allowed for new claims to be raised in federal reviews that were unable to be made during the state appeals process.

While these rulings are a victory for protecting the innocent, they do raise questions about the necessity and validity of these deadlines. No rational person would believe that someone innocent should be locked up, or even sent to their death, because the courts made a rash ruling or ignored new evidence that was submitted “too late.” Although in 2009, Justice Scalia wrote that

“this court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

These chilling words point perhaps to too strong of faith in a flawed justice system wrought with corruption and misconduct. Allowing a “gateway” past the deadline is not an attempt to create opportunities for the guilty to squirm through the fingers of justice, but rather a much needed path to redemption for the wrongly imprisoned.

justice,policy,post-conviction, , , , , ,


The Deep Roots of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Anna Fitzpatrick — May 24, 2013 @ 2:17 PM — Comments (0)

Fifty years ago, in the landmark Brady v. Maryland case, the U.S. Supreme Court established a fundamental principle about the duty of prosecutors – to seek justice fairly, not merely win convictions by any means. This meant that due process required prosecutors to disclose any exculpatory evidence that was likely to affect a conviction or sentence. Known as the Brady Rule, the case was meant to lead to more transparency and equity in criminal proceedings; however, its power has been restricted by subsequent rulings of the court and severely weakened by a near complete lack of punishment for prosecutors who skirt around the rule.

It is impossible to know how often prosecutors violate Brady since this type of misconduct, by definition, involves concealment. But there is good reason to believe that violations are widespread. The National Registry of Exonerations has compiled detailed data for about 1,100 exonerations for the period 1989-2012. Of those cases, a whopping 42% were caused by what has been deemed “official misconduct.” Allowing for a 50-50 split between police and prosecutorial misconduct, the number still hovers around 21%, and when one considers that prosecutors are meant to seek justice rather than convictions, that is a rather alarming rate. The court has long agreed that individual prosecutors should be protected from civil liability so that they may freely pursue criminals; unfortunately, that allows for almost complete unaccountability for wrong-doings in judicial proceedings.

Recently the “Michael Morton Act” was passed in Texas, a law meant to decrease the amount of wrongful convictions within the state. The bill’s namesake spent 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife before DNA evidence finally exonerated him in 2011. The prosecutor in his case has been accused of deliberately withholding a substantial amount of evidence that would have led to an acquittal, including an account from the defendants three-year-old son who witnessed the murder and explained that “Daddy wasn’t home” at the time, neighbor testimonials who saw a man park a green van outside the house the morning of the murder, and a police officer in San Antonio who stated he could identify a woman who had used the victim’s stolen Visa card in a jewelry store – all of which were withheld from the defense.

The case of John Thompson represents another example of atrocious prosecutorial misconduct and the Supreme Court’s refusal to hold the prosecutor accountable. Mr. Thompson spent 14 years on death row before he was exonerated following the discovery that lawyers in the New Orleans district attorney’s office had kept more than a dozen pieces of evidence secret, even destroying some. Yet the Supreme Court overturned a $14 million jury award to Mr. Thompson, ruling that the prosecutor’s office had not shown a pattern of “deliberate indifference” to constitutional rights.

One root of the epidemic of misconduct may stem from prosecutors positions as pseudo-politicians. The position of “prosecutor” is imbedded with an incredible level of power, and as Lord Acton wrote 126 years ago, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Not only do prosecutors have power, but they are essentially free from accountability. The outrageous breaches of due process discussed here are merely illustrative of a deep-rooted indifference towards the assurance of justice.

But what can be done? One example of a better approach that has been adopted in North Carolina and now Ohio is to adopt an open-files reform to make criminal cases more efficient and fair. The state statute require prosecutors in felony cases, before trial, to make available to the defense “the complete files of all law enforcement agencies, investigatory agencies and prosecutors’ offices involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution of the defendant.” The Justice Department insists that is has solved the problem by tightening requirements for disclosure, but numerous misconduct scandals show that is not sufficient. The best way to fulfill the promise of Brady is with open-files reform, which addresses the need for full disclosure of evidence that could show a defendant’s innocence.

exoneration,justice,legislation,policy, , , , , , , ,


Court Orders Review of 50+ Brooklyn Murder Cases

Anna Fitzpatrick — May 23, 2013 @ 9:55 AM — Comments (0)

Often times, wrongful convictions stem from shady police and detective practices, such as contaminated confessions and false eyewitness identification. Such practices are difficult to reform, especially when the public turns a blind eye to such corruptions.

These issues have reached a boil for acclaimed New York City homicide detective Louis Scarcella, an officer who handled some of Brooklyn’s most notorious crimes during the 1980s and 90s. Following the New York Times’ discovery of disturbing patterns in about a dozen of his cases, the Brooklyn district attorney’s office has ordered a review of more than 50 murder cases assigned to Scarcella, an acknowledgment of mounting questions about the officer’s tactics and the legitimacy of the convictions.

One particularly alarming pattern is the use of a single eyewitness, Ms. Teresa Gomez, a drug addict born in Trinidad, for several separate murders. In the late 1980s Ms. Gomez testified that she saw drug dealer Robert Hill commit two separate murders. Both times, she was the only eyewitness. Despite admitting outright that she lied during the first trial, Mr. Hill was still convicted. Ms. Gomez resurfaced for the trial of Mr. Hill’s stepbrothers, Darryl Austin and Alvena Jennette, a trial that also ended in conviction. According to Scarcella, she has testified in at least six cases and he has nothing but praise for her.

Scarcella may also have engaged in questionable tactics to elicit information from witnesses or suspects, or even completely fabricate testimonies. This was the case with Shabaka Shakur, who was convicted based on an incriminating statement Scarcella claims to have obtained during his interrogation, although the underlying interrogation notes were missing. Witnesses and suspects alike have come forward to claim that they were threatened and coerced into testifying how Scarcella coached them.

The incongruities in his cases shed a light on gaping flaws in the criminal justice system. The fact the the cases are under review suggests a much-needed move towards reformation. Improving fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system benefits all segments of society. Victims and their families can see justice; prosecutors and police can have the tools to do their jobs well; the public can have more confidence in the system; and innocent people and their families can avoid the tragedy of wrongful convictions.

Read the full article here.

 

justice,policy, , , , , , , ,


Reformation of an Imperfect System

Jessica — February 22, 2013 @ 4:37 PM — Comments (0)

In light of more than 300 exonerations throughout the United States, the reformation of the criminal justice system has become a steady process in many states. Proposals for laws and regulations are starting to appear on the floor of various state Senates and House of Representatives throughout the country. These laws are slowly being implemented within the criminal justice system in an effort to reduce the amount of wrongful convictions.

The Washington Post opens,

“Courts and police in the nation’s capital will change how they conduct lineups of suspects, when they notify defendants about informants and how long they retain criminal trial records, all in response to errors that have put innocent people in prison.

A task force created by D.C. Superior Court Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield recommended that police use computers and staff not associated with a particular case to administer photo lineups to prevent influencing potential witnesses.

The court acknowledged that DNA often has cleared defendants long after their convictions, so officials will by March begin keeping trial records permanently rather than destroying them after 10 years.”

Police are not the only ones reforming current procedures. Legal professionals are also having to alter their ways of questioning and proceeding in a criminal trial.

An open discovery bill has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives that demands that both the defense and prosecution in criminal cases must have open files towards to opposing side. If passed and signed into law, it would hopefully eliminate the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution.

In The Texas Tribune, spokeswoman Rebecca Bernhardt for the Texas Defender Service states,

“The more sharing, the more broad, automatic disclosure that happens in advance enough of the trial for the defense to be able to prepare their case, the more fair criminal trials are going to be.”

The recent effort to pass Texas House Bill 1426 and the court of inquiry against Judge Anderson has dramatically highlighted the severe problems that exist in the Texas criminal justice system.  In the same Texas Tribune article, Polk County District Attorney Lee Hon says,

“It’s going to be a very timely discussion in view of everything that has gone on in Williamson County and some of the other exoneration cases…I think both sides could definitely stand to be a little more transparent.”

Innocence projects nationwide hope to see reforms take place in many different components of the criminal justice system – starting with the investigation, interrogation and identification of a suspect to improved instructions for juries. Understanding that reforming an entire system does not happen over night is important.  We certainly hope that as the reformation continues, the number of wrongful convictions decrease.

legislation,policy, , , , , , ,


A Matter of Justice

Jessica — February 19, 2013 @ 10:45 AM — Comments (1)

Kentucky Senate Bill 23 has unanimously been passed allowing those in prison to seek post conviction DNA-testing in order to prove their innocence. In The Morehead News, the sponsor of Bill 23 Senator John Schickel claimed, “it was a matter of justice.”

Currently Kentucky law only allows for those on death row to seek DNA testing. This bill would expand access to all those serving time in prison with certain exceptions. Convicted felons who pled guilty or took an Alford plea – a defendant does not admit guilt but recognizes the prosecution has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction – at trial are excluded in an amendment of the bill. A similar bill in the House does not include these exclusions.

Many in the Senate did not approve of the amendment knowing without a doubt that many wrongful convictions are a result of false confessions. However, the approval of the bill was pushed as a step forward towards a improving an imperfect justice system.

In the past bills similar to Kentucky Senate Bill 23 were presented but did not make it beyond the Senate floor. The articles continues as Senator Robin Webb explained her support of the bill and claimed the bill, “is not perfect but it is a great, great start.”

Bills such as Kentucky Senate Bill 23 are small examples of  major reform and improvement for the criminal justice system. As more of these bills pass in certain states in the US, the light at the end of the tunnel for those wrongfully convicted gets larger.

justice,legislation,policy, , , , ,


Three Strikes Not the Only Sign of Justice Reform

Jordan — December 03, 2012 @ 12:22 PM — Comments (0)

Voters in California have altered the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law by voting on Proposition 36. An overwhelming 69 percent voted to reform it. Since its establishment, this law mandated that after a person commits three serious offenses their sentence must be from 25 years to life. However, these offenses could be nonviolent. Meaning the State could and did lock people up for life even though they had not committed any violent crimes.

The reform modifying this law has gotten rid of the possibility that nonviolent people could be locked away for life. For the third crime a person commits to actually count as a “third strike,” it needs to be a violent crime.

Slate.com speculates that voters not only found this to be a fair modification, they also liked the estimate that adopting this modification would save the State $100 million a year – the projected cost of taking care of those convicted of petty crimes.

The law resulted from a kidnap-murder case of a young girl where the criminal had been out on parole when he committed the crime. He had a history of violent crimes. So the law was implemented to prevent something like this ever happening again. However, the inclusive nature of how it was written reprimanded those with small crime histories, people like Norman Williams.

Williams’ three robbery charges from 1982-1992. Slate.com gives this summary of his crimes:

In 1982, he burglarized an empty apartment while it was being fumigated. After he was robbed at gunpoint on the way out, he helped the police find the stuff he’d stolen. In 1992, he tried to steal tools from an art studio. When the owner confronted him, he dropped everything and ran.

Slate wrote about how this past election showed that politicians may be less fearful of advocating for reform. For instance the office of Steve Cooley, Republican District Attorney for Los Angeles, usually pushes for punishing by death penalty. However, he and Michael Romano, a supervising attorney for the Criminal Defense Clinic at Stanford Law School, helped get Norman Williams out of prison. He supported Proposition 36 because he saw convicting people in situations like that of Williams as a waste.

In Texas, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley did not win reelection. The Huffington Post attributes much of his loss in popularity to the role he played in the imprisonment of exoneree Michael Morton when working under the former district attorney. When he became the D.A.,Bradley continually denied the retesting of a bloody bandana linked to the crime. Morton is suing the D.A. that Bradley worked with to convict him for prosecutorial misconduct; they withheld a crucial testimony given by Morton’s son.

Huffington quotes Julie Stewart, president of the criminal justice reform group Families Against Mandatory Minimums, saying that conservative leadership has to approve of reform before it can be widespread. Stewart says:

“Democrats are perceived as soft on crime and Republicans as tough on crime. So, when Republicans call for sentencing or drug reforms, it becomes safe for everyone to support the reforms. It’s the Nixon goes to China syndrome.”

policy, , , , ,


Eyewitness Misidentification: The Most Unreliable Form of Evidence

WSainvil — November 28, 2012 @ 11:06 AM — Comments (0)

Between 1977 and 1979 the Bird Road Rapist haunted State Road 976 in Florida, attacking over 25 women.

In 1980 Luis Diaz, a husband and father of three, was named the Bird Road Rapist and convicted of eight charges of rape. The identification and testimonies from eight victims landed Diaz with multiple life sentences.

During the 26 years he was imprisoned, Diaz maintained his innocence and was adamant that he was innocent of all charges. As his story began to travel, suspicions about the case began to surface, notably because Diaz didn’t match the original description given by the witnesses.

Even though two witnesses recanted their statements, it wasn’t until 2005 that Diaz was exonerated as a result of DNA testing.

“Eyewitness misidentification is the most unreliable form of evidence; however, it’s the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions, accounting for 75 percent of convictions that have been overturned by DNA Evidence.”  -Innocence Project

More than a third of the cases with eyewitness testimony involved multiple eyewitnesses. In Luis Diaz’s case, eight women identified him as their attacker, and all eight were wrong.
Exoneree Misidentifications

Research and Science

In most criminal cases, an eyewitness is crucial to the outcome of the trial. A strong witness could essentially lead to a win. However, the research has shown that many inaccuracies lie within the practice.

During the past 30 years, psychologists have found several variables that contribute to eyewitness misidentification.  Here are a few of their findings:

Estimator vs. Systematic Variables

Gary A. Wells, an American psychologist, has conducted extensive research on eyewitness memory and identification. His Applied Eye-Witness Testimony research, in which he differentiates estimator and systematic variables, has been highly cited and used to further understand the errors of eyewitness identification.

Estimator Variables are aspects of eyewitness identification that can’t be controlled by the criminal justice system. It includes where the crime took place, visibility, and if a weapon was present during an assault. Research has shown that victims tend to focus more on the weapon than the assailant’s face during an attack.

Another major estimator variable is race. It has been noted that it’s more difficult to identify a stranger of a different race than one’s own. For example, white Americans have more trouble identifying black Americans than they do whites and vice versa. The reasoning relies more on exposure to other races rather than prejudices.

Systematic Variables are aspects that can be controlled by the criminal justice system. It includes the way lineups are conducted, how police interact with the witness, and other identification procedures. The research behind systematical variables is far more advanced than estimator variables because it is more valuable to understand what the legal system can do to prevent misidentification.

Controlling Systematic Variables

The U.S Department of Justice released Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement  in 1999 that could help improve the facilitation of identification procedures. The guide suggests how investigators should conduct themselves and the investigation from initial report of the crime to the documentation of line up results.  The research conducted has made an impact that has lead to some changes; however, in order to fully control systematic variables, there are many reforms still needed.

Sequential vs Simultaneous Lineups

Sequential lineups are conducted when the witness is shown one member of the lineup at a time, whereas, in simultaneous lineups all members are presented at the same time. Research has found less errors are made when a sequential line up is administered.

A negative factor eliminated with sequential lineups is relative judgement.  During lineups witnesses tend to compare lineup participants with one another instead of their memory of the assailant. This leads the witness to choose a person who resembles their assailant more than the others, but not the person who resembles the assailant in their memory.

Eliminating Biased Lineups

There are many different elements that contribute to a biased lineup such as line up size, fillers, and who administrates it. Luckily, there are solutions that can eliminate most biases that can lead to a misidentification.

“A lineup is biased when a witness with a poor (or absent) memory is able to guess the identity of the suspect at a rate greater than chance expectation” -Roy S. Malpass and Colin G. Tredoux

A correct lineup size and arrangement is critical to achieve a non-biased line up. The Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement suggest a minimum of five fillers during a lineup. A filler is a person who is not a suspect but is used in a lineup to eliminate errors. All fillers should match the witness’s description. A lineup will become biased when the suspect stands out among all the other members participating.

Double Blind Administration

History has shown that there are some officers of the law who are completely bias in their line of work; however, this isn’t true for all police. Even the most honorable officer can influence a witness without intentionally doing so.

Wells first suggested double blind lineups in 1988; both scientists and the Innocence Projects around the country agree it’s one of the best way to eliminate biases.

A double blind administration is one where the person administering the lineup has no idea who the suspect is. Sometimes detectives can send nonverbal signs (a smile or a frown) to a witness during the procedure and is completely unaware that he is doing so.

In a double blind the lineup, most of the nonverbal communication will be eliminated because the administrator is as unaware as the witness that the suspect may or may not be included in the lineup.

Picking Cotton

In 1985 Ronald Cotton was convicted on two counts of rape and two counts of burglary. He was sentenced to 54 years in prison.

One of his victims, Jennifer Thompson,made it a priority to study her assailant’s face during her attack. She wanted to to memorize as much about him as possible so when the time came, she would be able to identify him.

However, just like in the Diaz case, Thompson was wrong and DNA evidence is what finally proved Cotton’s innocence.

“I had contributed to taking away 11 years of this man’s life, and if indeed we had been wrong–I felt so bad.” -Jennifer Thompson

Even after it was proven that Cotton was innocent and the real perpetrator, Bobby Poole, was identified, Thompson still had difficulties accepting the fact that Cotton wasn’t her attacker.

“I don’t know. The DNA tests, the science tells me that we had the wrong guy. It was Bobby Poole. Ronald Cotton says it is not him, it was Bobby Poole. They do look very similar, it is almost frightening how similar they look to each other… I don’t know. I really don’t know. I have to accept the answer that has been given to me and put faith in our system.”

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/file.php?path=/images/CQ_Researcher/r20090417-poolecotton.jpg

Bobby Poole            Ronald Cotton

Today, Thompson and Cotton travel the United States pushing for legal reforms. They have published a book together, Picking Cotton, which goes in depth about the experiences of both authors.

A Step Forward for Florida

In Florida eyewitness misidentification was a contributing factor in 10 out of 13 (77 percent) of the DNA exonerations, two points higher than the national average.

On Dec. 29, 2011, the Committee on Standard Jury Instruction in Criminal Cases proposed a set of instructions to be given to jurors on eyewitness identification. The proposal was adopted by the Florida Supreme Court on Nov. 21, 2012.

Instructions are to be given to jurors if eyewitness identification is a disputed issue and if requested. Jurors are asked to consider the credibility of the witness by questioning any inconsistent identifications made by the witness, if the difference in the offender’s and eyewitness’s race or ethnic group may have affected the accuracy of the identification, whether the identification was based on the witness’s memory or a result of influences or suggestiveness, and six other factors.

When the proposal was made, the Innocence Project of Florida filed comments pointing out the inadequacies of the instructions.The comment filed reads:

While the committee’s proposed jury instruction touches on a number of important considerations for a jury evaluating eyewitness evidence, the proposed instruction is inadequate in two principle ways: (1) it is not a cautionary instruction as it doesn’t warn the jury of the dangers inherent in eyewitness evidence, nor (2) does it provide any comprehensive guidance on how jurors should weigh certain factors arising in cases with eyewitness evidence.

Although there is more that can be done, IPF’s CEO, Mike Minerva, acknowledges that this is a step in the right direction.

Your Thoughts

The science and facts prove that convicting a person solely on an eyewitnesses identification and testimony can be faulty. Yet, people are still are convicted based on one person’s identification. What changes to eyewitness identification do you think should be implemented in order to prevent innocent people from being imprisoned?

Innocence Project of Florida,justice,litigation,policy, , , , , , , ,


Shaken-Baby Syndrome: US’s Resistance to Reform (P. 3)

Jordan — November 27, 2012 @ 3:38 PM — Comments (0)

This is the third of a three-part series discussing Shaken-Baby Syndrome.

Slower to Reform, as usual

Deborah Tuerkheimer, professor of law at DePaul University College of Law, asserts that the US’s federalist structure, absence of central authority for disseminating information, and very strong commitment to the finality of criminal judgements all have slowed reform in how it convicts people in Shaken-Baby Syndrome (SBS) cases. Irish barrister Alison Enright cites Tuerkheimer in her paper and continues her thoughts by adding the US still uses the triad of symptoms (retinal bleeding, brain swelling, and brain bleeding) to convict. Below are a few cases that have shown some progress in understanding that the presence of the triad of symptoms can and does occur for other reasons.

Audrey Edmunds’ Case

Audrey Edmunds was charged in 1995 in the US for shaking 7-month-old Natalie Beard. The State convicted her on the belief that the appearance of the triad of symptoms could have had no other cause other than the shaking of the child, which was possibly assisted by an impact. She filed for an appeal and petitioned for habeas corpus but both were denied.

Her petition in 2008 for a new trial was granted by the District 4 Court of Appeals, because new SBS research showed that the triad could develop from health conditions. Her conviction was overturned on July 11, 2008. The State dismissed all charges against Edmunds; she had already served almost 11 years of her 18 year sentence.

According to an article from Madison Magazine, witness Robert Huntington III performed the autopsy on Natalie. He originally testified that the triad of symptoms Natalie demonstrated proved she could have both been injured and become comatose while at Edmunds’ care.

However, three years after he testified at Edmunds’ trial, he treated a girl at his hospital who had been behaving similarly to how Natalie behaved the week before her death. Yet the trained medical professionals at the hospital did not detect brain injury in this girl for over 15 hours. To Huntington, this left open the likelihood that Natalie was injured long before she was under Edmunds’ care.

Some Hope

The Arizona Justice Project filed a motion in February for the Court to release 31-year-old Drayton Witt. He was convicted in 2000 for shaking his son who later died. He was able to file because now the legitimacy of the triad is being questioned. The medical expert was not confident in the triad as a means of conviction.

According to attorney Christine Rubacalva, the State looked like they were going to drop the case because of a lack of needed experts. So she asked the judge to dismiss Witt’s charges with prejudice so they could never be refiled against him again. He agreed to doing so during a telephone hearing, showing that some judges are accepting the changes in perception of the old science.

County Attorney Bill Montgomery, however, exemplifies Tuerkheimer’s accusation of the US being stuck on the finality of judgments. The Arizona Republic reported that his office’s statement said, “the decision to drop the case ‘has nothing to do with the weak scientific arguments put forth by special-interest groups.’ ” They quoted him saying in September, ”Obviously, we believed it the first time around.”

Risk in Retrial

Illinois woman Pamela Jacobazzi is a former Bartlett day care provider who in 1999 was convicted of shaking 2-year-old Matthew Czapski. The Downstate Illinois Innocence Project  has asked the State to grant her clemency. She was convicted because she was Matthew’s caretaker when the child’s triad of head injuries appeared. However, Matthew’s full medical details were never brought into the trial.

Matthew had preexisting conditions of persistent fevers and characteristics of sickle-cell anemia which could have explained the presence of the triad of symptoms. Some doctors say the triad can arise from sickle-cell anemia. The prosecutors in this case say they will contradict Jacobazzi’s defense with their own expert witnesses.

But this pursuit of justice comes with a risk. If Jacobazzi is found guilty in a retrial, she could be sentenced again and stay in prison even longer. Such a factor deters those found guilty to pursue their own justice. They may find it more worthwhile to just wait out their current sentences.

Systematic Misdiagnoses by Respected Hospital

Michelle and Dave Weidner took their son to OSF St. Francis Medical Center in Peoria, Illinois, where a doctor claimed to have detected a skull fracture after performing a CAT scan. The couple obtained a second opinion from a different hospital who identified no skull fracture present, attributing the misunderstanding to their son’s movement during the CAT scan.

They, regardless, underwent a painful investigation by the Department of Family and Children Services and the Pediatric Resources Center. Michelle has become an unofficial spokesperson for reforming how organizations like these accuse people of abuse. She recently spoke at a press conference alongside two other mothers whose accusations resulted from the same pediatrician at OSF St. Francis. In a detailed article from the Pekin Times, Michelle was quoted saying:

“I highly respect the individuals involved with prosecuting those who hurt kids. But the very best way to properly identify, investigate and prosecute child abuse is to have a system that swiftly and effectively identifies and weeds out false allegations. They must quit contracting with and relying upon so-called child abuse experts. Child abuse doctors are simply general pediatricians. They do not have any advanced training in forensics, radiology, orthopedics or neurology.

However, Dr. Robert W. Block believes that the Academy of American Pediatrics does a thorough investigation of these cases, as originally included in part 1 of this series.

Proposed Proper Practices for Future Cases
Enright proposes that:

“The criminal-justice system in the United States therefore might, as a priority, follow the lead of the United Kingdom and seek to review past convictions while also formulating a coherent approach to be followed in future cases to ensure that defendants are no longer convicted on the basis of the triad alone.”

She acknowledges that critics will arise as they do with every pursuit of true justice that we make and as the science is still evolving.

justice,policy, , , , , , , , ,


Exonerated and Still Not Allowed to Vote

Jordan — November 05, 2012 @ 4:21 PM — Comments (0)

On election day, remember that various forms of incarceration have disenfranchised 5.85 million Americans.

Only 25% of these 5.85 million are currently incarcerated, according to The Sentencing Project. Eleven different states’ rules restrict 45% of the 5.85 million from voting because they are serving probation or are out on parole. That’s about 2.83 million that have finished their sentences and are a part of society like anyone else; yet, if they have a problem with those in office, they’ll have to deal with it.

Bennett Barbour is on His Deathbed and Can’t Vote

Bennett Barbour is a 56-year-old Virginian man who was wrongfully convicted for rape in 1978. When the Virginia Supreme Court declared him innocent of his charges in May 2012, it had been 35 years since his conviction. So why can’t he vote?

Police were able to place Barbour in the lineup that led to his false conviction for rape because he had been convicted for grand larceny and theft the year before. The rape case jailed him for 4.5 years, until 1983 when he got out on parole for the remaining 5.5 years of his 10 year sentence.

With all of his attention on finally being exonerated of a conviction that ruined his life, it is understandable if Barbour assumed that he had his civil rights restored. So when he received an application in the mail to register to vote, he filled it out, mailed it, and received a voter’s card. But later on, he found out that an error in the Virginia Election Registration Information System did not pick up that he may have a felony.

A Right, not a Privilege

Different states have different assessments as to the rights of those with felonies during and after their sentences. Virginia, Florida, Iowa, and Kentucky allow people with felonies to regain their right to vote when the individual applies for it or petitions the State.

So essentially, these American citizens have to beg for something that citizenship grants them. The application process is convoluted and discouraging to the point that people with felonies, even after having served their sentence, will likely never regain their voting rights.

According to an article from the Richmond-Times Dispatch:

…applicants convicted of burglary and grand larceny in Virginia must pay all costs, fines, and/or restitution associated with their convictions and wait two years after the completion of their sentence and/or release from supervised probation and parole. They also must have no misdemeanors or pending criminal charges for two years preceding the application and no DUI conviction within the past five years.

Considering the State has not compensated Barbour for his wrongful years in prison, he is not likely to be in the financial shape to pay the money owed from his conviction for larceny and theft. His time in life is running short. He may not survive until another election.

In a situation like this, is the justice system deterring prospective criminals from committing crimes? Or is Virginia’s Supreme Court simply going to be at loss for respect.

Why Neglect this Right?

If anything, the loss of the right to vote saps the already weakened hope that a felony places on one’s efforts to re-enter society and change their path in life.

Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, said:

Fundamentally, democracy is about participation by everyone, and we don’t put a character test on the right to vote. By excluding people because of felony convictions, we’re confusing legislative goals of punishment with forfeiting legitimate rights of citizenship.

Denying Barbour’s right–not privilege–will not deter anyone from committing related crimes. His convictions have been the result of so many factors; potential criminals will not take his punishment as a warning but rather take it with a that-could-never-happen-to-me approach.

Barbour is technically being punished for a crime he may have committed. However, he has yet to receive any monetary compensation to make up for his life lost to the justice system’s failure in convicting him. The State of Virginia owes him something beyond justice. They owe him some sort of compensation. Can they at least grant a dying wish?

To Their Credit

While the State is trying to enable Barbour to vote, Virginia’s strict policy is making it almost impossible to clear him. The laws have tied the justice system’s hands behind its back. Officials are making every legal effort possible to allow him to vote.

According to the Richmond-Times Dispatch, Tucker Martin–spokesman for Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell–said that they are exploring all available options and want to do something to enable Barbour to vote. But with election day upon us, it is likely that they will not be able to permit it in time.

Surely, they are trying to their best abilities. So the only place we can focus frustration against is on Virginia’s restrictions on the voting rights of the formerly incarcerated.

UPDATE AS OF Nov. 5: Bennett Barbour got to vote on Tuesday! Lawyers and volunteers raised $1,100 to pay the county he was convicted in so that Gov. Bob McDonnell could restore his rights. Gov. McDonnell then pardoned some fees Bennett owed to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, and he was cleared to vote.

Read Nonprofit Vote’s page that details each state’s policy on allowing people with offenses to vote.

The Sentencing Project’s section on felony disenfranchisement provides constant updates on this and many other civil rights issues in America.

exoneration,justice,policy, , , , , ,

« Older Entries
© Copyright Innocence Project of Florida, Inc. This web site is supported in part by grants from The Florida Bar Foundation.