Archive for the ‘litigation’ Category

« Older Entries

“I plead guilty, but I didn’t do it.”

Jessica — April 16, 2013 @ 10:43 AM — Comments (0)

“I plead guilty, but I didn’t do it.”

This was the plea deal Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jesse Misskelley took in 2011 in order to walk out of prison free men after being convicted in the 1993 murder of three 8 year old West Memphis boys. Since their original arrest, these young men became known as the West Memphis Three as each of them fought against the State of Arkansas to prove their innocence.

The West Memphis Three spent 18 years behind bars before being brought back into the courtroom after DNA evidence was found that linked other men to the murders. Unfortunately, the West Memphis Three were not fully exonerated as each of them had to enter Alford pleas in order to be released from prison and returned to their families. The judge accepted the plea stating that the West Memphis Three maintained their innocence but plead guilty to the murder of the young boys.

When a conviction is overturned, the State Attorney’s Office is given latitude with a choice to re-prosecute an individual or vacate the conviction on the grounds of innocence or insufficient evidence. When the prosecution decides to re-try an individual whose conviction has been overturned, the Alford Plea can become an option. The individual must decide whether or not the prosecution has sufficient evidence to convict. One can either accept the Alford Plea therefore pleading guilty but still maintaining their innocence or risk attending a second trial with the possibility of being re-convicted.

This form of plea bargaining is derived directly from the State of North Carolina vs Alford in 1970.  The case states,

“An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.”

The plea is in fact a guilty plea, but means the defendant enters the plea without admitting to the guilt itself.  The defendant recognizes the prosecution has significant evidence to secure a guilty conviction, but chooses to plead guilty to a lesser charge; therefore reducing the sentence while maintaining his or her innocence.  The defendant is given the sentence and must serve just as one would if a guilty plea was taken.

While the use of the plea is fairly rare, Henry Alford nor the West Memphis Three are not the only ones to have used the Alford Plea.

In 1998, Anthony Murray was convicted of first-degree murder. In 2012, with the help of the Illinois Innocence Project, Murray’s conviction was reviewed and ultimately overturned by an associate judge in Marion County. Unfortunately for Murray, his legal battle would not end with his overturned conviction.

Anthony Murray entered an Alford Plea in order to be released from prison. Discussing Murray’s case, The Illinois Times stated,

“Under the threat that the states attorney would bring him to trial again, in order to gain his freedom Murray was forced to accept a plea to second-degree murder and was released on time served.  By pleading to a lesser crime while still maintaining that he was innocent of all charges,  the “Alford Plea” allowed him to return home to his mother and family, but certainly left a stain on him and on what the Illinois Innocence Project believes should have been a complete exoneration.”

Much like the West Memphis Three, Murray saw the plea bargain as a way to return to his family. While the plea would leave a mark on his record, the Alford Plea allowed for Murray to go home and begin to enjoy life on the outside once again.

In regards to the specific West Memphis Three case, CBS News had a statement that rings true across the board for all those who choose to accept the Alford Plea stating, “It’s a compromise, pure and simple. Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were allowed to continue to insist they were innocent, but they had to plead guilty. In return, they were given freedom and the State got its convictions.”

The Alford Plea is not used on often in a court of law and is not entirely an ideal case regarding an exoneration. But when the Alford Plea is accepted by the judge and the prosecution, it allows for the wrongfully convicted to return to family and begin to adapt to life outside of the dreary prison walls.

exoneration,justice,litigation,post-conviction, , , , , , , , ,


The State of Public Defenders and Gideon’s Army

WSainvil — February 28, 2013 @ 6:00 PM — Comments (0)

In Miami Dade County, an average case load for a public defender is 500 felonies and 225 misdemeanors according to democracynow.org. In the United States, an estimated 80 percent of people who are facing charges are poor and rely on court appointed counsel.

The perception of these attorneys is negative. Stereotypes depict them as emotionless souls whose goal is to aid in the incarceration of those who can’t afford an attorney.  The term “Public Pretenders” or “Dump Truck” is used by defendants and citizens who have negative feelings towards public defenders or defense attorneys.

However, it’s imperative that we ask is the reputation that public defenders are given fair?

The Evolution of the Right to Counsel

Contrary to popular belief, the right to counsel didn’t always mean an attorney would be provided to those who can’t afford one. It wasn’t until 1938 that the case Johnson vs. Zerbst ruled that legal representation must be provided for those without the means to obtain an attorney. However, this ruling only applied to federal cases.

Four years later, Betts vs. Brady ruled that an ordinary person can represent himself unless he had a mental or physical deficiency, the case was unusually complicated, or the case involved special circumstances. This left defendants in state and local cases to defend themselves.

Gideon vs Wainwright
In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking into a pool room with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. Because he could not afford an attorney, he requested that the court appoint him one. His plea was denied due to the Betts vs. Brady (1942) ruling. Gideon represented himself and was found guilty.

Later, Gideon filed a petition stating his constitutional rights had been denied when the courts refused to provide him counsel. Using law books he found in prison, he drafted a petition to the U.S Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

The supreme court unanimously ruled in favor of Gideon.

“The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees indigent defendants the Right to Counsel in federal criminal proceedings, be interpreted to include indigent defendants in state criminal trials.”

Gideon was later retried with a court appointed attorney and was found not guilty.

The State of the Public Defender

The differences in the prosecutors and the public defenders office are vast, and can lead one to wonder if the legal system really cares about providing well-equipped attorneys for those who can’t afford one.

We’ll begin with differences in salaries. For prosecutors:

ƒ”The average annual salary for assistant prosecutors ranged from $33,460 for entry-level assistant prosecutors in part time offices to $108,434 for assistant prosecutors with 6 or more years of experience in offices serving jurisdictions of 1 million or more residents.”

-Bureau Justice of Statistics:Prosecutors in State Courts 2007

Meanwhile public defenders:

“Minimum entry-level salaries for assistant public defenders ranged from about $37,000 to $58,000, with a median salary of $46,000 per year. More experienced (6 years or more) assistant public defenders earned a median salary between $60,000 and $78,000.”

-Bureau Justice of Statistics: State Public Defender programs 2007

Budgets and Employment


There are also huge differences in budgets between the two offices as well. In 2007, the prosecutors office had an operating budget of more than $5.8 billion. Public defenders expenditures in 2007 were more than $2.3 billion.

The number of attorney’s employed by the prosecutors office is more than double of that of the public defenders office. While more than 15,000 full-time attorney’s were employed by public defenders offices, and more than 34,000 were employed by the prosecutors office.

So What?
It is widely known that due to heavy caseloads, many defendants plead guilty with the advisement of their public defenders. This leads to the perception that these attorney’s do not work in the favor of their clients. However, under heavy caseloads and long hours. Can it be argued that they are doing the best with what they are given?

The statistics above show a very underfunded and understaffed public defenders office in comparison to the prosecutors offices. The budgets for these offices continue to decrease will the caseloads rise.

The American Bar Association states a public defender can competently handle 150 to 200 cases. Yet, in Miami-Dade County that number more than triples the recommendation. Some public defenders are so swamped with cases that they never even meet with their clients.

A  caseload of over 700 cases, gives an attorney less than half of a day to prepare for it, and this is only if the attorney works seven days a week. During a normal 40-hour work week, it would mean about 3 minutes per case. It is almost insane to believe that any attorney can function to the best of his or her ability under these circumstances.

The blame lies once again with our government and the way the system is set up. The funds and resources set aside to aid the accused continues to decline while “crime” rises. One can argue that the legal system is currently violating the rights of citizens by supplying defendants will ill prepared attorneys with no intention to rectify the growing problem. How can a public defenders possibly continue to function under these conditions? My answer is, they can’t.

Last year public defenders in Pennsylvania and in Miami began declining new cases due to limited resources. Public Defenders in Pennsylvania filed a class-action suit for underfunding.

While these offices are declining cases and trying to obtain more resources, who suffers? The ones unable to afford legal representation. This person may have to sit in jail for an indefinite amount of time waiting on an attorney or represent themselves. Leaving more poor people to be subjected to the injustices of the legal system.

There is too much blame placed on public defenders, when in fact it is the system that needs change. If you still have doubts, take a second and explain how you would handle 725 cases in one year.

Gideon’s Army

A new documentary, Gideon’s Army, aims to change the negative perceptions of public defenders by following the lives of three dedicated attorneys who are referred to as “true believers.” In the mist of low pay, heavy cases, long hours, and little resources these individuals truly fight for the rights of their clients.

Featured in the documentary is Travis Williams, a senior attorney at the Hall County Public Defenders office in Gainesville, Georgia. In a clip from the documentary, Williams expresses how he aspired to become a public defender due to the mistreatment he witnessed and received from police officers when he was growing up.

Williams works seven days a week, because in his opinion five days isn’t enough to get the job done. Out of the 24 cases he has fought, he has only lost 8. For every lost he tattoos the last name on his back.

Take a few minutes and watch this short clip from the documentary.

Your Thoughts

What do you think? Should the blame be placed on the public defenders, the system, or both. Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

judicial,litigation,Uncategorized, , , , , , ,


Anderson’s Accountability

Jessica — February 21, 2013 @ 4:33 PM — Comments (3)

In August 2011 post-conviction DNA testing proved Michael Morton an innocent man. After spending nearly 25 years behind bars for the wrongful conviction of the murder of his wife Christine, Morton was finally able to regain the life that he had left behind. Morton has since filed a court of inquiry against Ken Anderson, the district attorney whose prosecution led to Morton’s wrongful conviction. Ken Anderson now serves as a judge for the State of Texas and denies that any misconduct occurred during Morton’s trial in 1987.

The Huffington Post defined a court of inquiry as “ a rarely used proceeding held when officials or public servants are accused of wrongdoing.” In a system where the officials are highly protected, a court of inquiry call into question the actions of those in the prosecution.

Christine Morton was beaten to death with a wooden object in the morning in August 1986. The lead investigator of the crime collected evidence that included: a police report of neighbors claiming that a man owning a green van frequented the area around the Morton home around the time of the murder, a report of the couple’s young son, Eric, who was a witness to the horrific murder of his mother claiming that a “monster”, not his father, had killed his mother while his father was gone, unidentified fingerprints as well as an unidentified foot print in the backyard. There was a substantial amount of evidence indicating that Morton had not committed the murder. However, the defense was not made aware of any of this evidence; and hence the jury did not hear any of it. The jury convicted Morton on circumstantial evidence. He was sentenced to a life in prison.

The Texas Tribune states, “Anderson insisted that there was no judge’s order requiring him to turn over that evidence. He also argued that although he was not required under law or by a judge’s order to give Morton’s lawyers the transcript or the green van report that he must have told them about it. He said he had no “independent recollection” of doing so, but faulted Morton’s lawyers for not following up on the information.”

Throughout the court of inquiry hearings, Anderson continually denied concealing exculpatory evidence and simply claims the justice system “screwed up.” If Morton was held accountable for a crime he did not commit, Anderson needs to face the same accountability. Anderson wrongfully stole 25 years from a man in which a multitude of evidence proved he was innocent. Rather than admit the system was prosecuting the wrong individual, Anderson chose to suppress the evidence and continue with legal proceedings.

Discussing Anderson and the case, Morton stated,  ”I think we saw someone who is still struggling with denial and anger,” he said, “and possibly a man who has spent at least three decades in a position of power and for the first time has had to answer for his actions, and he’s very uncomfortable with that.”

As the proceeding came to a close Friday, February 8, the Judge presiding over the case is waiting on both the defense and the prosecution to file additional papers. His decision should be made within the next couple of months.

For now the public is left to question, was Morton’s conviction a result of prosecutorial misconduct or is Anderson just as innocent as he claims?

justice,litigation,post-conviction, , , , , , ,


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, , , , , , , ,


Compensation Statutes Discussed in Colorado

Jordan — August 20, 2012 @ 9:45 AM — Comments (0)

Colorado does not have statutes that command or set rules for the financial compensation of people who have been exonerated after being convicted of crimes they did not commit.

Colorado is considering the need for creating such a compensation statute. The Colorado District Attorneys Council discussed the issue a few weeks ago. Senator Pat Steadman has been looking into the compensation statutes of the District of Columbia and 26 states that have them.

Without compensation statutes, Robert Dewey and so many others who have been proven innocent after decades of wrongful imprisonment have to scrape by in poverty. Dewey, who spent 18 years in prison for a rape and murder he did not commit, currently suffers from more than his loss of time.

He receives food stamps, because he cannot work.

He cannot work, because of a back injury he received while in prison.

He cannot pay the medical bills to remove the metal rods and plates that a prison doctor placed in his spine to fix this injury.

And he cannot get employment, because he has not worked in more than 18 years and lacks familiarity and skills with the advances of the last 18 years.

Had he not gone to prison, these problems would probably not exist.

Colorado must consider not only which state has the statute most suitable for it, but also what the other 27 are leaving out.

Dewey has all the adversities, caused by his time in prison, that would easily grant him $50,000 for every year he was wrongfully incarcerated if he had been in Florida or another state with a similar statute.

Under paragraph (e) of Chapter 961.06 Florida Statutes (2012), “the total compensation awarded under paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) may not exceed $2 million.” Florida’s statutes do offer the opportunity for exonerees to be provided with “the amount of any reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred and paid by the wrongfully incarcerated person in connection with all criminal proceedings and appeals regarding the wrongful conviction.” Florida, however, does not allow for the costs associated with seeking compensation for the wrongful conviction.

These incurred expenses are exactly what exoneree Jeffrey Deskovic asks the Innocence Project’s (New York) Exoneration Compensation Report to address to the State of New York, which has a statute requiring the exonerated person to file suit against the State and prove damages. Deskovic says the State, upon losing the compensation lawsuit, should take care of the litigation costs and the fees paid to the exonerated person’s attorney to pursue the lawsuit.

His article for Examiner.com applauds and appreciates the Innocence Project’s work in exonerating him, but adds that its report needs to ask a little more of the State.

He mentions that, of course, no amount of money can replace the pain caused by their time in prison that will affect them for the rest of their life, but that “it is adding insult after injury for a state to tell an exoneree that the pain and suffering of wrongful imprisonment that they endured was only worth $50,000,” and then lessen the amount by making them cover their own attorneys fees.

We do not want to demonize the existence of these costs. Lawyers must get paid for their work. However, the State made the mistake in convicting an innocent person.  The least it can do is try to make up for that mistake without further penalizing the exoneree. In New York, the court determines the money paid per year of wrongful incarceration with a damage assessment in mind. In Florida, the award is a set amount.  Pilfering from that amount only lessens the amount of compensation that can never make up for the time lost to the criminal system.  Indeed, it only serves to make the exoneree less able to be self sufficient in a world that is vastly different than the one he or she left at the time of the wrongful conviction.

Deskovic does think that the money paid to exonerees should depend on how their career or earning potential was diminished by their time in prison. He writes: “certainly the lost wages of a middle-aged adult who had dropped out of high school could not be equal to a college educated exoneree.”

Dewey is poor because of his time in prison. His health gives him more to worry about financially than attorney’s fees. He is plagued by the cycle of not being able to get money because of his health and not being able to fix his health because of not having money. In Florida, Dewey would receive a $900,000 annuity, which could be paid out in as little as 10 years or over remainder of his life and would earn interest. All things considered, the amount received annually is hardly enough to cover his basic living needs and medical expenses.

If any person is in need of more than the $50,000 standard in states like New York and Florida, it is Robert Dewey and exonerees like him. Colorado can place a minimum and maximum on total compensation awarded, as Florida and others do, but it must remember to assess each exoneree’s situation to determine the appropriate amount of money that they need to pay for the actual damage the wrongful imprisonment caused them, and then some.

justice,legislation,litigation,Uncategorized, , , , , ,


Weekly Update: Compensation and Misconduct in the Lone Star State

Chelsea — May 21, 2012 @ 8:59 AM — Comments (0)

Austin County Attorney Brags About Professional Misconduct

A county attorney in Austin, Texas name of Jana Duty has lied about her involvement with the case of exoneree Michal Morton, who was convicted of murdering his wife Christine over 25 years ago. Duty is currently running for election as Austin’s district attorney, and these allegations of her professional misconduct have come out as a result of her campaign.

Read more about the complaints lodged against Ms. Duty by John Bradley, a man who is running for the same district attorney spot, here.

Texas Supreme Court Orders State to pay $2 Million to Exoneree

Texas exoneree Billy Frederick Allen spent 26 years behind bars for two Dallas murders he did not commit. Yesterday it was announced that he will finally receive compensation for the time he spent wrongfully incarcerated.

Allen was convicted in 1983 and was released in 2009; his release, unlike many other exonerations, came about as a result of problems with witness testimony and Allen’s legal representation that surfaced decades after the original trial. Allen’s success in suing the State for compensation may be the start towards setting a precedent for compensation in other wrongful convictions cases.

Read more about Allen’s case and his compensation trial here.

DNA Evidence Links Another Man to Murder of a Young Girl

Illinois man Andre Davis was only 19 when he was arrested for the murder of 3-year-old Brianna Stickle. While he has not yet been completely exonerated, DNA tests have linked another man to the case, and Davis will either be retried or have the charges against him dropped within the next several weeks. At present Davis’s conviction has been overturned.

Read more about Davis’s case and his future here.

exoneration,Innocence Project of Florida,judicial,justice,litigation,Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , ,


Weekly Update: International Innocence and the Fight for Justice Stateside

Chelsea — March 21, 2012 @ 12:50 PM — Comments (0)

Wrongful Convictions Aren’t Just in the US: The Fight for Innocence Across the Pond

There have been 289 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the history of the United States; that is 289 people who served time behind bars for crimes they did not commit, 289 people who lost months, years, and even decades of their lives. And wrongful convictions don’t just happen in the United States.

Innocence Network UK founder Dr. Michael Naughton has spent that past seven years trying to fight for the victims of wrongful convictions in the United Kingdom. In spite of his best efforts and those of over 1,200 students working on 102 cases, not one of those victims has had their case overturned.

A This Is Bristol article quotes Naughton as saying, “Back then I still thought that all we had to do was, with the students’ help, find the truth in the forgotten pieces of evidence, place the truth before the CCRC [Criminal Cases Review Commission] and say, hey look, we’ve got the evidence needed to get this poor bloke’s case overturned.

“I thought the prosecution lawyers would be the ones that would be our enemy. I thought the barristers who were meant to defend these people in the first place, would be keen to try to get their convictions overturned.

“But I’ve learn[ed] a lot about defense lawyers since then. Of course they don’t want to see their clients have their convictions overturned. They don’t want to see some smart students come along and find pieces of evidence they failed to find, and in so doing show them up for their professional inadequacies.”

An extremely disheartening insight into the UK’s justice system; it is truly a shame when egos are allowed to get in the way of justice. Read more about Dr. Michael Naughton and the UK’s wrongful convictions here.

Two Nebraska Exonerees Face an Uphill Battle, but Deserve the Right to Fight for Compensation

Two of six exonerees from a 1985 murder-rape case have the right to have their suit for compensation heard according to Gage County, Nebraska judge Daniel Bryan.

Judge Daniel Bryan rejected the state’s motions to have the cases of Ada Joann Taylor and James Dean dismissed; both have sued the State of Nebraska for $500,000 in compensation for their wrongful convictions.

These two and four others were wrongfully convicted in the rape and murder of widow Helen Wilson. All six have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

Judge Bryan admitted that these two “have an uphill” battle to prove their cases, but that their cases have a right to be heard, according to an Associated Press article. Read it here.

Exonoree Jeffrey Deskovic Opens Office to Fight for Justice

After spending nearly 16 years in prison for a New York murder he did not commit, Jeffrey Deskovic has dedicated his life to fighting wrongful convictions and helping the victims of their injustice. Deskovic was released in 2006 when DNA evidence revealed the true perpetrator of the crime.

Deskovic recently opened the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation for Justice, an organization he started with $1.5 million of the compensation that he received from the State of New York as compensation for his wrongful conviction.

The organization will seek to increase awareness of wrongful convictions, pursue legislation to prevent wrongful convictions (like requiring police to videotape interrogations), it will work on individual cases, and it will help exonerees readjust to life outside prison. Thus far the foundation has taken on six cases and has 20 more under consideration.

Read more about Deskovic’s case and his foundation here.

DNA Evidence Reveals Junk Science in Decade Old Cases, State Attorney Calls for Hundreds of Case Reviews

After DNA evidence proved the innocence of Washington, DC exonerees Kirk Odom and Santae Tribble, US Attorney Ron Machen announced the upcoming review of hundreds of cases that relied on junk science to get convictions.

Kirk Odom was convicted of rape based on an identification made by the victim and hair analysis, while Santa Tribble was convicted of murder based just on analysis of hair found at the scene. DNA evidence now proves that, in spite of testimony that the hairs matched the respective defendants, neither matched the man who was convicted in each case.

Based on these two exonerations, Machen has announced that they will complete “a sweeping review of cases going back decades. Some in the 70s and 80s and even earlier if we can find the records of cases where hair analysis was used in part to secure convictions.”

Read more here.

exoneration,Innocence Project of Florida,litigation,Science, , , , , , , , , , , ,


Mike Farrell: Human Rights Activist

Anne — February 03, 2012 @ 10:29 AM — Comments (2)

NOTE: This is the second (and final) installment of an interview with Mike Farrell,  a life-long opponent of the death penalty. Part I appeared on February 1, 2012.

Anne:  How has your public work affected your view of the criminal justice system in the United States in terms of death penalty cases involving questionable sentencing?

Mike Farrell: It has taught me that the criminal justice system in general is not just. It is anti-human, degrading and shows no interest in helping those who get caught up in it learn how to comport themselves appropriately and become productive citizens. It is, in my view, a destructive system that makes huge profits for some people and companies at great costs, not only to those who are incarcerated, but to our entire society.

Anne:  The execution of Donald Beardslee (California, 2005) attracted  a number of  anti-death penalty advocates. Can you speak of a specific capital punishment case in which you were involved that addresses state-sanctioned killings involving persons with limited capacity to understand their actions and/or subsequent fates?

MF:  There are too many: Robert Alton Harris in California, Johny Paul Penry in Texas (has not yet been executed, but they keep trying), Ricky Ray Rector in Arkansas, Barry Fairchild in Arkansas, Wanda Jean Allen in Oklahoma.  The Supreme Court’s 2002 decision regarding Daryl Atkins, in Virginia, stopped the execution of mentally challenged individuals, though they left the determination of who was or was not mentally challenged up to the states. Human Rights Watch released a study (around 2005) stating that we have more than 250,000 demonstrably mentally ill people in our prison system, more than in our mental institutions.

Anne:  Do you believe that it is an individual state’s right to impose a moratorium on capital punishment, or do you feel that the issue should be addressed in a broader forum (by higher court’s outside one’s state)?

MF:  I think, especially given the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court, it will be a state-by-state process that will create (as did the Simmons Case about the death penalty for juveniles) a clear sense that the people of the United States recognize that there is no longer any value to maintaining the death system.

And yes, of course, each state has the right to declare a moratorium on state killings. It happened here in California six years ago, though it was imposed by a judge. We’re still waiting for the final determination. In Illinois, then-governor Ryan declared a moratorium and ordered a study of the death penalty. That eventually led to his clearing the state’s Death Row by commuting almost all death row inmates to life without parole. He pardoned some outright.

New Jersey did such a study and decided to end the death penalty. Pennsylvania has just ordered a study and I hope it has the same result.

Anne:  A number of individuals who have been sentenced to Death Row in specific cases across the United States have also been exonerated due to DNA evidence. How does such testing (and its results) help bolster your argument that the courts oftentimes “get it wrong” in terms of sentencing a person to death for crimes for which they have been found guilty?

MF:  I think the exoneration of 139 people (so far in the modern era) from our death rows, after being charged, tried by a “jury of their peers” and sentenced to death, proves the fallibility of the system and demonstrates the wrong-headedness of giving the state the right to take a life.

I would quickly add, though, that most of those exonerated have not been freed because of DNA [evidence], but because of the dogged pursuit of justice by caring lawyers, relatives, students and people of faith. DNA evidence, while it can be an enormously powerful tool, is not available in most murder cases.

Anne:  If you witnessed (or read reports of) the Republican presidential debate in September 2011, where Texas governor Rick Perry was cheered regarding his stance on capital punishment (which he supports as a “state’s right” issue), what message  do you believe the audience’s rancorous behavior sent in terms of the national reception to (and acceptance of) capital punishment?

MF:  I don’t think the frightening (and, to me, disgusting) behavior of the audience at that debate is representative of the vast majority of the poeple in this country. While some polls show a majority of Americans still support capital punishment, those numbers are falling, and, in fact, when people are offered the option of life without parole (LWOP), more indicate support for LWOP.

Anne: Your anti-capital punishment advocacy through the year has led you to write, speak and organize nationally and internationally on various aspects relating to death penalty and human right issues. Can you  discuss some of your current projects and how they might serve to initiate a broader political discourse in the area of anti-death penalty matters?

MF:  I chair Death Penalty Focus, an ablition organization based in San Francisco, California. We have been working to help people better understand the truth about the death system and how it is failing us–in fact harming us–as a society. With the rise in public awareness of the failings inherent in capital punishment, we are now at a point where a coalition has been put together to put the question of replacing the death penalty with life without parole here in our state. It will save the state millions of dollars, provide more funding for police to solve the huge number of unsolved rapes and murders, and ensure that we no longer run the risk of killing an innocent person.

A case with which I’ve been involved for many years is that of Joe Giarrantano, in Virginia. Joe was sentenced to death in 1979, and was spared at the last minute from execution in 1991 by then-governor Douglas Wilder. We made a strong showing that Giarrantano deserved a new trial, but, again, Governor Wilder went halfway. He spared Joe’s life but tuned the question of a new trial over to the state’s Attorney General, who was not inclined to take the risk of Joe’s being found innocent (which I believe him to be). For that reason, Joe remains in prison to this day, a fact that sickens me.

Anne:  You have been the recipient of numerous awards and accolades for your decades-long efforts in raising awarness of various human rights issues. Undoubtedly your work has resonated with various “anti-groups” across the globe. Is there an exclusive award or accolade that has specific affection for you becuase you can clearly see the evidence and impact of your work?

MF:  One doesn’t do this work to win awards. The progress that the abolition movement is making inspires me. The fact that New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Illinois have chosen to end the use of state killings makes me know we will prevail. But perhaps the “award” that means the most to me is that, despite the fact that he remains behind bars, Joe Giarrantano is alive and able to do good work helping fellow inmates in Virginia.

Anne:  I believe that advocacy of a cause begins as a grassroots effort with a capacity to grow into a much larger movement. What can the average citizen do to involve him/herself in issues related to capital punishment and other human rights  issues?

MF:  If they care, people can read a bit, study it [human rights issues and death penalty cases] if they choose, and learn the facts about how the system is doing harm to all of us. When we spend more money on prisons than on colleges, there is something terribly wrong with our society. People need to be less quick to judge “wrong-doers” and more willing to look at the circumstances of the lives of too many people in our society who have been left behind and deemed invisible. If kids grow up thinking they have no value, they think no one else has any value either. If kids grow up surrounded by violence, how do we expect hem to undersand that violence is wrong?

We have work to do to make this society live up to its promise–for everyone.

 

exoneration,judicial,justice,legislation,litigation,policy,prison, , , , , ,


Using Eyewitnesses (Guest Post by Allison Gamble)

Jackie — September 30, 2011 @ 2:41 PM — Comments (0)

Although the use of eyewitnesses to solve crimes and identify suspects is a technique as old as criminal justice itself, forensic psychology studies have increasingly questioned the validity of eyewitness testimony. Often people may correctly recall what happened at the scene of a crime, or be able to identify a culprit, but there are many ways eyewitness testimony may be swayed subconsciously, which have important ramifications for criminal cases. At times, false events or elements may be introduced into this testimony without an eyewitness’ awareness.

Ensuring that eyewitness testimony is as reliable as possible is essential for ensuring fair criminal investigations and trials. This is due to the influence such testimony can have over the outcome of a case. Mock jurors have been found to be about 45 percent more likely to convict a defendant when they heard eyewitness testimony. Even if the mock jurors knew the eyewitness had poor eyesight, they were only slightly less likely to issue a guilt verdict.

Studies on memory conducted during the 1970s used participants who viewed a scene involving a car at an intersection, and were asked later to describe the scene. When experimenters introduced the words “stop sign” into their questions about the scene, participants claimed to remember a stop sign being present, when the sign did not actually exist. Cues such as these were sufficient to change how people remembered the scene. These studies have important implications for eyewitness testimony, since they show how leading questions can cause people to change not only their testimony, but their actual memories of an event.

Memories tend to deteriorate over time, leading to incomplete retrieval of events that eyewitnesses have seen. In some cases, eyewitnesses asked to recall events could only describe about 68 percent of the details after a week, and this percentage became lower over time. When false memories were introduced, they were still recalled about one-quarter of the time.

Eyewitnesses may sometimes misidentify individuals in a police lineup, as well. A guide prepared by Iowa State University details how the presentation of a lineup can influence suspect identification. Witnesses tend to compare suspects in a lineup to one another to arrive at a decision on a culprit, instead of comparing each suspect to their memory of the culprit. If the witness receives positive feedback after making their decision, they tend to become more confident that they have selected the right person, even if the individual does not truly resemble the actual perpetrator of the crime. In order to prevent feedback from influencing a witness’ decision, law enforcement agencies recommend having an officer unfamiliar with the identities of individuals in lineup photos be the one to present them.

Although eyewitness testimony is far from perfect, there are steps that can be taken to ensure it is more accurate. One method already mentioned is to avoid giving feedback to witnesses on the information they provide. Another is to present lineup mugshots in a sequential order, rather than all at once, so eyewitnesses are more likely to compare each photo to their own memories, rather than comparing photos to one another. Warning juries of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is another way to ensure convictions are based on more evidence than just this type of testimony.

Eyewitness testimony can be valuable when collected in a way that reduces errors. Deterioration of memory, the ability to remember nonexistent or false events, and overconfidence in memory can all influence eyewitnesses dramatically, however. Any person involved in the criminal justice system should therefore be aware of the limitations of eyewitness memory to avoid relying on such testimony too heavily.

Allison Gamble has been a curious student of psychology since high school. She brings her understanding of the mind to work in the weird world of internet marketing with forensicpsychology.net.

litigation,Science, , , , ,


In Each Other’s Company

Anne — September 28, 2011 @ 5:40 PM — Comments (2)

While various states across the nation have their share of criminal cases reflecting severe miscarriages of justice, we all know that beyond the borders of the United States there, too, are instances wherein innocent people have been wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. Within a great majority of the legal quandaries associated with each case, however, are questions relating to compensation for the wrongfully convicted. In Florida, for example, some exonerated men are eligible to be compensated $50,000 for each year of time spent behind bars. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule.

To receive payment the exoneree must meet eligibility requirements outlined in the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act, a bill established in 2008 by the Florida legislature. In addition, the exoneree must meet provisional requirements of the bill’s “clean hands” mandate. The conditions for receipt of funds are determined by the facts of a recipient’s criminal record prior to (and during) the wrongful incarceration.

Legislation supported by the Innocence Project of Florida (IPF) has been presented to lawmakers in an effort to overturn the “Clean Hands” provision and to assist the exonerated in rebuilding their lives. IPF’s efforts have been met, however, with strong opposition from lawmakers who are unwilling to support compensation for the wrongfully convicted men. Such actions, it seems to me, shows an unwillingness to acknowledge that an egregious miscarriage of justice occurred in the first instance. The State of Florida, lawmakers seem to be saying to the exonerated men, did a wicked thing by convicting you for something you did not do, but hey, you’re free now, so go and make the best of it.

I am of the opinion that (perhaps) after decades of imprisonment, when an exonerated man might have lost family members and loved ones, that he might also be a bit guarded upon entering a new world alone and without support. While a monetary compensation certainly cannot make up for a life lost to imprisonment, it can most assuredly help ease the transition towards rebuilding a life fractured by the state’s negligence.

In Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, Kyle Unger, freed in 2009 after spending 14 years (of a 25-year sentence for a murder he did not commit), is seeking $14.5 million in compensation from provincial and federal justice officials for an array of “damages,” including, according to his lawsuit, “loss of freedom, loss of enjoyment of life, severe emotional trauma and distress.” He was, according to court documents, “deprived of his youth, his education, and a normal working life.” Unger’s lawsuit asserts that police and prosecutors used “faulty techniques,” including a breach of Unger’s constitutional rights, to help convict him. He arrived at the compensatory amount by appealing for one million dollars for every year spent in prison, plus related court costs.

In Texas, Anthony Graves, exonerated in 2010 for a 1994 conviction, is seeking compensation from the state for each of the 16 years he spent on death row for a crime he, too, did not commit. In court documents Graves maintains, among numerous legal and ethical breaches, that “prosecutors elicited false statements and withheld testimony [from witnesses] that could have influenced the jury.” His legal struggles survived numerous hearings and appeals to reach the point of exoneration. For each year of his wrongful incarceration, he is seeking compensation in the amount of $80K, the state of Texas’ compensatory threshold.

I offer this discussion in an effort to not only highlight the importance of the work of various Innocence Projects across the nation and beyond, but to ask that we engage ourselves in the business of staying informed. While a range of organizations might function under diverse names, their work is significant in aspects too numerous to declare.

Despite the fact that we might not recognize the vulnerabilities that we all face in this win-at-all-cost society in which we live, we are, I believe, in this thing together.

exoneration,Innocence Project of Florida,justice,litigation, , , , , , , ,

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