Posts Tagged ‘prosecutorial misconduct’

« Older Entries

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, , , , , , , ,


Judge Ken Anderson Faces Criminal Charges

Jessica — April 26, 2013 @ 1:37 PM — Comments (1)

In February, Michael Morton submitted a court of inquiry to the State of Texas regarding the conduct of the leading prosecutor in his case.  On Friday, April 19, 2013, a Texas judge decided that Ken Anderson, former district attorney and now judge, would face criminal charges for his improper behavior in 1987.

Barry Scheck, co-founder of The Innocence Project, stated in The Innocence Project press release,

“We believe this is a landmark case. I know that good prosecutors, and that’s most of them, agree that it’s important Judge Anderson be held accountable for the willful misconduct that caused Michael Morton to lose 25 years of his life.”

“It’s extremely rare for prosecutors to be punished for deliberately hiding exculpatory evidence, much less face criminal charges. But this outcome will hopefully usher in a new era of oversight to ensure that prosecutors live up to their ethical obligations.”

The court as well as District Judge Louis Sterns, who was presiding over the case, decided Anderson should face charges for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense resulting in Morton’s wrongful conviction after determining the Anderson was aware of the Judge’s trial orders.

It is reassuring to know that prosecutors who engage in ethical and legal misconduct are being held accountable for their actions. The reformation of the criminal justice system is going to take time but steps in the right direction such as The Prosecutorial Oversight Campaign  are crucial in the change towards a better system. It is important every individual of the law continually upholds the law and those who do not are rightfully held accountable.

In the press release, Nina Morrison, a Senior Staff Attorney with the Innocence Project, stated,

“Hopefully this case will serve as a wake-up call to prosecutors across the nation that there are real consequences for ignoring the ethical rules that have been established to ensure that everyone gets a fair trial.”

Although criminal charges against prosecutors are rare, the success of Morton’s court of inquiry demonstrates the justice the system owes him for the miscarriage of justice that he received for 25 years.

justice, , , , , , , ,


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, , , , , , ,


When Does the Fight Stop? – The Role of the Prosecution

Jessica — February 14, 2013 @ 10:17 AM — Comments (1)

It wasn’t long after Douglas Prade was exonerated of murder that prosecutors for the State of Ohio made known their intentions to appeal the overturned conviction. Postconviction DNA testing proved Prade did not kill his ex-wife, Margo Prade, in November of 1997. However the prosecution continues to push hard the idea that Prade could in fact be Margo’s murderer.

In an Los Angeles Times article, Keith Findley, president of the Innocence Network, said, “Prosecutors have enormous power over all of our lives, . . . yet no other profession is shielded from the complete lack of accountability.” As representatives of the State, the prosecution must present a case that proves a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But doesn’t their responsibility also include making sure the wrong person is not convicted? And correcting the wrong if the wrong person is?

Innocence projects get involved after the trial, conviction and all of the appeals have been exhausted. There has to be a very compelling reason such as newly discovered evidence to open the door to re-visit a conviction. During this phase, the prosecution has the ability to agree to DNA testing–testing that innocence projects pay for, so there is no expense to the State–and  avoid needless litigation just to obtain this vital science. According to the Innocence Network, nationally 19% of prosecutors oppose DNA testing when it requested by an individual in prison. In Florida, the experience of the Innocence Project of Florida (“IPF”) far outpaces the national averages.  For example, in 2011-2012, IPF has requested DNA testing on behalf of clients potentially wrongfully convicted in 22 cases and prosecutors have only agreed to DNA testing once. They have opposed testing 21 out of 22 times or 95% of the time.  This kind of obstruction is an organized form of prosecutorial misconduct, akin to hiding evidence of innocence.

Not only does this misconduct include the effort of hiding evidence that leads to wrongful convictions or preventing a potentially innocent person from getting DNA testing that could prove their innocence, it also includes continuing to fight after the defense has presented sufficient evidence indicating innocence.  There are many reasons and opinions as to why a prosecutor would continue to fight, but it comes down to admitting that a mistake was made. It is a difficult task to admit a wrongdoing; however is the preservation of a wrongful conviction worth keeping an innocent person in prison? After a conviction has been overturned and innocence declared, isn’t the deliberative thoughtful, diligent decision by a judge that a conviction is wrongful enough to give the case up and let the innocent individual go home? Why is it so important that the prosecution appeals the judge’s ruling? The Plain Dealer, a newspaper in Cleveland, Ohio, stated:

“Because the judge might be wrong,” said John Murphy, the executive director of the prosecuting attorney association. “That’s why we have appellate courts. If we believe there is a genuine issue, we have to take it to the appeals courts.”

Many will question whether prosecutors are out to seek justice, as they are sworn to do, or to win cases at all costs. These questions arise when solid DNA testing proves that the convicted person did not commit the crime and then prosecutors turn right around to fight vigorously against the exoneration and against any claim of innocence. The Center for the Global Study of Wrongful Convictions at the University of Cincinnati College of Law stated:

“tragically, when a prosecutor chooses to protect a verdict rather than fulfill his or her first responsibility to seek the truth and true justice, the real perpetrator—even if a violent murderer—can get a free pass.”

When does the focus shift from convicting an innocent man to identifying the real perpetrator?

In an Illinois double murder case, Daniel Taylor was convicted of committing a crime at 8:45 p.m on November 16, 1992. However police records show that Taylor was under arrest for disorderly conduct from 6:45 p.m. to 10 p.m that night, undermining the contentions of the prosecution that Taylor would have have the opportunity to commit the crime. The Chicago Sun-Times stated:

“seven 23rd District police personnel backed Taylor’s lockup alibi. Those records should have been turned over to the defense at the time of the trial, but Taylor’s trial lawyers say they were not.” … “An officer on guard that night claimed “ it’s just not possible that Taylor was freed or escaped earlier than 10 p.m., as prosecutors suggested at trial. Too many personnel from two different watches would have had to conspire to falsify the records, he says.”

For Daniel Taylor, it is simply not possible that he could have committed the murder as prosecutors are charging. Taylor attorneys returned to court last week seeking the right to continue to appeal his case. Northwestern Law’s Center on Wrongful Convictions released an article entitled Still Imprisoned Despite Jail Alibi, which highlighted the assertion by State Attorney Anita Alvarez that her office has experienced “a shift in philosophy” and pledged to be “more open to the possibility that police and prosecutors had sent an innocent person to prison.” In her announcement, it was said the state’s attorney’s office was “about always seeking justice,” not simply “racking up convictions.” Taking a brief look into the evidence supporting the wrongful conviction of Daniel Taylor, can one believe that this statement is entirely true?

In convictions such as Douglas Prade and Daniel Taylor, the prosecutorial misconduct played significant roles at different times throughout the proceedings. Unfortunately, these two men will fight for a long time in order to find the freedom the justice system owes them. Prade was exonerated last month after a hearing when the judge ordered his immediately release claiming “no reasonable juror, considering all available evidence, would be firmly convinced that Prade was guilty of aggravated murder.” However Prade is still facing the appeals by the prosecution. Daniel Taylor is still awaiting his grant for re-trial in hopes that one day he will be declared an innocent man. In an imperfect system, one can only hope the intentions of those in the justice system are reputable and in the end, justice will be served.

exoneration,justice, , , , , , ,


Above the Law: Prosecutorial Misconduct

WSainvil — July 26, 2012 @ 1:58 PM — Comments (6)

As the lead prosecutor of the case, it was his decision to do the right thing or continue winning cases. He had two options: disclose information that could possibly clear the defendant or cover it up and continue adding to his list of convictions.  On the outside looking in it’s a simple decision, do the right thing. Seeking true justice is more important than winning…right? However, the small voice of reason in his head lost the battle. He decided not only to hide exculpatory evidence, but to also make deals that promised inmates early release in exchange for false testimonies. This poor and reckless decision cost an innocent man three years of his life.

No, that was not the plot of a Law and Order episode or an excerpt from a John Grisham novel, it is the real life story of Nino Lyons, and a small look at how a prosecutor can behave unjustly.

The recent release of Duke Law’s Wrongful Convictions Clinic exoneree LaMonte Armstrong has put the spotlight back on prosecutorial misconduct, and there are many questions still awaiting responses. With the number of exonerees growing each year, it’s quite apparent that our legal system has many flaws. While many attorneys are aware of these issues, the general public is sometimes left in the dark about what causes a prosecutor to hide evidence and arrange deals with criminals.

A majority of the blame can be focused on the way the prosecutor’s office is operated and how promotions are given. The prosecutor’s office keeps track of each attorney’s conviction rate. Though few will admit it, prosecutors are promoted based on the number of cases they have won, and the importance of winning cases is critical to their success. Some are elected officials and all are expected to win. When a position opens up, it’s more likely that the prosecutor with the highest conviction rate will be a top prospect for the spot.

In no way does this justify the behavior of those who choose to ignore the laws they swore to uphold. However, it is apparent how this system can cause a prosecutor to disregard all moral, ethical, and even, legal rules.

History has shown that American society, as a whole, is driven by money and power, and it’s apparent that some prosecutors are willing to sacrifice lives of innocent people to obtain the two. Truth and integrity seem to be a thing of the past.

People question how often this behavior occurs, and there is no set number. In 2010, a USA Today investigation compiled a list of 201 criminal cases where federal judges found prosecutors who broke the law or ethical rules. These violations led to the convictions of innocent people, which also means that guilty criminals were living freely.

A person can argue that 201 cases out of the thousands that go through the system are not significant, but they would be wrong. These cases are just the ones in which federal judges deemed behavior to be unethical. This number does not include cases where there wasn’t “enough” evidence to determine if a prosecutor misbehaved.

Prosecutors Protection

In America, a citizen can sue for just about anything, but you can’t sue a prosecutor.  Many believe this is a  major factor in what causes prosecutors to misbehave.

In 1961, Paul Kern Imbler was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Morris Hasson. It was later revealed that the district attorney, Richard Pachtman, had suppressed exculpatory evidence and evoked falsified testimonies from key witnesses. After his exoneration Imbler sued Pacthman for prosecutorial misconduct, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case because Pactman was protected by prosecutorial immunity. Even if a prosecutor has been found to be acting in bad faith or ill will by deliberately hiding evidence or misrepresenting the facts, they are free from civil lawsuits.

When an average citizen violates the law there are repercussions for his or her actions. Sadly, the same rules don’t apply to prosecutors. Brady v. Maryland determined that “significant” evidence that is favorable to the defense must be disclosed or it’s a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The lead prosecutor in the Lyons case, Bruce Hinshelwood and many others, did just that. However, his “punishment” is one many would consider as a joke. Documents obtained by USA Today show he was ordered to serve a one-day ethics course for his behavior. A one-day course for deliberately putting an innocent man in prison for three years. The system basically gives a pass to its own, and takes years of life from the ones they are meant to protect.  Many wonder, where is the justice in that?

It is infuriating that some prosecutors are advancing their careers by putting innocent people in prison without any accountability. This makes them above the law, because they are clearly not adhering to or being punished for breaking it. They have nothing to fear, because most of their actions are met with a slap on the wrist.

“If you want to change the culture, you will have to start by changing the organization. ”
-Mary Douglas

Changing the way these offices operate is the only way this behavior will cease. Sadly, the chances of these changes is slim.

“Life is like a boomerang…Sooner or later, our thoughts, beliefs and actions return to us with amazing accuracy.”

Although it is apparent the legal system rarely and truly punishes prosecutors guilty of purposefully convicting the innocent, we must remember Newtons Third Law – for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. For all their wrongdoing, there are innocence projects all over this country fighting for the true justice people of America deserve.

 

Your Thoughts

What do you think would be a fair punishment prosecutorial misconduct? We would love to hear your thoughts.

judicial,justice, , , , ,


Justice should apply to all

Jordan — July 24, 2012 @ 3:26 PM — Comments (1)

“Revenge isn’t the issue here. Revenge, I know, doesn’t work. But accountability works. It’s what balances out; it’s the equilibrium; it’s the social glue. Because, if you’re not accountable then you can do anything.”

60 Minutes reports on Michael Morton’s pursuit of justice

Michael Morton spent 25 years in prison as an innocent man; anger and the desire for vengeance are natural towards the person who wrongfully convicted him, former Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson. Morton was exonerated last year of his wrongful conviction for killing his wife, Christine, in 1986. The judgement seemed to solely be based on a note he left for her that expressed disappointment for her falling asleep on him – for not having sex with him the night before. The note ended in “I love you.”

This 14-minute report covers the details of Morton’s case, and why he is suing Anderson for prosecutorial misconduct. The Innocence Project worked on his behalf to unveil the existence of a crucial document showing an interview between Christine’s mother and Christine and Michael’s son, who was three-years-old at the time of the murder. He witnessed his mother’s murder and described the killer as a monster. He said his father was not there.

Innocence Project co-founder, Barry Scheck, also weighs in on the purpose of making an example out of Anderson:

“I don’t believe that there is an epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct in this country. On the other hand, it does happen. And this is a very important moment (Morton’s claim). We’ve had a whole series of cases in this country that have focused on this issue.”

This main issue is the prosecutor’s willful withholding of evidence.

Here is a link to the Innocence Project’s post from August of last year, before his exoneration, about Morton’s case.

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


Weekly Update: Post-Conviction DNA and Eyewitness Reforms, but Innocent Men Still Behind Bars

Chelsea — February 09, 2012 @ 5:59 PM — Comments (0)

Innocent Man Remains on Death Row

Tyrone Noling has been held on death row in Ohio since February 21, 1996. Noling has maintained his innocence since that day.

In the mid-1990s Tyrone Noling was convicted of the murders of Cora and Bearnhardt Hartig, an elderly couple. Noling was convicted in 1995, five years after the murders actually occurred, and was not linked to the crime by anything other than several eyewitnesses; eyewitnesses, mind you, that did not come forward until several years after the crime. Three witnesses placed Tyrone at the scene of the crime and claimed to have heard him confess to the murders. All three witnesses have now claimed that they only gave these statements because they were threatened by prosecutorial investigator Ron Craig.

Tyrone has filed for various appeals and continues fighting to prove his innocence, but the state of Ohio seems, for reasons unknown, to want to keep him on death row. In spite of the fact that there  is no physical evidence linking him to the murders and that all witnesses have recanted, Tyrone still has not been granted a new trial. Read more here.

Massachusetts Post-Conviction DNA Testing Bill Approved

A bill that will bring Massachusetts up to speed regarding prisoners’ right to post-conviction DNA testing. Up until this point Massachusetts has been one of four states without measures allowing prisoners access to this testing, thereby limiting the ability for innocent people to prove that they were wrongfully convicted. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly explains that, “in order to become eligible for post-conviction access to DNA evidence, an individual serving a sentence must win a motion before a judge that shows the evidence could possibly result in an acquittal.” The bill, which the Senate approved last July, was unanimously approved by the House yesterday and is now headed to the governor’s desk.

Virginia Takes Its Time Freeing an Innocent Man

Bennett Barbour was convicted in 1978 of a rape that he did not commit. Barbour only served 4 1/2 years of his 18 year sentence (he was convicted of robbery, as well), as he made parole the first time he came up for consideration. However, he was not proven innocent until several weeks ago when the Virginia Department of Forensic Sciences finally released the information that DNA testing proved Barbour was innocent. The Department of Forensic Sciences has been working on DNA testing many old cases as a part of their post-conviction DNA project. This project seeks to expose wrongful convictions and solve some cold cases.Unfortunately, it would seem that the releasing the information that Mr. Barbour was innocent was not a priority, as the department had the DNA results for 18 months before they informed Mr. Barbour. Read more here.

Retired Connecticut Supreme Court Justice David Borden Pushes for Eyewitness Identification Reform

Connecticut is currently in the process of adopting various measures to reform eyewitness identification. A law was passed last year that mandates that police use a double-blind procedure in conducting lineups. This double-blind procedure refers to conducting a line-up where the administrator does not know who the suspect is and the witness is told that the officer does not know who the suspect is. This decreases the possibility of police officers influencing, accidentally or otherwise, the witnesses selection. The law added a caveat though, stating that law-enforcement should adopt this procedure “where practicable.” The law also set up a task for to investigate eyewitness identifications; the task force is headed by former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice David Borden and has recommended that police start using sequential photo lineups as opposed to side-by-side lineups. Read more here.

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


Weekly Update: Coincidence Is Not the Standard and DNA Database Expansion

Chelsea — February 03, 2012 @ 10:10 AM — Comments (1)

Missouri Man, Clayton Price, Exonerated.

Clayton D. Price of Taney County, MO, served seven years for a sexual assault he did not commit until his conviction was overturned last Thursday. Price was wrongfully convicted in March 2004 for sexually abusing his fiancée’s six-year-old daughter.  According to the Innocence Project, these allegations stemmed from the little girl’s paternal grandmother, who was seeking full custody of the child. Price’s conviction was overturned by St. Louis Circuit Judge J. Edward Sweeney, leaving Price free. The Midwest Innocence Project assisted Mr.Price in getting his conviction overturned. Read more here.

NY State Senate Passes DNA Database Expansion Bill

We have mentioned the DNA database expansion  bill suggested by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo several times in recent weeks (see here and background on the bill here). Governor Cuomo said of the bill, “this critical crime fighting resource embraces technology to help protect the innocent and convict the guilty. I call on the Assembly to [pass the bill] so I can sign this bill into law immediately.”

While the measure is a step in the right direction for justice system reform it is not enough in the eyes of New York State Bar Association President Vincent E. Doyle III. Doyle released a statement January 31 saying, “we agree with the Governor that expanding the DNA database would help exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty. However, a State Bar report found that wrongful convictions are caused by a number of other factors as well.” Doyle went on to suggest that the Legislature consider instituting more reforms. He listed the following as measures he hopes the Legislature will pursue:

  • requiring the videotape recording of police interrogations;
  • addressing mistaken-identity testimony with changes in how police lineups are conducted; strengthening a prosecutor’s obligation to turn over evidence favorable to the defense;
  • allowing a defendant who had pled guilty to a crime he or she did not commit to petition a judge to obtain a DNA test

The Nation’s 140th Death Row Exonoree Goes Free

Joe D’Ambrosia was finally exonerated last week in Ohio. D’Ambrosio was the 140th person to be exonerated from U.S. Death Rows.

While the proof of his innocence is wonderful, the detail of D’Ambrosia’s case isn’t very uplifting. According to Amnesty International, “Mr. D’Ambrosio’s exoneration came about because of a chance meeting with a Catholic priest who was visiting another inmate.  The priest, Rev. Neil Kookoothe, happened to have legal training and decided to look into the case himself.  As Kevin Werner, executive director of Ohioans to Stop Executions, put it: ‘Coincidence is not the standard we should be comfortable with when our justice system is seeking to execute people.’” Amnesty noted that Ohio conducts the second-most executions of any state in the U.S., but because of issues with “botched executions and wrongful convictions” the state has formed a special task force to investigate the way Ohio conducts capitol punishment.

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


Weekly Update

Chelsea — January 19, 2012 @ 11:56 AM — Comments (1)

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo called for an expansion of the DNA database in his State of the State speech this month. His call would expand DNA collection to include all felony convictions and all penal law misdemeanors, expanding the DNA database which currently only collects samples for less than half of all criminal convictions in New York state.

Not surprisingly, both the District Attorney’s office and other law enforcement offices support this plan. But according to an article in the Poughkeepsie Journal, “civil libertarians oppose the legislation because they believe it would infringe on people’s rights and they don’t think there is enough oversight and quality control in the system.”  While the focus of this proposed expansion seems to be that an expanded DNA database would allow for greater and more effective prosecution, the revelation of wrongful convictions that this would bring about was also mentioned. Read more here.

A week has passed without any movement on William Dillon’s Compensation Bill. The bill was passed by the Senate last week, and was read in the House last Tuesday but has made no progress since then. We’re hoping that the House will take up and pass this bill soon, to get Dillon the compensation owed to him.

Thomas E. Haynesworth of Richmond, VA, is facing a similar battle with obtaining the compensation that he expected after serving 27 years for a rape he did not commit. Haynesworth has received a proposal for a compensation package, one that could potentially be worth more than $800,000, but he was disappointed with this amount. In Virginia, exonorees are not entitled to compensation but must have that compensation approved by the General Assembly. They may receive up to $40,000 per year served in prison, but there is a cap of 20 years. So, Haynesworth cannot receive compensation for the full amount he time he spent as an innocent man in prison. While this situation is not ideal, Haynesworth is lucky at least to be dealing with this issue in Viginia, one of only 27 states that provides compensation to their exonorees. Read more here.

legislation,post-conviction,Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,


Three Juries Got It Wrong, Three Judges Got It Right – Finally

Susan — December 21, 2011 @ 4:02 PM — Comments (0)

If ever a case showed the power of a confession on a jury, Juan Rivera’s is the one. Even though Rivera later recanted, his confession trumped physical evidence pointing to another perpetrator. It also outweighed common sense requiring jurors to buy into the prosecution’s ludicrous theory that the Waukegan, IL 11-year-old victim was sexually active. The mind-blowing icing on the cake, however, is that three separate juries came back with a guilty verdict.

If ever a case demonstrated the need for police and prosecutors to use caution during interrogations, to videotape those interrogations, and to guard against jumping to conclusions, Juan Rivera’s is the one. He has served 20 of his 39 years behind bars for another’s crime, the 1992 rape and murder of Holly Staker. And it took a ruling from an Illinois Appellate Court (a unanimous ruling) to find Rivera’s case so defective that River’s conviction was “unjustified and cannot stand.”

“For 19 years, someone who killed Holly Staker has been on the loose – assuming he’s still alive, and yet then prosecution and investigation stopped because they were able to extract a confession that should have been seen immediately as unreliable and uncorroborated,” said Prof. Lawrence Marshall, co-founder, Center on Wrongful Convictions.

Although Rivera hopes to be free by Christmas, his family is not sure that will happen. The Lake County State’s Attorney has not yet decided whether or not to appeal the court’s decision.  The justices called the prosecutors’ explanation for the DNA results  “highly improbable,” adding that they had “distort[ed] to an absurd degree” the witness’s testimony. Read more about it and see the video at Local and Huff Post.

In another infamous case, murder charges against Jerry Hobbs were dropped last year after he spent five years in jail awaiting trial for the stabbing death of his eight-year-old daughter, Laura Hobbs, and her friend, Krystal Tobias, 9.

Prosecutors claimed that semen discovered in Laura Hobbs’ remains got there because she played in a wooded spot frequented by couples engaging in sexual activities. But DNA testing later matched Jorge Torrez, who has since been convicted and sentenced to life in prison for another rape. He also faces a separate 2009 murder charge.

Meanwhile, as an upshot to the Rivera and Hobbs cases as well as other eerily similar cases where DNA evidence exists from a nonidentified outside source, head Lake County Prosecutor Michael Waller is calling it quits as noted in the Chicago Tribune’s Chicagoland. He leaves behind him a wake of messy, unsettled cases that will likely cost the county dearly.

“Whoever takes over the office is going to inherit these messes,” said Jed Stone, a Waukegan attorney representing Bennie Starks, a target of one of the controversial prosecutions.

Waller’s not the only one leaving. Assistant State’s Attorney Michael Mermel recently announced his impending retirement as well. Sheriff Mark Curran called for him to be fired after his controversial comments about DNA evidence appeared in The New York Times.

“What troubles me deeply is the reputation that Lake County is gaining for being this hotbed of wrongful convictions,” said Mike Nerheim, a Republican candidate who served under Waller for seven years. “The job of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not just convictions.”

The outcome of these local races may indicate how strongly the public is reacting to these miscarriages of justice. We will keep you posted.

exoneration,justice, , , , , ,

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