Thursday, January 31, 2019

Elite police officers Antoine Quirin and Nicolas Redouane: France: Toronto Star columnist Rosie Dimanno's take on a Canadian woman's allegations of gang rape - a "mishandled" "compromised" investigation, and tortuous legal proceedings - which finally led to the conviction of twoanti-terrorism police officers..." Spanton stumbled barefoot down the stairs. She’d lost her tights and her glasses and carried her shoes. She was covered in bruises, injuries which would be documented. And as Spanton repeatedly told cops at the front desk, she’d just been raped by two, perhaps three officers, the conversation stilted by both sides unable to understand the other’s language. All this time later, after years of tortuous legal proceedings — charges filed, charges dropped, a humiliating re-enactment of the crime at another hearing, crucial evidence disappearing, deleted, destroyed, a massive undertaking to collect blood samples from more than 100 officers who worked in the building for the purpose of obtaining DNA, charges reimposed — the two accused have been found guilty by a judge and jury, after eight hours of deliberation, and sentenced to seven years in prison."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The crime scene was never cordoned off. Spanton was, that night — after making her complaint understood, demanding to speak with a female officer — tested for alcohol and drugs while the officers were allowed to go home without submitting to a breathalyzer test. Vital evidence disappeared. Both accused wiping messages and videos from the night off their cellphones. At one point, investigators travelled to Canada to interview Spanton’s friends and relatives, digging around in her personal life, but no such intense probe was undertaken with the accused. It seemed an endless nightmare, with the appeals and the reversals, yet Spanton persevered, coping with the bureaucracy of a foreign country. While the defendants, after being originally suspended, were permitted to return to their jobs."

COMMENTARY: "Guilty verdict in French police gang rape trial a testament to Canadian woman’s perseverance," by Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno, published on January 31 2019.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Elite police officers Antoine Quirin, left, and Nicolas Redouane, were sentenced to seven years in prison."


GIST: "They were heroes. Now they’re convicted rapists. A pair of elite anti-terrorism French cops were on Thursday found guilty in the gang rape of a Canadian tourist five years ago at police headquarters in Paris. 36 Quai des Orfèvres: A fabled address, the building — known simply as “36” — has made appearances in movies and crime fiction. That’s where Emily Spanton told court a group of off-duty officers she’d met took her for a private tour on April 22, 2014, following a night of heavy drinking at a nearby Irish pub. Eighty minutes later, around 4 a.m., Spanton stumbled barefoot down the stairs. She’d lost her tights and her glasses and carried her shoes. She was covered in bruises, injuries which would be documented. And as Spanton repeatedly told cops at the front desk, she’d just been raped by two, perhaps three officers, the conversation stilted by both sides unable to understand the other’s language. All this time later, after years of tortuous legal proceedings — charges filed, charges dropped, a humiliating re-enactment of the crime at another hearing, crucial evidence disappearing, deleted, destroyed, a massive undertaking to collect blood samples from more than 100 officers who worked in the building for the purpose of obtaining DNA, charges reimposed — the two accused have been found guilty by a judge and jury, after eight hours of deliberation, and sentenced to seven years in prison. The two officers are members of the crack Brigade de recherche et d’intervention unit of France’s national police — specializing in anti-terrorism and anti-gang operations — are revered in the country, especially since BRI stormed the Bataclan theatre during a co-ordinated terrorist attack in Paris in November, 2015 that killed 130 people. Assailants had burst into the concert hall while a band was performing, shooting into the audience in sustained volleys and had taken about 20 people hostage when BRI rushed the venue. That members of this prestigious unit would then be accused of gang rape — viol en réunion — stunned and dismayed the nation. In the court proceedings, the officers — Antoine Quirin, 40, and Nicolas Redouane, 49 — weren’t referred to by their full names, their identities protected by a French law that shields law enforcement working in sensitive police jobs. Spanton, who grew up in Toronto, daughter of a high-ranking police officer but now lives in Niagara, waived anonymity. As the verdict was delivered Thursday, one of the defendants shook his head in disbelief while the other wept and collapsed into his lawyer’s arms. They were standing mere feet from Spanton, who also shed tears, according to media reports from inside the Palais de Justice courtroom, situated right next door to “36,” on the bank of the Seine. In his final statement before sentencing, Redouane told the court: “I should never have brought Emily Spanton to the BRI offices. All my life I’ve had good relationships with women. I never, never, never assaulted, attacked or raped Emily Spanton.” Quirin said it has been a “five year nightmare” for him and his family. The trial and its previous iterations were replete with denials and jaw-dropping revelations about how the investigation had been originally mishandled and subsequently compromised, while the public and commentators debated sexual assault prosecutions in the post #MeToo era. At issue was the concept of consent, as both accused insisted that Spanton had willingly participated in events. But Spanton’s testimony had been consistent throughout, even as the 39-year-old woman’s character and lifestyle and sexual habits had been scorched by the defence teams. This, of course, is typical of sexual assault trials everywhere, including Canada — belittling and bullying the complainant. She admitted to getting drunk with the off-duty officers, thus was in no fit state to give consent. Arriving at the BRI’s fifth-floor offices, eager for a private tour, she was forced to drink whiskey, she said, forced to perform oral sex and then raped several times by two, possibly three, men. Taking the stand on the opening day of the trial, two and a half weeks ago, Spanton testified that she was “excited to see the “36.” “They explained the police station had been the subject of films, and made it sound like something I would want to see and I thought that going to a police station would sober me up as there would be plenty of lights and people.” Instead, the offices were empty and dark. It was, she said, “the worst mistake of my life.” Spanton testified she was made to drink more, then forced to her knees and raped as the officers became violent when she wouldn’t go along with their sexual intentions. “They smashed my face against the desk,” she would later state in an interview with French TV. “I was stunned. I was seeing stars. I couldn’t see anything for a while, I couldn’t see them either, they were behind me.” At trial, Spanton said: “I just gave up, just wanted it to be over. I kept my eyes closed.” Spanton testified: “Someone was forcing himself into my mouth. Someone penetrated me. Then someone else. When it finished, I gathered up my belongs, but I couldn’t open the door. I was pulled into another office and everything happened again.” Then told: “Go home.” Quirin initially denied any sexual contact with the victim but changed his story after his DNA was found on Spanton’s underwear. As was the DNA of Redouane DNA from a third person was never identified despite the blood-testing conducted on scores of police employees. During the assault, Redouane had sent a particularly incriminating text message to a colleague. “Hurry up, she’s a swinger.” That message was deleted from his phone but retrieved on the recipient’s mobile. The judge — known as the trial president — said Thursday the court was “convinced by the victim’s steadfast statements” and by “scientific and technical evidence.” Prosecutor Philippe Courroye, in his closing arguments, said Spanton had been “easy prey” for the officers. “By taking advantage of a young, drunk foreigner, by treating her as an object, they have gone over to the side of those they pursue. Not policemen but “usurpers, unworthy of their badges, acting in the same way as those they pursue. “They have lied, failed, concealed.” From the outset, the investigation was an inept mess. The crime scene was never cordoned off. Spanton was, that night — after making her complaint understood, demanding to speak with a female officer — tested for alcohol and drugs while the officers were allowed to go home without submitting to a breathalyzer test. Vital evidence disappeared. Both accused wiping messages and videos from the night off their cellphones. At one point, investigators travelled to Canada to interview Spanton’s friends and relatives, digging around in her personal life, but no such intense probe was undertaken with the accused. It seemed an endless nightmare, with the appeals and the reversals, yet Spanton persevered, coping with the bureaucracy of a foreign country. While the defendants, after being originally suspended, were permitted to return to their jobs. Before leaving the stand, Spanton was asked by the judge what she expected from the court. “I just want to stand up and publicly confront these men. Then I want to move on, close this chapter.” The disgraced officers had been facing a possible sentence of 20 years for gang rape. They were also ordered to pay $23,000 in damages to Spanton. They have 10 days to file an appeal."

The entire column can be read at:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/01/31/guilty-verdict-in-french-police-gang-rape-trial-a-testament-to-canadian-womans-perseverence.html?source=newsletter&utm_source=ts_nl&utm_medium=email&utm_email=B06CE11218FAE36A81180C431CF6E0DA&utm_campaign=teve_9267&utm_content=a01

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Back in action: On-Going: CBC's Passionate eye documentary slams the 'Reid Technique' of interrogation. Link to the entire video provided.


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: " In 1996, a 14-year-old girl was murdered in Regina. After more than 15 hours of interrogation, police eventually charged three young men with the killing, after each one of them confessed. All three were also innocent. “All I know is for hours on end I said, ‘No, I had nothing to do with it.’ Next thing you know I’m sitting here going, ‘Sure, why not. I did it,’” says Joel Labadie, one of the three men who falsely confessed. Labadie and the others were subjected to a questioning technique known as the Reid model of interrogation, a method employed by police across North America. The tactic is comprised of multiple steps geared toward persuading a guilty person to confess, but all too often, results in innocent suspects offering false confessions. As seen in False Confessions, the Reid model was also used during police interrogations in the Central Park jogger case in New York. These interrogations led to false confessions from five young men who ended up spending years in prison."

----------------------------------------------------------

Watch False Confessions on The Passionate Eye to discover why Canadians
are sometimes pressured to confess to crimes they didn't commit.

 ----------------------------------------------------------

TV  DOCUMENTARY: "False Confessions," produced by 'The Passionate Eye, CBC TV, broadcast on January 5 and 6, 2019.



BACKGROUNDER: Chris Dart (TV and radio producer) writes on the CBC site that: "The Passionate Eye documentary False Confessions follows defence attorney Jane Fisher-Byrialsen and four of her clients, illuminating some of the dubious interrogation techniques — including outright lying — that police use to pressure innocent and vulnerable people into signing confessions for crimes that they didn’t commit. Although laws regarding confessions are different in the United States, where this film is set, there have been many cases involving false confessions in Canada, too.
Canadian law: Here at home, the law also permits the police to lie during interrogations. A confession has to have been made voluntarily, but that’s where things can get a bit murky. “The judges have to make a judgment call as to whether the circumstances of the interrogation were too oppressive or coercive for the confession to be considered voluntary,” says Lisa Dufraimont, an associate dean at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School If police lie to a suspect while they are in a state of stress, they risk having the confession deemed involuntary and thrown out in court. “Saying, ‘We tested your footprints and they turned out to be yours. Tell us if it was you.’ That’s probably not going to get a confession ruled involuntary,” explains Dufraimont.
But, she says, if the police were to lie and tell suspect whose mother had just been killed that they had found the suspect’s DNA on the murder weapon, and suggest that maybe the suspect had killed her in a blackout state, then a confession — under these circumstances — would likely get thrown out.
Questionable methods:  In 1996, a 14-year-old girl was murdered in Regina. After more than 15 hours of interrogation, police eventually charged three young men with the killing, after each one of them confessed. All three were also innocent. “All I know is for hours on end I said, ‘No, I had nothing to do with it.’ Next thing you know I’m sitting here going, ‘Sure, why not. I did it,’” says Joel Labadie, one of the three men who falsely confessed. Labadie and the others were subjected to a questioning technique known as the Reid model of interrogation, a method employed by police across North America. The tactic is comprised of multiple steps geared toward persuading a guilty person to confess, but all too often, results in innocent suspects offering false confessions. As seen in False Confessions, the Reid model was also used during police interrogations in the Central Park jogger case in New York. These interrogations led to false confessions from five young men who ended up spending years in prison."
Mental illness and false confession: Romeo Phillion spent 31 years in prison for a murder that he didn’t commit. In trouble with the law on an unrelated matter, Phillion had confessed to murdering Leopold Roy, a firefighter from Ottawa. Although his confession was given freely, Phillion recanted it to another police officer on the same night — and repeatedly thereafter. Unfortunately, the damage was done, and because of his confession and faulty eyewitness testimony, he was found guilty by a jury. More than twenty years later, a police investigation report surfaced that proved Phillion had, in fact, been in Trenton at the time of Roy’s murder, and his case was finally re-opened. Phillion was eventually released on bail in 2003, and his murder charge was dropped in 2010. Experts believed Phillion suffered from antisocial personality disorder and had a desire for notoriety. Had police recognized Phillion’s condition and offered mental health services, his false confession may have been prevented."

The Mr. Big sting; The made-in-Canada form of deception known as the “Mr. Big” sting was pioneered by the RCMP in the early 1990s. The details vary from case to case, but it works something like this: An undercover officer, posing as a gangster, befriends a murder suspect. He gets the suspect to do some low-level work, like making cash deposits or delivering packages for his “gang.” Eventually, the officer offers to introduce the suspect to his boss, “Mr. Big,” who is actually another undercover officer. Mr. Big then offers the suspect help with his legal troubles, but says that before he can do so, he needs a show of goodwill — in the form of a confession. One of the most famous Mr. Big confessions was proven false. Andy Rose was convicted of the 1983 killing of two German tourists in B.C., based on a confession he’d given during a Mr. Big sting eight years later in 1999. Rose, a recovering alcoholic, was plied with beer during the sting. He was later exonerated in light of DNA evidence. Although false confessions do still happen in Canada, police methods and the legal system are changing. Today, Canadian police forces are turning away from the Reid method and focusing more on gathering information during questioning instead of chasing a confession. Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada also ruled that confessions from “Mr. Big” operations cannot stand up by themselves. The courts now require additional, corroborating information to make these confessions relevant."
------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 The entire backgrounder  can be found at the link below:
https://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/m_features/canadians-are-sometimes-pressured-to-confess-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Back in action: On-Going: Massachusetts judge hearing a consolidated test case that involved more than 400 Breathalyzer exams throughout the state, rules the tests can’t be used until the Office of Alcohol Testing proves its results are accurate..." “I think it’s the right decision,” said David Levinson, a Framingham lawyer. “There have been so many issues with the various testing devices. There has to be some kind of accountability.” It would be wrong for people charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor to be jailed when the tests could be flawed, said another Framingham-based attorney, Daniel Cappetta. “Right now, there’s serious cause to doubt the scientific results,” he said."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The Springfield Republican reported Wednesday that Brennan said the Office of Alcohol Testing must undergo major reforms, including providing additional training for staff and instituting rules for complying with discovery requests similar to those followed by the state police’s crime management unit. The decision comes after a judge found that the office failed to release evidence to lawyers representing drunk-driving defendants that showed about 400 Breathalyzer results were flawed. The technical leader of the office was fired, and prosecutors tossed evidence from thousands of drunk-driving cases as a result."

--------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Breathalyzer court ruling roils prosecutors, police," by reporter Norman Miller, published by  Metro West Daily News on January 11, 2019.

GIST: It would be wrong for people charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor to be jailed when the tests could be flawed, said Daniel Cappetta, a Framingham-based defense attorney.
Prosecutors trying to get convictions for people suspected of driving drunk have seen their jobs get much more difficult after a Massachusetts judge ruled this week that Breathalyzer tests cannot be used as evidence in court. Judge Robert Brennan, who was hearing a consolidated test case that involved more than 400 Breathalyzer exams throughout the state, ruled the tests can’t be used until the Office of Alcohol Testing proves it results are accurate. Brennan’s ruling is being hailed by MetroWest defense attorneys as fair. “I think it’s the right decision,” said David Levinson, a Framingham lawyer. “There have been so many issues with the various testing devices. There has to be some kind of accountability.” It would be wrong for people charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor to be jailed when the tests could be flawed, said another Framingham-based attorney, Daniel Cappetta. “Right now, there’s serious cause to doubt the scientific results,” he said. “Judge Brennan has rightly decided these tests shouldn’t be used to take anyone’s liberty.” A Breathalyzer is a device for estimating blood alcohol content from a breath sample. It is illegal throughout the United States to drive a vehicle with a breath alcohol concentration of .08 percent or higher. The Springfield Republican reported Wednesday that Brennan said the Office of Alcohol Testing must undergo major reforms, including providing additional training for staff and instituting rules for complying with discovery requests similar to those followed by the state police’s crime management unit. The decision comes after a judge found that the office failed to release evidence to lawyers representing drunk-driving defendants that showed about 400 Breathalyzer results were flawed. The technical leader of the office was fired, and prosecutors tossed evidence from thousands of drunk-driving cases as a result. The office plans to apply for national accreditation by August.
In a statement, Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan said her office is monitoring that accreditation process. “We are reviewing yesterday’s ruling,” she said, according to the statement. “Moving forward, we will continue to be in contact with OAT regarding the date for their compliance with the judge’s order.” Bellingham Police Chief Gerard Daigle said the news will change how drunken-driving cases are handled in court. According to state law, if someone refuses a Breathalyzer test, that cannot be revealed in court so as to not prejudice a judge or jury. Daigle said that forces officers to testify to other evidence to prove someone was driving drunk.
Now, Daigle said, every case will be like that. “I expect to see more of an emphasis on observations of the subject, both at the scene and at the station while being booked and in custody,” he said. “Recognition of the signs and symptoms of impairment will be crucial. It’s similar to what is needed if the tests were refused.” But Natick police spokeswoman Lt. Cara Rossi said it won’t change how officers handle drunk-driving investigations, and that Breathalyzers will still be administered. “It is not going to have an effect on how we conduct business,” she said. “Obviously, roadside, nothing will change. This will be an issue in court, but not for the men and women out there trying to prevent tragedies by recognizing and arresting impaired drivers. We will continue to do our jobs to the best of our ability and continue to try to make our roadways as safe as possible for all of us.” In Marlborough, police spokesman Sgt. Daniel Campbell said police are waiting for direction from the District Attorney’s Office on how to handle the ruling."

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20190111/breathalyzer-court-ruling-roils-prosecutors-police

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Back in action; On-going: Florida; $2.00 field tests and white elephants: 'Reason' exposes the arrest of an innocent man caught by body cam footage in a post by Cj. Ciaramella headed: "Watch a Florida Cop Botch a Drug Field Test on Video, Then Arrest an Innocent Man... The same officer was fired last year after video of him allegedly planting drugs in a car during a traffic stop emerged."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In the body cam footage obtained by Reason of Vann's arrest last year, Wester searches Vann's truck after pulling him over for a traffic violation and appears to find a small plastic baggie in the vehicle's center console. "Honesty is going to go a long way with me," Wester tells Vann, holding up the baggie. "Have you ever seen this before?" "No, no what is that?" Vann says. "Where'd you get that?""The center console," Wester says as he walks back to his cruiser to perform a roadside test of the baggie for methamphetamines. "There ain't no way, man," a distraught Vann says. "Oh my god, you gotta be fucking kidding me." Wester then uses a Nark II field test for methamphetamines and MDMA. According to the manufacturer, the field test "will develop an IMMEDIATE (within 2 seconds) Dark Blue color as a positive reaction after breakage and agitation of the 3rd ampoule. If the color development is an immediate Pink slowly transforming to Lavender, you DO NOT have either Methamphetamine or MDMA." Wester shakes the field test for about 10 seconds, checking it several times, but it remains red. Looking right at the small bag of pinkish red liquid, Wester then says "blue" and returns to Vann to tell him the substance tested presumptively positive for methamphetamines. The field test occurs at roughly the 3:45 mark in the video above. The Jackson County Sheriff's Office confirmed to Reason that it uses the Nark II field test and that a positive result for methamphetamines should turn the solution blue."

POST: "Watch a Florida Cop Botch a Drug Field Test on Video, Then Arrest an Innocent Man The same officer was fired last year after video of him allegedly planting drugs in a car during a traffic stop emerged," by reporter C.J. Ciaramella, published by 'by Reason; on  January 17, 2019.


GIST: Body camera footage obtained by Reason appears to show a now-fired Florida sheriff's deputy blatantly lying about the results of a roadside drug test during a traffic stop last year. The video shows the April 17, 2018, traffic stop of Florida resident Steve Vann by former Jackson County Sheriff's deputy Zachary Wester. Vann was subsequently charged with possession of methamphetamines and paraphernalia as a result of the traffic stop, but state prosecutors later dropped those charges as part of a review of more than 250 cases that Wester was involved in since his hiring in 2016. State prosecutors have dropped criminal charges in more than 100 cases involving Wester after body cam footage released last September showed the officer allegedly planting drugs in a car during another traffic stop. A Florida judge also vacated the sentences of eight people whose convictions were based on evidence and testimony by Wester. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement launched an investigation into Wester, and several people have filed federal lawsuits against him. In the body cam footage obtained by Reason of Vann's arrest last year, Wester searches Vann's truck after pulling him over for a traffic violation and appears to find a small plastic baggie in the vehicle's center console. "Honesty is going to go a long way with me," Wester tells Vann, holding up the baggie. "Have you ever seen this before?" "No, no what is that?" Vann says. "Where'd you get that?""The center console," Wester says as he walks back to his cruiser to perform a roadside test of the baggie for methamphetamines. "There ain't no way, man," a distraught Vann says. "Oh my god, you gotta be fucking kidding me." Wester then uses a Nark II field test for methamphetamines and MDMA. According to the manufacturer, the field test "will develop an IMMEDIATE (within 2 seconds) Dark Blue color as a positive reaction after breakage and agitation of the 3rd ampoule. If the color development is an immediate Pink slowly transforming to Lavender, you DO NOT have either Methamphetamine or MDMA." Wester shakes the field test for about 10 seconds, checking it several times, but it remains red. Looking right at the small bag of pinkish red liquid, Wester then says "blue" and returns to Vann to tell him the substance tested presumptively positive for methamphetamines. The field test occurs at roughly the 3:45 mark in the video above. The Jackson County Sheriff's Office confirmed to Reason that it uses the Nark II field test and that a positive result for methamphetamines should turn the solution blue. Wester presses Vann to admit that he knew the meth was in his car, but Vann, breaking into tears at several points, continues to deny knowing where it came from. He appears confused and devastated throughout the exchange. "I'm going to have to take your vehicle, too," Wester tells Vann. "Listen buddy, I don't think you're a bad guy." At one point, at around 11 minutes 50 seconds into the footage, Wester drops some of Vann's personal effects into the trunk of his police cruiser, at which point he picks up the field test and looks at it again. It's still clearly red. The Tallahassee Democrat first reported last September that local prosecutors were dropping dozens of cases involving Wester after body cam footage appeared to show him planting a small baggie of meth in a woman's car during a traffic stop. The Democrat later published accounts by several other people who claimed they were framed by Wester during traffic stops. Before joining the Jackson County Sheriff's Office, Wester was fired from his previous job at the Liberty County Sheriff's Office for for inappropriate relations with women, the newspaper reported. In 2016, The New York Times reported that the $2 roadside field tests that Wester and countless other police officers around the country use to establish probable cause to arrest someone for drug possession are unreliable and easy to misinterpret:

There are no established error rates for the field tests, in part because their accuracy varies so widely depending on who is using them and how. Data from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement lab system show that 21 percent of evidence that the police listed as methamphetamine after identifying it was not methamphetamine, and half of those false positives were not any kind of illegal drug at all. In one notable Florida episode, Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies produced 15 false positives for methamphetamine in the first seven months of 2014. When we examined the department's records, they showed that officers, faced with somewhat ambiguous directions on the pouches, had simply misunderstood which colors indicated a positive result.
Such tests are not admissible evidence in court in most jurisdictions in the U.S. Instead, samples are sent to state forensic labs for verification. Many of Wester's victims had prior criminal records for things like drug possession. They were, in other words, easy targets. No one would believe their word against a police officer's. If Wester hadn't been wearing a body cam, and if he hadn't been sloppy enough to film his amateur sleight-of-hand attempts and lies, all of their charges would likely stand, and he would still be patrolling the streets."

The entire post can be read at:
https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/17/watch-a-florida-cop-lie-on-video-about-a
 
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 


Monday, January 28, 2019

Susan Neill-Fraser: Colin McLaren's new book 'Southern Justice' reviewed by author Andrew L. Urban... "Colin McLaren’s cold case book into the 2009 disappearance and suspected murder of Bob Chappell and the 2010 conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser for his murder comes after years of agitation and disquiet about that conviction. It’s an itch that won’t be calmed. It’s riveting, infuriating, exciting; I couldn’t put it down."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "As we close the book after the last page, all of them filled with evidence, much of it seeing the light of day for the first time, the title Southern Justice takes on its full meaning; it could just as easily be titled Rough Justice. And it’s not over by any means. McLaren will be cross examined on February 5, by the DPP in the Hobart Supreme Court, over his role in a signed declaration he obtained from Meaghan Vass, admitting her presence on the yacht with ‘two men I won’t name.’ He believes his powder is dry. Only then will Justice Brett determine whether Neill-Fraser can run a full appeal against her conviction. And history will be made."

----------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEW: 'Southern Justice' by Colin McClaren, reviewed by Andrew L. Urban on the Wrongful Convictions Report, published on  January 29, 2019 under the heading, "Sue Neill-Fraser & Southern Justice: the itch that won’t be calmed. (Hachette, Jan 29, 2019, rrp $32.99, ebook $14.99);

GIST: "Colin McLaren’s cold case book into the 2009 disappearance and suspected murder of Bob Chappell and the 2010 conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser for his murder comes after years of agitation and disquiet about that conviction. It’s an itch that won’t be calmed. It’s riveting, infuriating, exciting; I couldn’t put it down. Recognised as one of Australia’s finest detectives, task force team leaders and trainer of detectives – in the 1980s and 90s – McLaren was also an undercover cop, successfully infiltrating the Australian Mafia. He is now a journalist and author. Effectively blending his ace detective and writing skills, McLaren takes the reader on an urgent journey to thoroughly investigate the people and events surrounding the disappearance of Bob Chappell sometime on January 26/27, 2009. McLaren’s decades of experience are neatly contrasted in the chapter describing his interview with the professionally underwhelming (now retired) Inspector Peter Powell who led the flawed 2009 investigation. Ever since the media started asking questions – and there were quite a few of them, from 60 Minutes to 7.30, The Australian and Women’s Weekly to many others right up till today – the Tasmanian legal establishment became aggressively defensive. It began when Eve Ash produced her feature length documentary, Shadow of Doubt, which had its premiere at Hobart’s State Theatre on July 31, 2013. She had spent years making it, showing up the ineptitude of the police investigation. McLaren’s book turbo-charges those criticisms and adds a massive payload in the form of evidence: hard facts, all corroborated. Such as the crucial issue of the DNA of homeless Meaghan Vass, found on the yacht, which the DPP tried to dismiss as having been transferred on a copper’s boot. What the DPP didn’t tell the jury – nor the High Court – was that the DNA came from Meaghan’s fluid, the size of a little puddle (not a tiny speck). And how vital facts led McLaren to a group of thieves who were never – but should have been – considered persons of interest in the investigation. In a nutshell, a yacht break and enter that went horribly wrong. He shows why so many believe Sue Neill-Fraser to be innocent, while the killers are still free. Needless to say, this sort of information makes TasPol fidgety. Referring to his work on the new documentary series made by Eve Ash (co-produced with CJZ) for Seven Network, Undercurrent, he complains of TasPol being more than fidgety: “In 2017, the police were applying pressure to those who dared have a different opinion about the death of Bob Chappell.” As we close the book after the last page, all of them filled with evidence, much of it seeing the light of day for the first time, the title Southern Justice takes on its full meaning; it could just as easily be titled Rough Justice. And it’s not over by any means. McLaren will be cross examined on February 5, by the DPP in the Hobart Supreme Court, over his role in a signed declaration he obtained from Meaghan Vass, admitting her presence on the yacht with ‘two men I won’t name.’ He believes his powder is dry. Only then will Justice Brett determine whether Neill-Fraser can run a full appeal against her conviction. And history will be made."

The entire review can be read at
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/01/29/sue-neill-fraser-southern-justice-the-itch-that-wont-be-calmed/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

Back in action: On-Going: Marshall Project post points out a flaw in St Louis prosecutors blacklist of police officers who are too untrustworthy to testify in court: "the most everyday forms of dishonesty by officers (and crime lab employees) might never land them on an exclusion list."


"PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "In the racially divided city of St. Louis the chief prosecutor has embraced a controversial tool to hold police accountable: blacklisting cops who she says are too untrustworthy to testify in court. So far, Kim Gardner has dropped more than 100 cases that relied on statements from the 29 officers who got on the list for alleged lying, abuse or corruption. And she won’t accept new cases or search-warrant requests from them, either. From Philadelphia to Houston to Seattle, district attorneys recently elected on platforms of criminal justice reform are building similar databases of their own. Often known as “do not call” lists, they are also called “exclusion lists” or “Brady lists” after a famous Supreme Court decision requiring prosecutors to disclose to defense lawyers information about unreliable police officers or other holes in their cases."

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Prosecutors and some police officials note that DAs may not be aware of low-level efforts to mislead on the part of rogue officers; due to the sheer volume of cases that district attorneys’ offices handle, individual prosecutors say they can’t go back and reinvestigate everything the police are telling them. That means that the most everyday forms of dishonesty by officers (and crime lab employees) might never land them on an exclusion list."

--------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "One Way To Deal With Cops Who Lie? Blacklist Them, Some DAs Say,"  by Justin George and Eli Hagar, published by The Marshall Project.

SUB-HEADING: "Newly elected prosecutors won’t take cases from unreliable officers—but are these no-call lists fair?"



GIST: "In the racially divided city of St. Louis the chief prosecutor has embraced a controversial tool to hold police accountable: blacklisting cops who she says are too untrustworthy to testify in court.
So far, Kim Gardner has dropped more than 100 cases that relied on statements from the 29 officers who got on the list for alleged lying, abuse or corruption. And she won’t accept new cases or search-warrant requests from them, either. From Philadelphia to Houston to Seattle, district attorneys recently elected on platforms of criminal justice reform are building similar databases of their own. Often known as “do not call” lists, they are also called “exclusion lists” or “Brady lists” after a famous Supreme Court decision requiring prosecutors to disclose to defense lawyers information about unreliable police officers or other holes in their cases. The goal is to help prosecutors avoid bringing cases built on evidence from officers who are likely to be challenged in court, these new DAs say. Having a centralized list at a district attorney’s office, they say, allows for the gathering of institutional knowledge, so that if one prosecutor on staff knows about a bad cop, all the prosecutors do. But the strategy has infuriated police unions and some law-enforcement officials, who say they should get a say in who’s named on the lists—or else crime victims will pay the price. “Kim Gardner is saying that when you dial 911, you’re playing 911 roulette: You may get an officer who’s on her list and who can’t give you justice,” said Jeff Roorda, spokesman and business manager for the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association. Prosecutors who’ve adopted exclusion lists counter that victims rely on officers to be able to testify about the evidence they’ve collected and the witnesses they’ve interviewed without being challenged on integrity grounds. Supporters of the lists say that officers are typically included based on documented instances of lying on the stand or in their police reports, not rumors. And under police-friendly state laws and employment contracts negotiated by powerful unions, cops have a variety of legal opportunities to clear their names. “As elected prosecutors, we have the discretion to choose whether to entertain certain cases from certain individuals,” Gardner said in an interview. “Our obligation is to evaluate the credibility of any witness, regardless of whether they're police.” “We have people whose liberty is at stake,” she said. Exclusion lists are not entirely a new phenomenon. But in the past, they worked more like a grapevine, with anecdotes about cops shared among line prosecutors case-by-case. DA’s offices would discreetly inform police departments about officers with credibility issues, and those individuals would just as discreetly be reassigned to desk jobs. In a city like Baltimore, which struggles to maintain police credibility in the black community, exclusion lists date back a decade. In 2008, the elected prosecutor, Patricia Jessamy, listed 15 current or former officers her office deemed not reliable enough to call as witnesses in court cases. Police union leaders called the move unfair to officers, saying they are often subject to false complaints. Judging should be left to courts or administrative tribunals, they said. Prosecutors responded that those processes of determining guilt often took years. Baltimore’s exclusion list forced the police to assign officers to desk duties, where they couldn’t make arrests or have other contact with the public. Due to the bad blood the policy created between cops and prosecutors, it was abolished in 2010 by Jessamy’s elected successor.But the spectre of the list hangs over frigid police-prosecutor relations to this day. DAs still factor in the credibility of officers when mulling over cases, and the current prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, is actively considering reconstituting a list, said her chief deputy, Michael Schatzow. The Baltimore police union did not respond to requests for comment. The city has dealt with a spate of high-profile allegations of police abuse and corruption, from the in-custody death of Freddie Gray in 2015 to a group of police officers who were convicted in the last year of robbing people. Especially in the black community, the lists can help reassure frustrated citizens who believe that too many police officers have gotten away with misconduct, proponents say. While landing on a list may not get an officer fired, it is a roadblock to advancement. “There has to be some level of balance where you’re not ostracizing police officers who are working hard at making their cities and communities safer, and also some way for a city to not go through what Baltimore has had to deal with,” said Baltimore City Councilman Brandon Scott. There are challenges to implementing do-not-call databases successfully. Officers who have committed wrongdoing in other states or counties may be difficult to identify, for example. And in many parts of the country, prosecutors are not given full access to police departments’ files. In a handful of states, they are banned from seeing certain disciplinary records altogether, effectively preventing many DAs from maintaining a comprehensive list of bad cops. Prosecutors and some police officials note that DAs may not be aware of low-level efforts to mislead on the part of rogue officers; due to the sheer volume of cases that district attorneys’ offices handle, individual prosecutors say they can’t go back and reinvestigate everything the police are telling them. That means that the most everyday forms of dishonesty by officers (and crime lab employees) might never land them on an exclusion list. Ronal Serpas, executive director of Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime & Incarceration, an advocacy group of more than 200 police chiefs and prosecutors, said a better solution than blacklists would be for district attorneys to urge police leaders to implement “one and done” policies. Such rules would require immediate firing for any work-related lie. Serpas said he followed that policy when he ran both the Nashville and New Orleans police departments. “You don’t need to have a ‘Brady no call’ list if the police department is terminating people,” he said. Chris Magnus, the police chief in Tucson, Arizona, says that’s easier said than done. “If I had my way, officers who lie wouldn’t just be put on a list, they’d be fired, and also not allowed to work in any other jurisdiction as a police officer ever again,” said Magnus, who says he hands over a list of problem officers to prosecutors. “But unfortunately, we have to allow them back into the workplace” due to union contracts. “It frustrates the hell out of me,” he said, “that we have employees receiving full pay but who can’t really function as full police officers.”"

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/01/17/one-way-to-deal-with-cops-who-lie-blacklist-them-some-das-say?ref=hp-1-111

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Back in action: On-Going: (Faulty forensics); An article published by The American Conservative by Arthur Rizer and Marc Hyden) explaining, "Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Death Penalty," references the role played by "faulty forensics" in erroneous convictions - and buttresses its arguments with several case this Blog has followed over the years. (Ray Krone and Carlos de Luna)..." More often than not, prosecutorial misconduct, mistaken eyewitness testimony, coerced confessions, inept defense attorneys, and faulty forensics are behind these erroneous convictions. In fact, forensic analyses that were once considered a near-perfect science have since proven to be unreliable, and may have even led to wrongful executions."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "There is a growing list of examples demonstrating how easily someone can be wrongly placed on death row, and Ray Krone’s case is one such cautionary tale. He served honorably as an Air Force sergeant, and, after his tenure, began working for the U.S. Postal Service. Up until then, he had never been arrested. That changed one day when he was accused of murdering a waitress at a nearby bar, despite being home at the time. No evidence connected him to the crime—save for a mangled bite mark on the victim’s body that an “expert” linked to Krone using bite-mark analysis. He was even dubbed the “snaggletooth killer.” Krone’s defense counsel was underfunded and ill-prepared. Meanwhile, the prosecutor withheld evidence, and consequently Krone was convicted and sentenced to die. Years passed, and researchers eventually discovered DNA evidence, which was presented in court. The new finding identified a known criminal as the likely culprit. As a result, Krone was exonerated, but not before losing 10 years of his life. Unfortunately, his story is not unique. Krone is one of over 160 individuals who have been wrongly convicted, sentenced to die, and ultimately freed from prison since 1973. That equates to roughly one erroneous conviction and release for every nine executions. A 2014 study by Samuel R. Gross estimates that at least 4.1 percent of those sentenced to die are likely innocent, suggesting that this problem may be more pervasive than many think. More often than not, prosecutorial misconduct, mistaken eyewitness testimony, coerced confessions, inept defense attorneys, and faulty forensics are behind these erroneous convictions. In fact, forensic analyses that were once considered a near-perfect science have since proven to be unreliable, and may have even led to wrongful executions. It is impossible to know how many innocent people have been executed, but Carlos DeLuna might be one of those pitiable people. He was convicted of murdering a convenience store clerk, though no physical evidence linked him to the crime. Detectives failed to follow basic crime scene procedures, and the prosecution largely relied on the eyewitness testimony of one man who later admitted that he couldn’t readily distinguish people of Hispanic descent. After being accused, DeLuna identified a police informant named Carlos Hernandez as the true killer. Hernandez had been arrested dozens of times, looked similar to DeLuna, and considerable evidence pointed in his direction. On multiple occasions, Hernandez even bragged about committing the murder and the wrong Carlos taking the fall. Despite all of this, DeLuna was executed. Conservatives take great pride in championing the sanctity of life and respecting its intrinsic value, but a death penalty system that repeatedly and unnecessarily risks innocent lives does neither.""

---------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Death Penalty," by  Arthur Rizer and Marc Hyden, published by The American Conservative on January 10, 2019.  (Thanks to the Marshall Project for drawing the story to our attention. HL);  (Arthur Rizer is the criminal justice and civil liberties policy director for the R Street Institute and adjunct professor of law at George Mason University Law School. Marc Hyden is the Southeast region director for the R Street Institute. This article was supported by a grant from the R Street Institute.) Wikipedia informs us that: The American Conservative (TAC) is a bi-monthly magazine founded in 2002 and published by the American Ideas Institute. The publication states that it exists to: promote a conservatism that opposes unchecked power in government and business; promote the flourishing of families and communities through vibrant markets and free people; and embrace realism and restraint in foreign affairs based on America's national interests.

SUB-HEADING: :The state is not God, and capital punishment is not infallible."



GIST: "No person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Thus, according to the Fifth Amendment, capital punishment is permissible by the law of the land pursuant to principles of proportionality as laid out in the Eighth Amendment. But should it remain a legal option? If not, who should champion capital punishment’s demise? Should it be the Left, whose answer to most political, philosophical, and moral questions is usually more government? Or should it be the Right, who have long been advocates of government restraint, fiscal responsibility, morality, and public safety? Conservatism is not a single-issue monolith. As such, the political Right’s umbrella covers a gambit of interests and differing points of view—take immigration, trade, or national security for example. Yet the closer conservatism remains to its core values, the more credibility it brings to the table. If conservatives want to convince others that a smaller, more nimble government is best, then those values should be reflected in all policy areas, including the death penalty. 


♦♦♦

"The Founding Fathers explicitly rejected the notion that government is benign. Indeed, skepticism of state power is at the heart of the American identity and conservative philosophy, and for good reason. The United States government has a history of incompetence and malfeasance, ranging from buying $400 hammers to testing the effects of nuclear radiation on U.S. soldiers. Our suspicion of government should not end with the criminal justice system. With respect to capital punishment, the United States has a track record of acting in an arbitrary and biased fashion. Some examples are obvious. For instance, a 19th century North Carolina law mandated the death penalty when a black man raped a white woman, but gave a maximum punishment of one year in prison to a white man for the same crime. While such blatantly racist laws no longer exist, the disproportionality in death penalty cases has long been an issue. For instance, a Justice Department study established that, between 1930 and 1972, when an individual was sentenced to death for the crime of rape (a crime that no longer carries the death penalty), 89 percent of the defendants put to death were black men. More disturbing was the fact that in every rape execution case, the victim was white. Not one person received a death sentence for raping a black woman, despite black women being up to 12 times more likely to be rape victims. Furthermore, a murder victim’s race also seems to influence whether or not the accused will be put to death. Indeed, there is a much higher likelihood of this occurring if the victim is white: over 75 percent of victims in cases that resulted in executions were Caucasian. Additionally, only 15 percent were African American even though they represent a far higher percentage of murder victims. This seems to suggest that, at least through the criminal justice lens, some lives are more valuable than others.The simple matter is that the death penalty has an extensive history of overt bias. As America has been reshaped, thanks in part to the civil rights movement, many laws have since been repealed or reformed that once permitted conspicuous racism within the justice system. In the modern era, execution rates by race have begun to more closely mirror America’s racial makeup. While the U.S. has taken great strides, we still have not been able to banish the bias that permeates the justice system. For it to be fair, justice must be impartial and provide defendants an equal opportunity, regardless of race. Put simply, Lady Justice must not only be blind, but also color blind. The Innocence Project has estimated that anywhere from 2 to 5 percent of currently incarcerated Americans are innocent. Given that there are about two million people behind bars today, that roughly translates into 20,000 wrongly convicted people. If a headline read “20,000 individuals’ guns were wrongfully seized by government agents” conservatives would be infuriated, and rightly so. This makes it all the more curious that such passion for a limited government does not extend to the state’s power over life and death. Conservatives claim to hold the government and its bureaucrats to high standards. We expect the state to be the flag bearer of moral precepts and criticize it when it fails. Indeed, the Republican platform uses the word “moral” nine times to describe topics ranging from healthcare to the environment. And regardless of a citizen’s source of morality, be it secular or ecclesiastical, the government should reflect those standards. Despite this expectation, a core belief among conservatives is that the government is too often inefficient and prone to mistakes. Why should the death penalty’s administration by government bureaucrats be any different? We know individuals are wrongfully convicted—and to be sure, some wrongful convictions are unavoidable. However, when dealing with capital punishment, that inevitability could have irreversible consequences and can never be tolerated in a free and law-abiding society. This is why government should not be in the business of killing its citizens. This view hews to a core conservative tenet, that the government should be inferior to the people from which it derives its power. True, we invest in the state the authority to protect its citizens, which might require lethal protection by police officers in the line of duty. But when it comes to the death penalty, executions aren’t a matter of self-defense or a response to imminent danger. Rather the defendant has already been neutralized as a threat and housed in a correctional facility. In contrast to just wars and police responses, our penal system can and should take all necessary time and devote all appropriate resources to achieve its ultimate end—justice. 

♦♦♦

Death penalty proponents often claim that executions are beneficial because they serve as a general deterrent to murder. According to this argument, people will hesitate to commit the most heinous crimes for fear of capital punishment, which could mean the firing squad, gas chamber, electric chair, lethal injection, or hanging—which are all legal in some states today. The problem with this theory is that there is very little valid data to support it. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, death penalty convictions increased sharply, particularly in the South. Indeed, in 1977 there were just over 400 people on death row in the U.S.; by 1983, that number tripled to 1,200; by 1990, that number had nearly doubled to over 2,300. Each year, death row continued to swell until hitting its maximum at 3,581 in 2001. Since then, the numbers have been slowly decreasing to what they are today at 2,743.
To determine if capital punishment accomplishes its main goal—deterring crime—researchers have conducted several studies, including: 1) comparing murder rates between neighboring states that do and do not have capital punishment; and 2) comparing murder rates in states that have had the death penalty and abolished it. Daniel Nagin and John Pepper’s 2012 publication, “Deterrence and the Death Penalty,” was the largest-ever survey of deterrence studies. After conducting their examination, the authors concluded that no evidence exists to suggest that the death penalty serves as a general deterrent to murder. In fact, when analyzing homicide rates between states that share comparable economic, demographic, and social characteristics, there is no statistically significant difference between murder rates in states with or without the death penalty. Further, the difference between states’ homicide rates before and after abolishing capital punishment tends to undermine death penalty advocates’ arguments. One of the more recent examples of this is New Mexico, which repealed the death penalty in 2009. At that time, the state’s homicide rate was 9.9 per 100,000 citizens. Since repeal, the murder rate has steadily decreased to 6.7 per 100,000 as of 2016. This is especially stunning given that nationally, from 2009 to 2016, there was a slight uptick in murders per capita. Homicide rates have declined in virtually every state that has repealed capital punishment with the exception of Maryland and Illinois, but this is because of increased gang violence isolated in neighborhoods of Baltimore and Chicago. Some argue that the debate over general deterrence is superfluous. For them, the basic argument is this: executions prevent murderers from killing again, and thus are a win. But this ignores the real possibility of accidentally executing an innocent person. It also turns eye-for-an-eye vengeance into one of the death penalty’s goals. Indeed, most capital punishment proponents do not support this kind of retribution for other crimes. Few, if any, advocate for raping a rapist, assaulting an assaulter, or robbing a robber. Yet, when it comes to the death penalty, such otherwise-rejected logic is embraced. Further, if the death penalty’s objective is to prevent individuals from killing again, then sentencing them to life without the chance of release can accomplish that goal.

♦♦♦

There is a growing list of examples demonstrating how easily someone can be wrongly placed on death row, and Ray Krone’s case is one such cautionary tale. He served honorably as an Air Force sergeant, and, after his tenure, began working for the U.S. Postal Service. Up until then, he had never been arrested. That changed one day when he was accused of murdering a waitress at a nearby bar, despite being home at the time. No evidence connected him to the crime—save for a mangled bite mark on the victim’s body that an “expert” linked to Krone using bite-mark analysis. He was even dubbed the “snaggletooth killer.” Krone’s defense counsel was underfunded and ill-prepared. Meanwhile, the prosecutor withheld evidence, and consequently Krone was convicted and sentenced to die. Years passed, and researchers eventually discovered DNA evidence, which was presented in court. The new finding identified a known criminal as the likely culprit. As a result, Krone was exonerated, but not before losing 10 years of his life. Unfortunately, his story is not unique. Krone is one of over 160 individuals who have been wrongly convicted, sentenced to die, and ultimately freed from prison since 1973. That equates to roughly one erroneous conviction and release for every nine executions. A 2014 study by Samuel R. Gross estimates that at least 4.1 percent of those sentenced to die are likely innocent, suggesting that this problem may be more pervasive than many think.
More often than not, prosecutorial misconduct, mistaken eyewitness testimony, coerced confessions, inept defense attorneys, and faulty forensics are behind these erroneous convictions. In fact, forensic analyses that were once considered a near-perfect science have since proven to be unreliable, and may have even led to wrongful executions. It is impossible to know how many innocent people have been executed, but Carlos DeLuna might be one of those pitiable people. He was convicted of murdering a convenience store clerk, though no physical evidence linked him to the crime. Detectives failed to follow basic crime scene procedures, and the prosecution largely relied on the eyewitness testimony of one man who later admitted that he couldn’t readily distinguish people of Hispanic descent. After being accused, DeLuna identified a police informant named Carlos Hernandez as the true killer. Hernandez had been arrested dozens of times, looked similar to DeLuna, and considerable evidence pointed in his direction. On multiple occasions, Hernandez even bragged about committing the murder and the wrong Carlos taking the fall. Despite all of this, DeLuna was executed.
Conservatives take great pride in championing the sanctity of life and respecting its intrinsic value, but a death penalty system that repeatedly and unnecessarily risks innocent lives does neither.

♦♦♦

Beginning no later than the early 1990s, states and counties were confronted by the death penalty’s exorbitant costs—pushing some localities to the brink of bankruptcy. One such example occurred in Lincoln County, Georgia, where a prosecutor was bent on securing a death sentence for a South Carolinian named Johnny Jones. The trial quickly strained the county’s finances, and, in 1990, Lincoln County officials were forced to raise taxes to cover the case’s costs. Eventually, they even went so far as to sue the defendant’s home state in order to recoup their losses. Jones was initially sentenced to die, but his conviction was overturned due to irregularities. This started the proceedings anew. Frustrated with the process and expense, Lincoln County commissioners balked when asked to fund Jones’ retrial. The presiding judge subsequently threw the commissioners in jail. Hungry for a decent, warm meal, they relented to the judge’s demands and were released after a 24-hour stint in lock-up. Ultimately, in 1992, they raised taxes again to bankroll the legal proceeding. In the end, Georgia never executed Jones. Stories like these can be found elsewhere. The death penalty’s high costs have threatened the solvency of many local governments, while similar outcomes resulted. In the 1990s, Richardson County, Nebraska, mortgaged their ambulances to fund two death cases and Jasper County, Texas, raised property taxes by 7 percent to finance capital proceedings. In response, many states have since shifted much of the financial burden from the local to the state level, but the high costs remain. More recently, numerous cost studies have examined the death penalty’s expense and found that it far outweighs the price of life without parole (LWOP). A study found that the state of Florida spent roughly $3.2 million per death case from initial trial to execution, and the costs have almost certainly risen dramatically since. By replacing capital punishment with LWOP, North Carolina could have saved around $11 million per year from 2005-2006, and Nebraska roughly $14 million in 2015. Meanwhile, since 1978, California has shockingly spent at least $4 billion dollars maintaining and pursuing capital cases. Yet, in this same time period, the state has only executed a total of 13 people. These examples of capital punishment’s expense are not outliers. More than two dozen cost studies have all demonstrated the death penalty’s high price in states across the country. These high costs are just a symptom of the American legal system’s design, and of statutory and Supreme Court mandates. First, our system requires attorneys to provide the best representation possible for their clients. Second, capital cases are given what is called “super due process” to reduce the chance of executing an innocent person. The marriage of these factors guarantees an expensive process. Initial trials are far longer and resource intensive, and death cases even have an additional trial not found in LWOP cases, which exists to determine whether an execution is merited. This is followed by a longer, multi-tiered appeals process with more appealable issues than LWOP cases. Meanwhile, once sentenced to die, inmates are housed on death row, which, due to increased security protocols, is more expensive than housing in the general population. Put simply, by following the law and corrections policies, every level of the process is necessarily more complex and costly. Given the death penalty’s high costs compared to LWOP, it’s clear that capital punishment is antithetical to fiscal conservatism.
♦♦♦

Reverend Billy Bosler was a Florida minister who opposed capital punishment. On at least one occasion, he even informed his daughter, Suezann Bosler, that if he were ever murdered he wouldn’t want his killer to be put to death. Sadly, one day, a man forced his way into the Boslers’ parsonage whereupon Bosler was murdered and Suezann was critically wounded. Before long, the perpetrator was captured and charged with murder. The prosecutor sought the death penalty, but Suezann remembered her father’s uncompromising stance on capital punishment. Through the long process, Suezann objected to the death penalty, but the prosecutor evidently didn’t care. In fact, when called to testify, Suezann was threatened with being held in contempt of court and jailed if she revealed her death penalty views. Suezann’s story is a lamentable reminder that, while people are told that the death penalty is in part exercised for the benefit of victims and victims’ families, their wishes are not always considered. The death penalty process fails victims’ families in other ways too. They desire a system that is swift and sure. Contrary to their needs, the proceedings are complex, time-consuming, and heart-wrenching. At every court appearance over the course of decades, victims’ family members must repeatedly relive the worst moments of their lives—ensuring that healing is elusive. If an execution ever comes to fruition, it usually occurs around 15 years after the original conviction date. Further, the families of murder victims must live in constant uncertainty because death sentences are frequently overturned on appeal, which starts the process anew. In fact, there are serious, reversible errors in more than two thirds of capital cases. Murder victims’ families deserve better than the system that they must endure, but policymakers are faced with a catch-22. The death penalty process cannot be shorter, less complex, or have its appeals limited without virtually guaranteeing that innocent people will be executed by the state. It seems that if murder victims’ well-being was a primary focus, then prosecutors would more frequently seek a briefer, simpler, surer proceeding like LWOP.

♦♦♦

The creation of the Grand Old Party, and in many ways the modern conservative movement, traces its lineage to anti-slavery abolitionists. Their beliefs about human dignity have influenced current conservatives’ views on the sanctity of life. Conservatives should return to the root principles of liberty and dignity to ensure that the criminal justice system is fair, just, and respects life.
It’s not hard to see what the Right stands to gain by making real attempts to exemplify the 2000 presidential campaign slogan “compassionate conservatism.” Conservatives can shed the impression—deserved or not—that the Right has no mercy or compassion for the underprivileged. Showing grace to those who some may feel deserve the death penalty would go a long way toward accomplishing this. Forgiveness and empathy are firmly rooted in Christianity. In fact, modern Catholic teaching has attempted to embody the notion of grace. Pope John Paul II strived to respect life’s invaluable worth, provide all humans the best chance of redemption, and truly exhibit compassion. Thus, in 1997, Pope John Paul II updated the Church’s position on the death penalty to reflect these ideals. The revision greatly limited capital punishment’s approved application to instances in which executions are absolutely necessary to suppress the guilty.  However, with the advent of modern prisons, this is never the case in America. Today, there are other options available to neutralize the convicted as a threat to society and protect the general public without executing the guilty. Earlier this year, Pope Francis built upon Pope John Paul II’s teaching. He ordered the Catechism to be updated so that it declares the death penalty to be “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” Regardless of whether or not one is a Catholic, a philosophy that respects life, offers the opportunity of salvation, and extends compassion to others should be embraced. Perhaps more than anything else, opposition to the death penalty should boil down to a lack of faith in a woefully error-prone government. After all, how willing are you to trust your life to this system?"

The entire story can be read at: 
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-against-the-death-penalty-2/

Read National Registry of Exonerations entry on Ray Krone at the link below: "Both investigations focused on DeLuna's claim that another man, Carlos Hernandez, had committed the crime. Police had not investigated Hernandez for the murder, and at trial, prosecutor Steve Schwietz referred to Hernandez as a "phantom" because DeLuna was unable to identify any specific individual as the Carlos Hernandez he was placing the blame on, despite having been shown mug shots of every Carlos Hernandez in the Corpus Christi system (including the Carlos Hernandez that the Columbia team later focused on). According to DeLuna's sister, even his trial lawyers did not believe the "Carlos Hernandez" story.[67] - Whilst according to the Chicago Tribune "Not only was he [Hernandez] well-known to police in this Gulf Coast city as a violent felon, but the co-prosecutor at De Luna's trial and the lead detective in the case knew Hernandez too. [...] Jurors heard none of that information. The prosecutor sat silently as his colleague branded Hernandez a figment of De Luna's imagination."[68] However, the Chicago Tribune and Columbia University teams rather easily discovered extensive details about and acquaintances of the Carlos Hernandez to whom DeLuna had long referred. Hernandez, who died from cirrhosis in a Texas prison in 1999, was a career criminal living in the same neighborhood and had a history of assaulting women, robbing gas stations, and carrying knives. The Columbia team found people who knew Hernandez and said he bragged to them about murdering Lopez and letting DeLuna take the fall. They also learned Hernandez had been arrested as a suspect – before charges were dropped – in the death of a woman, Dahlia Sauceda, killed several years earlier in the same area of Corpus Christi. Sauceda's body was found with a large "X" carved in her back via knife. Hernandez also later served 19 months (of a 10-year sentence) in prison for stabbing another woman, Dina Ybanez, with a lock-blade knife nearly identical to the one used in the Lopez killing.[69] The Columbia report documented numerous cases in which Hernandez was arrested while in possession of lock-blade knives similar to the one used to kill Lopez. Additionally, numerous people interviewed by the Columbia team said they knew Hernandez carried lock-blade knives. (Conversely, Carlos DeLuna was never in possession of a knife at the time of any of his many arrests during his lifetime.) The report also documented problems with the show-up identification of DeLuna by Baker, the preservation of the crime scene, failure by the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence, and DeLuna's representation by overworked and inexperienced defense counsel.[70][71] The Columbia report has drawn criticism from some officials in Corpus Christi. Nueces County District Attorney Mark Skurka, who was not involved with DeLuna's case and has not read the Columbia report, said that the researchers are arguing the same issues and complained that "[those] people have already made up their mind, it doesn't matter what anyone says."[62] Corpus Christi police investigator Paul Rivera says that at the Columbia team's request, he reviewed the police and trial records but continues to believe DeLuna killed Lopez. On the other hand, Wanda Lopez's brother, Richard, issued a statement in June 2006 saying, "After carefully reviewing the information recently uncovered and printed by Steve Mills and Maurice Possley in the Chicago Tribune, I am convinced that Carlos DeLuna did not kill my sister and that Carlos Hernandez was the real murderer."[72] On the morning of December 29, 1991, the body of 36-year-old Kim Ancona was found, nude, in the men’s restroom of the Phoenix, Arizona bar where she worked. Ancona had been fatally stabbed, and the perpetrator left behind little physical evidence. Blood at the crime scene matched the victim’s type, and saliva on her body came from someone with the most common blood type. There was no semen and no DNA tests were performed.
Investigators relied on bite marks on the victim’s breast and neck. Upon hearing that Ancona had told a friend that a regular customer named Ray Krone was to help her close up the bar the previous night, police asked Krone to make a Styrofoam impression of his teeth for comparison. On December 31, 1991, Krone was arrested and charged with murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault.
At his 1992 trial, Krone maintained his innocence, claiming to be asleep in his bed at the time of the crime. Experts for the prosecution, however, testified that the bite-marks found on the victim’s body matched the impression that Krone had made on the Styrofoam and a jury convicted him on the counts of murder and kidnapping. He was sentenced to death and a consecutive 21-year term of imprisonment, respectively. Krone was found not guilty of the sexual assault. Krone won a new trial in 1996 after an appeals court ruled that the prosecution had failed to disclose to the defense a report from an expert which said the bite-marks did not resemble Krone's teeth. At a retrial, however, Krone was convicted again, mainly on the state’s supposed expert bite-mark testimony. This time, however, the judge sentenced him to life in prison, citing doubts about whether or not Krone was the true killer.
It was not until 2002, after Krone had served more than 10 years in prison, that DNA testing proved his innocence. DNA testing conducted on the saliva and blood found on the victim excluded Krone as the source and instead matched a man named Kenneth Phillips. Phillips was incarcerated on an unrelated sex crime and, although he had lived a short distance from the bar where the victim worked, he had never been considered a suspect in her murder. On April 8, 2002, Krone was released from prison and on April 24th, the District Attorney’s office dismissed the charges against him. In 2006, Phillips pled guilty to the murder and was sentenced to 53 years in prison. Krone later filed a federal civil rights lawsuit and received $3 million in a settlement with the city of Phoenix and $1.4 million in a settlement with Maricopa County. Krone was the 100th former death row inmate freed because of innocence since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the United States in 1976. He was the twelfth death row inmate whose innocence was proven through postconviction DNA testing. Prior to his arrest, Krone had no previous criminal record, had been honorably discharged from the military, and had worked in the postal service for seven years.
 http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3365

--------------------------------------------------------
Read the Wikipedia entry on  Carlos DeLuna at the link below:"Both investigations focused on DeLuna's claim that another man, Carlos Hernandez, had committed the crime. Police had not investigated Hernandez for the murder, and at trial, prosecutor Steve Schwietz referred to Hernandez as a "phantom" because DeLuna was unable to identify any specific individual as the Carlos Hernandez he was placing the blame on, despite having been shown mug shots of every Carlos Hernandez in the Corpus Christi system (including the Carlos Hernandez that the Columbia team later focused on). According to DeLuna's sister, even his trial lawyers did not believe the "Carlos Hernandez" story.[67] - Whilst according to the Chicago Tribune "Not only was he [Hernandez] well-known to police in this Gulf Coast city as a violent felon, but the co-prosecutor at De Luna's trial and the lead detective in the case knew Hernandez too. [...] Jurors heard none of that information. The prosecutor sat silently as his colleague branded Hernandez a figment of De Luna's imagination."[68]
However, the Chicago Tribune and Columbia University teams rather easily discovered extensive details about and acquaintances of the Carlos Hernandez to whom DeLuna had long referred. Hernandez, who died from cirrhosis in a Texas prison in 1999, was a career criminal living in the same neighborhood and had a history of assaulting women, robbing gas stations, and carrying knives. The Columbia team found people who knew Hernandez and said he bragged to them about murdering Lopez and letting DeLuna take the fall. They also learned Hernandez had been arrested as a suspect – before charges were dropped – in the death of a woman, Dahlia Sauceda, killed several years earlier in the same area of Corpus Christi. Sauceda's body was found with a large "X" carved in her back via knife. Hernandez also later served 19 months (of a 10-year sentence) in prison for stabbing another woman, Dina Ybanez, with a lock-blade knife nearly identical to the one used in the Lopez killing.[69] The Columbia report documented numerous cases in which Hernandez was arrested while in possession of lock-blade knives similar to the one used to kill Lopez. Additionally, numerous people interviewed by the Columbia team said they knew Hernandez carried lock-blade knives. (Conversely, Carlos DeLuna was never in possession of a knife at the time of any of his many arrests during his lifetime.) The report also documented problems with the show-up identification of DeLuna by Baker, the preservation of the crime scene, failure by the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence, and DeLuna's representation by overworked and inexperienced defense counsel.[70][71] The Columbia report has drawn criticism from some officials in Corpus Christi. Nueces County District Attorney Mark Skurka, who was not involved with DeLuna's case and has not read the Columbia report, said that the researchers are arguing the same issues and complained that "[those] people have already made up their mind, it doesn't matter what anyone says."[62] Corpus Christi police investigator Paul Rivera says that at the Columbia team's request, he reviewed the police and trial records but continues to believe DeLuna killed Lopez. On the other hand, Wanda Lopez's brother, Richard, issued a statement in June 2006 saying, "After carefully reviewing the information recently uncovered and printed by Steve Mills and Maurice Possley in the Chicago Tribune, I am convinced that Carlos DeLuna did not kill my sister and that Carlos Hernandez was the real murderer.""
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_DeLuna

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;