"Diggins was sentenced to life in 1988 for a rape he has always said he didn’t commit. DNA testing can’t be conducted in the case because evidence in the case has been missing since Hurricane Katrina. Blood tests conducted before trial show that the perpetrator had type A blood, however, and tests conducted recently show that Diggins’ blood is Type O — meaning he could not have been the perpetrator.
Prosecutors failed to alert Diggins’ attorneys that a rape kit collected from the victim in the case contained semen that could be compared to Diggins. Since the defense didn't know about the crime scene evidence, Diggins’ blood was not tested for comparison before trial."
INNOCENCE PROJECT ONLINE: AUGUST 2010;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:"Diggins was convicted of aggravated rape, which carries mandatory life without parole, plus 30 years for armed robbery and five years for conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The judge ordered him to serve the three sentences in consecutive order. But 22 years after Diggins was shipped to the state penitentiary, he and his attorneys have unearthed the fact that prosecutors kept quiet the medical evidence that could have helped him at trial. Well before January 1988, then-District Attorney Harry Connick's prosecutors -- Glen Woods and Wendy Baldwin Vitter -- knew that blood and semen had been collected from the victim, along with a blood type that didn't match the woman's. Diggins wants a day in court to present the blood evidence that Connick's team failed to hand over to the defense, according to the Innocence Project, the New York-based group dedicated to freeing wrongly convicted people through DNA testing...(Times-Picayune);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Innocence Project client Booker Diggins has spent 22 years in Louisiana prisons for a crime scientific evidence shows he didn’t commit. Blood tests could have proven his innocence before trial — but they were never presented. The Innocence Project filed a motion this month seeking to free him based on this evidence," the Innocence Project post published in August, 2009 begins, under the heading, "Withheld Evidence and Injustice in Louisiana: Booker Diggins Remains Behind Bars Despite Blood Tests Proving His Innocence."
"Diggins was sentenced to life in 1988 for a rape he has always said he didn’t commit. DNA testing can’t be conducted in the case because evidence in the case has been missing since Hurricane Katrina. Blood tests conducted before trial show that the perpetrator had type A blood, however, and tests conducted recently show that Diggins’ blood is Type O — meaning he could not have been the perpetrator," the story continues.
"Prosecutors failed to alert Diggins’ attorneys that a rape kit collected from the victim in the case contained semen that could be compared to Diggins. Since the defense didn't know about the crime scene evidence, Diggins’ blood was not tested for comparison before trial.
In a similar Louisiana case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, John Thompson was convicted of armed robbery in 1985 after prosecutors failed to turn over blood evidence that could have exonerated him. He was eventually freed, and he alleged in a civil case that he was wrongfully convicted as a result of prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutors are appealing a decision holding them liable. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case this fall.
Prosecutorial misconduct is a common cause of wrongful conviction. An Innocence Project report on prosecutorial misconduct released today finds that allegations of prosecutorial misconduct have been raised in one-quarter of DNA exoneration cases. In 31 of the first 255 DNA exoneration cases, courts found that some form of prosecutorial misconduct or error played a role in the conviction."
The post can be found at
http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/IPonline/Aug2010.php
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
ALAN SHADRAKE: EARLY REPORT: NO TRIAL UNTIL OCTOBER.
BACKGROUND: The 75-year-old free-lance British journalist was arrested by Singapore authorities in July, 2010, on criminal charges in connection with his new book, "Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock," and then held overnight before being released. Once a Jolly Hangman — Singapore justice in the dock," is a searing exposee of the abuses of that country's death penalty law. Proponents of free speech throughout the world have denounced this ugly abuse of power by a nation which clearly fears what the public learn when its death penalty laws come under scrutiny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An early report indicates that three days have been scheduled for Alan Shadrock's trial: October 18 to October 20, 2010 (Three full days); Details to follow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
KEVIN KEITH: SOCIAL JUSTICE ACTVIST MARY SHAW ASKS "WILL OHIO EXECUTE AN INNOCENT MAN?" - WHY SHOULD OHIO OR ANY OTHER STATE TAKE CHANCES?"
It's no secret that lawyers, judges, juries, and crime labs make mistakes, and innocent people are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. In fact, to date more than 250 people in the U.S. have been exonerated as a result of post-conviction DNA testing. But, again, they are the lucky ones.
Given the proven fallibility and unreliability of the "justice" system, how many others may have been executed for crimes that they did not commit? And how many more innocent people will be executed in the future?
MARY SHAW: OPEDNEWS.COM; Mary Shaw describes herself as, "is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: On the evening of February 13, 1994, Marichell Chatman, her daughter Marchae, and Marichell’s aunt Linda Chatman were shot to death at the Bucyrus Estates Apartments in Bucyrus, Ohio. Richard Warren, Marichell’s boyfriend, and Marichell’s young cousins, Quanita and Quinton Reeves, were also shot but survived. On February 15, 1994, Kevin Keith was arrested for these shootings. By May 31, 1994, Mr. Keith was sentenced to death for this crime. From crime to sentencing, only three-and-a-half months passed. In spite of his alibi and no conclusive forensic evidence proving his involvement, Mr. Keith was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to death. In 2007, after all his allotted appeals were exhausted, new counsel took on Mr. Keith’s case. Upon investigating, counsel discovered new evidence for Mr. Keith that supported what Mr. Keith was saying from day one – he is actually innocent. The new evidence proves that the primary evidence used to convict Keith was flawed. The eyewitness identification testimony by a surviving victim was improperly influenced. Thirteen years after he was convicted, Mr. Keith discovered that one of the State’s “witnesses” does not actually exist. At Keith’s trial, the police had testified about a fictitious person and attributed a statement to her in order to bolster the shaky identification testimony of the surviving victim. Mr. Keith’s new evidence further implicates an alternative suspect who told a police informant that he was paid to carry out the murders for which Keith is scheduled to die. The police were aware of the statements by the alternative suspect, but no one turned them over to Keith’s counsel. Kevin Keith has thus far failed to persuade the state's clemency board or the courts to stop his execution which is set for September 15, 2010.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Here we go again, this time in Ohio," Mary Shaw's OPEDNEWS.COM post begins, under the heading, "Why should Ohio or any other state take any more chances?: Will Ohio Execute An Innocent Man?"
"There, death row inmate Kevin Keith is scheduled to be executed on September 15, despite strong new evidence of his innocence. Keith was convicted in 1994 for a shooting spree that killed three people and wounded three others," the post continues.
"Eyewitness testimony was the primary evidence used to convict Keith. Along with the fact that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, the new evidence discredits the eyewitness identification in this case. The evidence also identifies an alternative suspect, Rodney Melton, who may have actually committed the crime for which Keith was convicted. Keith has an alibi for the time of the crime, supported by four witnesses.
No court has considered the entirety of the evidence in this case. Therefore, it appears that there is reasonable doubt as to Keith's guilt. And there is no excuse to execute someone when there is reasonable doubt that you've got the right guy.
Nevertheless, on August 19, the Ohio Parole Board rejected Keith's clemency petition by a vote of 8-0. Charles Keith, the convicted man's brother, described the Board's demeanor during the review as "cold" and "like a death squad." This seems to suggest that they are more interested in expediency than true justice. And it seems to suggest that they are willing to risk the possibility of executing an innocent man.
Sadly, Keith's situation is not unusual. Cases are currently in the courts in Georgia, Texas, and elsewhere in which death row inmates are fighting for the right to prove their innocence. If any of them succeed, they will be among the lucky ones. Some are not so lucky.
In 2007, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) published a report titled "Innocent and Executed", which highlighted four cases in which people were apparently executed for crimes that they did not commit. And those four are just the ones we know about.
One of those cases, that of Cameron Todd Willingham, made headlines last year when The New Yorker published an investigative article on the case. Willingham was executed in 2004 for setting a fire that killed his three daughters. However, a forensic review of the case led to the conclusion that "a finding of arson could not be sustained." In other words, the fatal fire for which Willingham was executed was probably just an accident.
It's no secret that lawyers, judges, juries, and crime labs make mistakes, and innocent people are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. In fact, to date more than 250 people in the U.S. have been exonerated as a result of post-conviction DNA testing. But, again, they are the lucky ones.
Given the proven fallibility and unreliability of the "justice" system, how many others may have been executed for crimes that they did not commit? And how many more innocent people will be executed in the future?
Why should Ohio or any other state take any more chances?
In the case of Kevin Keith, due to die on September 15, the final verdict now lies with Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. I hope he will do the right thing and grant clemency. Governor Strickland's office can be reached by phone at (614) 466-3555 or online at http://governor.ohio.gov."
The post cab be found at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Will-Ohio-Execute-An-Innoc-by-Mary-Shaw-100830-18.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Given the proven fallibility and unreliability of the "justice" system, how many others may have been executed for crimes that they did not commit? And how many more innocent people will be executed in the future?
MARY SHAW: OPEDNEWS.COM; Mary Shaw describes herself as, "is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: On the evening of February 13, 1994, Marichell Chatman, her daughter Marchae, and Marichell’s aunt Linda Chatman were shot to death at the Bucyrus Estates Apartments in Bucyrus, Ohio. Richard Warren, Marichell’s boyfriend, and Marichell’s young cousins, Quanita and Quinton Reeves, were also shot but survived. On February 15, 1994, Kevin Keith was arrested for these shootings. By May 31, 1994, Mr. Keith was sentenced to death for this crime. From crime to sentencing, only three-and-a-half months passed. In spite of his alibi and no conclusive forensic evidence proving his involvement, Mr. Keith was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to death. In 2007, after all his allotted appeals were exhausted, new counsel took on Mr. Keith’s case. Upon investigating, counsel discovered new evidence for Mr. Keith that supported what Mr. Keith was saying from day one – he is actually innocent. The new evidence proves that the primary evidence used to convict Keith was flawed. The eyewitness identification testimony by a surviving victim was improperly influenced. Thirteen years after he was convicted, Mr. Keith discovered that one of the State’s “witnesses” does not actually exist. At Keith’s trial, the police had testified about a fictitious person and attributed a statement to her in order to bolster the shaky identification testimony of the surviving victim. Mr. Keith’s new evidence further implicates an alternative suspect who told a police informant that he was paid to carry out the murders for which Keith is scheduled to die. The police were aware of the statements by the alternative suspect, but no one turned them over to Keith’s counsel. Kevin Keith has thus far failed to persuade the state's clemency board or the courts to stop his execution which is set for September 15, 2010.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Here we go again, this time in Ohio," Mary Shaw's OPEDNEWS.COM post begins, under the heading, "Why should Ohio or any other state take any more chances?: Will Ohio Execute An Innocent Man?"
"There, death row inmate Kevin Keith is scheduled to be executed on September 15, despite strong new evidence of his innocence. Keith was convicted in 1994 for a shooting spree that killed three people and wounded three others," the post continues.
"Eyewitness testimony was the primary evidence used to convict Keith. Along with the fact that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, the new evidence discredits the eyewitness identification in this case. The evidence also identifies an alternative suspect, Rodney Melton, who may have actually committed the crime for which Keith was convicted. Keith has an alibi for the time of the crime, supported by four witnesses.
No court has considered the entirety of the evidence in this case. Therefore, it appears that there is reasonable doubt as to Keith's guilt. And there is no excuse to execute someone when there is reasonable doubt that you've got the right guy.
Nevertheless, on August 19, the Ohio Parole Board rejected Keith's clemency petition by a vote of 8-0. Charles Keith, the convicted man's brother, described the Board's demeanor during the review as "cold" and "like a death squad." This seems to suggest that they are more interested in expediency than true justice. And it seems to suggest that they are willing to risk the possibility of executing an innocent man.
Sadly, Keith's situation is not unusual. Cases are currently in the courts in Georgia, Texas, and elsewhere in which death row inmates are fighting for the right to prove their innocence. If any of them succeed, they will be among the lucky ones. Some are not so lucky.
In 2007, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) published a report titled "Innocent and Executed", which highlighted four cases in which people were apparently executed for crimes that they did not commit. And those four are just the ones we know about.
One of those cases, that of Cameron Todd Willingham, made headlines last year when The New Yorker published an investigative article on the case. Willingham was executed in 2004 for setting a fire that killed his three daughters. However, a forensic review of the case led to the conclusion that "a finding of arson could not be sustained." In other words, the fatal fire for which Willingham was executed was probably just an accident.
It's no secret that lawyers, judges, juries, and crime labs make mistakes, and innocent people are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. In fact, to date more than 250 people in the U.S. have been exonerated as a result of post-conviction DNA testing. But, again, they are the lucky ones.
Given the proven fallibility and unreliability of the "justice" system, how many others may have been executed for crimes that they did not commit? And how many more innocent people will be executed in the future?
Why should Ohio or any other state take any more chances?
In the case of Kevin Keith, due to die on September 15, the final verdict now lies with Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. I hope he will do the right thing and grant clemency. Governor Strickland's office can be reached by phone at (614) 466-3555 or online at http://governor.ohio.gov."
The post cab be found at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Will-Ohio-Execute-An-Innoc-by-Mary-Shaw-100830-18.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
BOOKER DIGGINS; INNOCENCE PROJECT CLAIMS "BULLETPROOF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" HE IS NOT RAPIST; PROSECUTORS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT IN 1988; TIMES-PICAYUNE
"Diggins was convicted of aggravated rape, which carries mandatory life without parole, plus 30 years for armed robbery and five years for conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
The judge ordered him to serve the three sentences in consecutive order.
But 22 years after Diggins was shipped to the state penitentiary, he and his attorneys have unearthed the fact that prosecutors kept quiet the medical evidence that could have helped him at trial.
Well before January 1988, then-District Attorney Harry Connick's prosecutors -- Glen Woods and Wendy Baldwin Vitter -- knew that blood and semen had been collected from the victim, along with a blood type that didn't match the woman's.
Diggins wants a day in court to present the blood evidence that Connick's team failed to hand over to the defense, according to the Innocence Project, the New York-based group dedicated to freeing wrongly convicted people through DNA testing.
"This is bulletproof scientific evidence that he is not the guy," said attorney Barry Scheck. "He wasn't the rapist and they could have known that in 1988.""
REPORTER GWEN FILOSA: THE TIMES-PICAYUNE;
Wikipedia informs us that, "The Times-Picayune is a daily newspaper published in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Its name, which is widely recognized among journalists nationwide, is an icon of life in New Orleans and its environs."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Orleans Parish jury that sent Booker Diggins off to prison for the rest of his life on Jan. 25, 1988, didn't hear much about the rape he supposedly committed during a robbery" the August 23 Times-Picayune story by reporter Gwen Filosa begins, under the heading, "Lifer at Angola unearths DNA evidence that might help him fight 1988 rape, robbery conviction."
"The examining doctor wasn't called to the stand, and no blood evidence turned up at court," the story continues.
"Instead, prosecutors relied solely on testimony of the alleged victim, a 23-year-old woman who picked Diggins out of a photographic line-up and then pointed him out in court as the one who raped her while she was handcuffed to a post in the storeroom of the restaurant she managed.
Diggins was convicted of aggravated rape, which carries mandatory life without parole, plus 30 years for armed robbery and five years for conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
The judge ordered him to serve the three sentences in consecutive order.
But 22 years after Diggins was shipped to the state penitentiary, he and his attorneys have unearthed the fact that prosecutors kept quiet the medical evidence that could have helped him at trial.
Well before January 1988, then-District Attorney Harry Connick's prosecutors -- Glen Woods and Wendy Baldwin Vitter -- knew that blood and semen had been collected from the victim, along with a blood type that didn't match the woman's.
Diggins wants a day in court to present the blood evidence that Connick's team failed to hand over to the defense, according to the Innocence Project, the New York-based group dedicated to freeing wrongly convicted people through DNA testing.
"This is bulletproof scientific evidence that he is not the guy," said attorney Barry Scheck. "He wasn't the rapist and they could have known that in 1988."
Scheck compares Diggins' case to that of John Thompson, the former death row inmate who is awaiting a $14 million federal jury award for having served decades in prison after Connick's lawyers hid blood evidence that showed he did not commit the armed robbery for which he was convicted.
Blood types disputed
While the Innocence Project resurrected Booker Diggins' appeal, it was Diggins himself who wrested his case file free in 2006 after paying $209 to then-DA Eddie Jordan's office, to learn that prosecutors had physical evidence that would have helped him fight the charges.
Diggins filed a huge petition in federal court in 2006, but was rejected because he had missed the legal deadline for such an appeal, U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance ruled. Diggins, whose conviction became final in 1990, had until 1997 to file a federal habeas corpus.
Vance's ruling barred Diggins from ever bringing back the appeal in federal court.
But the Innocence Project filed its motion for a new trial back at the same courthouse on Tulane Avenue where Diggins was tried and convicted.
On July 27, at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Diggins was finally able to provide blood and saliva samples which were sent to National Medical Services, one of the few private DNA laboratories still performing ABO blood-typing services.
Diggins is Type O. The victim is Type B.
The rapist is Type A, according to the Innocence Project's appeal.
The DA's office, led by Cannizzaro since 2008, declined comment for this story. Scheck and attorney Vanessa Potkin filed the appeal this month but no hearing date has been set. The case is in Judge Laurie White's Section A.
Former Judge Charles Elloie in 2004 denied Diggins' post-conviction relief appeal, finding that he had missed the deadline and that his request for DNA testing wasn't necessary because he hadn't met the legal standard of "articulable doubt."
Turncoat testimony
Turncoat testimony helped prosecutors persuade the jury to convict Diggins of rape and robbery.
Originally, four men were charged with the crime, but Diggins would receive the harshest prison sentence.
Matthew Thomas and Karis Scott, who both worked at Mike Anderson's Seafood Restaurant at the Riverwalk in 1987, confessed to setting up the robbery but insisted a rape was never part of the plan. They struck deals with the DA's office so they could avoid the kind of prison time that Diggins and Charles Washington would end up serving.
Thomas was an 18-year-old prep chef who admitted to providing the restaurant keys to Scott, who arranged the robbery that would net about $2,000.
Thomas testified that Diggins and Washington were the robbers who chose to humiliate and assault the 23-year-old manager in a storeroom, leaving her gagged with a paper bag and handcuffed to a post.
Washington was convicted of sexual battery, for touching the woman after the assault, and armed robbery.
Though Diggins denied being on the scene, Thomas told the jury that he watched as Diggins divvied up the stolen money -- and tipped him some extra cash for the opportunity to rape the manager. Thomas pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact.
Scott ended up with a five-year sentence for being an accessory to robbery. Prosecutors dropped an aggravated rape charge against him in exchange for his testimony.
A New Orleans police officer, employed for only two months at the time, lifted a partial fingerprint from the bag that the state's expert said definitely matched Diggins.
Diggins says the jury didn't hear crucial details of the victim's hospital exam, performed about five hours after the robbery.
In his pleadings, Diggins said that he didn't rape or rob anyone on the night of Aug. 30, 1987, and argued that the graphic details of the victim's rape examination kept from the jury show "no signs of force."
Diggins argues that the woman may have been in on the robbery, and that the semen came from consensual sex that the woman told hospital staff she had had with her boyfriend 48 hours before the attack."
The story can be found at:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/08/lifer_at_angola_unearths_dna_e.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The judge ordered him to serve the three sentences in consecutive order.
But 22 years after Diggins was shipped to the state penitentiary, he and his attorneys have unearthed the fact that prosecutors kept quiet the medical evidence that could have helped him at trial.
Well before January 1988, then-District Attorney Harry Connick's prosecutors -- Glen Woods and Wendy Baldwin Vitter -- knew that blood and semen had been collected from the victim, along with a blood type that didn't match the woman's.
Diggins wants a day in court to present the blood evidence that Connick's team failed to hand over to the defense, according to the Innocence Project, the New York-based group dedicated to freeing wrongly convicted people through DNA testing.
"This is bulletproof scientific evidence that he is not the guy," said attorney Barry Scheck. "He wasn't the rapist and they could have known that in 1988.""
REPORTER GWEN FILOSA: THE TIMES-PICAYUNE;
Wikipedia informs us that, "The Times-Picayune is a daily newspaper published in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Its name, which is widely recognized among journalists nationwide, is an icon of life in New Orleans and its environs."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Orleans Parish jury that sent Booker Diggins off to prison for the rest of his life on Jan. 25, 1988, didn't hear much about the rape he supposedly committed during a robbery" the August 23 Times-Picayune story by reporter Gwen Filosa begins, under the heading, "Lifer at Angola unearths DNA evidence that might help him fight 1988 rape, robbery conviction."
"The examining doctor wasn't called to the stand, and no blood evidence turned up at court," the story continues.
"Instead, prosecutors relied solely on testimony of the alleged victim, a 23-year-old woman who picked Diggins out of a photographic line-up and then pointed him out in court as the one who raped her while she was handcuffed to a post in the storeroom of the restaurant she managed.
Diggins was convicted of aggravated rape, which carries mandatory life without parole, plus 30 years for armed robbery and five years for conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
The judge ordered him to serve the three sentences in consecutive order.
But 22 years after Diggins was shipped to the state penitentiary, he and his attorneys have unearthed the fact that prosecutors kept quiet the medical evidence that could have helped him at trial.
Well before January 1988, then-District Attorney Harry Connick's prosecutors -- Glen Woods and Wendy Baldwin Vitter -- knew that blood and semen had been collected from the victim, along with a blood type that didn't match the woman's.
Diggins wants a day in court to present the blood evidence that Connick's team failed to hand over to the defense, according to the Innocence Project, the New York-based group dedicated to freeing wrongly convicted people through DNA testing.
"This is bulletproof scientific evidence that he is not the guy," said attorney Barry Scheck. "He wasn't the rapist and they could have known that in 1988."
Scheck compares Diggins' case to that of John Thompson, the former death row inmate who is awaiting a $14 million federal jury award for having served decades in prison after Connick's lawyers hid blood evidence that showed he did not commit the armed robbery for which he was convicted.
Blood types disputed
While the Innocence Project resurrected Booker Diggins' appeal, it was Diggins himself who wrested his case file free in 2006 after paying $209 to then-DA Eddie Jordan's office, to learn that prosecutors had physical evidence that would have helped him fight the charges.
Diggins filed a huge petition in federal court in 2006, but was rejected because he had missed the legal deadline for such an appeal, U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance ruled. Diggins, whose conviction became final in 1990, had until 1997 to file a federal habeas corpus.
Vance's ruling barred Diggins from ever bringing back the appeal in federal court.
But the Innocence Project filed its motion for a new trial back at the same courthouse on Tulane Avenue where Diggins was tried and convicted.
On July 27, at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Diggins was finally able to provide blood and saliva samples which were sent to National Medical Services, one of the few private DNA laboratories still performing ABO blood-typing services.
Diggins is Type O. The victim is Type B.
The rapist is Type A, according to the Innocence Project's appeal.
The DA's office, led by Cannizzaro since 2008, declined comment for this story. Scheck and attorney Vanessa Potkin filed the appeal this month but no hearing date has been set. The case is in Judge Laurie White's Section A.
Former Judge Charles Elloie in 2004 denied Diggins' post-conviction relief appeal, finding that he had missed the deadline and that his request for DNA testing wasn't necessary because he hadn't met the legal standard of "articulable doubt."
Turncoat testimony
Turncoat testimony helped prosecutors persuade the jury to convict Diggins of rape and robbery.
Originally, four men were charged with the crime, but Diggins would receive the harshest prison sentence.
Matthew Thomas and Karis Scott, who both worked at Mike Anderson's Seafood Restaurant at the Riverwalk in 1987, confessed to setting up the robbery but insisted a rape was never part of the plan. They struck deals with the DA's office so they could avoid the kind of prison time that Diggins and Charles Washington would end up serving.
Thomas was an 18-year-old prep chef who admitted to providing the restaurant keys to Scott, who arranged the robbery that would net about $2,000.
Thomas testified that Diggins and Washington were the robbers who chose to humiliate and assault the 23-year-old manager in a storeroom, leaving her gagged with a paper bag and handcuffed to a post.
Washington was convicted of sexual battery, for touching the woman after the assault, and armed robbery.
Though Diggins denied being on the scene, Thomas told the jury that he watched as Diggins divvied up the stolen money -- and tipped him some extra cash for the opportunity to rape the manager. Thomas pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact.
Scott ended up with a five-year sentence for being an accessory to robbery. Prosecutors dropped an aggravated rape charge against him in exchange for his testimony.
A New Orleans police officer, employed for only two months at the time, lifted a partial fingerprint from the bag that the state's expert said definitely matched Diggins.
Diggins says the jury didn't hear crucial details of the victim's hospital exam, performed about five hours after the robbery.
In his pleadings, Diggins said that he didn't rape or rob anyone on the night of Aug. 30, 1987, and argued that the graphic details of the victim's rape examination kept from the jury show "no signs of force."
Diggins argues that the woman may have been in on the robbery, and that the semen came from consensual sex that the woman told hospital staff she had had with her boyfriend 48 hours before the attack."
The story can be found at:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/08/lifer_at_angola_unearths_dna_e.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, August 29, 2010
"COMPREHENSIVE AND GROUND-BREAKING" BOOK ON MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE CAUSED BY FLAWED SCIENCE AND FLAWED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE NEARS PUBLICATION:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: For the past year I have been impatiently awaiting release of "Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice: The Rhetoric Meets The Reality," by Kent Roach, Bibi Sangha and Robert Moles. The good news is that this timely work will be formally released in September - and that it can now be pre-ordered in order to expedite delivery, as per the link to Irwin Law, the publisher, at the bottom of this post. The authors bring to this comprehensive book an impressive collective experience in the area of wrongful convictions and the obstacles often put in the way of righting them. I have had the pleasure of reading an earlier draft. Kent Roach acted as counsel for the Association in Aid of the Wrongfully Convicted in the systemic issues phase of the Kaufman inquiry into the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin - one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in Canadian history and he recently served as a research director to the Goudge Inquiry into many of Dr. Charles Smith's botched cases. An article on wrongful convictions by Kent Roach was recently published in the North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation. Bob Moles, has probed deeply into miscarriages of justice through several books including "A State of Injustice (2004)," and, "Losing Their Grip – The Case of Henry Keogh (2006)." He, along with Bibi Sangha, was the co-author of a paper commissioned by the Goudge Inquiry called, "Comparative Experience with Pediatric Pathology and
Miscarriages of Justice in Australia." Bibi Sangha, is a lecturer in law at the Flinders University of South Australia. She played an important role in preparing Henry Keogh's legal submissions to the Medical Board and the Supreme Court of South Australia. Criminal justice systems throughout the world are finally waking up to the fact that forensic science is not the certain, infallible discipline that it has been held out to be for decades. But we need all the help we can get from scholars such Roach, Moles and Sangha to help sort out the mess caused by our unfettered belief in science, to vindicate and free the innocent, to fix broken, unwieldy appeal and review processes, and to repair the public's resulting lack of confidence in our criminal justice systems, This important work is relevant to all those - including defence lawyers, prosecutors, judges, police officers, and scholars, and ordinary citizens - who are concerned about remedying miscarriages of justice caused by "junk science," flawed or outdated forensic science, inflexible court procedures, and questionable "expert" evidence" on forensic issues, no matter where they may be. And that includes England, Australia, Canada, the U.S.A. and any other countries which have fallen prey to the same misguided beliefs, myths and misconceptions. I am not alone in my advance praise for this worthy book. T.F. Percy Q.C., Wolff Chambers, Perth, Western Australia, says it is "Comprehensive and groundbreaking… [A] masterly text which is certain to quickly become the primary reference point on the topic." To Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Stephen Goudge, who headed Ontario's Inquiry into many of Dr. Charles Smith's cases,"In this impressive work, the experiences of Britain, Canada, and Australia are collected, compared, and analyzed by these eminently qualified experts. While the similarities are striking, the differences provide the authors with the opportunity to elucidate thoughtful recommendations that should commend themselves to policy makers in all three jurisdictions. Indeed, all who are involved in the criminal justice system and the constant need to perfect it will profit from this book."
Harold Levy. Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structure of "Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice: The Rhetoric Meets The Reality."
Part One: The Rhetoric: Guiding Principles
Chapter 2: Prosecutors and Expert Witnesses
Chapter 3: Law on Miscarriages of Justice: Britain
Chapter 4: Law on Miscarriages of Justice: Canada
Chapter 5: Law on Miscarriages of Justice: Australia
Chapter 6: Fraud in Criminal Proceedings
Part Two: The Reality
Chapter 7: Investigations and Prosecutions
Chapter 8: Forensic Science Issues
Chapter 9: Forensic Pathology Issues
Part Three: Responses to Miscarriages of Justice
Chapter 10: Error Correction and Systemic Reform
Chapter 11: Improving Forensic Science
Chapter 12: Recommendations to Bring the Reality Closer to the Rhetoric;
Orders can be placed through the following link:
http://www.irwinlaw.com/store/product/657/forensic-investigations-and-miscarriages-of-justice--the-rhetoric-meets-the-reality
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Miscarriages of Justice in Australia." Bibi Sangha, is a lecturer in law at the Flinders University of South Australia. She played an important role in preparing Henry Keogh's legal submissions to the Medical Board and the Supreme Court of South Australia. Criminal justice systems throughout the world are finally waking up to the fact that forensic science is not the certain, infallible discipline that it has been held out to be for decades. But we need all the help we can get from scholars such Roach, Moles and Sangha to help sort out the mess caused by our unfettered belief in science, to vindicate and free the innocent, to fix broken, unwieldy appeal and review processes, and to repair the public's resulting lack of confidence in our criminal justice systems, This important work is relevant to all those - including defence lawyers, prosecutors, judges, police officers, and scholars, and ordinary citizens - who are concerned about remedying miscarriages of justice caused by "junk science," flawed or outdated forensic science, inflexible court procedures, and questionable "expert" evidence" on forensic issues, no matter where they may be. And that includes England, Australia, Canada, the U.S.A. and any other countries which have fallen prey to the same misguided beliefs, myths and misconceptions. I am not alone in my advance praise for this worthy book. T.F. Percy Q.C., Wolff Chambers, Perth, Western Australia, says it is "Comprehensive and groundbreaking… [A] masterly text which is certain to quickly become the primary reference point on the topic." To Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Stephen Goudge, who headed Ontario's Inquiry into many of Dr. Charles Smith's cases,"In this impressive work, the experiences of Britain, Canada, and Australia are collected, compared, and analyzed by these eminently qualified experts. While the similarities are striking, the differences provide the authors with the opportunity to elucidate thoughtful recommendations that should commend themselves to policy makers in all three jurisdictions. Indeed, all who are involved in the criminal justice system and the constant need to perfect it will profit from this book."
Harold Levy. Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structure of "Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice: The Rhetoric Meets The Reality."
Part One: The Rhetoric: Guiding Principles
Chapter 2: Prosecutors and Expert Witnesses
Chapter 3: Law on Miscarriages of Justice: Britain
Chapter 4: Law on Miscarriages of Justice: Canada
Chapter 5: Law on Miscarriages of Justice: Australia
Chapter 6: Fraud in Criminal Proceedings
Part Two: The Reality
Chapter 7: Investigations and Prosecutions
Chapter 8: Forensic Science Issues
Chapter 9: Forensic Pathology Issues
Part Three: Responses to Miscarriages of Justice
Chapter 10: Error Correction and Systemic Reform
Chapter 11: Improving Forensic Science
Chapter 12: Recommendations to Bring the Reality Closer to the Rhetoric;
Orders can be placed through the following link:
http://www.irwinlaw.com/store/product/657/forensic-investigations-and-miscarriages-of-justice--the-rhetoric-meets-the-reality
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Saturday, August 28, 2010
LINDY CHAMBERLAIN; PUBLISHER'S NOTE: THAT DEATH CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE CHANGED TO REFLECT "DEATH BY DINGO" SOON ENOUGH;
BACKGROUND: WIKIPEDIA): Michael and Lindy Chamberlain's first daughter, Azaria, was born on June 11, 1980. When Azaria was two months old, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain took their three children on a camping trip to Ayers Rock, arriving on August 16, 1980. On the night of August 17, Chamberlain reported that the child had been taken from her tent by a dingo. A massive search was organised, but all that was found were remains of some of the bloody clothes, which confirmed the death of baby Azaria. Her body has never been discovered. Although the initial coronal inquiry supported the Chamberlains' account of Azaria's disappearance, Lindy Chamberlain was later prosecuted for the murder of her child on the basis of the finding of the baby's jumpsuit and of tests that appeared to indicate the presence of blood found in the Chamberlains' car. This forensic gathering convicted her of murder on October 29, 1982, and sentenced her to life imprisonment; the theory was that she slit the child's throat and hid the body. Michael Chamberlain was convicted as an accessory to murder. Shortly after her conviction, Lindy Chamberlain gave birth to her fourth child, Kahlia, on November 17, 1982, in prison. An appeal against her conviction was rejected by the High Court in February, 1984. New evidence emerged on February 2, 1986 when a remaining item of Azaria's clothing was found partially buried near Uluru in an isolated location, adjacent to a dingo lair. This was the matinee jacket which the police had maintained for years did not exist. Five days later, Chamberlain was released. The Northern Territory Government publicly said it was because "she had suffered enough." In view of inconsistencies in the earlier blood testing which gave rise to potential reasonable doubts about the propriety of her conviction and as DNA testing was not as advanced in the early 1980s it emerged that the 'baby blood' found in her car could have been any substance, Lindy Chamberlain's life sentence was remitted by the Northern Territory Government and a Royal Commission began to investigate the matter in 1987. Chamberlain's conviction was overturned in September, 1988 and another inquest in 1995 returned an open verdict. In recent years there have been fatal dingo attacks on children, one famous instance being at the holiday resort at Fraser Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It's hard to imagine a more reasonable request than Lindy Chamberlain's bid for a new death certificate which will record the truth - that Azaria was killed by a dingo. To lose a child in those circumstances is bad enough. To be branded as her killer on the basis of ignorance, fear-mongering, faulty police investigation, erroneous expert evidence and a wanting court process, makes matters all the worse. This is compounded by an oppressive prosecution in which Lindy Chamberlain did not have the opportunity to access and conduct tests on key pieces of forensic evidence before her trial. A refusal by the authorities to take such a simple, warranted step, would only be seen as furthering the injustice inflicted on Lindy Chamberlain and her family. It is no answer to say she has been pardoned or that her conviction has been quashed. There will understandably be no closure from the legal process and its dreadful consequences for her until the public record - the death certificate - is corrected. That can't happen soon enough.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Friday, August 27, 2010
LINDY CHAMBERLAIN: THIRTY YEARS LATER A JUROR CONTINUES TO SPEAK OUT; HER OWN SON HAD BEEN SAVAGED BY A DINGO; EVIDENCE WHICH SWAYED; SUN HERALD;
"Mrs Cain, a mother of two, became known as the crying juror when she burst into tears as Mrs Chamberlain examined Azaria's bloodied jumpsuit during the trial.
She is the only member of the Chamberlain jury to come forward and be identified. She did so in late 1985, saying she was ashamed at having sent to jail a person she believed to be innocent.
Three months later, she cried with relief when Mrs Chamberlain was released from jail after Azaria's matinee jacket, which the police and prosecution had denied existed, was found at Ayers Rock.
Her action forged a bizarre friendship between the juror and the woman she convicted after they were introduced via a TV current affairs show. The evidence that swayed it for Mrs Cain was when the jury went down into the court basement, where the Chamberlains' tent had been set up with lighting conditions supposedly similar to the night Azaria was taken.
They were unable to see whether the baby would have been inside or not, as Mrs Chamberlain had claimed she could."
REPORTERS JANET FIFE-YEOMANS AND PAUL TOOHEY: HERALD SUN;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: WIKIPEDIA): Michael and Lindy Chamberlain's first daughter, Azaria, was born on June 11, 1980. When Azaria was two months old, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain took their three children on a camping trip to Ayers Rock, arriving on August 16, 1980. On the night of August 17, Chamberlain reported that the child had been taken from her tent by a dingo. A massive search was organised, but all that was found were remains of some of the bloody clothes, which confirmed the death of baby Azaria. Her body has never been discovered. Although the initial coronal inquiry supported the Chamberlains' account of Azaria's disappearance, Lindy Chamberlain was later prosecuted for the murder of her child on the basis of the finding of the baby's jumpsuit and of tests that appeared to indicate the presence of blood found in the Chamberlains' car. This forensic gathering convicted her of murder on October 29, 1982, and sentenced her to life imprisonment; the theory was that she slit the child's throat and hid the body. Michael Chamberlain was convicted as an accessory to murder. Shortly after her conviction, Lindy Chamberlain gave birth to her fourth child, Kahlia, on November 17, 1982, in prison. An appeal against her conviction was rejected by the High Court in February, 1984. New evidence emerged on February 2, 1986 when a remaining item of Azaria's clothing was found partially buried near Uluru in an isolated location, adjacent to a dingo lair. This was the matinee jacket which the police had maintained for years did not exist. Five days later, Chamberlain was released. The Northern Territory Government publicly said it was because "she had suffered enough." In view of inconsistencies in the earlier blood testing which gave rise to potential reasonable doubts about the propriety of her conviction and as DNA testing was not as advanced in the early 1980s it emerged that the 'baby blood' found in her car could have been any substance, Lindy Chamberlain's life sentence was remitted by the Northern Territory Government and a Royal Commission began to investigate the matter in 1987. Chamberlain's conviction was overturned in September, 1988 and another inquest in 1995 returned an open verdict. In recent years there have been fatal dingo attacks on children, one famous instance being at the holiday resort at Fraser Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"WHEN Yvonne Cain's son, Michael, was a toddler, he was savaged by a dingo in the family's back yard," the story by reporters Janet Fife-Yeomans and Paul Toohey published on August 9, 2010 begins, under the heading, "Lindy Chamberlain juror Yvonne Cain regret lingers."
"Seven years later, she was on one of the world's most famous juries, sitting in judgment on a woman who claimed a dingo killed her child," the story continues.
"But Mrs Cain still convicted Lindy Chamberlain of murder, a decision she says she has regretted ever since.
"I thought she was innocent all the way through the trial," said Mrs Cain, an office worker.
"All the witnesses made everything look like she was guilty. I kept waiting for someone to come in and tell us that she wasn't guilty, but it didn't happen.
"I wanted someone to come in and say 'Here's the dingo that did it and here's the baby in its stomach'."
Mrs Cain, a mother of two, became known as the crying juror when she burst into tears as Mrs Chamberlain examined Azaria's bloodied jumpsuit during the trial.
She is the only member of the Chamberlain jury to come forward and be identified. She did so in late 1985, saying she was ashamed at having sent to jail a person she believed to be innocent.
Three months later, she cried with relief when Mrs Chamberlain was released from jail after Azaria's matinee jacket, which the police and prosecution had denied existed, was found at Ayers Rock.
Her action forged a bizarre friendship between the juror and the woman she convicted after they were introduced via a TV current affairs show. The evidence that swayed it for Mrs Cain was when the jury went down into the court basement, where the Chamberlains' tent had been set up with lighting conditions supposedly similar to the night Azaria was taken.
They were unable to see whether the baby would have been inside or not, as Mrs Chamberlain had claimed she could.
Mrs Cain's thoughts have now returned to her own experience with one of the wild dogs while the family were living on the outskirts of Alice Springs.
"(Son) Michael was chewing on a crust of bread and Vegemite -- I think the dingo initially went for that. Michael was grazed down the cheek and under the neck from the dingo's teeth," she said.
"I grabbed Michael from the dingo. It then went for me, biting my leg, but ended up ripping my jeans."
The story can be found at:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/lindy-chamberlain-juror-yvonne-cain-regret-lingers/story-e6frf7l6-1225902902922
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEO INTERVIEW:
http://www.triplem.com.au/adelaide/shows/kymalianddzelde/blog/chamberlain-30-years-on/20100810-9hlk.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Thursday, August 26, 2010
KEVIN KEITH; HIS LAWYERS RESPOND TO THE STATE PAROLE BOARD'S REJECTION OF HIS REQUEST FOR CLEMENCY; TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS;
"The Parole Board's own recitation of facts and brief findings cannot avoid facts pointing to the existence of doubt about Mr. Keith's guilt. For example, the Parole Board found that the lineup used to identify Mr. Keith for this crime was "arguably suggestive," and recognized that the "science of measuring the extent to which an event is 'encoded' into memory is imprecise." The Parole Board also noted the there was no "biological evidence linking Keith to the crime." Unfortunately, however, the Parole Board gave "considerable deference" to the jury and courts in making its recommendation. But it is undisputed that no court or jury has ever considered the entirety of the new evidence that raises serious questions about Mr. Keith’s guilt."
STATEMENT BY KEVIN KEITH'S LAWYERS IN RESPONSE TO PAROLE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AGAINST CLEMENCY;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: On the evening of February 13, 1994, Marichell Chatman, her daughter Marchae, and Marichell’s aunt Linda Chatman were shot to death at the Bucyrus Estates Apartments in Bucyrus, Ohio. Richard Warren, Marichell’s boyfriend, and Marichell’s young cousins, Quanita and Quinton Reeves, were also shot but survived. On February 15, 1994, Kevin Keith was arrested for these shootings. By May 31, 1994, Mr. Keith was sentenced to death for this crime. From crime to sentencing, only three-and-a-half months passed. In spite of his alibi and no conclusive forensic evidence proving his involvement, Mr. Keith was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to death. In 2007, after all his allotted appeals were exhausted, new counsel took on Mr. Keith’s case. Upon investigating, counsel discovered new evidence for Mr. Keith that supported what Mr. Keith was saying from day one – he is actually innocent. The new evidence proves that the primary evidence used to convict Keith was flawed. The eyewitness identification testimony by a surviving victim was improperly influenced. Thirteen years after he was convicted, Mr. Keith discovered that one of the State’s “witnesses” does not actually exist. At Keith’s trial, the police had testified about a fictitious person and attributed a statement to her in order to bolster the shaky identification testimony of the surviving victim. Mr. Keith’s new evidence further implicates an alternative suspect who told a police informant that he was paid to carry out the murders for which Keith is scheduled to die. The police were aware of the statements by the alternative suspect, but no one turned them over to Keith’s counsel. Kevin Keith has thus far failed to persuade the state's clemency board or the courts to stop his execution which is set for September 15, 2010.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Governor’s ultimate responsibility is to ensure that no human being is executed in Ohio absent absolute certainty. In Kevin Keith’s case, too many questions remain unanswered, and his execution should not proceed as planned," the Statement from Attorneys for Kevin Keith in Response to Today's Parole Board Recommendation Against Clemency," released on August 19, 2010 begins.
"The Parole Board's own recitation of facts and brief findings cannot avoid facts pointing to the existence of doubt about Mr. Keith's guilt. For example, the Parole Board found that the lineup used to identify Mr. Keith for this crime was "arguably suggestive," and recognized that the "science of measuring the extent to which an event is 'encoded' into memory is imprecise," the statement continues.
"The Parole Board also noted the there was no "biological evidence linking Keith to the crime." Unfortunately, however, the Parole Board gave "considerable deference" to the jury and courts in making its recommendation. But it is undisputed that no court or jury has ever considered the entirety of the new evidence that raises serious questions about Mr. Keith’s guilt.
Mr. Keith and his attorneys have not had the opportunity to fully utilize this new evidence to defend against the State’s theory, and Mr. Keith and his attorneys have not had the opportunity to challenge State witnesses through the crucible of cross-examination regarding the numerous inconsistencies in their testimony revealed by this discovery of new evidence. Under these circumstances, the Governor cannot be absolutely certain – as he must be – that Mr. Keith is guilty of this crime and deserves the most final of punishments: execution.
We urge the Governor to review the facts of the case on his own, without deferring to courts that have not completely reviewed the evidence before us today. For example, the Governor should consider that, absent questionable "eyewitness" testimony, there is nothing connecting Mr. Keith to this crime. Indeed, the chief eyewitness against Mr. Keith initially told four people -- in a coherent and stable state -- that he could not identify the shooter because the shooter was wearing a mask. Another survivor initially excluded Mr. Keith as the shooter entirely, noting that the shooter did not have certain physical features possessed by Mr. Keith. Thereafter, Mr. Keith’s face was projected prominently in a highly suggestive photo line-up to these witnesses that would run afoul of the very procedures recognized as unreliable and inaccurate and corrected by reform legislation signed by the Governor. And after Mr. Keith's arrest, still other witnesses who had indicated that the shooter was wearing a mask or could not be identified suddenly were "re-interviewed" by police and pointed to Mr. Keith. What's more, by the time of the clemency hearing, eyewitness descriptions has further changed -- some now stating that the shooter was not wearing a mask at all.
Moreover, brand new evidence -- never heard by a jury -- shows that another man admitted he was paid to commit the crime for which Mr. Keith stands to be executed. And still other evidence shows Mr. Keith has a strong alibi for the time of the crime, supported by four witnesses. These circumstances do not present an absolute certainty of guilt.
That is why prominent individuals and nonpartisan organizations – including more than 30 former state and federal judges and prosecutors, the Ohio Innocence Project, the National Innocence Network (comprised of 61 innocence projects and legal organizations), more than 100 Ohio faith leaders and organizations, 13 leading eyewitness and memory experts, law enforcement, death row exonerees, and thousands of citizens across Ohio and the U.S. -- support clemency for Mr. Keith.
The Parole Board’s recommendation to Governor Strickland is advisory and non-binding, and we urge the Governor to grant Mr. Keith clemency.
Rachel Troutman, Assistant State Public Defender
Andrew King, Assistant State Public Defender
Tyson Fleming, Assistant State Public Defender
John Q. Lewis, Partner, Jones Day
David Mills, The Mills Law Office LLC."
The statement can be found at:
http://kevinkeith.org/Clemency/Response.htm
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
STATEMENT BY KEVIN KEITH'S LAWYERS IN RESPONSE TO PAROLE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AGAINST CLEMENCY;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: On the evening of February 13, 1994, Marichell Chatman, her daughter Marchae, and Marichell’s aunt Linda Chatman were shot to death at the Bucyrus Estates Apartments in Bucyrus, Ohio. Richard Warren, Marichell’s boyfriend, and Marichell’s young cousins, Quanita and Quinton Reeves, were also shot but survived. On February 15, 1994, Kevin Keith was arrested for these shootings. By May 31, 1994, Mr. Keith was sentenced to death for this crime. From crime to sentencing, only three-and-a-half months passed. In spite of his alibi and no conclusive forensic evidence proving his involvement, Mr. Keith was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to death. In 2007, after all his allotted appeals were exhausted, new counsel took on Mr. Keith’s case. Upon investigating, counsel discovered new evidence for Mr. Keith that supported what Mr. Keith was saying from day one – he is actually innocent. The new evidence proves that the primary evidence used to convict Keith was flawed. The eyewitness identification testimony by a surviving victim was improperly influenced. Thirteen years after he was convicted, Mr. Keith discovered that one of the State’s “witnesses” does not actually exist. At Keith’s trial, the police had testified about a fictitious person and attributed a statement to her in order to bolster the shaky identification testimony of the surviving victim. Mr. Keith’s new evidence further implicates an alternative suspect who told a police informant that he was paid to carry out the murders for which Keith is scheduled to die. The police were aware of the statements by the alternative suspect, but no one turned them over to Keith’s counsel. Kevin Keith has thus far failed to persuade the state's clemency board or the courts to stop his execution which is set for September 15, 2010.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Governor’s ultimate responsibility is to ensure that no human being is executed in Ohio absent absolute certainty. In Kevin Keith’s case, too many questions remain unanswered, and his execution should not proceed as planned," the Statement from Attorneys for Kevin Keith in Response to Today's Parole Board Recommendation Against Clemency," released on August 19, 2010 begins.
"The Parole Board's own recitation of facts and brief findings cannot avoid facts pointing to the existence of doubt about Mr. Keith's guilt. For example, the Parole Board found that the lineup used to identify Mr. Keith for this crime was "arguably suggestive," and recognized that the "science of measuring the extent to which an event is 'encoded' into memory is imprecise," the statement continues.
"The Parole Board also noted the there was no "biological evidence linking Keith to the crime." Unfortunately, however, the Parole Board gave "considerable deference" to the jury and courts in making its recommendation. But it is undisputed that no court or jury has ever considered the entirety of the new evidence that raises serious questions about Mr. Keith’s guilt.
Mr. Keith and his attorneys have not had the opportunity to fully utilize this new evidence to defend against the State’s theory, and Mr. Keith and his attorneys have not had the opportunity to challenge State witnesses through the crucible of cross-examination regarding the numerous inconsistencies in their testimony revealed by this discovery of new evidence. Under these circumstances, the Governor cannot be absolutely certain – as he must be – that Mr. Keith is guilty of this crime and deserves the most final of punishments: execution.
We urge the Governor to review the facts of the case on his own, without deferring to courts that have not completely reviewed the evidence before us today. For example, the Governor should consider that, absent questionable "eyewitness" testimony, there is nothing connecting Mr. Keith to this crime. Indeed, the chief eyewitness against Mr. Keith initially told four people -- in a coherent and stable state -- that he could not identify the shooter because the shooter was wearing a mask. Another survivor initially excluded Mr. Keith as the shooter entirely, noting that the shooter did not have certain physical features possessed by Mr. Keith. Thereafter, Mr. Keith’s face was projected prominently in a highly suggestive photo line-up to these witnesses that would run afoul of the very procedures recognized as unreliable and inaccurate and corrected by reform legislation signed by the Governor. And after Mr. Keith's arrest, still other witnesses who had indicated that the shooter was wearing a mask or could not be identified suddenly were "re-interviewed" by police and pointed to Mr. Keith. What's more, by the time of the clemency hearing, eyewitness descriptions has further changed -- some now stating that the shooter was not wearing a mask at all.
Moreover, brand new evidence -- never heard by a jury -- shows that another man admitted he was paid to commit the crime for which Mr. Keith stands to be executed. And still other evidence shows Mr. Keith has a strong alibi for the time of the crime, supported by four witnesses. These circumstances do not present an absolute certainty of guilt.
That is why prominent individuals and nonpartisan organizations – including more than 30 former state and federal judges and prosecutors, the Ohio Innocence Project, the National Innocence Network (comprised of 61 innocence projects and legal organizations), more than 100 Ohio faith leaders and organizations, 13 leading eyewitness and memory experts, law enforcement, death row exonerees, and thousands of citizens across Ohio and the U.S. -- support clemency for Mr. Keith.
The Parole Board’s recommendation to Governor Strickland is advisory and non-binding, and we urge the Governor to grant Mr. Keith clemency.
Rachel Troutman, Assistant State Public Defender
Andrew King, Assistant State Public Defender
Tyson Fleming, Assistant State Public Defender
John Q. Lewis, Partner, Jones Day
David Mills, The Mills Law Office LLC."
The statement can be found at:
http://kevinkeith.org/Clemency/Response.htm
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
TROY DAVIS: TEXAS DEATH PENALTY BLOG REACTS TO JUDGE'S DENIAL OF INNOCENCE CLAIM: SUGGESTS "SOUTHERN STYLE JUSTICE IS ALIVE AND WELL IN GEORGIA."
"The fact that these recantations aren't seen as persuasive is mind-boggling. The people who recanted their testimony could face perjury charges and possible jail time for coming forward. But they came forward nonetheless because they wanted to tell the truth. Why was this not given any weight?
It seems that Southern-style justice is alive and well in Georgia. A Black man might be sitting in the White House, but that doesn't mean a black man will be treated fairly in our court system--and this ruling is proof of it."
TEXAS DEATH PENALTY BLOG;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); The Troy Davis case concerns the case of Troy Anthony Davis, a former sports coach from the U.S. state of Georgia, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991 for the August 19, 1989 murder of off-duty Savannah, Georgia police officer Mark MacPhail. Throughout the trial and subsequent appeals, Davis maintained his innocence, claiming he was wrongfully convicted of the crime as a result of false identification. After the trial and first set of appeals, seven of the nine prosecution eyewitnesses who had linked Davis to the killing recanted or contradicted their original trial testimony, claiming police coercion and questionable interrogation tactics. The witness who first implicated Davis and has remained consistent, Sylvester "Redd" Coles, was initially a suspect in the crime. Coles was seen acting suspiciously the night of MacPhail's murder and has been heard boasting that he killed an off-duty police officer. There is only one witness who did not recant his testimony and is not himself a suspect in the murder, but he made an in-court identification of Davis two years after the crime.Davis opponents say Coles came back to the scene of the shooting with a female after police arrived. Davis changed clothes (even asking Coles for a shirt later) and fled to Atlanta with his sister. Davis has repeatedly asked the courts to examine the new exculpatory evidence, but so far has not been successful in persuading a majority of judges to grant him a new trial or conduct a hearing in which the recanting eyewitnesses could be cross-examined to determine the credibility of Davis’ innocence claims. In October 2008, Davis filed a second Habeas petition in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that it was the first time Davis was presenting a free-standing innocence claim and that no court has yet held an evidentiary hearing on the exculpatory evidence of recanted testimony. On 16 April 2009 the three-judge panel denied Davis' petition on procedural grounds by a 2-1 majority. Amnesty International has strongly condemned the refusal of U.S. courts to examine the innocence evidence, and has organized rallies and letter-writing campaigns to persuade the Georgia and Federal courts to grant Davis a new trial or an evidentiary hearing. Many prominent politicians and leaders, including President Jimmy Carter,[6] Pope Benedict XVI, Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Presidential candidate Bob Barr, and former FBI Director and judge William S. Sessions have called upon the courts to grant Davis a new trial or evidentiary hearing. On 17 August 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court, over the dissenting votes of two justices, ordered a federal district court in Georgia to consider and rule on whether new evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence." However, the federal court judge returned the case to the Supreme Court later in the month - without directing a new trial - saying he was not satisfied that Davis was innocent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On August 24, federal judge William Moore denied Troy Davis' petition for a new trial," the August 25, 2010, Texas Death Penalty Blog begins, under the heading, "Troy Davis'appeal for new trial denied."
"Moore was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to hold a hearing on Troy's claim of innocence in the murder that sent him to death row. In June, Troy and his lawyers presented convincing evidence of that innocence at the two-day hearing in Savannah, Ga. Yet Judge Moore was unmoved by the testimony ruled and against Troy's petition," the post continues.
"Troy was convicted largely on the basis of eyewitness testimony--no DNA connected him to the crime. During the hearing in June, most of the same witnesses from the original trial came forward to say that they were mistaken in originally identifying Troy. Other witnesses said that another man, Sylvester Coles, committed the crime.
But Moore rejected the testimony, claiming that the testimony of the seven witnesses who recanted was "too general to provide anything more than smoke and mirrors," and the witnesses who say they heard Coles admit to the murder weren't "credible."
Troy's sister Martina Correia, who has been spearheading the fight for her brother, points out that there is a double standard about what is "credible." The recanted testimony and the testimony against Coles is considered not credible now, but when many of these same witnesses testified against Troy years ago, their stories were considered credible. Why then? Why not now?
Many people who attended the hearing had the complete opposite reaction to Judge Moore. Lawrence Hayes, a former death row prisoner and board member of the CEDP, reports:
Representing the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, on June Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010, I traveled to Savannah, Ga., to attend the Troy Davis Innocence Hearing. My original expectation was on the day of the hearing I would hear several witnesses take the witness stand, recant their testimony and, that process over, await the decision of the hearing judge. But the truth is, what I witnessed on the day of the hearing was simply extraordinary. The combined testimony of the defense witnesses removed any shadow of doubt that Troy Anthony Davis is innocent of the crime for which he stands convicted and, at the very least, is entitled to a new trial.
"When I was first approached by the police, I told them I could barely recognize the shooter," Atwan Williams, said on the stand. "I was scared and nervous." Atwan also signed a statement alleging Troy's guilt. The problem is Atwan can't read. He couldn't even read the typed statement he signed 20 years ago when the defense counsel handed it to him at the hearing.
"When the police arrived, I told them I could barely recognize the shooter," said Williams. "I was scared, nervous, I was just trying to take off." Asked if he had read back the deposition he gave to police, Williams replied: "No sir, I can't read."
Then there was the testimony of Jeffrey Sapp, who stated that when he was questioned, he had several angry Savannah police officers surrounding him. As for his original testimony against Troy, he stated, "I was saying the same thing they told me to say."
Kevin McQueen told the court he had been given a lighter sentence in return for simply making up the details of a confession he claimed Davis had given him. "I was mad at him," he said.
All the recantation witnesses' testimonies were direct, clear, unshakable and, most important, believable. For me, it was the character and presentation of these witnesses that made the credibility of the next line of witnesses plausible. These witnesses provided eyewitness and circumstantial evidence that points to another man (Sylvester "Red" Coles) as the likely killer of the police officer--the crime for which Troy Davis has been sitting on Georgia's death row for the past 20 years.
The fact that these recantations aren't seen as persuasive is mind-boggling. The people who recanted their testimony could face perjury charges and possible jail time for coming forward. But they came forward nonetheless because they wanted to tell the truth. Why was this not given any weight?
It seems that Southern-style justice is alive and well in Georgia. A Black man might be sitting in the White House, but that doesn't mean a black man will be treated fairly in our court system--and this ruling is proof of it."
The post can be found at:
http://texasdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
LINDY CHAMBERLAIN: THE CAR WAS WRONGLY SAID TO BE AWASH WITH BLOOD - BUT NOT GIVEN CHANCE TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND DO OWN TESTS; HER WEB SITE;
"Since they had very little information about what evidence the Crown would bring at the trial the Chamberlains were often at a loss to refute Crown statements as to the meaning of the evidence shown. They knew the Crown scenario was wrong - the car was not 'awash' in blood - but they had not been given the chance to examine the evidence and do their own tests as is normal. Indeed, the Chamberlains did not get access to the Crown 'evidence' for testing until just prior to the final appeals process. In an extraordinary move, the Northern Territory Attorney General had argued personally before the Territory Supreme Court for evidence to be withheld from the Chamberlains, and it had been granted."
FROM THE LINDY CHAMBERLAIN-CREIGHTON HOME PAGE;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: WIKIPEDIA): Michael and Lindy Chamberlain's first daughter, Azaria, was born on June 11, 1980. When Azaria was two months old, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain took their three children on a camping trip to Ayers Rock, arriving on August 16, 1980. On the night of August 17, Chamberlain reported that the child had been taken from her tent by a dingo. A massive search was organised, but all that was found were remains of some of the bloody clothes, which confirmed the death of baby Azaria. Her body has never been discovered. Although the initial coronal inquiry supported the Chamberlains' account of Azaria's disappearance, Lindy Chamberlain was later prosecuted for the murder of her child on the basis of the finding of the baby's jumpsuit and of tests that appeared to indicate the presence of blood found in the Chamberlains' car. This forensic gathering convicted her of murder on October 29, 1982, and sentenced her to life imprisonment; the theory was that she slit the child's throat and hid the body. Michael Chamberlain was convicted as an accessory to murder. Shortly after her conviction, Lindy Chamberlain gave birth to her fourth child, Kahlia, on November 17, 1982, in prison. An appeal against her conviction was rejected by the High Court in February, 1984. New evidence emerged on February 2, 1986 when a remaining item of Azaria's clothing was found partially buried near Uluru in an isolated location, adjacent to a dingo lair. This was the matinee jacket which the police had maintained for years did not exist. Five days later, Chamberlain was released. The Northern Territory Government publicly said it was because "she had suffered enough." In view of inconsistencies in the earlier blood testing which gave rise to potential reasonable doubts about the propriety of her conviction and as DNA testing was not as advanced in the early 1980s it emerged that the 'baby blood' found in her car could have been any substance, Lindy Chamberlain's life sentence was remitted by the Northern Territory Government and a Royal Commission began to investigate the matter in 1987. Chamberlain's conviction was overturned in September, 1988 and another inquest in 1995 returned an open verdict. In recent years there have been fatal dingo attacks on children, one famous instance being at the holiday resort at Fraser Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Canada has its own Dingo case - the the prosecution of Louise Reynolds for the second-degree murder of her seven-year-old daughter Sharon - Sharon Reynolds case - and it involves none other than Dr. Charles Smith. Smith stubbornly held on to his opinion that Sharon had died after receiving eighty-one knife and scissors wounds - in spite of the clear signs - that should have been evident to a real forensic pathologist that Sharon had been savaged by a Pit Bull in the basement of the family home. As Justice Justice Stephen Goudge noted in the report of his public inquiry, Smith tended "to mislead the court" by overstating his knowledge in a particular area, rather than acknowledging the limits to his expertise. "When Dr. Smith performed the post-mortem examination in Sharon's cases, he had little experience with either stab wounds or dog bites. He had only seen one or two cases of each kind. At the preliminary hearing, however, Dr. Smith left the impression that he had significant experience with both. Dr. Smith told the court: "I've seen dog wounds, I've seen coyote wounds, I've seen wolf wounds. I recently went to the archipelago of islands owned by another country up near the North Pole and had occasion to study osteology and look at patterns of wounding from polar bears. His attempt to so exaggerate his abilities disguised his lack of relevant expertise." Smith's unscientific, utterly ignorant opinion, placed Louise Reynolds in a hell in which she was wrongly arrested as a murderer in her small city, imprisoned, and experiencing the horror of having her other children seized from her by the authorities. Similarly, Lindy Chamberlain, a bereaved mother, was branded as a killer and placed in her own hell, as a result of the Crown's forensic authorities who were so certain about their opinions. Lindy Chamberlain's request to have her daughter's death certificate to reflect the real cause of death to give her and her family closure. The authorities are always talking about the need for the justice system to provide closure for victims of crimes. Why would they hesitate to provide closure to victims of wrongful prosecutions such as Lindy Chamberlain and her husband?
HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'(The jury system) we currently have, has to be the best in the world, because everyone has the opportunity to have their innocence proved.'
(one of the jurors in the Chamberlain case, as quoted in the Brisbane Courier Mail, 12 April 1984)
"As the Crown Prosecutor in the trial put it, it was a case of simple alternatives: either a dingo took Azaria, or she was murdered by her mother. Sadly, now that Lindy has been exonerated many of those in the police, public, and government who favoured murder seem unwilling to consider their alternate claim; that a dingo was responsible," the informative article on Lindy Chamberlerlain-Creighton's web-site begins, under the heading, "Legal: Process and Findings."
"Many who have no experience with the justice system have the mistaken impression that you basically go in and tell the truth - "put all your cards on the table" - which the judge or jury will see plainly, and justice will be done. In practice it is not so, " the article continues.
"The Australian legal system is based on the British Commonwealth law, which says a person is innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The juror quoted above may not have understood that. Unlike the justice system in some countries, you are not supposed to have to prove your innocence. In the case of one person or business suing another, it is adversarial - one against the other. With Azaria, it was a case of disappearance and presumed death. The coroner's magistrate holds an inquest to try to determine the cause of the disappearance and death. The role of the Crown[1] is to act as a 'Minister for Justice', working with the magistrate to solve the mystery. The police and their forensic labs do much of the evidential research, which is supposed to include everything relevant, and without bias.
It is the Crown's job to bring to the courtroom all of the evidence and witnesses (including all eyewitnesses and expert opinion) to try to determine the truth, and the evidence is put out for all to see. Because of this, there would not normally be any need for the Chamberlains to have a lawyer. The Crown is not supposed to be against them. They were not accused of anything. But, by the time the first inquest came around, there had already been so much rumour and innuendo, and police advised them to have a lawyer, just to keep watch. If he had any concerns he could make his point, or ask questions. He was not there for defence; he would only be there as an additional check, as it was the goal and duty of the Crown to find out the truth without any bias whatsoever.
The second inquest was quite different. It was totally adversarial, and the Chamberlains had been warned that they would end up going to trial. It has seemed to many that the duty of the Crown to be a 'minister for justice' was ignored from that inquest and into the future. Since the decision had been made not to allow the defence to test the evidence, or share any information, not even witness lists, to allow them their legal right to defend themselves, the Chamberlain's best hope was to use the second inquest to try and learn what angle the Crown would take at the trial. The lines were clear. No longer a 'minister for justice', the behaviour of the prosecution was purely tactical - to obtain, and maintain a conviction. Perhaps that is why the government offered Lindy a choice after the second inquest: say she was guilty and go free or continue to insist she was innocent and go to jail. The leaders of the NT government had the upper hand in every respect, and the government treasury to fund it all. In the end, they spent more than four times as much as the Chamberlains did, though the figures quoted in public were much less than the ones submitted to the Royal Commission.
Since they had very little information about what evidence the Crown would bring at the trial the Chamberlains were often at a loss to refute Crown statements as to the meaning of the evidence shown. They knew the Crown scenario was wrong - the car was not 'awash' in blood - but they had not been given the chance to examine the evidence and do their own tests as is normal. Indeed, the Chamberlains did not get access to the Crown 'evidence' for testing until just prior to the final appeals process. In an extraordinary move, the Northern Territory Attorney General had argued personally before the Territory Supreme Court for evidence to be withheld from the Chamberlains, and it had been granted.
It would appear by information available that some members of the jury had already made up their minds before the trial; at least one juror boasted to neighbours that he was glad he was on the jury so that he could 'get the bitch' - a promise which was repeated to the police officers some jurors associated with 'after work'. Many of the jurors found the trial difficult to understand. The initial vote of twelve jurors was four guilty, four not guilty, and four undecided. (This information was relayed to the Chamberlains, and the media, by someone having looked in the jury room rubbish bins.) Whilst the judge had summed up for acquittal, some had thought he had told them to find Lindy guilty. They found the Crown forensic scientist, Mrs Joy Kuhl, to be very clear, patient, and friendly as she explained all of the substances she had found in the car, which she said was baby's blood. The defence scientist, whilst certainly more qualified as a scientist, was a university professor, whom the jury found talked over their heads, using language they did not understand.
Since the Chamberlain defence did not have access to any of the evidence, they had to rely on reading the Crown forensic scientist's notes. It was quite clear that the tests had been incomplete, and in the case of one test, the inventor of the test said that the Crown had not only done the test wrong, but read it wrong too. But the defence could not say what the substances in the car really were, as they were not allowed to have any of the substances to test themselves. After the trial, they found that one substance said to be blood (the underdash spray), was found in 10% of cars of the same model. If it was really blood from an infant, then a lot of babies had been murdered in the same way across the country. It would seem that, in any case, the car was not 'awash' in blood. (Added together, the total of claimed 'blood' substances was only 5ml - one teaspoon - anyway.) It came out in the trial that the lab had destroyed the test samples after the findings had been recorded. The Crown testing had used up all the supposed 'blood' in testing, and there was none available to the defence anyhow. The jury did not know that the defence had not been allowed to do its own testing, and so at least one juror wrote in their notes, "Why didn't the defence test the blood in the car? Was it because they didn't dare take the chance? Or did they, and obviously could not tell us the results?" In the end, it seems that misunderstanding and a very simple premise sealed Lindy's fate.
One person had gone into the room where the tent was set up to simulate the campsite on the fateful night, which was accurate right down to the amount of light. That person could not see inside the tent, and called the others. They could not see in such dim light either. They concluded that Lindy must have lied when she told the court she could see inside the tent on that night. If she had lied about that, then she must have lied about everything. They went back upstairs and took a vote - all guilty. It never seems to have occurred to them that Lindy had been in the dark for several hours. They had come from a brightly lit room and corridor, and should have allowed their eyes to adjust and they would have been able to see as well as she had, as had the court and media had at the first inquest night view at the actual Ayers Rock campsite.
The Crown apparently did not think that they had proven the Chamberlains guilty; while the jury was out they had approached the defence to enquire as to the amount of compensation the Chamberlains would be suing for.
There was so much wrong with the case that there was never a doubt that an appeal would take place. The appeals process does not go over the evidence. It looks at the process - whether the correct court procedure was followed, and the lawyers had not made accidental or deliberate errors - and what was presented in court, to determine if the jury was entitled, in their best judgement, to find the defendant guilty or not. In other words, was the case presented legally correctly so the jury was entitled to make the decision they had? Whether all of the evidence was available, whether by Crown tactics or even defence mistakes, was never a question in the appeals. Even though some of the appeal judges felt that the verdict of guilty was wrong, they upheld the right of the jury to make the decision they had. If there was any new evidence refuting the claims of the Crown, they could be heard in the appeals court, but only if it was totally new, like the finding of the matinee jacket. It is a subtle distinction. The matinee jacket had never been produced in court, its only claim to existence was by Lindy. Finding it was new evidence. Merely discovering, after her conviction, that the 'arterial underdash spray' was in fact sound deadener, and other supposed 'blood' substances were milkshake, and copper dust were not new evidence - the substances had already been discussed in court - and it was only considered additional evidence. It therefore could not be presented in the appeals court. It would have to be referred back to the Northern Territory, who could choose whether to reopen the case or not.
Lindy was ultimately released from prison because of political pressure, and a journalist threatening to expose the way the Northern Territory government of the day had hidden and twisted the truth. Since Lindy had reached the end of all legal avenues available to her, Federal and Territory laws had to be changed to allow for a Royal Commission, and the quashing of the convictions, giving complete exoneration of the Chamberlains.
It is worth noting that only two courts specifically set about to throughly investigate the disappearance, and presumed death of Azaria. They were the first coroner's inquest, and the Royal Commission - the beginning, and the end, regarding the question of Lindy being responsible for murder. Both were extraordinarily complete in their investigations, and reached the same conclusions - that the Chamberlain's did not bear any responsibility for their daughter's death. The first inquest coroner said that the cause of death was by dingo. He also later said that it was probably the easiest decision of his career. The Royal Commission, which wa set up only to determine if the Chamberlains were guilty or not, nevertheless made a statement to indicate that there was very strong evidence to say a dingo was responsible. Both of these legal bodies had full, open investigations. Somewhere between that beginning and end, the truth got lost for a while, except to Lindy and those who fought for her, and for justice."
***
The srticle can be found at:
http://www.lindychamberlain.com/content/legal
TROY DAVIS: NOT INNOCENT ENOUGH. FEDERAL JUDGE RETURNS CASE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT WITHOUT A NEW TRIAL; SAVANNAH MORNING NEWS;
"The evidence produced at the hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis' claim of actual innocence and a complete review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury's judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered city of Savannah Police office Mark Allen MacPhail on Aug. 19, 1989," Moore ruled......
Nobody walking out of that hearing could view this as an open-and-shut case," Larry Cox, the group's (Amnesty International) executive director who attended the June hearing, said in a prepared statement. "The testimony that came to light demonstrates that doubt still exists, but the legal bar to proving innocence is set so high it was virtually insurmountable. It would be utterly unconscionable to proceed with this execution, pure and simple."
REPORTER JAN SKUTCH: SAVANNAH MORNING NEWS; Wikipedia informs us that, "The Savannah Morning News is a daily newspaper in Savannah, Georgia."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); The Troy Davis case concerns the case of Troy Anthony Davis, a former sports coach from the U.S. state of Georgia, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991 for the August 19, 1989 murder of off-duty Savannah, Georgia police officer Mark MacPhail. Throughout the trial and subsequent appeals, Davis maintained his innocence, claiming he was wrongfully convicted of the crime as a result of false identification. After the trial and first set of appeals, seven of the nine prosecution eyewitnesses who had linked Davis to the killing recanted or contradicted their original trial testimony, claiming police coercion and questionable interrogation tactics. The witness who first implicated Davis and has remained consistent, Sylvester "Redd" Coles, was initially a suspect in the crime. Coles was seen acting suspiciously the night of MacPhail's murder and has been heard boasting that he killed an off-duty police officer. There is only one witness who did not recant his testimony and is not himself a suspect in the murder, but he made an in-court identification of Davis two years after the crime.Davis opponents say Coles came back to the scene of the shooting with a female after police arrived. Davis changed clothes (even asking Coles for a shirt later) and fled to Atlanta with his sister. Davis has repeatedly asked the courts to examine the new exculpatory evidence, but so far has not been successful in persuading a majority of judges to grant him a new trial or conduct a hearing in which the recanting eyewitnesses could be cross-examined to determine the credibility of Davis’ innocence claims. In October 2008, Davis filed a second Habeas petition in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that it was the first time Davis was presenting a free-standing innocence claim and that no court has yet held an evidentiary hearing on the exculpatory evidence of recanted testimony. On 16 April 2009 the three-judge panel denied Davis' petition on procedural grounds by a 2-1 majority. Amnesty International has strongly condemned the refusal of U.S. courts to examine the innocence evidence, and has organized rallies and letter-writing campaigns to persuade the Georgia and Federal courts to grant Davis a new trial or an evidentiary hearing. Many prominent politicians and leaders, including President Jimmy Carter,[6] Pope Benedict XVI, Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Presidential candidate Bob Barr, and former FBI Director and judge William S. Sessions have called upon the courts to grant Davis a new trial or evidentiary hearing. On 17 August 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court, over the dissenting votes of two justices, ordered a federal district court in Georgia to consider and rule on whether new evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Troy Anthony Davis failed to prove his innocence in the 1989 slaying of off-duty Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail and will not get a new trial, a federal judge ruled Tuesday," the story by reporter Jan Skutch published earlier today in Savannah Now begins, under the heading, "Judge: Troy Davis still guilty: Federal court ruling returns case to U.S. Supreme Court without a new trial."
"This court concludes that executing an innocent person would violate the Eighth Amendment (barring cruel and unusual punishment) of the U.S. Constitution," U.S. District Judge William T. Moore Jr. ruled in a 172-page order," the story continues.
""However, Mr. Davis is not innocent."
His ruling was sent directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent it here last year with instructions that a federal judge determine whether evidence not available at the 1991 trial would "clearly establish (Davis') innocence."
Moore said that while the state's case "may not be ironclad, most reasonable jurors would again vote to convict Mr. Davis of officer MacPhail's murder."
"Ultimately, while Mr. Davis' new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors," Moore ruled. "The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value."
Appeal likely
Moore found Davis' appeals team "failed to make a showing of actual innocence" that would entitle him to a new trial.
"After an exhaustive review of the evidence, the District Court reached the correct decision today," said Russell Willard, spokesman for the state attorney general's office whose attorneys presented the case before Moore.
In Washington, D.C., attorney Danielle Garton, who is co-counsel for Davis' defense, said attorneys there were going through the order.
"Obviously we're really disappointed with the court's findings and conclusions," she said. "We believe that Troy Davis is innocent, and we intend to appeal the District Court's order."
She said attorneys are trying to decide whether their appeal will go before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or directly to the Supreme Court, calling the procedural issues "a bit unprecedented. This is sort of new territory."
Chatham County District Attorney Larry Chisolm said Tuesday he could not comment on the merits of the case.
Should a new trial be ordered, Chisolm's office would prosecute it.
"My biggest reaction is the detail of Judge Moore's order and that he did such a complete job of findings of fact," Chisolm said.
He cautioned against assuming the case is over because Davis' lawyers still can appeal.
Families react
Davis' sister and champion, Martina Correia, said Tuesday the fight is not over.
"I believe Troy's innocent," she said. "We're still going to keep fighting."
She said the Supreme Court would not have sent the case back unless there were questions to be answered.
"I don't agree with the judge's decision," Correia said.
Amnesty International USA officials, who have backed the Davis appeals effort, said evidence "continues to cast doubt over the case."
"Nobody walking out of that hearing could view this as an open-and-shut case," Larry Cox, the group's executive director who attended the June hearing, said in a prepared statement. "The testimony that came to light demonstrates that doubt still exists, but the legal bar to proving innocence is set so high it was virtually insurmountable. It would be utterly unconscionable to proceed with this execution, pure and simple."
Mark Allen MacPhail Jr., the victim's son, said he was "ecstatic" to learn of Moore's ruling.
"I was jumping up and down when I heard," MacPhail said, adding news of the ruling left him "very" relieved.
"We were wondering what took so long," he said. After seeing the ruling, "I can see what took him so long."
But MacPhail realizes it is not over.
While relieved, he said, "the fight's not over."
On death row
Moore's ruling comes after two days of hearings in the federal courthouse in Savannah to allow Davis' lawyer to present evidence not available at the 1991 trial to "clearly" establish his innocence.
Davis remains on death row at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison at Jackson, where the state's execution chamber is located.
A Chatham County Superior Court jury took two hours to convict Davis Aug. 28, 1991, in the MacPhail slaying.
The victim was shot twice with a .38-caliber pistol early Aug., 19, 1989, as he rushed to assist a homeless man, Michael Young, under attack over some beer in the parking lot of the Greyhound Bus Terminal/Burger King restaurant at Oglethorpe Avenue and Fahm Street.
The defendant contended a second man, Sylvester "Redd" Coles, was the gunman and that Davis was the victim of mistaken identity.
They claimed seven witnesses had recanted earlier testimony and an eighth had contradicted her testimony.
But Moore ruled that Davis "vastly overstated the value of his evidence of innocence."
That "new evidence does not change the balance of proof from trial."
"Of his seven 'recantations,' only one is a meaningful, credible recantation.
"The value of that recantation is diminished because it only confirms that which was obvious at trial - that its author was testifying falsely," Moore ruled.
That witness was Kevin McQueen, a "jailhouse snitch" who related Davis' confession to MacPhail's murder.
McQueen testified in June there was "no truth" to his trial testimony.
Nor did Davis' non-recantation evidence change anything, Moore said.
"The evidence produced at the hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis' claim of actual innocence and a complete review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury's judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered city of Savannah Police office Mark Allen MacPhail on Aug. 19, 1989," Moore ruled."
The story can be found at:
http://savannahnow.com/news/2010-08-25/judge-troy-davis-still-guilty
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
KEVIN KEITH; TROY DAVIS: JEFF GAMSO'S TAKE; INNOCENCE WINS; INNOCENTS STILL LOSE; GUYS WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CONVICTED REMAIN ON DEATH ROW;
"Knowing what we know now, these guys should never have been convicted.
Instead, they find themselves on death row. The time is drawing close.
I could be referring to any number of folks, but I have two in mind.
There's Kevin Keith. Last week, the Ohio Parole Board declared that he wasn't factually innocent and should, therefore, be killed. I've said repeatedly, I don't know what happened that night in February 1994 when Keith did or did not shoot 6 people. The implication is that they'd have taken a different position if they decided he didn't do it.
Now there's Troy Davis. You remember Troy. All those witnesses who recanted. And the guy who confessed. And the Supremes told the lower court judge to determine if he was innocent but didn't say on what basis or how or what would follow from the determination. And the judge held a hearing and excluded much of the evidence Troy's lawyers wanted to present......
It's really sweet, gives you a warm feeling all over to know that there's some sentiment that killing factually innocent people is a bad idea. Now, what about the legally innocent but for bad counsel, hidden evidence, lying witnesses, mistaken witnesses, junk science, junk witnesses, aggravated newpaper editors and talk radio, racism, class prejudice, the accidents of geography and birth? I could go on.
They still don't have to kill Kevin Keith. Troy Davis has litigation ahead. But their time is running out. Things aren't looking good for them right now.
And there are a few thousand others on the row.
Innocence may be a start, but it isn't nearly enough."
JEFF GAMSO: GAMSO FOR THE DEFENCE;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: On the evening of February 13, 1994, Marichell Chatman, her daughter Marchae, and Marichell’s aunt Linda Chatman were shot to death at the Bucyrus Estates Apartments in Bucyrus, Ohio. Richard Warren, Marichell’s boyfriend, and Marichell’s young cousins, Quanita and Quinton Reeves, were also shot but survived. On February 15, 1994, Kevin Keith was arrested for these shootings. By May 31, 1994, Mr. Keith was sentenced to death for this crime. From crime to sentencing, only three-and-a-half months passed. In spite of his alibi and no conclusive forensic evidence proving his involvement, Mr. Keith was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to death. In 2007, after all his allotted appeals were exhausted, new counsel took on Mr. Keith’s case. Upon investigating, counsel discovered new evidence for Mr. Keith that supported what Mr. Keith was saying from day one – he is actually innocent. The new evidence proves that the primary evidence used to convict Keith was flawed. The eyewitness identification testimony by a surviving victim was improperly influenced. Thirteen years after he was convicted, Mr. Keith discovered that one of the State’s “witnesses” does not actually exist. At Keith’s trial, the police had testified about a fictitious person and attributed a statement to her in order to bolster the shaky identification testimony of the surviving victim. Mr. Keith’s new evidence further implicates an alternative suspect who told a police informant that he was paid to carry out the murders for which Keith is scheduled to die. The police were aware of the statements by the alternative suspect, but no one turned them over to Keith’s counsel. Kevin Keith has thus far failed to persuade the state's clemency board or the courts to stop his execution which is set for September 15, 2010.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); The Troy Davis case concerns the case of Troy Anthony Davis, a former sports coach from the U.S. state of Georgia, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991 for the August 19, 1989 murder of off-duty Savannah, Georgia police officer Mark MacPhail. Throughout the trial and subsequent appeals, Davis maintained his innocence, claiming he was wrongfully convicted of the crime as a result of false identification. After the trial and first set of appeals, seven of the nine prosecution eyewitnesses who had linked Davis to the killing recanted or contradicted their original trial testimony, claiming police coercion and questionable interrogation tactics. The witness who first implicated Davis and has remained consistent, Sylvester "Redd" Coles, was initially a suspect in the crime. Coles was seen acting suspiciously the night of MacPhail's murder and has been heard boasting that he killed an off-duty police officer. There is only one witness who did not recant his testimony and is not himself a suspect in the murder, but he made an in-court identification of Davis two years after the crime.Davis opponents say Coles came back to the scene of the shooting with a female after police arrived. Davis changed clothes (even asking Coles for a shirt later) and fled to Atlanta with his sister. Davis has repeatedly asked the courts to examine the new exculpatory evidence, but so far has not been successful in persuading a majority of judges to grant him a new trial or conduct a hearing in which the recanting eyewitnesses could be cross-examined to determine the credibility of Davis’ innocence claims. In October 2008, Davis filed a second Habeas petition in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that it was the first time Davis was presenting a free-standing innocence claim and that no court has yet held an evidentiary hearing on the exculpatory evidence of recanted testimony. On 16 April 2009 the three-judge panel denied Davis' petition on procedural grounds by a 2-1 majority. Amnesty International has strongly condemned the refusal of U.S. courts to examine the innocence evidence, and has organized rallies and letter-writing campaigns to persuade the Georgia and Federal courts to grant Davis a new trial or an evidentiary hearing. Many prominent politicians and leaders, including President Jimmy Carter,[6] Pope Benedict XVI, Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Presidential candidate Bob Barr, and former FBI Director and judge William S. Sessions have called upon the courts to grant Davis a new trial or evidentiary hearing. On 17 August 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court, over the dissenting votes of two justices, ordered a federal district court in Georgia to consider and rule on whether new evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The title of this post may be a shade deceptive. As I say routinely, I don't know what happened. And, frankly, I don't much care," Jeff Gamso's post published earlier today under the heading, "Innocence Wins, Innocents Still Lose," begins.
"But I know this much. Knowing what we know now, these guys should never have been convicted," the post continues.
"Instead, they find themselves on death row. The time is drawing close.
I could be referring to any number of folks, but I have two in mind.
There's Kevin Keith. Last week, the Ohio Parole Board declared that he wasn't factually innocent and should, therefore, be killed. I've said repeatedly, I don't know what happened that night in February 1994 when Keith did or did not shoot 6 people. The implication is that they'd have taken a different position if they decided he didn't do it.
Now there's Troy Davis. You remember Troy. All those witnesses who recanted. And the guy who confessed. And the Supremes told the lower court judge to determine if he was innocent but didn't say on what basis or how or what would follow from the determination. And the judge held a hearing and excluded much of the evidence Troy's lawyers wanted to present. And now he's issued this 174 page Order.
The bottom line is in the first paragraph.
For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that while executing an innocent person would violate the United States Constitution, Mr. Davis has failed to prove his innocence.
That first clause is terrific. It may seem self-evident, but it's not. The Supremes have never said it. It's never formally been adopted as the law of the land. It is, in fact, a wholly controversial claim. If executing one who is actually innocent, by whatever measure we use to test it, is a constitutional violation, then the courts have to grapple with freestanding claims of innocence in capital habeas cases. Until now, the courts have refused to entertain those claims.
Like I said, no small thing.
But for Troy Davis, it's nothing at all. Because there's that second clause. He didn't prove it to the satisfaction of Judge Moore.
But when you get right down to it, isn't it the same point? Given what we know now, would a reasonable jury have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Would it have decided to kill the guy?
If not, what are we doing? And, in any event, why don't we even ask that question?
This isn't the raving of an abolitionist. (Well, yeah, it is. But I'm not speaking as an abolitionist here.) It's the question you need to answer even if you think the government should kill. Should it kill even if the defendant, properly tried and with all available information, would have gotten life? Should it kill because it was once a good idea even if it isn't now?
Should killing be the default?
It's really sweet, gives you a warm feeling all over to know that there's some sentiment that killing factually innocent people is a bad idea. Now, what about the legally innocent but for bad counsel, hidden evidence, lying witnesses, mistaken witnesses, junk science, junk witnesses, aggravated newpaper editors and talk radio, racism, class prejudice, the accidents of geography and birth? I could go on. They still don't have to kill Kevin Keith. Troy Davis has litigation ahead. But their time is running out. Things aren't looking good for them right now. And there are a few thousand others on the row.
Innocence may be a start, but it isn't nearly enough."
-----------------------------------------
From Songs of Innocence and of Experience by William Blake
"On Another's Sorrow" (Songs of Innocence)
Can I see another's woe,
Can I see another's grief,
And not be in sorrow too?
And not seek for kind relief?
Can I see a falling tear,
Can a father see his child
And not feel my sorrow's share?
Weep, nor be with sorrow fill'd?
Can a mother sit and hear
An infant groan, an infant fear?
No, no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
And can he who smiles on all
Hear the wren with sorrows small,
Hear the small bird's grief & care,
Hear the woes that infants bear,
And not sit beside the nest,
Pouring pity in their breast;
And not sit the cradle near,
Weeping tear on infant's tear;
And not sit both night & day,
Wiping all our tears away?
O! no, never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
He doth give his joy to all;
He becomes an infant small;
He becomes a man of woe;
He doth feel the sorrow too.
Think not thou canst sigh a sigh,
And thy maker is not by;
Think not thou canst weep a tear,
And thy maker is not near.
O! he gives to us his joy
That our grief he may destroy;
Till our grief is fled & gone
He doth sit by us and moan.
"The Voice of the Ancient Bard" (Songs of Experience)
Youth of delight, come hither,
And see the opening morn,
Image of truth new-born.
Doubt is fled & clouds of reason,
Dark disputes & artful teazing.
Folly is an endless maze,
Tangled roots perplex her ways.
How many have fallen there!
They stumble all night over bones of the dead,
And feel they know not what but care,
And wish to lead others, when they should be led.
--------------------------------------------
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2010/08/innocence-wins-innocents-still-lose.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, they find themselves on death row. The time is drawing close.
I could be referring to any number of folks, but I have two in mind.
There's Kevin Keith. Last week, the Ohio Parole Board declared that he wasn't factually innocent and should, therefore, be killed. I've said repeatedly, I don't know what happened that night in February 1994 when Keith did or did not shoot 6 people. The implication is that they'd have taken a different position if they decided he didn't do it.
Now there's Troy Davis. You remember Troy. All those witnesses who recanted. And the guy who confessed. And the Supremes told the lower court judge to determine if he was innocent but didn't say on what basis or how or what would follow from the determination. And the judge held a hearing and excluded much of the evidence Troy's lawyers wanted to present......
It's really sweet, gives you a warm feeling all over to know that there's some sentiment that killing factually innocent people is a bad idea. Now, what about the legally innocent but for bad counsel, hidden evidence, lying witnesses, mistaken witnesses, junk science, junk witnesses, aggravated newpaper editors and talk radio, racism, class prejudice, the accidents of geography and birth? I could go on.
They still don't have to kill Kevin Keith. Troy Davis has litigation ahead. But their time is running out. Things aren't looking good for them right now.
And there are a few thousand others on the row.
Innocence may be a start, but it isn't nearly enough."
JEFF GAMSO: GAMSO FOR THE DEFENCE;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: On the evening of February 13, 1994, Marichell Chatman, her daughter Marchae, and Marichell’s aunt Linda Chatman were shot to death at the Bucyrus Estates Apartments in Bucyrus, Ohio. Richard Warren, Marichell’s boyfriend, and Marichell’s young cousins, Quanita and Quinton Reeves, were also shot but survived. On February 15, 1994, Kevin Keith was arrested for these shootings. By May 31, 1994, Mr. Keith was sentenced to death for this crime. From crime to sentencing, only three-and-a-half months passed. In spite of his alibi and no conclusive forensic evidence proving his involvement, Mr. Keith was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to death. In 2007, after all his allotted appeals were exhausted, new counsel took on Mr. Keith’s case. Upon investigating, counsel discovered new evidence for Mr. Keith that supported what Mr. Keith was saying from day one – he is actually innocent. The new evidence proves that the primary evidence used to convict Keith was flawed. The eyewitness identification testimony by a surviving victim was improperly influenced. Thirteen years after he was convicted, Mr. Keith discovered that one of the State’s “witnesses” does not actually exist. At Keith’s trial, the police had testified about a fictitious person and attributed a statement to her in order to bolster the shaky identification testimony of the surviving victim. Mr. Keith’s new evidence further implicates an alternative suspect who told a police informant that he was paid to carry out the murders for which Keith is scheduled to die. The police were aware of the statements by the alternative suspect, but no one turned them over to Keith’s counsel. Kevin Keith has thus far failed to persuade the state's clemency board or the courts to stop his execution which is set for September 15, 2010.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); The Troy Davis case concerns the case of Troy Anthony Davis, a former sports coach from the U.S. state of Georgia, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991 for the August 19, 1989 murder of off-duty Savannah, Georgia police officer Mark MacPhail. Throughout the trial and subsequent appeals, Davis maintained his innocence, claiming he was wrongfully convicted of the crime as a result of false identification. After the trial and first set of appeals, seven of the nine prosecution eyewitnesses who had linked Davis to the killing recanted or contradicted their original trial testimony, claiming police coercion and questionable interrogation tactics. The witness who first implicated Davis and has remained consistent, Sylvester "Redd" Coles, was initially a suspect in the crime. Coles was seen acting suspiciously the night of MacPhail's murder and has been heard boasting that he killed an off-duty police officer. There is only one witness who did not recant his testimony and is not himself a suspect in the murder, but he made an in-court identification of Davis two years after the crime.Davis opponents say Coles came back to the scene of the shooting with a female after police arrived. Davis changed clothes (even asking Coles for a shirt later) and fled to Atlanta with his sister. Davis has repeatedly asked the courts to examine the new exculpatory evidence, but so far has not been successful in persuading a majority of judges to grant him a new trial or conduct a hearing in which the recanting eyewitnesses could be cross-examined to determine the credibility of Davis’ innocence claims. In October 2008, Davis filed a second Habeas petition in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that it was the first time Davis was presenting a free-standing innocence claim and that no court has yet held an evidentiary hearing on the exculpatory evidence of recanted testimony. On 16 April 2009 the three-judge panel denied Davis' petition on procedural grounds by a 2-1 majority. Amnesty International has strongly condemned the refusal of U.S. courts to examine the innocence evidence, and has organized rallies and letter-writing campaigns to persuade the Georgia and Federal courts to grant Davis a new trial or an evidentiary hearing. Many prominent politicians and leaders, including President Jimmy Carter,[6] Pope Benedict XVI, Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Presidential candidate Bob Barr, and former FBI Director and judge William S. Sessions have called upon the courts to grant Davis a new trial or evidentiary hearing. On 17 August 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court, over the dissenting votes of two justices, ordered a federal district court in Georgia to consider and rule on whether new evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The title of this post may be a shade deceptive. As I say routinely, I don't know what happened. And, frankly, I don't much care," Jeff Gamso's post published earlier today under the heading, "Innocence Wins, Innocents Still Lose," begins.
"But I know this much. Knowing what we know now, these guys should never have been convicted," the post continues.
"Instead, they find themselves on death row. The time is drawing close.
I could be referring to any number of folks, but I have two in mind.
There's Kevin Keith. Last week, the Ohio Parole Board declared that he wasn't factually innocent and should, therefore, be killed. I've said repeatedly, I don't know what happened that night in February 1994 when Keith did or did not shoot 6 people. The implication is that they'd have taken a different position if they decided he didn't do it.
Now there's Troy Davis. You remember Troy. All those witnesses who recanted. And the guy who confessed. And the Supremes told the lower court judge to determine if he was innocent but didn't say on what basis or how or what would follow from the determination. And the judge held a hearing and excluded much of the evidence Troy's lawyers wanted to present. And now he's issued this 174 page Order.
The bottom line is in the first paragraph.
For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that while executing an innocent person would violate the United States Constitution, Mr. Davis has failed to prove his innocence.
That first clause is terrific. It may seem self-evident, but it's not. The Supremes have never said it. It's never formally been adopted as the law of the land. It is, in fact, a wholly controversial claim. If executing one who is actually innocent, by whatever measure we use to test it, is a constitutional violation, then the courts have to grapple with freestanding claims of innocence in capital habeas cases. Until now, the courts have refused to entertain those claims.
Like I said, no small thing.
But for Troy Davis, it's nothing at all. Because there's that second clause. He didn't prove it to the satisfaction of Judge Moore.
But when you get right down to it, isn't it the same point? Given what we know now, would a reasonable jury have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Would it have decided to kill the guy?
If not, what are we doing? And, in any event, why don't we even ask that question?
This isn't the raving of an abolitionist. (Well, yeah, it is. But I'm not speaking as an abolitionist here.) It's the question you need to answer even if you think the government should kill. Should it kill even if the defendant, properly tried and with all available information, would have gotten life? Should it kill because it was once a good idea even if it isn't now?
Should killing be the default?
It's really sweet, gives you a warm feeling all over to know that there's some sentiment that killing factually innocent people is a bad idea. Now, what about the legally innocent but for bad counsel, hidden evidence, lying witnesses, mistaken witnesses, junk science, junk witnesses, aggravated newpaper editors and talk radio, racism, class prejudice, the accidents of geography and birth? I could go on. They still don't have to kill Kevin Keith. Troy Davis has litigation ahead. But their time is running out. Things aren't looking good for them right now. And there are a few thousand others on the row.
Innocence may be a start, but it isn't nearly enough."
-----------------------------------------
From Songs of Innocence and of Experience by William Blake
"On Another's Sorrow" (Songs of Innocence)
Can I see another's woe,
Can I see another's grief,
And not be in sorrow too?
And not seek for kind relief?
Can I see a falling tear,
Can a father see his child
And not feel my sorrow's share?
Weep, nor be with sorrow fill'd?
Can a mother sit and hear
An infant groan, an infant fear?
No, no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
And can he who smiles on all
Hear the wren with sorrows small,
Hear the small bird's grief & care,
Hear the woes that infants bear,
And not sit beside the nest,
Pouring pity in their breast;
And not sit the cradle near,
Weeping tear on infant's tear;
And not sit both night & day,
Wiping all our tears away?
O! no, never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
He doth give his joy to all;
He becomes an infant small;
He becomes a man of woe;
He doth feel the sorrow too.
Think not thou canst sigh a sigh,
And thy maker is not by;
Think not thou canst weep a tear,
And thy maker is not near.
O! he gives to us his joy
That our grief he may destroy;
Till our grief is fled & gone
He doth sit by us and moan.
"The Voice of the Ancient Bard" (Songs of Experience)
Youth of delight, come hither,
And see the opening morn,
Image of truth new-born.
Doubt is fled & clouds of reason,
Dark disputes & artful teazing.
Folly is an endless maze,
Tangled roots perplex her ways.
How many have fallen there!
They stumble all night over bones of the dead,
And feel they know not what but care,
And wish to lead others, when they should be led.
--------------------------------------------
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2010/08/innocence-wins-innocents-still-lose.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
