KEVIN KEITH; COLUMNIST CONNIE SCHULTZ: NUMEROUS REASONS TO BELIEVE HE IS INNOCENT BUT PROSECUTORS ARE DEEPLY INVESTED IN WINNING AT ALL COSTS; TSP:

"Gov. Strickland, who has already publicly said Keith's case "has circumstances that I find troubling," said in a phone interview last week that eyewitness testimony is often deeply flawed.

"As a psychologist, I know that eyewitness testimony tends to be among the least credible," he said, "and yet it also tends to be the most powerful in its impact on a jury. We've already seen cases in Ohio and across the country where people were exonerated after being convicted primarily on eyewitness testimony."

There are numerous other reasons to believe that Kevin Keith is innocent, including the discovery of new evidence, police missteps, the existence of another known suspect and lousy defense work during Keith's trial. But it is clear not only that prosecutors do not care if Keith is innocent, but that they are deeply invested in winning at all costs......

Serious questions remain in this case. Where there is doubt, there must be mercy.'

CONNIE SCHULTZ: CLEVELAND.COM; (CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER): CONNIE SCHULTZ IS A PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING COLUMNIST; Wikipedia informs us that, "The Plain Dealer is the major daily newspaper of Cleveland, Ohio. It has the largest circulation of any Ohio newspaper, and is a top 20 newspaper for circulation in the United States."

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

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.

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

"One of the horrible blessings bestowed on the governor of Ohio is the occasional duty to play God, one life at a time," the Cleveland.com column by Connie Schultz published on August 22, 2010 under the heading, "A 'troubling' case, and a life, rest in Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's hands," begins.

"For the 28th time in less than four years, Gov. Ted Strickland must decide: Shall a man live? Or shall he die?" the column continues.

"This time, the man's name is Kevin Keith.

Chances are, no matter where you live in America, you've heard about Keith.

A lot of people, including a bipartisan list of 31 former judges and prosecutors across the country, have called for clemency in a case riddled with missteps and shortcuts on the road to justice.

Keith was convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 for a shooting spree in Bucyrus that killed three people, including a 4-year-old child, and wounded three others, including a 6-year-old girl. Keith has insisted he is innocent. Last week, the Ohio Parole Board voted unanimously to deny clemency.
76
2
141Share

His execution is scheduled for Sept. 15.

Gov. Strickland must decide by 9:59 that morning whether he will grant a reprieve. But there is no need to wait until then to do the right thing. Doubts hover over Keith's murder conviction like low storm clouds ready to burst.

The primary evidence against Keith was eyewitness testimony.

Numerous studies -- and hundreds of exonerations -- have shown eyewitness testimony to be the least reliable evidence. The Innocence Project, which works to free those imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, says that eyewitness misidentification played a role in more than 75 percent of the 258 convictions overturned through DNA testing.

Gov. Strickland, who has already publicly said Keith's case "has circumstances that I find troubling," said in a phone interview last week that eyewitness testimony is often deeply flawed.

"As a psychologist, I know that eyewitness testimony tends to be among the least credible," he said, "and yet it also tends to be the most powerful in its impact on a jury. We've already seen cases in Ohio and across the country where people were exonerated after being convicted primarily on eyewitness testimony."

There are numerous other reasons to believe that Kevin Keith is innocent, including the discovery of new evidence, police missteps, the existence of another known suspect and lousy defense work during Keith's trial. But it is clear not only that prosecutors do not care if Keith is innocent, but that they are deeply invested in winning at all costs.

Consider, for example, how the state, in a written argument to the parole board, altered 6-year-old Quanita Reeves' response after police showed her a six-photo lineup in which Keith's photo stands out. It is so dark that features are difficult to discern; his face is larger than the others; and he is the only one who is bald:

"Quanita pointed to photo number five, Keith, and stated it 'looks like him' but the man she saw did not have a 'bump on his head.' "

According to a transcript of that taped interview provided by the attorney general's office, here's what Quanita really said: "But that looks like him but that not him though." The italicized part is what the state deleted.

Quanita also said, repeatedly, that the guy who shot her did not have a lump on his head like the one visible on the top of Keith's. (Today, Quanita says Keith was her shooter.)

I asked Ohio attorney general spokesman Ted Hart why the state altered Quanita's statement. His initial response, via e-mail: "We quoted from the interview transcript and also provided the entire transcript for context."

When I pressed him about altering her quote for the written argument, he responded: "The quote was not altered. It was summarized."

Such a brazen attempt to manipulate witness testimony and then wiggle out of owning it casts a tall shadow on prosecutors' credibility.

To quote Gov. Strickland: "If that happened, it is terribly, terribly disturbing."

A lot of people are praying that justice will prevail for Keith, but his earthly fate rests in the hands of just one man. Only Gov. Strickland can do the right thing."

Serious questions remain in this case. Where there is doubt, there must be mercy."

The column can be found at:

http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/index.ssf/2010/08/a_troubling_case_and_a_life_re.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;