"It was investigated thoroughly and exhaustively, and our conclusion was that we would not prosecute her on any additional charges," said Jim Finefrock, a spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown's office.
Madden faces a separate felony cocaine possession charge in San Mateo County, where she lives. Under state law, she could be sentenced to drug treatment as a first-time offender on that count. She left the department in late 2009 just as the lab began to suspect she was stealing drugs.
REPORTER JOHN COTE; SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A former civilian technician at the San Francisco Police Department's crime lab will not face criminal charges for allegedly skimming drugs there, the state Attorney General's office said today," the San Francisco Chronicle story by reporter John Cote fled earlier today under the heading, "Ex-crime lab tech will not face charges," begins.
"State prosecutors said there was insufficient evidence to show that Deborah Madden was stealing drugs she was supposed to be testing, allegations that rocked the department and led to the closure of its drug lab and prosecutors' dismissal of hundreds of drug cases," the story continues.
"It was investigated thoroughly and exhaustively, and our conclusion was that we would not prosecute her on any additional charges," said Jim Finefrock, a spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown's office.
Madden faces a separate felony cocaine possession charge in San Mateo County, where she lives. Under state law, she could be sentenced to drug treatment as a first-time offender on that count. She left the department in late 2009 just as the lab began to suspect she was stealing drugs.
San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, to be sworn in as attorney general on Monday, had asked Brown's office to handle any prosecution because attorneys in her office could have been called as witnesses.
Police Chief George Gascón said he was "very disappointed" in the decision to not file charges related to the lab.
"I believe that we had a good case," Gascón said. "We had some strong admissions from her that would normally be admissible in court. I believe there is concern that there wasn't enough physical evidence to support her admissions."
Finefrock declined to go into details of the state investigation, but said that if Madden had been prosecuted for alleged actions at the lab, she likely would have only been charged with petty theft, a misdemeanor.
Madden's attorney, Paul DeMeester, could not be reached for comment.
In March, Gascón closed the drug lab. In August, the chief said at a news conference that there had been "acts of negligence by various" police officials who showed an "inability to see the signs that should have been detected much earlier" related to the drug lab.
The department's crime lab - sans its closed drug unit - was awarded a full five-year accreditation at the end of October."
The story can be found at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/31/national/a135901S47.DTL&feed=rss.news_nation
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;
Friday, December 31, 2010
BRENDA WAUDBY: JOINS PROTEST AGAINST LOCAL CAS; SAYS THEY SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED A SECOND OPINION BEFORE SEIZING HER CHILDREN;
"Among the protestors was Brenda Waudby, who claims if the CAS had received a second opinion on the findings of Dr. Charles Smith, her children may not have been taken from her.
“Life is still a fight,” she says.
Ms Waudby was charged with murdering her 21-month-old daughter in 1997 but the charge was dropped two years later after she pleaded guilty to child abuse. She is currently trying to have the conviction overturned since she says, in a court affidavit, she was pressured into pleading guilty.
“They have nobody to answer to,” she says of the CAS.
“I want everybody to play fair.”
She says it was difficult to watch someone else raise her two remaining children after the CAS temporarily took them away from her."
REPORTER JOEL WIEBE; PETERBOROUGH THIS WEEK;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It is clear from the evidence called at the Goudge inquiry that Brenda Waudby - an utterly innocent individual who's baby daughter had been murdered by her babysitter - had been required to plead guilty to a charge of child abuse under provincial legislation before the Crown would withdraw the the second-degree murder charge on the basis of medical opinions which showed she could not possibly have committed the crime. It is also clear that Dr. Charles Smith's opinion that there were injuries which preceded the attack on Baby Jenna - which led to her being wrongfully charged with murder - was also the basis for the provincial charge, along with what the police claimed to be a confession. Instead of receiving the sympathy and compassion she deserved as a grieving mother whose baby daughter had been murdered, Ms. Waudby, a grieving mother, was herself charged with the horrific crime and not surprisingly became a pariah in her community. Brenda Waudby has been given a raw deal by Ontario's criminal justice system. We can only hope that the Court will strike the plea that she felt compelled to make in the circumstances, allow her to call the fresh evidence which she says clears her of this offence, and go the rest of the distance necessary to fully clear her name.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PETERBOROUGH) Protestors chanting and waving signs gathered in front of the local Children’s Aid Office (CAS) Thursday, demanding more accountability," The Peterborough This Week story by reporter Joel Wiebe published earlier today under the heading, "CAS focus of protest: People calling for more accountability from Children’s Aid Society" begins.
"Among the protestors was Brenda Waudby, who claims if the CAS had received a second opinion on the findings of Dr. Charles Smith, her children may not have been taken from her," the story continues.
“Life is still a fight,” she says.
Ms Waudby was charged with murdering her 21-month-old daughter in 1997 but the charge was dropped two years later after she pleaded guilty to child abuse. She is currently trying to have the conviction overturned since she says, in a court affidavit, she was pressured into pleading guilty.
“They have nobody to answer to,” she says of the CAS.
“I want everybody to play fair.”
She says it was difficult to watch someone else raise her two remaining children after the CAS temporarily took them away from her.
Nathalie Fouquette, director of services at the CAS, says they have oversight but if the government decides to pass a bill allowing the Ombudsman to hold them accountable, she is fine with that. She says the CAS welcomes feedback on ways to improve.
Currently, she says people can take a case to court, file a complaint that will go to the child and family services review board, adding the CAS is accountable to the Province.
Chad Wells says one of the issues is if you file a complaint, the CAS takes people to court, halting the complaint process.
Janet Johnson believes she was set up when she lost custody of her child in 2009.
Neil Haskett helped organize the protest to highlight there is nothing families can do in some situations.
“They’ll say they’re accountable,” he notes.
He says he has been waiting four years for justice in his own personal matter.
Mr. Haskett made the trip from Sudbury and has helped with protests around the province."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.mykawartha.com/news/article/923156--cas-focus-of-protest
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;
Thursday, December 30, 2010
KEVIN COOPER: TIME FOR GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER TO COMMUTE THE DEATH SENTENCE IS RUNNING OUT; CBS12 NEWS;
"There was more than one blood in a vial that was supposed to contain just Kevin Cooper's blood, sealed," said Davis. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude indisputably somebody tampered with that blood vial."
Schwarzenegger has until Jan. 2, 2011, his last day in office, to decide Cooper's fate."
CBS12 NEWS;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote in a column headed "Framed For Murder?": "California may be about to execute an innocent man. That’s the view of five federal judges in a case involving Kevin Cooper, a black man in California who faces lethal injection next year for supposedly murdering a white family. The judges argue compellingly that he was framed by police. Mr. Cooper’s impending execution is so outrageous that it has produced a mutiny among these federal circuit court judges, distinguished jurists just one notch below the United States Supreme Court. But the judicial process has run out for Mr. Cooper. Now it’s up to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to decide whether to commute Mr. Cooper’s sentence before leaving office.
WIKIPEDIA presents a thorough account of the Cooper case at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Cooper_%28inmate%29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SACRAMENTO -- California's outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is being asked for an act of mercy," the CBS12 News story published earlier today begins.
"Kevin Cooper has spent 25 years on the state's death row, always maintaining he's innocent of murder. Now he's just hoping Schwarzenegger will step in to block his execution, "48 Hours" Correspondent Erin Moriarty reports," the story continues.
"Attorney Lanny Davis' best known client was once the White House, but today it's the big house he's focused on and saving Cooper's life.
"It's immoral for a society to kill somebody with this much doubt," Davis said.
Davis is asking Schwarzenegger to commute Cooper's death sentence to life and has enlisted an impressive group of supporters, including a federal judge. William Fletcher was part of a panel denying Cooper's last appeal and wrote in a dissent, "Kevin Cooper is probably innocent."
Cooper was convicted in 1985 for the brutal and bloody murders of three members of a Chino Hills, Calif., family - Doug Ryen, his wife Peggy and 10-year-old Jessica - along with 11-year-old neighbor Christopher Hughes. The only survivor of the massacre was 8-year-old Josh Ryen.
"48 Hours" first brought attention to Cooper's case more than a decade ago after he wrote several letters to Moriarty claiming his innocence. There was and continues to be considerable evidence against him. Cooper was an escaped convict at the time, hiding out in a vacant house right next door to the victims. But there are also serious questions. Evidence was mishandled, even destroyed, and some of the facts just don't add up.
For instance, Josh Ryen, whose throat was cut but survived, indicated to investigators that the intruders were white and that there were more than one.
"He responded that there were three people," Deputy Sheriff Dale Sharp said.
Two years later, at trial, Ryen was no longer sure what he saw.
"I only really like saw almost like a shadow or something," Ryen said.
The victims were stabbed dozens of times with three weapons, which didn't make sense to Paul Ingels, a private investigator once hired by Cooper.
"There was three weapons, and I don't care how ambidextrous you are, you can't hold three," Ingels said in June 2000. "You've got two hands."
Ingels helped "48 Hours" track down Diana Roper, now deceased, who implicated her then-boyfriend, a white man and a convicted killer, in the Ryen murders. She even turned over bloody clothing, but investigators destroyed the possible evidence without even testing it.
Then in 2002, DNA tests were done on some crucial evidence in the case: a bloody T-shirt and cigarette butts found in the Ryens' stolen car. Unfortunately for Cooper, they seemed to confirm his guilt. Now even Ingels, once a Cooper supporter, believes he is guilty.
"Once the DNA testing came back, that locked it in for me," Ingels said.
But Davis said the DNA isn't reliable. Chemicals were found mixed with the blood on the T-shirt, and he said there's other evidence that Cooper's blood was planted.
"There was more than one blood in a vial that was supposed to contain just Kevin Cooper's blood, sealed," said Davis. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude indisputably somebody tampered with that blood vial."
Schwarzenegger has until Jan. 2, 2011, his last day in office, to decide Cooper's fate."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.cbs12.com/news/cooper-4730295-ryen-evidence.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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM; FAMILY SEEKS HEARING FROM FULL THIRD COURT ON WHETHER BAIRD HEARING PROPERLY HALTED;
"Attorneys for Willingham's family – including Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project, former Gov. Mark White, and San Antonio defender Gerald Goldstein – are asking that all six judges of the Third Court consider whether Jones and Pemberton ruled correctly. Moreover, they note, the question of recusal is moot given Baird's plans to retire his position this week, on Dec. 31. Where that leaves the larger issue – of whether or not a court of inquiry is warranted – remains unclear."
REPORTER JORDAN SMITH: THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004), born in Carter County, Oklahoma, was sentenced to death by the state of Texas for murdering his three daughters—two year old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and one year old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham— by setting his house on fire. The fire occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. Lighter fluid was kept on the front porch of Willingham’s house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. It was alleged this fluid was deliberately poured to start the fire and that Willingham chose this entrance way so as to impede rescue attempts. The prosecution also used other arson theories that have since been brought into question. In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant claimed Willingham confessed that he set the fire to hide his wife's physical abuse of the girls, although the girls showed no other injuries besides those caused by the fire. Neighbors also testified that Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children. They allege he "crouched down" in his front yard and watched the house burn for a period of time without attempting to enter the home or go to neighbors for help or request they call firefighters. He claimed that he tried to go back into the house but it was "too hot". As firefighters arrived, however, he rushed towards the garage and pushed his car away from the burning building, requesting firefighters do the same rather than put out the fire. After the fire, Willingham showed no emotion at the death of his children and spent the next day sorting through the debris, laughing and playing music. He expressed anger after finding his dartboard burned in the fire. Firefighters and other witnesses were suspicious of how he reacted during and after the fire. Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. After his conviction, he and his wife divorced. She later stated that she believed that Willingham was guilty. Prosecutors alleged this was part of a pattern of behavior intended to rid himself of his children. Willingham had a history of committing crimes, including burglary, grand larceny and car theft. There was also an incident when he beat his pregnant wife over the stomach with a telephone to induce a miscarriage. When asked if he had a final statement, Willingham said: "Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby." However, his final words were directed at his ex-wife, Stacy Willingham. He turned to her and said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch" several times while attempting to extend his middle finger in an obscene gesture. His ex-wife did not show any reaction to this. He was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Subsequent to that date, persistent questions have been raised as to the accuracy of the forensic evidence used in the conviction, specifically, whether it can be proven that an accelerant (such as the lighter fluid mentioned above) was used to start the fatal fire. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire. Legendary "Innocence" lawyer Barry Scheck asked participants at a conference of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers held in Toronto in August, 2010, how Willingham, who had lost his family to the fire, must have felt to hear the horrific allegations made against him on the basis of the bogus evidence, "and nobody pays any attention to it as he gets executed." "It's the Dreyfus Affair, and you all know what that is," Scheck continued. "It's the Dreyfus AffaIr of the United States. Luke Power's music video "Texas Death Row Blues," can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/09/cameron-todd-willingham-texas-death-row_02.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A three-judge panel ruled last week that Travis County District Judge Charlie Baird should have sought recusal from presiding over a hearing last fall regarding executed inmate Cameron Todd Willingham," the Austin Chronicle story by reporter Jordan Smith published earler today under the heading, "Willingham Family Appeals to Third Court," begins.
"Now, lawyers for Willingham's surviving relatives are asking that the entire bench of the Texas Third Court of Appeals reconsider that panel's ruling," the story continues.
"In October, Baird heard testimony from two fire experts – brought by lawyers for Willingham's family – during a proceeding seeking to posthumously clear Willingham's name. Baird was to consider whether cause exists to initiate a court of inquiry into the actions (or inaction) of state officials prior to Willingham's death. At issue specifically is whether officials (likely the State Fire Marshal's Office and Gov. Rick Perry) relied on faulty science (and ignored new evidence, clearing the way for Willingham's 2004 execution) to conclude that Willingham set the 1991 fire at his Corsicana home that killed his three young children.
Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson had sought to recuse Baird because he believed Baird couldn't be objective on the matter. In turn, Baird refused to rule directly on the motion, instead ruling that Thompson lacked standing to raise the issue and allowing the hearing to proceed. Thompson appealed to the Third Court to halt the proceeding, a stay that came through just after the two-day hearing had concluded – meaning, in effect, that the court would not allow Baird to enter a final ruling.
In the court's opinion, written by Chief Justice Woodie Jones and joined by Justice Bob Pemberton (with Justice David Puryear dissenting), the court concluded that Baird should have recused himself or referred Thompson's motion to the region's presiding judge, Williamson County's Billy Ray Stubblefield, for consideration. In the opinion, Jones concluded that the appellate court had grounds to intervene in the matter and to stay the Willingham hearing, because Baird was sitting as a judge and not as a magistrate considering only whether to open a court of inquiry.
In dissent, Puryear concluded that the hearing was unique and that, ultimately, he didn't believe the Third Court had the standing to intervene. Puryear noted that convening a court of inquiry is a bifurcated process: First, a judge acting as magistrate should consider whether there is probable cause to open an inquiry; second, if there is cause, the region's presiding judge should appoint a district judge to preside over the subsequent inquiry. But if the hearing is in its infancy, during the probable cause phase, the Third Court does not have standing to intervene, he wrote. (Still, Puryear opined that while the judge acting in his magisterial capacity is "authorized" both to "issue an affidavit specifying 'the substantial facts establishing probable cause'" and to request that a hearing be convened, the magistrate is divested of the power to actually call witnesses or hold any hearings in order to establish probable cause. Thus, Puryear opined that in Baird's approach, he was "exercising authority that he does not possess"; interestingly, however, the statute covering the court-of-inquiry proceedings is mute on what powers a magistrate deciding probable cause has or does not have.)
Attorneys for Willingham's family – including Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project, former Gov. Mark White, and San Antonio defender Gerald Goldstein – are asking that all six judges of the Third Court consider whether Jones and Pemberton ruled correctly. Moreover, they note, the question of recusal is moot given Baird's plans to retire his position this week, on Dec. 31. Where that leaves the larger issue – of whether or not a court of inquiry is warranted – remains unclear."
The post can be found at:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A1130516
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;
ROBERT LEE STINSON: MILWAUKEE; WRONGFULLY CONVICTED BECAUSE OF ERRONEOUS OPINION OF BITE MARK "EXPERT." COMPENSATION ORDERED BY BOARD;
"A forensic dentist inexplicably determined that Stinson's bite matched those on the victim. The testimony ignored the fact that Stinson was missing a tooth where the bite marks indicated a tooth should have been, and he had an intact one where the perpetrator didn't.
The Innocence Project, which works to clear wrongly convicted inmates, convinced a judge to overturn Stinson's conviction in 2008. The group raised questions about the bite-mark testimony and provided new tests showing DNA from saliva on the victim's sweater didn't match Stinson's."
REPORTER DINESH RAMDE: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS;
(SEE INNOCENCE PROJECT POST BELOW FOR MORE BACKGROUND);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: Robert Lee Stinson was convicted of the 1985 murder of a Milwaukee woman. Stinson's conviction rested almost exclusively on bite-mark identification purporting to match Stinson's teeth to bite patterns found on the victim's body. (Dr. L Thomas Johnson, a Wisconsin bite mark analyst, testified at Stinson’s trial for a 1984 murder that bite marks on the victim’s body matched Stinson’s teeth.) In 2005, the Wisconsin Innocence Project accepted Sinton's case and developed two kinds of new evidence. First, DNA testing revealed male DNA in saliva on the victim's sweater, and this DNA excluded Stinson. Second, working with California forensic science expert Christopoher Plourd, WIP arranged for the bite-marks to be re-examined by a panel of four nationally-recognized experts, Dr. Gregory Golden, Dr. David Senn, Dr. Norman Sperber, and Dr. Denise Murmann. Using modern methods, the panel unanimously concluded that Stinson's teeth could not have inflicted the bites. The Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office did not oppose Stinson's motion to reverse his conviction, and he was freed. Bite-mark identification has been implicated in numerous other wrongful convictions around the country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
"MILWAUKEE (AP) -- A Milwaukee man who spent 23 years in prison for a homicide he didn't commit will receive $25,000 in compensation from the Wisconsin Claims Board, his attorney said Tuesday," the Associated Press story by reporter Dinesh Ramde published on December 29, 2010 begins.
"The board also will ask the state Legislature to approve another $90,000 for Robert Lee Stinson," the story continues.
""We're very happy," said Stinson's attorney, Heather Lewis Donnell. "This is the best that could have happened given the board's authority."
Stinson asked the Claims Board this month for $115,000, or $5,000 for every year he spent behind bars. State law allows for a maximum of $5,000 per year up to $25,000 but the board can choose to ask the Legislature for more.
The three-person board, which voted unanimously in Stinson's favor, said it didn't think $25,000 was adequate in this case.
Stinson, 46, said he hasn't been able to find work and the money will be his first income in the nearly two years since he was released from prison.
"I'm very grateful we got this outcome," he said Tuesday. "This $25,000 is the first step toward readjusting toward society."
He said he plans to use the money for a vehicle and tuition. He starts a criminal-justice program Monday and said he hopes to use what he learns to prevent other innocent people from going to jail.
Stimson said he wasn't concerned about going back to school at his age.
"School is a place where you get an education," he said. "I don't think anyone of any age should be embarrassed about going to school."
Donnell said it wasn't clear how long it would take for the Legislature to take up the Claims Board's request.
Stinson was 21 when he was convicted in the 1984 slaying of a 63-year-old Milwaukee woman. Her nearly naked body was found bloody, beaten and covered in human bite marks.
Police canvassing the area the next morning arrested Stinson because they said he couldn't adequately explain his whereabouts the night before.
A forensic dentist inexplicably determined that Stinson's bite matched those on the victim. The testimony ignored the fact that Stinson was missing a tooth where the bite marks indicated a tooth should have been, and he had an intact one where the perpetrator didn't.
The Innocence Project, which works to clear wrongly convicted inmates, convinced a judge to overturn Stinson's conviction in 2008. The group raised questions about the bite-mark testimony and provided new tests showing DNA from saliva on the victim's sweater didn't match Stinson's.
Stinson, who always maintained his innocence, said he was angry for years about his conviction.
"You become very angry but you don't want to react because if you do there would be consequences," he told AP earlier this month. "You don't want to jeopardize the opportunity of getting out. So it's just something you have to endure."
His family's unwavering support helped him maintain his sanity. He also learned to let go of his anger rather than let it consume him. Bitterness, he said, only gets in the way of enjoying life.
He has struggled to adjust to life as a free man. He had trouble being in crowds. He suffered through an early spell of nightmares. And even though he applied for every janitorial and kitchen job he could find, he wasn't offered a single interview.
His childhood sweetheart helped him get past the early challenges, he said. She contacted him soon after his release, and they rekindled their romance. They're now engaged.
Stinson said he hoped legislators would approve the additional $90,000, noting that $115,000 isn't enough to compensate a man for losing his youth behind bars but it would help him rebuild his life.
Would he use any of the compensation for a party? Stinson paused.
"I have to see about that. The major things come first, like a car and tuition," he said Tuesday.
A honeymoon? He laughed softly.
"I may try to fit that in," he said. "I want to keep that a secret.""
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40839080/ns/local_news-milwaukee_wi/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE BACKGROUND: JULY 28, 2009 POST ON "INNOCENCE BLOG" FOLLOWING DROPPING OF CHARGES:
"Milwaukee prosecutors announced Monday that they will not seek a new trial in the case of Robert Lee Stinson, who served more than 23 years in prison for a murder DNA proves he didn’t commit. The University of Wisconsin Innocence Project began working on Stinson’s case in 2005 and obtained the DNA testing that proved his innocence. He was released in January, but Monday’s announcement makes his exoneration official.
Stinson was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of a 62-year-old woman in Milwaukee. His conviction was based, in part, on the testimony of two forensic bite mark analysts, who said bite marks on the victim’s body matched Stinson’s teeth. One of the experts testified at his trial that the bite marks "had to have been made by teeth identical" to Stinson's and that there was "no margin for error in this." The other called the bite mark evidence "overwhelming" and said "there was no question there was a match."
DNA testing conducted in the case at the request of the Wisconsin Innocence Project found a male DNA profile in areas of the victim’s sweater that had tested positive for saliva. The profile did not match Stinson, proving another person bit the victim.
After the charges were dismissed during a brief court hearing Monday, Assistant District Attorney Norman Gahn said it was the age of the case - which led to destroyed evidence, "faded memories" of witnesses and other problems - that led prosecutors not to retry Stinson.
Stinson is the 241st person exonerated by DNA testing in the United States and the fifth in Wisconsin."
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Charges_Dropped_in_Wisconsin_Case.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;
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
JOHN EDWARD GREEN; LAWYER TERRY LENAMON WONDER'S IF TEXAS CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT WILL CHANGE ITS MIND AND ALLOW JUDGE FINES' HEARING TO PROCEED;
"What's at Stake Here?
Judge Fine has told the media that he is not personally vested in the issue of capital punishment, and that the hearing is focused only upon Mr. Green's case and is not to be considered as a method to bring the entirety issue of capital punishment up for appellate review. The evidentiary hearing was set to allow defense counsel the ability to present evidence dealing with how the State of Texas implements capital punishment, using forensic evidence and witness testimony to demonstrate constitutional error that would impact upon their client's case.
Be that as it may, here in Florida and elsewhere,we can recall how Furman dealt with state implementation of the death penalty, and resulted in a four year national moratorium.
Avalaches can and do start from a single, small rock."
FLORIDA CRIMINAL TRIAL LAWYER TERRY LENAMON; FROM HIS "DEATH PENALTY BLOG."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND; John Edward Green, Jr, is charged with capital murder in the 2008 slaying of one of two sisters he allegedly shot during a robbery. Witnessed by the victim's two children, Huong Nguyen, 34, was killed in her own driveway. Judge Kevin Fine brought the case considerable attention after he said that the procedures for imposing the death penalty in Texas are unconstitutional, clarified that decision, then rescinded it but scheduled a hearing on actual innocence which has since been blocked by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In Houston, Texas, a man named John Edward Green is on trial for the murder of a Houston woman and her sister during the commission of a robbery, and the State of Texas is seeking the death penalty," lawyer Terry Lenamon's post published on December 28, 2010 begins, under the heading "Will Texas Trial Judge Get Chance to Rule Death Penalty Unconstitutional in Pending Murder Case?"
"Presiding over this trial is state district judge Kevin Fine, and Judge Fine has become somewhat of a national celebrity in some circles as someone trying to rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty (which most think is an issue pretty well settled by the U.S. Supreme Court), opening the doors to appellate review, and reconsideration, by doing so," the post continues.
"Judge Fine did make a ruling on the issue back in March (he declared the death penalty unconstitutional then) but he took that back (rescinded) and opted to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the matter. That hearing was scheduled to begin December 7, 2010.
Of course, he's been stopped. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals shot him down under the standard been-there, done-that argument you would expect. (Officially, they heard the Harris County District Attorney's Office motion to stop the hearing, and two days into it, the appellate court halted the proceedings before Judge Fine until further notice.)
Then, the CCA reconsidered things, and on December 7, 2010 ordered (read the Order here) that they have decided to reconsider relator's motion for leave to file a petition for writ of prohibition and a petition for writ of mandamus and "... the Honorable Kevin Fine, Judge of the 177th District Court, and John Edward Green, Jr., the real party in interest, may wish to respond. Therefore, within 15 days of the date of this order, Judge Fine and Mr. Green, or his representative, shall file their respective responses in this Court. Proceedings in the trial court shall be stayed pending further order by this Court."
Now, an amicus curaie has been filed -- signed by over 60 friends of the highest criminal court in the state -- asking that it reconsider its ruling. A former Texas governor has signed this brief (Mark White). So have the former governors of Maryland (Parris Glendening) and Indiana (Joe Kernan), as well as lots of other impressive signatories that include former judges, district attorneys, and other prominent folk.
The eyes of the nation are on this Austin court now - as well as the world. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, BBC News, and others are all watching to see what the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will do now.
What's at Stake Here?
Judge Fine has told the media that he is not personally vested in the issue of capital punishment, and that the hearing is focused only upon Mr. Green's case and is not to be considered as a method to bring the entirety issue of capital punishment up for appellate review. The evidentiary hearing was set to allow defense counsel the ability to present evidence dealing with how the State of Texas implements capital punishment, using forensic evidence and witness testimony to demonstrate constitutional error that would impact upon their client's case.
Be that as it may, here in Florida and elsewhere,we can recall how Furman dealt with state implementation of the death penalty, and resulted in a four year national moratorium.
Avalaches can and do start from a single, small rock."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.deathpenaltyblog.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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
BRENDA WAUDBY: WOMAN WRONGLY CHARGED ON BASIS OF DR. CHARLES SMITH'S OPINION TO ADDRESS PETERBOROUGH RALLY PROTESTING CHILDRENS AID SOCIETY PRACTICES
"Waudby was wrongly charged with murdering her 21-month-old daughter Jenna in 1999.
That charge was dropped, shortly after Waudby pleaded guilty to a charge of child abuse.
She's now fighting to appeal that conviction. Her application, filed with the court, takes issue with the practices of the CAS and its heavy involvement in the police investigation against her."
REPORTER SARAH DEETH: PETERBOROUGH EXAMINER;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It is clear from the evidence called at the Goudge inquiry that Brenda Waudby - an utterly innocent individual who's baby daughter had been murdered by her babysitter - had been required to plead guilty to a charge of child abuse under provincial legislation before the Crown would withdraw the the second-degree murder charge on the basis of medical opinions which showed she could not possibly have committed the crime. It is also clear that Dr. Charles Smith's opinion that there were injuries which preceded the attack on Baby Jenna - which led to her being wrongfully charged with murder - was also the basis for the provincial charge, along with what the police claimed to be a confession. Instead of receiving the sympathy and compassion she deserved as a grieving mother whose baby daughter had been murdered, Ms. Waudby, a grieving mother, was herself charged with the horrific crime and not surprisingly became a pariah in her community. Brenda Waudby has been given a raw deal by Ontario's criminal justice system. We can only hope that the Court will strike the plea that she felt compelled to make in the circumstances, allow her to call the fresh evidence which she says clears her of this offence, and go the rest of the distance necessary to fully clear her name.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A rally taking aim at the practices and accountability of the Children's Aid Society takes place Thursday and features Brenda Waudby as a guest speaker," the Peterborough Examiner story by reporter Sarah Deeth published earlier today under the heading, "Group protesting at CAS offices Thursday," begins.
"The protest runs from noon to 3 p.m. outside the Kawartha- Haliburton Children's Aid Society's office on Chemong Rd," the story continues.
"Waudby was wrongly charged with murdering her 21-month-old daughter Jenna in 1999.
That charge was dropped, shortly after Waudby pleaded guilty to a charge of child abuse.
She's now fighting to appeal that conviction. Her application, filed with the court, takes issue with the practices of the CAS and its heavy involvement in the police investigation against her.
Neil Haskett, one of the rally's organizers, said similar events are taking place Thursday across Ontario.
Part of the goal is alert the public to the lack of accountability within the CAS, he said.
Too often innocent people are charged or face legal challenges through the CAS, he said, and there's virtually no way for parents to fight back.
"It's a systematic issue with all Children's Aid Societies," he said.
Though many similar protests have taken place across Ontario in the past, this is the first one to be held in Peterborough.
Haskett said the goal isn't to shut down the CAS.
But many aren't aware that Ontario is the only province that doesn't allow its Ombudsman to investigate complaints brought against the CAS, he said.
In addition to Waudby's speech, organizers will hand out information and speak to anyone who wants to listen, he said.
Haskett said hundreds of people stopped by for information at a similar rally in Sudbury."
The story can be found at:
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2908359
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;
CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM; TEXAS TRIBUNE PROVIDES EXCERPT FROM "INCENDIARY" - A DOCUMENTARY WHICH IS NOW IN THE WORKS;
"TT: You’ve very deliberately made a movie about forensic science rather than the death penalty.
Mims: The death penalty is a component of the film, but we always knew it wasn’t the focus. For us, the real story was about science and the law and the astonishing way they don’t mix so well, even in 2010. Texas is a scientific powerhouse in many areas — economically, science is valued. The use of it in defense of Willingham or in his exoneration is somehow controversial. The film illustrates that to a degree rarely seen............
TT: What reaction are you trying to elicit from people?
Mims: That due process in cases like this one requires objective science. And that science can’t be politicized.
REPORTER EVAN SMITH; THE TEXAS TRIBUNE;
SEE THE EXCERPT ON THE TEXAS TRIBUNE SITE:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/cameron-todd-willingham/an-early-look-at-the-new-willingham-documentary/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004), born in Carter County, Oklahoma, was sentenced to death by the state of Texas for murdering his three daughters—two year old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and one year old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham— by setting his house on fire. The fire occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. Lighter fluid was kept on the front porch of Willingham’s house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. It was alleged this fluid was deliberately poured to start the fire and that Willingham chose this entrance way so as to impede rescue attempts. The prosecution also used other arson theories that have since been brought into question. In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant claimed Willingham confessed that he set the fire to hide his wife's physical abuse of the girls, although the girls showed no other injuries besides those caused by the fire. Neighbors also testified that Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children. They allege he "crouched down" in his front yard and watched the house burn for a period of time without attempting to enter the home or go to neighbors for help or request they call firefighters. He claimed that he tried to go back into the house but it was "too hot". As firefighters arrived, however, he rushed towards the garage and pushed his car away from the burning building, requesting firefighters do the same rather than put out the fire. After the fire, Willingham showed no emotion at the death of his children and spent the next day sorting through the debris, laughing and playing music. He expressed anger after finding his dartboard burned in the fire. Firefighters and other witnesses were suspicious of how he reacted during and after the fire. Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. After his conviction, he and his wife divorced. She later stated that she believed that Willingham was guilty. Prosecutors alleged this was part of a pattern of behavior intended to rid himself of his children. Willingham had a history of committing crimes, including burglary, grand larceny and car theft. There was also an incident when he beat his pregnant wife over the stomach with a telephone to induce a miscarriage. When asked if he had a final statement, Willingham said: "Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby." However, his final words were directed at his ex-wife, Stacy Willingham. He turned to her and said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch" several times while attempting to extend his middle finger in an obscene gesture. His ex-wife did not show any reaction to this. He was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Subsequent to that date, persistent questions have been raised as to the accuracy of the forensic evidence used in the conviction, specifically, whether it can be proven that an accelerant (such as the lighter fluid mentioned above) was used to start the fatal fire. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire. Legendary "Innocence" lawyer Barry Scheck asked participants at a conference of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers held in Toronto in August, 2010, how Willingham, who had lost his family to the fire, must have felt to hear the horrific allegations made against him on the basis of the bogus evidence, "and nobody pays any attention to it as he gets executed." "It's the Dreyfus Affair, and you all know what that is," Scheck continued. "It's the Dreyfus AffaIr of the United States. Luke Power's music video "Texas Death Row Blues," can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/09/cameron-todd-willingham-texas-death-row_02.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As you're reading this, Steve Mims and Joe Bailey Jr. are putting the finishing touches on Incendiary, a new documentary about the Cameron Todd Willingham case that focuses almost entirely on forensics — on the science behind arson investigations like the one that led to the Corsicana man's arrest, conviction and execution following the death of his three small children in a 1991 house fire," the Texas Tribune story by reporter Evan Smith published on December 28, 2010 uncer the heading, "An exclusive excerpt from "Incendiary," a forthcoming documentary about the Cameron Todd Willingham case."
"Mims and Bailey aren't political activists; the former lectures in the University of Texas' Department of Radio-Television-Film, while the latter is a graduate of UT's law school," the story continues.
"But they were so moved by an article about the Willingham case in The New Yorker that they decided to tackle one of the most controversial topics in the modern era of state's criminal justice system.
Featured in the film are two arson science experts, Gerald Hurst and John Lentini, talking about the case and about forensics in general. Willingham's original defense attorney, David Martin, also gets a lot of screen time — although, given his skepticism about any wrongdoing by the authorities, he could easily be mistaken for a prosecutor. Barry Scheck, co-director of the New York-based Innocence Project (and best known as a member of O.J. Simpson's criminal defense team), plays a leading role as well.
But the breakout performance is that of Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, who was appointed by Rick Perry to chair the Texas Forensic Science Commission just as the commission and its previous chair were inconveniently set to weigh in on the Willingham case during the gubernatorial campaign. Bradley is combative, bordering on hostile, from the moment he appears in Incendiary, both in his dealings with the press and with his fellow commissioners.
Early this month, Mims and Bailey were kind enough to show me a rough cut of the film. Even more kind, well in advance of its release, they agreed to carve an excerpt of about eight minutes to be posted exclusively on the Tribune site. A brief Q&A will the filmmakers follows.
--------------------------------------------
TT: As filmmakers, what about the Willingham case appealed to you?
Mims: The story is interesting on so many levels. It’s a murder mystery that connects law, science and politics in a way that’s completely contemporary. It has everything.
Bailey: Big, interesting questions were being animated in a series of real-time public struggles: the right to uphold forensic standards, the wrestling over a dead man’s reputation, the seeming unwillingness of public officials to allow for a more thorough, transparent analysis of the evidence. Once we recognized the opportunity to document this, we couldn’t live with letting it pass.
TT: You’ve very deliberately made a movie about forensic science rather than the death penalty.
Mims: The death penalty is a component of the film, but we always knew it wasn’t the focus. For us, the real story was about science and the law and the astonishing way they don’t mix so well, even in 2010. Texas is a scientific powerhouse in many areas — economically, science is valued. The use of it in defense of Willingham or in his exoneration is somehow controversial. The film illustrates that to a degree rarely seen.
Bailey: We were completely uninterested in making a movie that we had already seen, or that would resonate only as an “issue” film.
TT: What reaction are you trying to elicit from people?
Mims: That due process in cases like this one requires objective science. And that science can’t be politicized.
Bailey: I hope people will ask tough questions of our institutions and celebrate the fact that we live in a society where we’re encouraged to do that. If we don’t exercise that political muscle, it will atrophy. In Texas, I’m afraid, that has happened.
TT: Was there anyone you wanted to interview who wouldn’t agree to talk to you?
Mims: We got everyone we wanted except [John] Jackson, the D.A. in the case [and now a Navarro County judge]. He wouldn’t call Joe back.
Bailey: I would have liked to have talked to the Texas fire marshal. Of course, a direct interview with Gov. Perry’s office would have been interesting.
TT: Who’s paying for the production?
Mims: We own our own gear, and over the course of the year we absorbed the costs of travel and editing.
Bailey: We got a $3,000 Texas Filmmakers’ Production Fund grant from the Austin Film Society. We were really honored to receive that — it was a nice vote of confidence for the film early on.
TT: Now that the film is finished, what happens? Where will we be able to see it?
Mims: We’re screening it in festivals in 2011. Beyond that, it’s one step at a time.
Bailey: We’re hoping for as broad a distribution as possible. One of the biggest thrills I’ve had since we locked the picture was showing the first 20 minutes to Dr. Hurst and his saying that he had never seen scientific principles illustrated so vividly — that the film will save lives and needs to be shown to every new fire investigator. That would really be an honor for us as filmmakers.""
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/cameron-todd-willingham/an-early-look-at-the-new-willingham-documentary/
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, December 28, 2010
WILL "COST" TRUMP "DNA" AS A MAIN FACTOR IN THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE USA? CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL MAY MAKE YOU WONDER!
"Did someone mention budgets? They are no friend of an option that requires expensive trials, costly appeals and pricey incarceration arrangements. Franklin Zimring, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, says capital punishment has become "an extreme luxury item."
Even the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog, which this year offers a charm bracelet for $248,000, has nothing to compare. Maryland has spent $186 million on capital cases over the past 30 years — which comes to $37 million per execution.
The typical Texas death case carries a price tag of $2.3 million. A 2005 study pointed out that "New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one."
STEVE CHAPMAN; CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the midst of the fall election campaign, Steven Hayes went on trial in New Haven, Conn., in one of the most horrific murder cases in memory," the column by Chicago Tribune Editorial Board member Steve Chapman on December 25, 2010, begins under the heading, "Chicago Tribune: The decline of the death penalty - expensive, error-prone, and losing popularity."
"The killers invaded a home, beat a man with a baseball bat, sexually assaulted and strangled his wife and tied up their two daughters before setting a fire that killed them," the column continues.
"It was the sort of crime that could only increase support for the death penalty. This effect had some relevance for the Connecticut governor's race, because it pitted a supporter of capital punishment, Republican Thomas Foley, against Democrat Dannel Malloy, an opponent.
When they debated, Foley promised to veto any bill to abolish the death penalty, while Malloy said, "We know that the application of the death penalty has not always been equal and even." A tough sell, right? But Malloy won.
That's just one of the many indications that capital punishment is on the wane. The popular impulse to put people to death is just not what it used to be.
Executions have fallen by half since 1999. The number of new death sentences is about one-third what it was at the 1996 peak. Even in Texas, long the leading practitioner, death sentences are off by 80 percent. Several states that retain capital punishment have not administered a single lethal injection in the past five years.
The exoneration of 138 death row inmates has weakened public support for the ultimate sanction. In a recent Gallup poll, 64 percent of Americans endorsed it, down from 80 percent in 1994, while opposition has nearly doubled.
A survey commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Center found that 61 percent prefer that murderers get some sort of life sentence instead. As a budget priority, the death penalty was ranked seventh out of seven issues.
Did someone mention budgets? They are no friend of an option that requires expensive trials, costly appeals and pricey incarceration arrangements. Franklin Zimring, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, says capital punishment has become "an extreme luxury item."
Even the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog, which this year offers a charm bracelet for $248,000, has nothing to compare. Maryland has spent $186 million on capital cases over the past 30 years — which comes to $37 million per execution.
The typical Texas death case carries a price tag of $2.3 million. A 2005 study pointed out that "New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one."
You might surmise that death sentences and executions have subsided because the homicide rate has dropped so much. But Zimring finds that the biggest decline has been among murders that aren't eligible for capital punishment. Capital murders have declined far less. There are thousands each year for prosecutors who want to pursue them.
Even among lawmakers, this remedy is losing ground. The New Jersey legislature repealed it in 2007 and New Mexico followed suit last year. New York's death penalty law was overturned in court, but legislators have refused to pass a new one.
Illinois Gov. George Ryan declared an execution moratorium in 2000, and his successors have maintained it. But the moratorium has been, in a sense, the worst of both worlds. While taxpayers continue to incur the costs of seeking death sentences, none is ever carried out.
The cost will disappear if the General Assembly abolishes capital punishment, which opponents intend to propose as soon as it convenes in January. "I really think we're going to get it done," Jim Covington, director of legislative affairs for the Illinois State Bar Association, told me.
That shouldn't be impossible in a state where death row inmates are more likely to be freed than executed. Given Illinois' horrendous budget problems, the point of keeping the death penalty on the books is mysterious. In the last seven years, taxpayers have spent more than $100 million on capital cases even though the death chamber has been turned into a Starbucks
If it is repealed, some people will cheer, some will be angry, and most will pay little attention. In the United States, the death penalty may never die, but its best days are past."
The column can be found at:
http://texasdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2010/12/chicago-tribune-decline-of-death.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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Even the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog, which this year offers a charm bracelet for $248,000, has nothing to compare. Maryland has spent $186 million on capital cases over the past 30 years — which comes to $37 million per execution.
The typical Texas death case carries a price tag of $2.3 million. A 2005 study pointed out that "New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one."
STEVE CHAPMAN; CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the midst of the fall election campaign, Steven Hayes went on trial in New Haven, Conn., in one of the most horrific murder cases in memory," the column by Chicago Tribune Editorial Board member Steve Chapman on December 25, 2010, begins under the heading, "Chicago Tribune: The decline of the death penalty - expensive, error-prone, and losing popularity."
"The killers invaded a home, beat a man with a baseball bat, sexually assaulted and strangled his wife and tied up their two daughters before setting a fire that killed them," the column continues.
"It was the sort of crime that could only increase support for the death penalty. This effect had some relevance for the Connecticut governor's race, because it pitted a supporter of capital punishment, Republican Thomas Foley, against Democrat Dannel Malloy, an opponent.
When they debated, Foley promised to veto any bill to abolish the death penalty, while Malloy said, "We know that the application of the death penalty has not always been equal and even." A tough sell, right? But Malloy won.
That's just one of the many indications that capital punishment is on the wane. The popular impulse to put people to death is just not what it used to be.
Executions have fallen by half since 1999. The number of new death sentences is about one-third what it was at the 1996 peak. Even in Texas, long the leading practitioner, death sentences are off by 80 percent. Several states that retain capital punishment have not administered a single lethal injection in the past five years.
The exoneration of 138 death row inmates has weakened public support for the ultimate sanction. In a recent Gallup poll, 64 percent of Americans endorsed it, down from 80 percent in 1994, while opposition has nearly doubled.
A survey commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Center found that 61 percent prefer that murderers get some sort of life sentence instead. As a budget priority, the death penalty was ranked seventh out of seven issues.
Did someone mention budgets? They are no friend of an option that requires expensive trials, costly appeals and pricey incarceration arrangements. Franklin Zimring, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, says capital punishment has become "an extreme luxury item."
Even the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog, which this year offers a charm bracelet for $248,000, has nothing to compare. Maryland has spent $186 million on capital cases over the past 30 years — which comes to $37 million per execution.
The typical Texas death case carries a price tag of $2.3 million. A 2005 study pointed out that "New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one."
You might surmise that death sentences and executions have subsided because the homicide rate has dropped so much. But Zimring finds that the biggest decline has been among murders that aren't eligible for capital punishment. Capital murders have declined far less. There are thousands each year for prosecutors who want to pursue them.
Even among lawmakers, this remedy is losing ground. The New Jersey legislature repealed it in 2007 and New Mexico followed suit last year. New York's death penalty law was overturned in court, but legislators have refused to pass a new one.
Illinois Gov. George Ryan declared an execution moratorium in 2000, and his successors have maintained it. But the moratorium has been, in a sense, the worst of both worlds. While taxpayers continue to incur the costs of seeking death sentences, none is ever carried out.
The cost will disappear if the General Assembly abolishes capital punishment, which opponents intend to propose as soon as it convenes in January. "I really think we're going to get it done," Jim Covington, director of legislative affairs for the Illinois State Bar Association, told me.
That shouldn't be impossible in a state where death row inmates are more likely to be freed than executed. Given Illinois' horrendous budget problems, the point of keeping the death penalty on the books is mysterious. In the last seven years, taxpayers have spent more than $100 million on capital cases even though the death chamber has been turned into a Starbucks
If it is repealed, some people will cheer, some will be angry, and most will pay little attention. In the United States, the death penalty may never die, but its best days are past."
The column can be found at:
http://texasdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2010/12/chicago-tribune-decline-of-death.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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Monday, December 27, 2010
BOOK REVEW: FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS AND MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE; SANGHA, ROACH, MOLES; REVIEWED BY TF PERCY QC. WOLFF CHAMBERS;
"Bibi Sangha and Dr Robert Moles from Adelaide have joined with Canada’s Professor Ken Roach to produce a masterly text which is certain to quickly become the primary reference point on the topic.
Despite the theoretical tone of its title, the text is entirely practical in its approach to its subject matter. It traverses in detail the problems inherent in police investigations and prosecutions, and in an international context looks at the role forensic science and pathology have to play in both creating miscarriages of justice and solving them. Whilst a learned and scholarly work, the practical aspects of this highly readable book will make it indispensable to anyone undertaking some involvement on a case concerning a possible wrongful conviction, from students and scientists to journalists and appellate counsel."
TF PERCY: WOLFF CHAMBERS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem of wrongful convictions has always been a vexed one for lawyers and lay persons alike," the book review by TF Percy of Wolff Chambers, published in December, 2010, begins.
"We all like to think that our justice system is one where the truth will win out at the end of the day, but in recent times there has been mounting evidence to show that there is certainly no guarantee in this regard," the review continues.
"Developments in technology and the increasing willingness of the Executive to refer matters back to the courts on the basis of fresh evidence have seen a number of circumstances when startling miscarriages of justice have been exposed."
Many of them have been in Australian cases which are well known and documented in the public domain; like Chamberlain, Button and Mallard.
Cases where dedicated journalists, scientists, politicians and lawyers work pro bono to see where the system has gone wrong, and how things could be set straight; usually without any assistance from the state.
The experience overseas has been similar, although in the UK And Canada things are proceeding in a much more structured manner.
The UK’s Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has set aside 250 wrongful convictions since its inception 10 years ago. Sadly in Australia, there is no equivalent of the CCRC, and the potential for politics or public pressure to stand in the way of a worthy case being referred back to the courts is an ongoing difficulty.
The other problem for a wrongfully convicted person is that, unless your case has attracted a sufficient degree of public notoriety, it is unlikely that it will attract the band of dedicated volunteers needed to put in the years of painstaking work necessary to reactivate and hopefully reopen the case.
In this book, the authors conduct an unparalleled analysis of the problem of wrongful convictions, from their genesis in the investigation process to their ultimate manifestation in the courts. This comprehensive and ground-breaking text examines recent (and some historical) miscarriages of justice in the UK, Canada and Australia, as well as looking into the fascinating area of fraud in criminal cases.
Bibi Sangha and Dr Robert Moles from Adelaide have joined with Canada’s Professor Ken Roach to produce a masterly text which is certain to quickly become the primary reference point on the topic.
Despite the theoretical tone of its title, the text is entirely practical in its approach to its subject matter. It traverses in detail the problems inherent in police investigations and prosecutions, and in an international context looks at the role forensic science and pathology have to play in both creating miscarriages of justice and solving them. Whilst a learned and scholarly work, the practical aspects of this highly readable book will make it indispensable to anyone undertaking some involvement on a case concerning a possible wrongful conviction, from students and scientists to journalists and appellate counsel.
What emerges most strongly from an overview of the book is the pressing need for a CCRC in Australia, and the final chapter on “Institutional Responses” conclusively demonstrates that the problem of miscarriages of justice is one for which the state on behalf of the whole community must accept responsibility.
This is a timely reminder that, for too long, the whole question of wrongful convictions has been left to a handful of dedicated individuals fighting the might of the state, unaided in any way; and that the time for change is overdue. A book of this nature is also long overdue. "
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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Despite the theoretical tone of its title, the text is entirely practical in its approach to its subject matter. It traverses in detail the problems inherent in police investigations and prosecutions, and in an international context looks at the role forensic science and pathology have to play in both creating miscarriages of justice and solving them. Whilst a learned and scholarly work, the practical aspects of this highly readable book will make it indispensable to anyone undertaking some involvement on a case concerning a possible wrongful conviction, from students and scientists to journalists and appellate counsel."
TF PERCY: WOLFF CHAMBERS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem of wrongful convictions has always been a vexed one for lawyers and lay persons alike," the book review by TF Percy of Wolff Chambers, published in December, 2010, begins.
"We all like to think that our justice system is one where the truth will win out at the end of the day, but in recent times there has been mounting evidence to show that there is certainly no guarantee in this regard," the review continues.
"Developments in technology and the increasing willingness of the Executive to refer matters back to the courts on the basis of fresh evidence have seen a number of circumstances when startling miscarriages of justice have been exposed."
Many of them have been in Australian cases which are well known and documented in the public domain; like Chamberlain, Button and Mallard.
Cases where dedicated journalists, scientists, politicians and lawyers work pro bono to see where the system has gone wrong, and how things could be set straight; usually without any assistance from the state.
The experience overseas has been similar, although in the UK And Canada things are proceeding in a much more structured manner.
The UK’s Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has set aside 250 wrongful convictions since its inception 10 years ago. Sadly in Australia, there is no equivalent of the CCRC, and the potential for politics or public pressure to stand in the way of a worthy case being referred back to the courts is an ongoing difficulty.
The other problem for a wrongfully convicted person is that, unless your case has attracted a sufficient degree of public notoriety, it is unlikely that it will attract the band of dedicated volunteers needed to put in the years of painstaking work necessary to reactivate and hopefully reopen the case.
In this book, the authors conduct an unparalleled analysis of the problem of wrongful convictions, from their genesis in the investigation process to their ultimate manifestation in the courts. This comprehensive and ground-breaking text examines recent (and some historical) miscarriages of justice in the UK, Canada and Australia, as well as looking into the fascinating area of fraud in criminal cases.
Bibi Sangha and Dr Robert Moles from Adelaide have joined with Canada’s Professor Ken Roach to produce a masterly text which is certain to quickly become the primary reference point on the topic.
Despite the theoretical tone of its title, the text is entirely practical in its approach to its subject matter. It traverses in detail the problems inherent in police investigations and prosecutions, and in an international context looks at the role forensic science and pathology have to play in both creating miscarriages of justice and solving them. Whilst a learned and scholarly work, the practical aspects of this highly readable book will make it indispensable to anyone undertaking some involvement on a case concerning a possible wrongful conviction, from students and scientists to journalists and appellate counsel.
What emerges most strongly from an overview of the book is the pressing need for a CCRC in Australia, and the final chapter on “Institutional Responses” conclusively demonstrates that the problem of miscarriages of justice is one for which the state on behalf of the whole community must accept responsibility.
This is a timely reminder that, for too long, the whole question of wrongful convictions has been left to a handful of dedicated individuals fighting the might of the state, unaided in any way; and that the time for change is overdue. A book of this nature is also long overdue. "
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://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Sunday, December 26, 2010
CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM; ACLU BLOG OF RIGHTS EXPLAINS WHY JUSTICE IS STILL DENIED IN TEXAS;
"These extraordinarily transparent moves reveal that Texas prosecutors and politicians refuse to take a hard look at the serious flaws in the state's death penalty system that has likely resulted in the execution of innocent people. They would be well-served to spend less time avoiding the truth-seeking process, and more time examining whether Texas has executed an innocent person.
If Gov. Perry, Bradley, and Texas prosecutors truly trust in Willingham's conviction and execution, they should welcome the court of inquiry and other proceedings and let the evidence speak for itself. The maneuvering to avoid the proceedings only serves to undermine public confidence in Texas' death penalty system that much more."
ACLU BLOG OF RIGHTS; DECEMBER 22, 2010;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (Wikipedia); Cameron Todd Willingham (January 9, 1968 – February 17, 2004), born in Carter County, Oklahoma, was sentenced to death by the state of Texas for murdering his three daughters—two year old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and one year old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham— by setting his house on fire. The fire occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. Lighter fluid was kept on the front porch of Willingham’s house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. It was alleged this fluid was deliberately poured to start the fire and that Willingham chose this entrance way so as to impede rescue attempts. The prosecution also used other arson theories that have since been brought into question. In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant claimed Willingham confessed that he set the fire to hide his wife's physical abuse of the girls, although the girls showed no other injuries besides those caused by the fire. Neighbors also testified that Willingham did not try hard enough to save his children. They allege he "crouched down" in his front yard and watched the house burn for a period of time without attempting to enter the home or go to neighbors for help or request they call firefighters. He claimed that he tried to go back into the house but it was "too hot". As firefighters arrived, however, he rushed towards the garage and pushed his car away from the burning building, requesting firefighters do the same rather than put out the fire. After the fire, Willingham showed no emotion at the death of his children and spent the next day sorting through the debris, laughing and playing music. He expressed anger after finding his dartboard burned in the fire. Firefighters and other witnesses were suspicious of how he reacted during and after the fire. Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. After his conviction, he and his wife divorced. She later stated that she believed that Willingham was guilty. Prosecutors alleged this was part of a pattern of behavior intended to rid himself of his children. Willingham had a history of committing crimes, including burglary, grand larceny and car theft. There was also an incident when he beat his pregnant wife over the stomach with a telephone to induce a miscarriage. When asked if he had a final statement, Willingham said: "Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby." However, his final words were directed at his ex-wife, Stacy Willingham. He turned to her and said "I hope you rot in hell, bitch" several times while attempting to extend his middle finger in an obscene gesture. His ex-wife did not show any reaction to this. He was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004. Subsequent to that date, persistent questions have been raised as to the accuracy of the forensic evidence used in the conviction, specifically, whether it can be proven that an accelerant (such as the lighter fluid mentioned above) was used to start the fatal fire. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire. Legendary "Innocence" lawyer Barry Scheck asked participants at a conference of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers held in Toronto in August, 2010, how Willingham, who had lost his family to the fire, must have felt to hear the horrific allegations made against him on the basis of the bogus evidence, "and nobody pays any attention to it as he gets executed." "It's the Dreyfus Affair, and you all know what that is," Scheck continued. "It's the Dreyfus AffaIr of the United States. Luke Power's music video "Texas Death Row Blues," can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/09/cameron-todd-willingham-texas-death-row_02.html
"Once again, Texas prosecutors have successfully stalled proceedings which almost certainly will establish that Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004 for a crime he did not commit," the ACLU Blog of Rights post published on December 22, 2010 begins, under the heading, "Texas Justice (Still) Denied."
"Willingham's relatives had sought a court of inquiry before Judge Charles Baird in Austin to present new evidence of Willingham's innocence for the first time in a court of law. Prosecutors argued that the judge was biased and should be disqualified," the post continues.
"When Judge Baird did not agree, prosecutors sought an order from the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals that he should recuse himself, or refer the recusal motion to another judge. Yesterday, that court granted the prosecution's request, and for now, the fate of the court of inquiry remains uncertain. This latest maneuver is part of a broader pattern by Texas prosecutors and political actors to stall and thwart proceedings seeking to uncover the truth that Texas has executed innocent people.
Willingham steadfastly maintained his innocence of the arson-murder of his three children at the family home. Just months before his scheduled execution, an investigation by a leading national fire science expert revealed that the forensic science in Willingham's trial — the crux of the prosecution's evidence against him — had been wrong: the fire was an accident, not arson. The expert submitted his report to Gov. Rick Perry in Willingham's request for clemency. But Gov. Perry did not review the critical report, and allowed Willingham's execution to proceed.
After his death, Willingham's family members asked the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the case; the commission agreed to consider it. But just days before it was set to release key findings, Gov. Perry replaced critical commission members and appointed Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, a close political ally, as chairman of the commission. This shakeup delayed the commission's investigation. It's now set to meet again on the Willingham case on January 7, but Gov. Perry's political wrangling has severely compromised its appearance of objectivity. In the meantime, Willingham's family turned to another avenue, the court of inquiry.
Gov. Perry and Bradley have made no secret that they disapprove of a court of inquiry in Willingham's case. But Gov. Perry did not voice the same concerns when Judge Baird conducted an identical proceeding in the case of Tim Cole. Cole died in prison, serving a 25-year sentence for a rape he did not commit. At the request of his relatives, Judge Baird held a court of inquiry, where he heard testimony that another man had confessed to the rape and received DNA evidence that cleared Cole. Judge Baird ruled that Cole had been wrongfully convicted. Gov. Perry recognized Judge Baird's finding and granted Cole a posthumous pardon. Of course, Cole, unlike Willingham, was not executed on Gov. Perry's watch.
The 3rd Court of Appeals ruling yesterday marks the second time this month prosecutors have sought intervention by appeals courts to prevent evidence about the Willingham case from moving forward. In nearby Houston, defense lawyers representing John Green, a man charged with murder and facing the death penalty, had attempted to present evidence about Willingham's wrongful execution in their challenge to the constitutionality of the Texas death penalty system on grounds that it risks execution of the innocent. The Court of Criminal Appeals had at first refused to get involved, but after the hearing actually began, it changed its mind and halted proceedings. Like the Willingham court of inquiry, it is unclear whether the Green hearing will resume.
These extraordinarily transparent moves reveal that Texas prosecutors and politicians refuse to take a hard look at the serious flaws in the state's death penalty system that has likely resulted in the execution of innocent people. They would be well-served to spend less time avoiding the truth-seeking process, and more time examining whether Texas has executed an innocent person.
If Gov. Perry, Bradley, and Texas prosecutors truly trust in Willingham's conviction and execution, they should welcome the court of inquiry and other proceedings and let the evidence speak for itself. The maneuvering to avoid the proceedings only serves to undermine public confidence in Texas' death penalty system that much more.
One day, hopefully soon, Texas prosecutors and politicians will not be able to prevent the truth from surfacing any longer. Until then, Texas's death penalty system will unconscionably tolerate the risk of executing another innocent person."
The post can be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/capital-punishment/texas-justice-still-denied
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;
HANK SKINNER, DARRELL HUNT AND OTHERS; DNA AND JUSTICE DENIED. SHELDON KRIMSKY AND TANIA SIMONCELLI; THE L.A. TIMES. GREAT READ.
"Forensic DNA profiling has certainly revolutionized criminal investigations. But the full potential of forensic DNA testing to uncover wrongful convictions will not be realized until barriers to providing convicted felons access to crime scene evidence are removed, until laws are widely implemented requiring the preservation of evidence, and until resources for post-conviction testing are made available to those with a claim of innocence."
SHELDON KRIMSKY AND TANIA SIMONCELLI; OP-ED. THE LOS ANGELES TIMES;
(Sheldon Krimsky is a professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University. Tania Simoncelli is former science advisor to the ACLU. They are the coauthors of the book " Genetic Justice: DNA Databanks, Criminal Investigation, and Civil Liberties.")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have seen repeatedly that DNA can shed light on wrongful convictions. To date, about 250 people who were wrongly convicted have been exonerated because of DNA evidence that was reexamined after they were pronounced guilty," the L/A. Times Op-Ed piece by Sheldon Krimsky and Tania Simoncelli published on December 22, 2010 begins, under the heading, "DNA and justice denied: We are a long way from a system that grants fair access to DNA testing for convicted criminals."
"But we are a long way from a system that grants fair access to DNA testing," the column continues.
"One primary constraint on the use of DNA in response to a claim of innocence is the availability of the relevant crime scene evidence. According to the Innocence Project in New York, 22% of the cases that its team investigated from 2004 to 2008 had to be terminated because the crime scene DNA evidence was no longer available. At least 24 states either lack laws requiring preservation of DNA evidence or have inadequate ones.
The recent movie "Conviction" was based on the true story of a falsely convicted man, Kenny Waters, who was ultimately freed only because his sister successfully pressed for crime scene DNA to be analyzed. In Waters' case, it was pure luck that the court hadn't discarded the evidence file containing the bloodstains that ultimately cleared him. Calvin Johnson, who was wrongfully convicted of rape in Georgia, was exonerated thanks to serendipity: An astute district attorney happened to notice boxes of evidence in a parking lot dumpster outside the courthouse and decided they should be saved. But there are almost certainly other innocent men and women sitting in prison because DNA evidence that could establish their innocence has been destroyed or discarded.
Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »
Even when crime scene evidence is available, some states severely restrict inmates' access to it. Though 48 states have enacted post-conviction DNA testing statutes, many of them have set up nearly insurmountable hurdles for those seeking access to testing. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case of Henry Skinner, a Texas death row inmate who petitioned the court for the right to DNA testing of all evidence found at the crime scene where his girlfriend and her two sons were murdered. Skinner was within one hour of being executed in March when the Supreme Court issued a stay and decided to hear his case.
In a 2009 case involving a convicted rapist who had requested DNA testing, the Supreme Court held that the man had "no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the state's evidence for DNA testing."
A third constraint in achieving exoneration by DNA is economic: Many prisoners lack the human resources and funds to investigate. Public defenders are typically overburdened and understaffed and rarely take on post-conviction claims of innocence. The lawyers and legal staff who do so depend on philanthropy and are unable to take on all the cases that come to their attention.
Even when evidence is available and testing is done that shows a defendant's DNA profile does not match that of the perpetrator, authorities are often reluctant to free those who were wrongly convicted. In the case of Darryl Hunt, who was convicted in 1984 for the rape and murder of a female reporter in North Carolina, DNA testing proved that Hunt's sperm did not match that found on the victim's body. Nonetheless, the North Carolina Supreme Court argued that the burden for a new trial based on post-conviction evidence — even DNA — requires a "truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence." Hunt's legal team was forced to begin conducting surreptitious DNA tests in search of the real perpetrator. Eventually, through Hunt's legal team's findings and police cooperation, the real perpetrator was found, and he confessed to the crime. Hunt was released after spending 18 years in prison.
Forensic DNA profiling has certainly revolutionized criminal investigations. But the full potential of forensic DNA testing to uncover wrongful convictions will not be realized until barriers to providing convicted felons access to crime scene evidence are removed, until laws are widely implemented requiring the preservation of evidence, and until resources for post-conviction testing are made available to those with a claim of innocence."
The column can be found at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-krimsky-dna-20101222,0,7557447.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fcommentary+%28L.A.+Times+-+Commentary%29
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;
SHELDON KRIMSKY AND TANIA SIMONCELLI; OP-ED. THE LOS ANGELES TIMES;
(Sheldon Krimsky is a professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University. Tania Simoncelli is former science advisor to the ACLU. They are the coauthors of the book " Genetic Justice: DNA Databanks, Criminal Investigation, and Civil Liberties.")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have seen repeatedly that DNA can shed light on wrongful convictions. To date, about 250 people who were wrongly convicted have been exonerated because of DNA evidence that was reexamined after they were pronounced guilty," the L/A. Times Op-Ed piece by Sheldon Krimsky and Tania Simoncelli published on December 22, 2010 begins, under the heading, "DNA and justice denied: We are a long way from a system that grants fair access to DNA testing for convicted criminals."
"But we are a long way from a system that grants fair access to DNA testing," the column continues.
"One primary constraint on the use of DNA in response to a claim of innocence is the availability of the relevant crime scene evidence. According to the Innocence Project in New York, 22% of the cases that its team investigated from 2004 to 2008 had to be terminated because the crime scene DNA evidence was no longer available. At least 24 states either lack laws requiring preservation of DNA evidence or have inadequate ones.
The recent movie "Conviction" was based on the true story of a falsely convicted man, Kenny Waters, who was ultimately freed only because his sister successfully pressed for crime scene DNA to be analyzed. In Waters' case, it was pure luck that the court hadn't discarded the evidence file containing the bloodstains that ultimately cleared him. Calvin Johnson, who was wrongfully convicted of rape in Georgia, was exonerated thanks to serendipity: An astute district attorney happened to notice boxes of evidence in a parking lot dumpster outside the courthouse and decided they should be saved. But there are almost certainly other innocent men and women sitting in prison because DNA evidence that could establish their innocence has been destroyed or discarded.
Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »
Even when crime scene evidence is available, some states severely restrict inmates' access to it. Though 48 states have enacted post-conviction DNA testing statutes, many of them have set up nearly insurmountable hurdles for those seeking access to testing. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case of Henry Skinner, a Texas death row inmate who petitioned the court for the right to DNA testing of all evidence found at the crime scene where his girlfriend and her two sons were murdered. Skinner was within one hour of being executed in March when the Supreme Court issued a stay and decided to hear his case.
In a 2009 case involving a convicted rapist who had requested DNA testing, the Supreme Court held that the man had "no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the state's evidence for DNA testing."
A third constraint in achieving exoneration by DNA is economic: Many prisoners lack the human resources and funds to investigate. Public defenders are typically overburdened and understaffed and rarely take on post-conviction claims of innocence. The lawyers and legal staff who do so depend on philanthropy and are unable to take on all the cases that come to their attention.
Even when evidence is available and testing is done that shows a defendant's DNA profile does not match that of the perpetrator, authorities are often reluctant to free those who were wrongly convicted. In the case of Darryl Hunt, who was convicted in 1984 for the rape and murder of a female reporter in North Carolina, DNA testing proved that Hunt's sperm did not match that found on the victim's body. Nonetheless, the North Carolina Supreme Court argued that the burden for a new trial based on post-conviction evidence — even DNA — requires a "truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence." Hunt's legal team was forced to begin conducting surreptitious DNA tests in search of the real perpetrator. Eventually, through Hunt's legal team's findings and police cooperation, the real perpetrator was found, and he confessed to the crime. Hunt was released after spending 18 years in prison.
Forensic DNA profiling has certainly revolutionized criminal investigations. But the full potential of forensic DNA testing to uncover wrongful convictions will not be realized until barriers to providing convicted felons access to crime scene evidence are removed, until laws are widely implemented requiring the preservation of evidence, and until resources for post-conviction testing are made available to those with a claim of innocence."
The column can be found at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-krimsky-dna-20101222,0,7557447.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fcommentary+%28L.A.+Times+-+Commentary%29
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;
Saturday, December 25, 2010
KEVIN COOPER; SACRAMENTO BEE ASKS GOVERNOR SCWARZENEGGER TO GIVE WEIGHT TO DISSENTING JUDGES WHO SAY AN INNOCENT MAN MAY BE EXECUTED.
"Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William A. Fletcher wrote an unusually long and blunt dissent signed by four other judges in which he raised disturbing questions about misconduct by sheriff's deputies and questionable decisions by the trial judge.
"In my opinion," Fletcher wrote, "he is probably innocent of the crimes for which the State of California is about to execute him. If he is innocent, the real killers have escaped. They may kill again. They may already have done so. We owe it to the victims of this horrible crime, to Kevin Cooper, and to ourselves to get this one right."
We do not offer an opinion about Cooper's guilt or innocence. Circuit Judge Pamela Rymer, a veteran jurist, challenged Fletcher's conclusions and reasoning. Still, Fletcher is no newcomer. Nor are the judges who joined his dissent. Their opinions ought to carry weight."
EDITORIAL: THE SACRAMENTO BEE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote in a column headed "Framed For Murder?": "California may be about to execute an innocent man. That’s the view of five federal judges in a case involving Kevin Cooper, a black man in California who faces lethal injection next year for supposedly murdering a white family. The judges argue compellingly that he was framed by police. Mr. Cooper’s impending execution is so outrageous that it has produced a mutiny among these federal circuit court judges, distinguished jurists just one notch below the United States Supreme Court. But the judicial process has run out for Mr. Cooper. Now it’s up to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to decide whether to commute Mr. Cooper’s sentence before leaving office.
WIKIPEDIA presents a thorough account of the Cooper case at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Cooper_%28inmate%29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The editorial can be found at:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/24/3279053/governor-should-weigh-petitions.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has some difficult duties left in his final days. Numerous convicted prisoners and their supporters have petitioned the governor seeking mercy," the Sacramento Bee editorial published on December 24, 2010 under the heading, "Governor should weigh petitions of two prisoners," begins.
"Two in particular deserve the governor's attention. We urge him to consider the merits of their petitions," the editorial continues.
"Sara Kruzan
There is no doubt Sara Kruzan committed the murder that has put her behind bars for the past 16 years. The question is whether, at age 32, she deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison. Clearly she does not.
Kruzan grew up in Riverside with a drug-addicted mother. She was sexually molested as a child and, from the age of 9, hospitalized several times for depression. She was 11 when she met a 31-year-old man named "G.G." She says he had sex with her the day they met and eventually became her pimp. By 13 she was a child prostitute.
Three years later, Kruzan was arrested for killing G.G. Even though California Youth Authority evaluators concluded she was amenable to treatment in the juvenile justice system, Kruzan was tried in adult court, convicted of murder with special circumstances and sentenced to life without chance of parole.
Kruzan has been in prison half her life. Riverside prosecutors who oppose clemency point to troubles behind bars, including fights and failure to show up for work assignments. But in the last few years, she has finished high school and earned a degree from a community college. She makes no excuses for her crime. "I seek to be forgiven," she writes in her petition. "I have forgiven all who have hurt me. I sincerely request to be forgiven for the harm and pain I have caused."
This editorial board has previously spoken out against imprisoning juveniles on life sentences without the possibility of parole. Kruzan's tragic history and the crimes committed against her make her life sentence doubly unjust.
Kevin Cooper
Kevin Cooper is sitting on death row, having been convicted of slaying three members of the same family and a houseguest in a 1983 rampage in San Bernardino County.
According to some of the most powerful judges in the land, he may not have committed the murders for which he was convicted.
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William A. Fletcher wrote an unusually long and blunt dissent signed by four other judges in which he raised disturbing questions about misconduct by sheriff's deputies and questionable decisions by the trial judge.
"In my opinion," Fletcher wrote, "he is probably innocent of the crimes for which the State of California is about to execute him. If he is innocent, the real killers have escaped. They may kill again. They may already have done so. We owe it to the victims of this horrible crime, to Kevin Cooper, and to ourselves to get this one right."
We do not offer an opinion about Cooper's guilt or innocence. Circuit Judge Pamela Rymer, a veteran jurist, challenged Fletcher's conclusions and reasoning. Still, Fletcher is no newcomer. Nor are the judges who joined his dissent. Their opinions ought to carry weight.
Cooper's lawyers have not asked that Schwarzenegger overturn Cooper's conviction. Rather, they ask that Cooper's sentence be reduced to life in prison without parole. Cooper deserves an answer.
Schwarzenegger has made plenty of tough decisions during his seven years in office. He faces at least two more before turning out the lights."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;