"The new case, Smith v. Cain , is not about punishing prosecutors. It is about whether withholding evidence should mean a new trial for Juan Smith, who prosecutors said was involved in a gangland-style shooting that left five dead. Prosecutors have an obligation under a nearly 50-year-old Supreme Court precedent in Brady v. Maryland to turn over any evidence material to a defendant’s guilt or punishment.
The case is expected to be determined by its specific facts rather than the potential for a new examination of Brady. It also seems not coincidental that it involves New Orleans prosecutors.
Smith’s lawyers point out that courts have overturned four death sentences from Orleans Parish because of violations of the Brady rules, and they say eight other non-capital cases have met the same fate."
REPORTER JUAN SMITH; THE WASHINGTON POST;
(PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I have included below the post this Blog published on the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to take on the Juan Smith case);
- ---------------------------------------------------------
"Prosecutors, says Angela Davis, former head of the D.C. public defenders office, “are the most powerful officials in our criminal justice system," the Washington Post story by reporter Robert Barnes published on October 30, 2011 under the heading, "Supreme court to take another look at prosecutorial misconduct," begins.
"Davis, a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, explains," the story continues.
That combination of power and discretion, she said, “can and has led to abuse.”
It’s an issue of perpetual interest at the Supreme Court. Next week, the court will hear a case in which a Louisiana death row inmate alleges that prosecutors withheld information that would have cast doubt on the eyewitness account that led to his conviction.
The case from New Orleans concerns prosecutors who worked for former district attorney Harry Connick Sr., who left office in 2003.
If that sounds familiar, it is because Connick and his office were at the center of last term’s big decision about prosecutorial misconduct. In that controversial 5-to-4 decision, the court stripped a $14 million award from John Thompson, who spent 14 years on death row after prosecutors withheld evidence that showed his innocence.
The court has long agreed that individual prosecutors should be protected from civil liability so that they may freely pursue criminals. However, Thompson had convinced a jury that Connick’s office should be held accountable for not properly training staff about the duty prosecutors have to turn over evidence favorable to the defense.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the court’s other conservatives, said Thompson did not meet the high standard of showing a pattern of “deliberate indifference” on Connick’s part.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on behalf of the court’s liberals, read her dissent from the bench, saying she would have upheld the award against Connick’s office for the “gross, deliberately indifferent and long-continuing violation of (Thompson’s) fair trial right.”
Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, said the court’s decision in Connick v. Thompson made it clear that civil remedies are not a viable option for those trying to stop prosecutorial misconduct.
He, Thompson and others were part of a group of “innocence advocates” who last week proposed a national dialogue with prosecutors to try to find other ways to investigate and sanction prosecutors who break the rules.
Santa Clara University law professor Kathleen Ridolfi said the group needs to find a way around “a system where the Supreme Court refuses to hold prosecutors accountable, even for repeated, deliberate misconduct.”
The new case, Smith v. Cain , is not about punishing prosecutors. It is about whether withholding evidence should mean a new trial for Juan Smith, who prosecutors said was involved in a gangland-style shooting that left five dead. Prosecutors have an obligation under a nearly 50-year-old Supreme Court precedent in Brady v. Maryland to turn over any evidence material to a defendant’s guilt or punishment.
The case is expected to be determined by its specific facts rather than the potential for a new examination of Brady. It also seems not coincidental that it involves New Orleans prosecutors.
Smith’s lawyers point out that courts have overturned four death sentences from Orleans Parish because of violations of the Brady rules, and they say eight other non-capital cases have met the same fate.
The American Bar Association has asked the court to use the case to tell prosecutors that they have a greater obligation than simply meeting Brady requirements. The ABA says the court should mandate that prosecutors abide by ABA model rules that call for disclosure of any exculpatory evidence, whether it is determined to be material or not.
The National District Attorneys Association replied that the ABA is nothing but a private association of lawyers that consistently takes the side of criminal defendants. The regulation of prosecutors, it says, “is appropriately left to the individual states.”
Such sensitivity is why Scheck and others at a news conference last week took pains to say they believe only a small slice of prosecutors have committed misconduct. He said he was generally advised, “ ‘Don’t go around the country pillorying prosecutors and giving the impression that what happened in John Thompson’s case is happening across the board in an epidemic.’ ”
He added: “ We’re not saying that.""
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-take-another-look-at-prosecutorial-misconduct/2011/10/28/gIQAnBvoWM_story.html;
---------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES SMITH BLOG POST ON THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO TAKE ON THE JUNA SMITH CASE:
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
JUAN SMITH; ECHOES OF "JOHN THOMPSON;" SUPREME COURT AGREES TO TAKE ON ANOTHER DISTURBING ORLEANS PARRISH CASE; EYEWITNESS NEWS;
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Juan Smith case is fascinating as it is another death penalty case arising from the Orlean's Parish District Attorney's office - and as it follows the Supreme Court's disturbing decision striking the award in the John Thompson case (Connick V. Thompson) which involved a $14 million jury award in favor of a former inmate who was freed after prosecutorial misconduct came to light. The former inmate, John Thompson, sued officials in the district attorney's office in New Orleans, saying they had not trained prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor there failed to give Mr. Thompson's lawyers a report showing that blood at a crime scene was not his. Mr. Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 in solitary confinement. He once came within weeks of being executed. The Supreme Court glossed over a clear pattern of misconduct in Connick's office to overturn the award. Maybe, but not likely, the Juan Smith case will cause the Court to have some second thoughts.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER. THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"NEW ORLEANS - The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to look at yet another case in which the Orleans Parish District Attorney's office is accused of withholding key evidence from a defendant," the Eyewitness News story by reporter Mike Perlstein published on June 14, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Supreme Court to look at case where Orleans DA office accused of withholding evidence."
"Juan Smith has been on Louisiana death row since 1996 after convictions in a quintuple murder and separate triple murder. Smith’s attorneys said prosecutors withheld information – and presented false evidence in its place – to land a conviction in the quintuple killings, an infamous 1995 case known as the Roman Street massacre," the story continues.
"The Roman Street convictions were then used against Smith at his next trial, a triple murder in which the ex-wife and three-year-old child of Saints defense back Bennie Thompson were fatally shot along with the ex-wife’s fiancée. The former Saints player, Bennie Thompson, was publicly named as a prime suspect before evidence turned toward Smith.
The appeal granted by the Supreme Court agreed to hear deals only with the Roman Street slayings.
“We were very excited when we found out,” said Gary Clements of Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, the organization representing Smith. “The odds of getting a writ granted by the Supreme Court is more than one in a hundred. The chance of them granting hearings to two cases like this from the same city is astronomical.”
The rarely granted appeal comes just weeks after the high court ruled against another New Orleans defendant with a similar claim. In that case, the court threw out a $14-million-dollar judgment awarded to John Thompson, a death row inmate who was exonerated when he proved that prosecutors withheld evidence pointing to his innocence.
Smith’s petition noted that since 1981, four death row inmates from New Orleans have been exonerated after defense attorneys uncovered evidence withheld by prosecutors. The Supreme Court issued a key ruling in one of those old cases, reversing the murder conviction of Curtis Kyles.
“Rather than heed this Court’s directive in Kyles,” Smith’s attorneys wrote, “the Orleans Parish DA’s office continued its pattern of deceit by concealing material…from the defense.”
The Supreme Court is requesting supplement briefs by the end of July, Clements said, while oral arguments probably will be scheduled in the fall."
The story can be found at:
http://www.wwltv.com/news/crime/Supreme-Court-to-look-at-case-where-Orleans-DA-office-accused-of-withholding-evidence-123868419.html
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/06/juan-smith-echoes-of-john-thompson.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 found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
