PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Major development related to restrictions on post-conviction DNA testing; U.S. Circuit Court rules in Montana case that people convicted of crimes through inconclusive or
outdated DNA testing procedures should be allowed new tests using the latest
technological advances without regard to a three-year time limit set by law, a
federal appeals court ruled. (Bill Watson case); The Associated Press story on this important decision is found at the end of this post - and is a "Must Read."
Harold Levy; Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
STORY: "$12.5M for Plainfield man imprisoned 22 years for murders he didn't commit: Union County prosecutors fought for years to deny DNA test that would eventually exonerate Byron Halsey in 2006," by reporter Sergio Bichao, published by "My Central Jersey" on July 15, 2015. (Thanks to the Wrongful Convictions Blog for drawing our attention to this case. HL);
STORY HIGHLIGHTS: "Byron Halsey was convicted in 1988 of killing two young children; DNA test in 2006 exonerated Halsey and inculpated another suspect. Plainfield and the state will pay millions to settle his 2009 federal lawsuit."
GIST: "A man who spent more than two decades behind bars for a savage crime he
did not commit will never get back those lost years of life. But he
will get millions of dollars. Byron Halsey, who was released from
prison in 2006 after being convicted of the 1985 murder of his
girlfriend's two children, last week settled the wrongful conviction
lawsuit against this city and the state of New Jersey for $12.5 million. The
federal lawsuit claimed police fabricated Halsey's confession, which
they didn't record even though they had the means to do so, and that
investigators lied on the stand. In settling the case, authorities
did not admit wrongdoing. But Halsey, 55, has become another name in a
growing list of people across the country exonerated tanks to DNA
evidence tested years after their convictions. The gruesome
murders of Tina Urquhart, 7, and her brother, Tyrone Urquhart, 8,
shocked the community. Both were raped in the basement of their rooming
house. Tina was strangled and hit with a brick while the killer stabbed
Tyrone with scissors and used a brick to slam nails through his skull. Investigators
zeroed in on the distraught and hungover Halsey as a suspect the day
the bodies were found, interrogating him for 12 hours, browbeating him
into taking a lie-detector test (which he failed), interrogating him for
yet another 12 hours before coercing him into signing a confession they
had fed to him, his lawsuit said. Prosecutors
had sought the death penalty against Halsey, who maintained his
innocence through the one-month 1988 trial, but a holdout on the jury
spared his life. Halsey finally was exonerated in 2006 after a DNA
test showed he was not the killer. The charges against him were dropped
a year later. When State Police ran the DNA results against its
database, it matched a convicted rapist, Clifton Hall, a neighbor of
Halsey who prosecutors had used as a trial witness. Hall died in prison in 2009 before he could be tried for the killings.........While
a semen sample had been collected from the scene, the case happened
before DNA testing was used in criminal investigations. In 1993,
Halsey began asking for DNA testing but the Union County Prosecutor's
Office resisted, letting Halsey remain in prison for another 13 years
before finally acquiescing in 2006, two years after the Innocence
Project, which advocates for the wrongfully convicted, took on his case."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/union-county/2015/07/14/byron-halsey-million-settlement-plainfield-wrongful-conviction/30148469/
Major development: See Associated Press story:"People convicted of crimes through inconclusive or
outdated DNA testing procedures should be allowed new tests using the latest
technological advances without regard to a three-year time limit set by law, a
federal appeals court ruled. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the first in
the nation to rule that the advances in DNA technology mean previously useless
samples should be considered newly discovered evidence that is not subject to
statutory time limitations. The three-judge panel acknowledged in its opinion
Friday that the ruling could re-open many closed cases to new DNA testing. But
the judges say protecting the innocent is paramount, particularly when
innocence can be proven by DNA evidence even after a conviction has been made. "No tradition is more firmly established in our
system of law than assuring to the greatest extent that its inevitable errors
are made in favor of the guilty rather than against the innocent," the
opinion written by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld read. The ruling was made in the case of a Montana
man who was convicted of attempted sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl in 2006
and sentenced to more than 14 years in prison. His lawyer, who took on the case
on behalf of the Montana Innocence Project, said the decision will have a broad
effect. "If you can show that there are new DNA
technologies available to you to show your innocence ... you're going to get
DNA testing. I think that's very big," Betsy Griffing said.........In 2013, seven years after a jury convicted Watson,
the Innocence Project helped Watson request new DNA testing of the girl's
underwear, clothing and tissue samples. A Boise State University biology
professor said in a statement accompanying the request that technological
advances would identify the semen and even small amounts of DNA from skin cells
of anyone who had contact with the girl or her clothing. U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon of Great Falls
rejected the request, saying it came more than three years after Walton's
conviction. That is the statutory time limit under the Innocence Protection Act
passed by Congress in 2004 to help use DNA tests to exonerate wrongly convicted
people. The exception to the three-year limit is if there is
"newly discovered DNA" evidence. But Haddon agreed with prosecutors
that the evidence — the underwear, clothes and tissue samples — were available
at the time of Walton's trial and could not be considered new. The appellate court disagreed, saying that
technological advances made the evidence new. "Doubtless many people possessed radium before
Marie Curie discovered its properties, and uranium was used to make yellow
glass for centuries before anyone else discovered other uses for it,"
Kleinfeld wrote. The court reversed Haddon's order denying the new DNA
testing."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-ruling-opens-dna-technology-advances-cases-32449899
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I
have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.
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.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
