"Next
week, the West Virginia Supreme will hear arguments in the case of Innocence
Project client Joseph Buffey, who is currently serving 70 to 100 years for a
2001 rape and robbery that DNA evidence proves he did not commit. Innocence
Project attorneys will argue that Buffey’s conviction should be overturned.
They will present evidence showing that in 2002 the prosecution violated
Buffey’s constitutional rights by offering him a plea deal when, in fact, they
possessed DNA results proving his innocence, but neglected to turn over that
evidence to the defense. In
2002, at the urging of his lawyer, Buffey entered a guilty plea to raping and
robbing an 83-year-old Clarksburg, Virginia, woman in her home, although he
maintained his innocence. In subsequent years, the Innocence Project secured
evidence which proved that Buffey was right. Not only did the organization
secure DNA testing that excluded Buffey from the crime, but it also uncovered
evidence that the prosecution was in possession of DNA evidence before Buffey
was sentenced for the crime excluding him as the perpetrator. Pursuant
to Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution
is required to turn over evidence before trial that could help prove the
defendant’s innocence. But, as explained in yesterday’s New York Times, the Buffey case is in some regards exceptional.
Contrary to most states, neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the West Virginia
Supreme Court have ruled whether the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence
applies when there is a guilty plea. In
addition to their arguments that Buffey’s constitutional rights are grounds for
reversal of Buffey’s conviction, the Innocence Project has additional evidence
that Buffey was wrongfully convicted. As is highlighted in the Times article, in 2012 the organization
won a court order to run DNA evidence from the crime scene through the national
DNA database known as CODIS. The results pointed to another man, Adam Bowers,
who has a criminal record and who lived near the victim at the time.
Although the victim always maintained that the crime was committed by a
single perpetrator, the prosecution later claimed that Buffey somehow acted in
concert with Bowers. After the Clark County district court refused to
overturn Buffey’s conviction, the Innocence Project appealed the case to the
West Virginia Supreme Court. Read the
New York Times article here. "
http://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/the-next-step-in-the-fight-to-prove-joseph-buffey2019s-innocence
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/28/magazine/who-should-have-access-to-dna-evidence.htmlhttp://www.innocenceproject.org/news-events-exonerations/the-next-step-in-the-fight-to-prove-joseph-buffey2019s-innocence
From the New York Times story: "In
November 2002, Buffey filed a petition from prison, arguing that he was
coerced into making a false confession and asking for the DNA results.
He finally received the report from the state forensics lab — and it
said he was not the source of the male DNA in the seminal fluid taken
from the victim. (The lab report found trace amounts of DNA from another
male, but they were later determined to be too minute to have come from
the rape; they could conceivably have come from another man who
previously had sex with the rapist, or from a woman who had sex with
another man before having sex with the rapist.) What’s more, the DNA
report was completed six weeks before the court accepted Buffey’s guilty plea, even though the prosecution never turned it over to his lawyer. Did
Buffey have a right to see the DNA results before he entered his plea,
as he will argue to the West Virginia Supreme Court? Prosecutors will
argue to the West Virginia Supreme Court that he didn’t — because Buffey
voluntarily pleaded guilty knowing the DNA test was underway, he could
not fault the state for withholding the results. The question in general
is, surprisingly, not one the courts have settled. If
the case had gone to trial, the answer would have been straightforward.
In the 1963 case Brady v. Maryland, one of the most influential of its
time, the U.S. Supreme Court held that before a trial, prosecutors must
turn over information that could help a defendant prove his innocence.
“Particularly in the state system, the prosecutor has more resources
than the defense,” explains Paul Schechtman, a former Manhattan and
federal prosecutor. “On those occasions when you find something that
suggests the defendant didn’t do it, if you suppress it, you’ve
suppressed justice.” But
the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether prosecutors must turn over
evidence that could establish a defendant’s innocence before he or she
accepts a plea offer."
