"The
West Virginia Attorney General’s Office is asking the state Supreme
Court to hold off finalizing its ruling allowing a Clarksburg man to
withdraw guilty pleas made in 2002 to sex assault and robbery of an
83-year-old Clarksburg woman. The move by the
office of Attorney General Patrick Morrisey came early Thursday evening,
a week to the day before the opinion issued by the justices in Joseph
A. Buffey’s case is scheduled to become final. If the high court grants the
postponement, it would give the attorney general’s office more time to
decide whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The motion doesn’t seek a
specific time for any postponement, but its language indicates
Morrisey’s office is seeking a stay to potentially last as long as a
U.S. Supreme Court review of the case might take. “Attorney General Patrick
Morrisey and the office are closely reviewing the Buffey case. We
believe it presents an important question of criminal law,” Press
Secretary Curtis Johnson said Thursday evening in an emailed statement.........Buffey, 33, is serving a 70-year
term for two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of
first-degree robbery of an 83-year-old woman. As it stands, his first
chance to see the parole board would be Dec. 8, 2041. Buffey went to prison after pleading guilty in 2002 to the crimes that occurred Nov. 30, 2001 On Nov. 10, however, the state
Supreme Court unanimously remanded the case to Harrison Chief Judge
Thomas A. Bedell with an order that the court allow the defendant to
withdraw his pleas. The justices first found, as a
general rule, that prosecutors in West Virginia must provide potentially
exculpatory evidence at the time of plea negotiations. Then in this specific case, the
justices found that a State Police lab analyst had conducted DNA testing
that came back favorable for Buffey. Those results were known before
Bedell’s May 21, 2002, acceptance of the guilty pleas Buffey had entered
earlier that same year, the justices opined. Even if the prosecutor’s office
didn’t know about the results, that wouldn’t matter, because the state’s
attorneys had a duty to find out about them from the crime lab, the
opinion authored by Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman indicated. But under Supreme Court
procedure, the opinion doesn’t become final for 30 days, giving the
parties time to seek some other sort of relief. Barry Scheck and Nina Morrison of
the Innocence Project, as well as Sarah Montoro, formerly with Allan
Karlin’s Morgantown law firm, were the main lawyers, in addition to
Karlin, on Buffey’s case. Additional DNA work by Buffey’s
lawyers eventually pointed the finger at Adam Derek Bowers, 30, of
Clarksburg, as the assailant. Bowers was convicted at trial this year
and has been sentenced to 70 years in prison, the same term that Buffey
received from Bedell back in May 2002. In early October, Karlin argued before the justices on Buffey’s behalf. Buffey was tired and hungry when
he finally confessed after several hours of interrogation by police, and
even at one point during that process, he told police he wasn’t the one
who committed the crimes, Karlin told the justices. Buffey didn’t know the results of
the DNA testing when he got bad advice from his court-appointed
attorney that he probably wouldn’t get much more time for pleading
guilty to two counts of first-degree robbery and one count of
first-degree sexual assault than if he were convicted of multiple
burglary-related charges that were dismissed as part of plea
negotiations, Karlin told the justices. And later, after Buffey’s Feb.
11, 2002, plea hearing, but before his May 21, 2002, sentencing, a State
Police expert had DNA test results that excluded Buffey as being
responsible for the DNA evidence collected from items at the scene and a
rape kit conducted on the victim, Karlin argued. There also was evidence that the
Harrison County prosecuting attorney’s office — then under the direction
of John Scott — had been told some time before March 2002 by the State
Police expert that he was leaning toward excluding Buffey, according to
Karlin. The state had a duty to let the
presiding judge, Thomas A. Bedell, know about the DNA test results prior
to sentencing, Karlin argued.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Bulletin: Joseph Buffey: West Virginia; AG's office asks justices to put final ruling in Buffey case on hold. "Then in this specific case, the justices found that a State Police lab analyst had conducted DNA testing that came back favorable for Buffey. Those results were known before Bedell’s May 21, 2002, acceptance of the guilty pleas Buffey had entered earlier that same year, the justices opined. Even if the prosecutor’s office didn’t know about the results, that wouldn’t matter, because the state’s attorneys had a duty to find out about them from the crime lab, the opinion authored by Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman indicated. But under Supreme Court procedure, the opinion doesn’t become final for 30 days, giving the parties time to seek some other sort of relief. The Exponent Telegram;
