PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Is 'science' enough to save Rodricus Crawford's life - or will a state which has made a religion out of unjust death penalty prosecutions get in the way? Crawford finds himself pitted against a backdrop of racial bias, prosecutorial zeal and religious fantacism. The science is on his side but that doesn't seem to mean very much in Louisiana where the thirst to kill doesn't care much for niceties. "Cecelia Trenticosta Kappel, senior attorney with the Justice Center, says the hope was that Stewart would “see that the state’s theory that Rodricus Crawford decided to murder his son out of nowhere is implausible, unsupported by evidence, and based on abject stereotypes”. According to Crawford’s attorneys and evidence submitted with his petition, she says that “the state’s case for capital murder essentially rested on two pieces of evidence: brain swelling and a busted lip. New evidence proves that the brain swelling was absolutely inconsistent with smothering; and had the state’s forensic pathologist followed standard medical protocol, the timing of the lip injury could have been conclusively proven.” In spite of these facts, Stewart’s office has filed an opposition brief to Crawford’s petition that his sentence be overturned. The brief, which rehashes the former prosecutor’s arguments in favor of the death penalty, is eerily reminiscent of Cox. So too is Stewart’s perspective on religion. “Some people get caught up in the separation of church and state. To me, all authority comes from God,” he said during an interview. Still, which “God” will you get? The one that has entire communities asking for mercy, or the one that had Cox demanding death?" Bravo to the New Yorker and to the Guardian for putting their spotlight on the Crawford case. I will continue to follow developments on this Blog - and hope that Stewart will show his independence by studying the science intensively and abandoning his opposition to Crawford's petition. Stewart must get the message that his actions are being scrutinized far beyond Louisiana's borders.
Harold Levy. Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.
STORY: "America's death penalty capital: can a black DA really change the system?" by Yolanda Young, in Shreveport Louisiana, published by 'The Guardian' on March 13, 2016. (Yolanda Young is a lawyer and contributor to On Being a Black Lawyer);
SUB-HEADING: "After years of what many say was a culture of unjust death penalty prosecutions fueled by racial bias in Louisiana’s Caddo Parish, James Stewart’s election offers cautious hope but some are not so quick to call him a savior"
PHOTO CAPTION: "Rodricus Crawford, who was sentenced to death penalty."
GIST: "Shreveport, the seat of Caddo Parish, is tucked in Louisiana’s north-west corner, bordering small towns in Texas and Arkansas. It has bayous, weeping willows, shotgun houses, and blues music, but lacks joie de vivre. It is the sober man’s New Orleans. The area distinguishes itself with a grim fact: between 2010 and 2014, it sentenced more people to death than any other place in the US. It is also the home of Dale Cox, Caddo Parish’s former acting district attorney, a man responsible for a third of Louisiana’s death row inmates since 2011. Cox’s reputation came to a head last year, when Rodricus Crawford was sentenced to death for smothering his one-year-old son amid a flurry of doubts and unanswered questions about the case. Cox had been instrumental in getting the death penalty verdict, and features by 60 Minutes and the New Yorker had depicted him as a callous man dismissive of racism, working in an office where a colleague had a Ku Klux Klan leader’s portrait hanging on a wall. This might shock outsiders far more than Caddo Parish residents. According to researchers who used Google searches data of the N-word to measure racism, it is among the most racist places in the country. And yet, last November, an African American judge named James Stewart was elected to succeed Cox, largely thanks to the town’s large black voting block. Although black DAs are rare, they aren’t so unusual as to warrant the kind of national attention Stewart’s campaign received. The lingering question in everyone’s mind: can a black DA change a criminal justice system tarnished by accusations of racism? Would his election be more than just a symbolic victory?.........Even when the DA is black, it is difficult to know how they will approach issues such as the death penalty. There was hope that Stewart would establish a division similar to Dallas’ Conviction Integrity Unit, which was established by its former black district attorney to investigate old cases and exonerate the innocent. Stewart has already sent clear messages that this was not to happen. He has already decided to seek the death penalty against Grover Cannon, a black man accused of killing a police officer. In doing so, he takes an even harder line on the issue than black California attorney general Kamala Harris, who has said she personally opposes the death penalty yet is appealing a federal judge’s ruling that California’s death penalty is unconstitutional. He has also remained quiet on the Rodricus Crawford case, even though he has the power to drop charges or dismiss an indictment, even if the person has already been convicted – which is what Crawford, who was sentenced to death, is hoping for. Cecelia Trenticosta Kappel, senior attorney with the Justice Center, says the hope was that Stewart would “see that the state’s theory that Rodricus Crawford decided to murder his son out of nowhere is implausible, unsupported by evidence, and based on abject stereotypes”. According to Crawford’s attorneys and evidence submitted with his petition, she says that “the state’s case for capital murder essentially rested on two pieces of evidence: brain swelling and a busted lip. New evidence proves that the brain swelling was absolutely inconsistent with smothering; and had the state’s forensic pathologist followed standard medical protocol, the timing of the lip injury could have been conclusively proven.” In spite of these facts, Stewart’s office has filed an opposition brief to Crawford’s petition that his sentence be overturned. The brief, which rehashes the former prosecutor’s arguments in favor of the death penalty, is eerily reminiscent of Cox. So too is Stewart’s perspective on religion. “Some people get caught up in the separation of church and state. To me, all authority comes from God,” he said during an interview. Still, which “God” will you get? The one that has entire communities asking for mercy, or the one that had Cox demanding death?.........Crawford, who sits in isolation at Angola awaiting the outcome of his appeal, believes he is seeing things clearer than ever before, and he doesn’t see himself as powerless. He believes God is moving on his behalf: “You know, I look at what’s happened in the past year with Dale Cox. The DA [Cox’s predecessor] dropped dead out of nowhere. Then the New York Times article comes out and all of a sudden there’s a spotlight on my case, and everybody is asking what to do about it when nobody cared before. Then Cox isn’t running for DA, and then Stewart wins and we’re looking at a whole new day now. I have to credit that to God. It’s the only thing getting me through.”
The entire article can be found at:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/13/caddo-parish-louisiana-death-penalty-capital-district-attorney
See phenomenal New Yorker Magazine story on the Rodricus Crawford case at the link below; 'Revenge Killing: Race and the death penalty in a Louisiana Parish' by Rachel Aviv. "The
week before Crawford’s trial, in November, 2013, Gold asked Cox to
dismiss the case. He had just received a report from his medical expert,
Daniel Spitz, a forensic pathologist from Michigan, who co-authored a
pathology textbook that is widely used in medical schools. Spitz found
that Roderius’s blood had tested positive for sepsis, and he concluded
that he had died of pneumonia. Spitz told me that after reviewing the
case he thought that there “wasn’t enough evidence to even put this
before a jury. You didn’t have anybody who thought this guy committed
murder except for one pathologist who decided that it was homicide on
what seemed like a whim.” Cox told
me that the new medical report “gave me pause.” But after meeting again
with the first pathologist, James Traylor, he felt confident about the
theory of smothering. In court, Traylor testified as cross-sections of
the baby’s bruised bottom were displayed for the jury. Traylor said that
the baby’s pneumonia couldn’t have been severe, because family members
hadn’t reported a fever or rapid heartbeat. “I’m the guy that did the
autopsy,” Traylor told the jury. “There is no one else that can speak
for the victim other than myself.” Traylor
said that his finding of suffocation was based entirely on the bruises
on Roderius’s lips, but he never sampled the tissue to date the injury, a
basic test that would have revealed whether the bruises came from the
earlier fall in the bathroom, an explanation that he ignored. He
misstated medical science, telling the jury that Roderius’s brain had
swelled as a result of suffocation. Swelling does not occur in cases of
smothering, because the person dies rapidly, and the brain can’t swell
if blood has stopped circulating. The brain can swell, though, in cases
of pneumonia with sepsis.
When Spitz
testified, he explained that sepsis in young children can be fatal
within a few hours, with early symptoms passing unnoticed. But his
testimony was eclipsed by a cross-examination that lasted twice as long
as the direct testimony. Cox interrogated him about a mistake he’d made
in an autopsy in Michigan, where he had overlooked a bullet wound in a
decomposed body. “You are overextended,” Cox told him. “You are
overworked.” The judge later wrote of Spitz that “any veracity that he
had was destroyed.” Crawford’s
mother, Abbie, felt uneasy as soon as the jury, composed of nine white
people and three black ones, returned to the courtroom. “All I remember
hearing is ‘Guilty, guilty, guilty,’ ” she told me. “Rodricus looked at
me, and I looked at him, and I just tried to hold it all in.”"
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/revenge-killing
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
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/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy;
Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
