STORY: "Dechaine's case highlights need for more reform," published by The Courier-Gazette on July 28, 2016.
GIST: "This week we end our
series on the case of Dennis Dechaine, who was convicted in 1989 for the
murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry. Without solid proof either way, his
story forces us to consider the possibility of wrongful conviction. Since DNA testing began, 342 people have been exonerated in the
United States. None of these has been in Maine, possibly because of the
restrictions on post-conviction review. Evidence has mounted since Dechaine's conviction that points to his
innocence, including testimony from forensic experts about the time of
death occurring after Dechaine was picked up by police, discrepancies
between detectives' trial testimony about Dechaine’s alleged admissions
and their notes on those statements, and statements implicating
potential alternate perpetrators with histories of sexual assault — we
found statements to police from 2004 implicating two more sex offenders
in a review of the case files on Monday. The evidence against Dechaine has been repeatedly called
"mountainous," "voluminous" and "substantial" in denials of his appeals.
But it can all be explained by his contention that he was framed. The
state has not taken that argument seriously enough to rebut it. Is it
inconceivable that a killer would plant items at the scene implicating
another person? Many have argued that after numerous proceedings and denials,
Dechaine and his supporters should lay the case to rest. But those
denials were based on the technicalities of the post-conviction review
and DNA statutes, a narrow interpretation of which allows only DNA
evidence to be admitted in court hearings. While Dechaine has been locked up, the state has blocked any new
evidence from coming before a jury in two ways that also illustrate a
double standard at work in this case. First, the state destroyed all the DNA evidence associated with the
case — the one codified way for a convict to prove his innocence — as
part of a routine cleaning. This has seriously hindered Dechaine's
ability to get a new trial. The only DNA evidence that remained was
blood on a thumbnail clipping. Tests excluded Dechaine as a source, but
the blood could not be definitively connected to the crime. Further
attempts by the defense to scrape Cherry's clothing for bits of DNA 25
years after the murder yielded only degraded strands. A technician from
the lab that did the DNA analysis said at a hearing the DNA obtained
from the clothing items was “of low quality,” leading to "confusing
interpretations" and “inconclusive results.” Dechaine had been denied the chance to test the actual biological
evidence connected to the crime — when it was still available — because
of testimony on the low likelihood of getting good results. But when
inconclusive test results of low-quality, degraded DNA appeared not to
rule out Dechaine (1 in 374 Caucasian men could be a source), that was
used against him as a reason to deny him a new trial......... State workers revisit the case with a certain weariness, while
high-ranking officials have lashed out at those who insist Dechaine is
innocent. Former Attorney General Michael Carpenter wrote in a letter to
two Dechaine supporters, “I have never seen a case in which I have been
more persuaded of a defendant’s guilt. The matter is simply not open to
rational debate.” Former Attorney General William Stokes wrote in a letter that
Dechaine's claim of innocence was "bogus" and that his timing of the
filing of his petition for post-conviction review was a “transparent and
cynical” attempt to disadvantage the state. Attorney General Janet Mills in a misleading letter to the Portland
Press Herald in February said, “DNA evidence has been exhaustively
analyzed at Mr. Dechaine’s request, but the results do not help him." No court reviewing this case has acknowledged that the state's
routine destruction of biological evidence is the reason Dechaine's
post-conviction review process is spinning in circles. His chances for
freedom, if he is innocent, have been hanging on the thumbnail clipping
of a 12-year-old girl and a few threads from her shirt. The unfolding of this case over the past 28 years has highlighted a
number of ways convictions can be uncertain, and has prompted several
changes to Maine law to help counteract that uncertainty: confessions
must now to be recorded, for one example. Our legislators should take another look at the post-conviction
review statute and add provisions recommended by the Innocence Project:
Courts should be allowed to vacate convictions or grant a new trial —
where
all the evidence can be heard — when DNA evidence of a case has been destroyed."
The entire story can be found at:
http://knox.villagesoup.com/p/dechaines-case-highlights-need-for-more-reform/1551247
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I am monitoring this case. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.
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
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.