SUB-HEADING: "On
a Monday morning last spring, as downtown Cleveland got a facelift
before the Republican National Convention, 39-year-old Angela Garcia sat
anxiously in a courtroom wearing jail scrubs and clogs. It was the day
after Mother’s Day, the 16th time the holiday had passed since her
children died. Garcia waited for the judge’s cue, then stood up to do
something she had sworn she’d never do."
GIST: (The plea): “Guilty,” she said when asked how she pleaded to the killing of her
daughter Nyeemah Garcia, age 3. “Guilty,” she repeated, her voice
cracking at the name of her second daughter, 2-year-old Nijah Evans. In
the back of the courtroom, her sisters quietly wiped away tears.
Cuyahoga County Judge Michael Astrab asked her to reiterate that she
had, indeed, set the fire that killed her children. Yes, Garcia said,
suppressing a sob. Nobody had expected the day to go this way. Not Garcia’s family, who
stood firmly by her side over the past decade and a half as she
swore the 1999 fire had been a tragic accident. Not her lawyer,
Assistant Ohio Public Defender Joanna Sanchez, who had prepared for
months to make the case for a new trial. And not the two expert
witnesses for the defense, Richard Roby and John DeHaan,
distinguished fire scientists who flew hundreds of miles to testify that
“there was no evidence of arson,” as both insisted afterward. All of
them left the courtroom certain that Garcia had just pleaded guilty to a
crime that was never a crime at all. Garcia had been convicted of setting her house on fire,
intentionally killing her daughters. Prosecutors said she was driven by
greed: tens of thousands of dollars in insurance money and the freedom
to pursue a life with her fiancé. The state of Ohio tried to convict her
three times — at first it sought the death penalty — and after two hung
juries, finally succeeded in May 2001. Garcia was sentenced to life,
with a shot at parole after 49 1/2 years. She would be 72. But as with many arson cases that have come under scrutiny in recent
years, the evidence against Garcia was flawed — based on circumstantial
evidence, a flimsy fire investigation, and junk science. Garcia
spent more than a decade in prison before her case was taken up by the
Ohio Public Defender in Columbus. In 2015, she won a rare evidentiary
hearing, with Sanchez arguing that advances in fire science should
qualify as new evidence in Garcia’s case. The motion was based on a
review of the evidence by Dr. DeHaan, whose book, “Kirk’s Fire
Investigation,” is a staple in the industry. DeHaan, who has since
retired, has spent years working to exonerate people wrongly accused of
arson. His report exposed the lack of scientific validity behind
Garcia’s conviction, pointing to accidental scenarios that were never
explored, along with recent scientific studies that have
further undermined the state’s case. “The court should be forced to
realize it was a wrongful conviction, set it aside, and be done with
it,” DeHaan said on the day of the hearing. For Dr. Roby, who testified at Garcia’s final trial in 2001, the
hearing was a second chance to set the record straight about a fire
scenario that had grown even more dubious with each new scientific
revelation about fire behavior. “As the years have gone by, this case
has looked more and more and more egregious,” Roby told Sanchez when she
asked him to return to Cleveland for the evidentiary hearing. He flew
on his own dime. But the chance never came. On the morning of May 9, 2016, Cuyahoga
County prosecutor Richard Bell pre-empted the proceedings with an
unexpected plea offer. The deal required Garcia to admit she set the
fire, keeping the aggravated arson conviction intact while
reducing the charge of first-degree murder to involuntary manslaughter.
Rather than gamble on the hope of a new trial — which, if granted, still
carried the risk of another guilty verdict — Garcia could be out of
prison in less than six years. Plea deals are central to the machinery of the criminal justice
system — and often the best of a bad set of options for the innocent and
guilty alike. But the result is that people often plead guilty to
crimes they did not commit, a problem so pervasive the Innocence Project
just launched a new
campaign to raise awareness of the issue. In cases that turn on flawed forensics — a
growing concern across the country — the effect is to preserve junk science rather than expose and correct it. In the time since Garcia went to prison, more than 50 people have
been exonerated in arson cases across the country, with many more
convictions overturned. Spurring the trend is the debunking of long-held
myths that once guided fire investigation, along with some
shocking miscarriages of justice. In 2004, Texas
executed Cameron
Todd Willingham for killing his three children over the protests
of fire experts who had dismantled the forensic evidence in his
case. While the state has refused to admit its mistake, the Texas State
Fire Marshal subsequently took the unprecedented step of re-examining
old arson convictions in collaboration with the Innocence Project. Last
November, Texas finally
exonerated 68-year-old Sonia Cacy, 25 years after she was wrongfully convicted of a 1991 arson murder. More recently, Utah prosecutors
dropped charges
against a man named Herbert Landry, who fled Hurricane Katrina only to
be arrested for trying to burn down his apartment complex in 2006.
Like Garcia’s conviction, his two-day trial hinged on visual evidence
that had long been discredited in the scientific community — burn
patterns found at the scene of the fire, which investigators
claimed as proof that he had poured a flammable liquid. In fact, the
fire was an accident. In the courtroom last May, one of Garcia’s sisters muttered what
others were thinking: The state’s case was weak, and Bell knew it. “They
ain’t got nothing,” she said under her breath. “That’s why they’re
doing that shit.” Bell was the same man who convicted Garcia in 2001; he
had never shown signs he would strike a deal. Garcia herself had
declined a plea offer from a different prosecutor years before, refusing
to say she killed her children. But now, after 15 years in prison, she
suddenly had a glimpse of freedom. She would take it. As
the decision sunk in, Garcia’s mother, Lucy, left the courtroom
abruptly, unable to bear the sight of her daughter pleading guilty.
“We’ve been doing this for so long,” Garcia’s older sister Judy said
afterward, with a weary mix of sadness and relief. The official ending, as told by the state of Ohio, is that Angela
Garcia was guilty of arson all along. “Garcia’s plea comports with the
2001 testimony of a jailhouse snitch named Tonya Lanum,” the Cleveland
Plain Dealer
reported,
“who said that Garcia told her: ‘I didn’t mean to kill my kids. It was
all a misunderstanding and it was supposed to be an insurance thing.’”
But an investigation of the case by The Intercept reveals a more likely
scenario, in which the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office aggressively
prosecuted an innocent woman using unreliable evidence, then
orchestrated a plea deal to cover it up. In the years since Garcia went to prison, state actors central to her
conviction — including the trial judge — have been arrested for ethical
crimes, seriously calling into question their handling of her case. And
perhaps most importantly, evidence uncovered in the months after the
plea deal last spring shows that Bell and his colleague Mary McGrath
were perfectly aware that their 2001 conviction of Garcia was based on
junk science. Rather than grapple with the possibility that they had
wrongly imprisoned a young mother who lost her children, Sanchez says,
they “offered the deal as a way to make the case go away as fast as
possible.” Today, Garcia’s guilty plea leaves several unanswered questions."
The entire story can be found at: