"For
more than two decades, Kevin Keith and his family have been fighting
his conviction on charges he gunned down six people, killing three, in a
small town in central Ohio. Their latest attempt was in arguments today
before a three-judge appeals panel in Lima. WKSU’s M.L. Schultze
reports the judges heard very different interpretations of what forensic
evidence showed and why it matters. Should Kevin Keith get a new
trial?...“Each side will have 15 minutes. Is counsel for the appellant
ready to proceed…?... 'I think there's no proof scientifically that is
credible that points to Kevin Keith.' In
the next 15 minutes, defense attorney Zachary Swisher argued that a
deposition from a controversial forensics analyst at the Ohio Bureau of
Criminal Investigation was fatally flawed, yet it provided the
scientific framework jurors relied on to convict Keith. Swisher read
from Michelle Yezzo’s personnel file. 'Two eyewitnesses testified at
trial that the appellant is the one who carried out these heinous acts.'
Her
findings and conclusions regarding evidence may be suspect. She will
stretch the truth to satisfy a department.’ I’m not sure a more damaging
quote could be attributed to a forensic expert who’s testifying in a
dealth- penalty trial.” Assistant Crawford County Prosecutor
Robert Kidd acknowledged the analyst’s work record could have boosted
the defense had it been revealed 23 years ago. But “they’re simply
ignoring the rest of the evidence at trial. We have not one but two
eyewitnesses that testified at trial that the appellant is the one who
carried out these heinous acts.” A decision is expected within
three months. Keith had been on death row until then-Gov. Ted Strickland
commuted his sentence to life in prison. Among those pushing
for a new trial for Kevin Keith is former Ohio Republican Attorney
General Jim Petro. He's become an outspoken opponent of the death
penalty but says this case involves other questions... “There’s
absolutely no confidence in the testimony and the proof presented by
the BCI expert. And of course, part of my career I managed BCI. So I’m
particularly concerned about that issue. But I think there’s no proof
scientifically that is credible that points to Kevin Keith.”...Here's the complete audio of the hearing at the 3rd District Court of Appeals:
See Wrongful Convictions Blog (commentary by Jason Flom) post at the link below:
"Ultimately, the crucial evidence that convicted Mr. Keith came from G. Michele Yezzo, a now-discredited forensic analyst with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Ms. Yezzo created a forensic link between Mr. Keith and the crime scene that was never there. She connected a license plate imprint of a "043" in a snow bank near the crime scene to a car driven by Mr. Keith's girlfriend. She testified that, from looking at a tire brochure, she was able to conclude the tires previously on Mr. Keith's girlfriend's car left the tire tracks in the snow at the scene. Her conclusions about the orientation and spacing of the license plate numbers also gave the police a rational explanation for their failure to investigate an alternative suspect, even though he'd had a license plate containing the same three numbers in the snow bank. Decades after conviction, Mr. Keith learned what Ms. Yezzo's personnel file revealed: Her analysis of forensic evidence was untrustworthy; her fellow employees thought she suffered from a "severe mental imbalance;" she had threatened to kill herself and co-workers; and she used racial slurs about a minority colleague. Most significantly, Ms. Yezzo's file demonstrated that her supervisors and co-workers had determined that her "findings and conclusions regarding the truth may be suspect. She will stretch the truth to satisfy a [police] department." A memo from the assistant superintendent of BCI to the superintendent of BCI included this opinion of Ms. Yezzo and also made clear that "The feelings and attitudes [about Yezzo] are shared by all of the labs[]." Judge Thomas Pokorny ruled that prosecutors withheld evidence of a forensic scientist's troubled work life, evidence that he said would have helped defense attorneys for James Parsons. Retired FBI Special Agent William Bodziak -- one of the foremost experts in the forensic examination of tire tread impressions, as well as one of the trainers for Ms. Yezzo and others at BCI -- examined Ms. Yezzo's work in the Keith case. At the time of Mr. Keith's request for clemency, and even before Mr. Bodziak was aware of what was in Ms. Yezzo's personnel file, he concluded that her forensic conclusions were wrong. He found it could not have been Keith's girlfriend's car that made the snow impressions, and her conclusions about the tires were baseless. He opined that the snow imprints did not exclude the alternate suspect whom the police simply failed to investigate."
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/06/prosecutors_have_a_duty_to_cor.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. 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/c
