STORY: "Mark Carver and wrongful convictions," Reporter Alyssa Pressler's Gaston Gazette Q and A with Chris Mumma, executive director and lawyer with The North Carolina Center
on Actual Innocence, published on May 20, 2017.
SUB-HEADING: "In 2008, 20-year-old Ira Yarmolenko was found in Mount Holly on the banks of the Catawba River. Now the man convicted of murder in her death, Mark Carver, may win a retrial."
SUB-HEADING: "In 2008, 20-year-old Ira Yarmolenko was found in Mount Holly on the banks of the Catawba River. Now the man convicted of murder in her death, Mark Carver, may win a retrial."
GIST: "The North Carolina Center
on Actual Innocence, located in Durham, hopes to prove Carver innocent
of the killing and get his 2011 conviction overturned. Chris Mumma,
executive director and lawyer with the organization, is representing
Carver alongside Cheryl Sullivan, a staff attorney. The case has
received national media attention and groups on Facebook and Twitter
have been pleading Carver’s case for years. Center to the controversy is
the issue of touch DNA, which was a major part of the prosecution’s
case against Carver. If someone touches an object, bits of their DNA
remain behind, and this touch DNA of Carver’s was found on Yarmolenko’s
car. However, many have argued that police touched Yarmolenko’s car
after shaking hands or touching Carver, making the evidence unreliable. Carver
was initially accused and charged with his cousin, Neal Cassada, who
were at the Catawba River fishing when Yarmolenko’s body was found.
Cassada suffered a fatal heart attack the day before his trial began. Last
month, Mumma, Sullivan and District Attorney Locke Bell went before
Superior Court Judge David Lee to discuss issues they were having during
the discovery stage of the legal process. Mumma was requesting a number
of documents and digital information to help bolster her case and
claimed she was not receiving the documents necessary from Bell and the
state lab. Some of the Q and A: "What drew you to Mark Carver’s case? We
were contacted by his family and of course the case got a lot of
attention. Then there was also very strong dissent at the Court of
Appeals. Of the three judge panels at the Court of Appeals, one of the
judges, Judge Hunter, had very strong dissent about questioning the DNA
evidence used to convict him.........Where is the case at currently? We
filed a motion December of 2016 that laid out a number of things that
is primarily based on ineffective counsel. We believe there’s so many
things that should have been presented at trial that weren’t. Those
include the DNA evidence; the defense didn’t put on a DNA expert at all.
We believe there’s issues with the DNA in the way it was analyzed and
reported did not meet the scientific standards available in 2011 at the
time of his trial. We believe there was likely contamination of the
victim’s vehicle. We have video that shows there was contamination. Mark
has a very low IQ and his attorneys never had him evaluated and that’s
important because when he was interviewed by law enforcement, that
interview was recorded and that interview shows how easily he can be led
through a conversation. He just tries to be agreeable. One of the
things presented at trial was his knowledge of the height of the victim,
but the video shows Mark is mimicking the officer. The defense
attorneys did not show that at trial, and we think that impacted the
verdict. He had carpal tunnel and arm surgeries, and had his medical
reports been obtained, the doctors had told him there’s limitations in
how much he could lift. We believe that prevented him from being able to
struggle with a young healthy lady.........What else do we need to know?The
issue of the interpretation of DNA mixtures is one that is being looked
at nationally. So the problems with the DNA mixture cases in North
Carolina is not unique, but the denial of the issue and the action to
ensure justice was served in each case impacted by the new policies have
been unique in that no action is being taken. In 2010 the Scientific
Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods, they issued guidelines on the way
DNA mixtures should be interpreted. So when Mark’s case happened, the
analysis happened in 2008. The guidelines came out in 2010 and he wasn’t
taken to trial until march of 2011. In the impact of those guidelines
on the 2008 analysis was never reviewed. So we’re actually saying had
the DNA evidence been analyzed under the most up-to-date scientific
guidelines at the time of this trial, not only would he not have been
convicted, he never would have been taken to trial. I guess the other
thing is Ira has not received justice, and the true perpetrator of this
murder.
The entire Q and A can be found at:
The entire Q and A can be found at:
http://gm5-ncwebvarnish.newscyclecloud.com/news/20170520/qampa-mark-carver-and-wrongful-convictions
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