Arson science (2): Victor Rosario: Marshall Project: (Marshall Project brilliantly uses this case to expose the disturning reality that there have been countless cases all over the country where defendants have introduced compelling new evidence only to be denied a new trial or a new sentence because reviewing judges have concluded that the new information would not have convinced jurors to vote for acquittal."..."What the courts in Massachusetts did in this case, however, was to “look beyond the specific, individual reasons for granting a new trial to consider how a number of factors act in concert to cause a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice,” as the justices put it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the judges seemed to say. Doubts about the fire science would have undermined the weight jurors gave to the reliability of his confession. And doubts about his confession would have undermined the weight jurors gave to the accuracy of the forensic science employed against him at trial. Both of those factors would have cast doubt on the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony. It is impossible to say how many more convictions would be overturned on appeal if more courts around the country employed this standard, which focuses on the totality of the evidence, rather than the more restrictive standard, which emphasizes the need for cases to have a definitive end even if that end undermines confidence in the reliability of a conviction. Illinois, Kentucky, and Connecticut also employ a form of what I’ll call the “Weakest Link Standard.” But in many jurisdictions, Rosario’s appeals wouldn’t have gotten him a hearing, much less a chance to walk free."

STORY: "The Weakest Link Standard A Massachusetts case suggests a different way of judging evidence," by Andrew Cohen, published by The Marshall Project, on August 8, 2017.

BACKGROUND: "Victor Rosario was convicted of murder and arson in 1983 in a high-profile Massachusetts case. But the forensic science used against him was flawed and the “confession” police obtained through coercive means subsequently was deemed to be involuntary. Still, it was a surprise when the courts there overturned his conviction, relying on a legal standard that if applied broadly across the country would free many more wrongfully convicted defendants. In collaboration with WNYC’s “The Takeaway,” here is the latest in our “Case in Point” series."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Victor Rosario was convicted in 1983 of starting a fire that killed eight people in Lowell, Massachusetts. In 2014 that conviction was overturned. He is awaiting a prosecutor's decision about a retrial."

GIST: The Massachusetts Supreme Court earlier this year interjected itself again in the case of Victor Rosario, a man who spent 32 years in prison for a deadly fire. The justices in May refused to send Rosario back to prison and refused, too, to overturn a trial judge’s 2014 ruling that had set him free in the first place because of new doubts about the 1983 arson and murder conviction against him.

This sort of result is not uncommon in Massachusetts or around the country. New evidence is uncovered. Old witnesses recant. Prosecutors are found to have cheated. Another person confesses to the crime. Technology changes. A murder weapon is discovered with someone else’s prints on it. There are plenty of ways old convictions become “wrongful” over time. But the results of the Rosario case are notable for at least three reasons.........(Read on)...There have been countless cases all over the country where defendants have introduced compelling new evidence only to be denied a new trial or a new sentence because reviewing judges have concluded that the new information would not have convinced jurors to vote for acquittal. In these instances, judges typically look at each new issue raised and evaluate whether it, alone, would have altered the jury’s verdict. This standard makes it more likely judges will reject the appeal. What the courts in Massachusetts did in this case, however, was to “look beyond the specific, individual reasons for granting a new trial to consider how a number of factors act in concert to cause a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice,” as the justices put it.  A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the judges seemed to say. Doubts about the fire science would have undermined the weight jurors gave to the reliability of his confession. And doubts about his confession would have undermined the weight jurors gave to the accuracy of the forensic science employed against him at trial. Both of those factors would have cast doubt on the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony. It is impossible to say how many more convictions would be overturned on appeal if more courts around the country employed this standard, which focuses on the totality of the evidence, rather than the more restrictive standard, which emphasizes the need for cases to have a definitive end even if that end undermines confidence in the reliability of a conviction. Illinois, Kentucky, and Connecticut also employ a form of what I’ll call the “Weakest Link Standard.” But in many jurisdictions, Rosario’s appeals wouldn’t have gotten him a hearing, much less a chance to walk free."

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/08/08/the-weakest-link-standard?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=opening-statement&utm_term=newsletter-20170809-818#.tQLxllbpW

 

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/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.