 |
"Reformers have for years recommended that all forensic labs be independent from law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies' and this is a key reform promoted by The Justice Project (2008). But fixing these problems is only half the answer' because half of the wrongful convictions attributed to misleading forensic evidence involved deliberate forensic fraud' evidence tampering' and/or perjury.
From "The Elephant in the Crime Lab," by co-authored by Sheila Berry and Larry Ytuarte; Forensic Examiner; Spring, 2009;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Thanks to a follower of this Blog for sending in this extraordinary case: As this person puts it: "A Low-IQ drifter confesses to killing two gay men three days apart in 1980. He's convicted of first murder, acquitted of the second. Decades later, DNA exculpates him of the second murder, but DNA from the first no longer exists. New trial. Evidence of innocence, like a third party's fingerprints at the scene (which was withheld from the defense) and a detective's propensity for beating suspects, is ample. Dissent: A finding that a convict is actually innocent isn't enough to grant him relief; he still has to prove that his rights were violated and that deference to the state court is out of line." Thirty six years; Egregious misconduct by the State (failure to disclose highly exculpatory fingerprint evidence; allegations of underhanded techniques to obtain a confession (getting him drunk and beating him into confessing, as well as showing him grizlie shots from the crime scene to "crack him." And now the prosecutor's want to appeal the Fifth Circuit decision. This wreaks innocence. Why can't they just let go, apologize, and compensate him for the vast portion of his life which the state has wrongfully taken away?
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
---------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "A judge at a bench trial convicted Floyd only of the Hines slaying, in part because there was seminal fluid in Robinson’s hotel room from someone with a different blood type. The 5th Circuit panel said there were several issues that, taken together, suggested that Floyd was innocent of the Hines killing as well and that he was denied a fair trial. First, an NOPD technician had recovered a fingerprint from a whiskey bottle at Hines’ home on Gov. Nicholls Street. The fingerprint was not the victim’s and not Floyd’s, but the defense was not told that. The U.S. Supreme Court has said prosecutors must disclose any evidence that would point toward defendant’s innocence. Also, Floyd claimed that Dillmann got him drunk and beat him into confessing, which the detective denied. The appeals court said the credibility of Floyd’s confession was called into question by a book the detective published in 1989. Dillmann wrote that he had shown Floyd “two of the grisliest shots” from the Hines crime scene to “crack him.” Although the state said the veracity of Floyd’s confession was supported by the specific details it contained, the appeals court said that argument was “severely weakened” by the fact that Floyd had viewed crime scene photos. Finally, the appeals court pointed to an affidavit from a friend of Hines who said he told Dillman that Hines had a preference for black men. Floyd is white and police found a black person’s hair near the body of Robinson, who was supposedly killed by the same person."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "John Floyd, freed Angola lifer, wins key court decision; Orleans DA vows to appeal," by reporter Matt Sledge, published by The Advocate on April 10, 2018.
PHOTO CAPTION: "Angola inmate John Floyd set free after 36 years pending appeal on overturned murder conviction."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Orleans DA fights to reinstate conviction of John Floyd, free after 1980 French Quarter killing. use this
GIST:" Former Angola lifer John Floyd has collected ample evidence that he was innocent of the 1980 murder of a Times-Picayune proofreader and that authorities denied him a fair trial, a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled recently. The panel’s 2-1 decision upheld U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance’s decision last year to overturn Floyd’s conviction for killing William Hines in the French Quarter. The ruling is a major victory for attorneys at the Innocence Project New Orleans and for Floyd, who spent 36 years behind bars before his release last year from the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. It may also be the first time that the generally conservative 5th Circuit Court has found that evidence of a defendant's innocence outweighs strict limits on when state prisoners can challenge their convictions in federal court. Innocence Project New Orleans Director Emily Maw said the appeals court recognized that “John Floyd has suffered a miscarriage of justice, that his is an exceptional case, and that it is time for his conviction to be over.” New Orleans prosecutors don't care if John Floyd stays free. Yet on Monday they nonetheless asked a federal appeals court to reinstate his conviction… Yet the panel’s decision is not the end of the road for Floyd, who has been free since New Orleans prosecutors agreed to his release. Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro said he will ask the full appeals court to rehear the case. “While we believe this defendant may be rehabilitated, we also believe he was responsible for the murder of William Hines in 1980. There has been no new information presented that wasn’t already in possession of defense counsel during the trial that ended with Mr. Floyd’s conviction,” Cannizzaro said. Cannizzaro's office has previously offered Floyd a deal to go free if he pleads guilty to manslaughter, which Floyd has rejected.
Maw criticized Cannizzaro’s decision to keep fighting the case despite conceding that Floyd, who now lives on a farm near Lafayette, poses no danger to the public. “For which citizens of New Orleans is he fighting so hard here? For which taxpayer does he believe that this is a good use of money, other than himself?” she said. The 5th Circuit panel's majority opinion, which was written by Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale and joined by Judge Stephen Higginson, dives deep into the case and closely follows Vance's earlier decision. In November 1980, the New Orleans Police Department was investigating two similar murders of gay men within a few days. Hines and Rodney Robinson were found nude and stabbed to death. Both appeared to have been killed by someone they welcomed into their residence, according to Detective John Dillmann. For John Floyd, freedom is a flip phone. Dillmann got a tip that Floyd had bragged about killing Hines and caught up with him at a bar. He and another detective bought Floyd at least one drink before taking him to police headquarters, where he confessed to both killings. Yet the confession was not enough to secure a conviction in both cases. A judge at a bench trial convicted Floyd only of the Hines slaying, in part because there was seminal fluid in Robinson’s hotel room from someone with a different blood type. The 5th Circuit panel said there were several issues that, taken together, suggested that Floyd was innocent of the Hines killing as well and that he was denied a fair trial. First, an NOPD technician had recovered a fingerprint from a whiskey bottle at Hines’ home on Gov. Nicholls Street. The fingerprint was not the victim’s and not Floyd’s, but the defense was not told that. The U.S. Supreme Court has said prosecutors must disclose any evidence that would point toward defendant’s innocence. Also, Floyd claimed that Dillmann got him drunk and beat him into confessing, which the detective denied. The appeals court said the credibility of Floyd’s confession was called into question by a book the detective published in 1989. Dillmann wrote that he had shown Floyd “two of the grisliest shots” from the Hines crime scene to “crack him.” Although the state said the veracity of Floyd’s confession was supported by the specific details it contained, the appeals court said that argument was “severely weakened” by the fact that Floyd had viewed crime scene photos. Finally, the appeals court pointed to an affidavit from a friend of Hines who said he told Dillman that Hines had a preference for black men. Floyd is white and police found a black person’s hair near the body of Robinson, who was supposedly killed by the same person. Dillman testified at the trial that a friend of Hines had told him that Hines had no particular preference. In his ruling, Barksdale noted that it was not enough for Floyd to show that he was likely innocent. Under federal law, he also had to show that state prosecutors had withheld favorable evidence at his trial. Until Thursday, the last time John Floyd enjoyed freedom was about 5 p.m. on a chilly Monday in January 1981. The court's majority said Floyd had also overcome this hurdle. Prosecutors should have disclosed the fingerprint evidence as well as the statement from Hines’ friend, the panel said. “Where the proof on which a conviction was based was thin to begin with, the Supreme Court has been clear that withheld evidence undermining that proof is material,” the majority said. In his dissent, Judge Jerry Smith said that while Floyd may have collected significant evidence that he was actually innocent, that was not enough to overturn his conviction. “Neither this circuit nor the Supreme Court has recognized a freestanding claim of innocence,” Smith said. Smith noted that Congress passed a law in 1996 strictly limiting the right of state prisoners to appeal their convictions in federal court. An actual innocence claim is “meaningless” unless defendants can also show that their constitutional rights were violated, Smith said. Smith said those rights were not violated because the state courts could have reasonably determined that the fingerprint test and Hines’ sexual preferences paled in comparison to Floyd’s confession."
The entire story can be found at:
Read the U.S. Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit) decision at the link below:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/
Read Associated Press Story (Published by New York Times) at the link below: "Vance's
2016 ruling that led to Floyd's release last year notes evidence
available at the time of the trial, plus new evidence, including DNA
analysis and psychiatric evidence indicating Floyd's limited mental
abilities made him susceptible to coercion. Evidence that someone other
than Floyd killed Robinson was strong, according to the judge. "Physical
evidence recovered on the scene of the Robinson murder suggests to a
near certainty that Robinson was stabbed to death by an African-American
man with type A blood shortly after Robinson and the man had sex,"
Vance wrote. "The evidence therefore excludes Floyd, who is white and
has type B blood." Evidence
in the Hines case has been lost over the years, but Vance said there
were strong indications of Floyd's innocence in that case as well,
including "the striking similarity" between the Robinson and Hines
slayings: the finding of African-American hair in the bed of Hines, who
was white; new testimonial evidence that Hines was attracted to black
men, contradicting a detective's testimony; fingerprints at the Hines
murder scene that matched neither Hines nor Floyd. The
Innocence Project New Orleans, which worked on Floyd's case, believes
the facts of the case are overwhelmingly favor the defendant. "If
the appeals court finds that John's case doesn't qualify," said
Innocence Project attorney Richard Davis, "I find it hard to see as a
practical matter any case that would qualify."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/14/us/ap-us-exoneration-arguments.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
