Saturday, June 30, 2018

Technology: Palantir; (Powerful facial recognition technology): Major Development: Business Insider reports: "Over 100 Amazon employees, including senior software engineers, signed a letter asking Jeff Bezos to stop selling facial-recognition software to police."...The letter to Bezos is the latest in a recent string of employee revolts at some of the tech sector's biggest companies. Many tech workers don't want to help create software or other tech that might be used to wage war or conduct surveillance on the public. The Hill first reported about the existence of the letter. At Google, employees not only circulated a petition that demanded Google stop supplying artificial-intelligence tools that assisted the US Department of Defense to analyze drone-video footage, but someone within the company also leaked some embarrassing emails that showed the extent of management's ambitions on working with the military. Eventually, Google relented, and earlier this month the company promised not to make AI weapons or use the technology for anything that could cause harm. Microsoft employees followed suit by calling on management to end its cloud-computing contract with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE."

Criminalyzing abortion: Evan Halper writes that "If a reshaped Supreme Court tosses abortion decisions back to states, several would move fast to outlaw the procedures," in the L.A. Times - to the backdrop of demonstrations by abortion rights opponents and supporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court..."President Trump’s ability to reshape the Supreme Court with a conservative nominee could quickly send the nation back to a reality that had seemed far in the past: Abortion would be illegal in a large swath of America, subjecting doctors and perhaps pregnant women to criminal prosecution and potentially upending the political landscape in many states. As many as 17 states are poised to effectively ban abortion should the Supreme Court overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion rights nationwide."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Among the unknowns is the public’s appetite for punitive measures, even in staunchly antiabortion states. That could quickly be tested if bans that are already on the books take effect, said Leslie Reagan, a history professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Under several state laws, doctors who provide abortions illegally would risk prison sentences, as could the patients who seek them. “Police used to go into the hospitals and emergency rooms trying to find evidence,” said Reagan, author of the book “When Abortion Was a Crime.” “They would stake out clinics and round up women as they left.… Women would be threatened, interrogated and brought into court as witnesses against their providers.” Even patients who weren’t seeking abortion, but had gone to the hospital after suffering a miscarriage, would often find themselves under suspicion. “It creates this whole atmosphere of suspicion of pregnant women in general, but any woman who loses a pregnancy before delivery,” she said."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTES OF THE DAY: "We are declaring a national emergency,” Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America, said Thursday in a call with reporters. “This is not a drill. The lawsuits necessary to overturn Roe and criminalize abortion and some form of contraception are already moving through the courts.” Even if a reshaped court were to balk at fully overturning Roe, it could still empower states to severely restrict the availability of abortion services. The upcoming midterm election, meanwhile, may signal which side can more effectively galvanize its supporters around the issue of abortion. Even as antiabortion groups are motivated by the prospect of a long-sought victory being within reach, the alarm felt by voters who support abortion rights — many of whom have taken legal abortion for granted for decades — could translate into a potent political force. “Our folks viscerally get it,” Hogue said. “We cannot keep up with the calls that are pouring in. We are ready to fight this fight.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------

STORY:  "If a reshaped Supreme Court tosses abortion decisions back to states, several would move fast to outlaw the procedures," by Evan Halper, published by The L.A. Times on June 28, 2018. (Evan Halper writes about a broad range of policy issues out of Washington D.C., with particular emphasis on how Washington regulates, agitates and very often miscalculates in its dealings with California. Before heading east, he was the Los Angeles Times bureau chief in Sacramento, where he spent a decade untangling California’s epic budget mess and political dysfunction.)

PHOTO CAPTION: "Abortion rights opponents and supporters demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. With the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court could move to overturn Roe vs. Wade."

GIST: "President Trump’s ability to reshape the Supreme Court with a conservative nominee could quickly send the nation back to a reality that had seemed far in the past: Abortion would be illegal in a large swath of America, subjecting doctors and perhaps pregnant women to criminal prosecution and potentially upending the political landscape in many states. As many as 17 states are poised to effectively ban abortion should the Supreme Court overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. If the decision were overturned, each state could set its own rules on abortion. Trump vowed in his campaign that overturning Roe "will happen, automatically," if he were elected and could appoint justices to the court. More recently, as president, he criticized Roe for leading to "some of the most permissive abortion laws in the world." Four justices are widely believed to favor reversing the 45-year-old ruling or severely restricting its reach. In replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who on Wednesday announced his retirement, Trump could supply the fifth vote for a majority. Several antiabortion states have already laid the groundwork to move fast, providing potential test cases that could get before a more conservative court within a year or two. Iowa, for example, recently passed a law that prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which often takes place around the sixth week of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. The law was set to take effect on July 1, but a state judge put it on hold earlier this month. “States are enacting laws that say, ‘Take us to court; let this go all the way to the Supreme Court. We are confident now that it will go our way,’” said Carol Sanger, a law professor at Columbia University and author of a book on the history of abortion. “Even if they don’t strike down Roe, whittling it down is very effective. States can find new restrictions that make women pay financially, and also emotionally, by making them feel they are doing something shameful.” In 10 states, bans that existed before the Roe decision are still on the books and would take effect again should it be reversed, according to a report by the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws. A few of those are blue states, including Massachusetts, which would presumably scrap their bans. Several, however — including Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma and West Virginia — are solidly conservative places where antiabortion sentiment is strong. Four states — Louisiana, Mississippi and North and South Dakota — have laws designed to ban abortion if Roe is overturned. And seven — Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and North Dakota — have laws that express the intention to limit abortion as much as the Supreme Court allows. The lineup of states underscores a big difference between the situation that prevailed before Roe and what might happen if the decision were overturned: When Roe took effect, most states had banned abortion, and few allowed the procedure. If Roe were overturned now, abortion bans would spring into effect in parts of the South and the nation’s interior. Abortions would remain legal, however, in many of the nation’s largest states, including California, which has a law expressly protecting abortion rights.
Women in conservative states who couldn’t afford to travel to places where abortion was legal would be most at risk, experts in abortion law say. In a number of states where voters are closely divided on the issue, the emotional politics of abortion likely would lead to a new period of political turmoil, where power could shift around an issue that for decades has not been a top concern for most voters.
“If the court rolls back Roe vs. Wade, abortion will become front and center of every state political debate and campaign,” said Patrick Egan, a political scientist at New York University who has studied public opinion on the issue. “The extent to which states prohibit or make it more difficult to access legal abortion could become the battleground in the politics of many states for decades to come.” More than two-thirds of voters nationwide support keeping the Roe vs. Wade ruling intact, according to a poll conducted last year by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Yet the politics of abortion get murky when voters are asked about specific restrictions. In several swing states, voters are closely divided, which could worsen the political tumult if the Supreme Court returns the issue to state control. That could add a new, unpredictable degree of volatility to the politics of swing states. After decades of legal abortion being the law of the land, voters in even the most conservative states have been known to bristle at the idea of abolishing it outright. When lawmakers in South Dakota passed an abortion ban in 2006, voters overturned it at the ballot soon after. A couple of years later, voters had the opportunity to vote on an abortion ban again. And again, they rejected it. Mississippi voters rejected a constitutional amendment declaring life begins at conception. “These were surprising results,” said Gerald Rosenberg, a professor of political science and law at the University of Chicago. “We know in the short run a lot of states would move to ban abortion. But we don’t know what would happen in the long run.” Among the unknowns is the public’s appetite for punitive measures, even in staunchly antiabortion states. That could quickly be tested if bans that are already on the books take effect, said Leslie Reagan, a history professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Under several state laws, doctors who provide abortions illegally would risk prison sentences, as could the patients who seek them. “Police used to go into the hospitals and emergency rooms trying to find evidence,” said Reagan, author of the book “When Abortion Was a Crime.” “They would stake out clinics and round up women as they left.… Women would be threatened, interrogated and brought into court as witnesses against their providers.” Even patients who weren’t seeking abortion, but had gone to the hospital after suffering a miscarriage, would often find themselves under suspicion. “It creates this whole atmosphere of suspicion of pregnant women in general, but any woman who loses a pregnancy before delivery,” she said. Some things have changed since the early 1970s. A black market for abortion services that might emerge today would offer safer options than those available five decades ago, when many patients died in botched back-alley abortions and public hospitals set up septic abortion wards to treat survivors. There was no abortion pill then. Often the only option was a coat hanger. But scholars of abortion law say there’s no question that the bans some states are pursuing would lead to the re-emergence of acute health and safety risks for patients. Abortion rights advocates have made that risk a major point of their efforts to mobilize supporters. “We are declaring a national emergency,” Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America, said Thursday in a call with reporters. “This is not a drill. The lawsuits necessary to overturn Roe and criminalize abortion and some form of contraception are already moving through the courts.” Even if a reshaped court were to balk at fully overturning Roe, it could still empower states to severely restrict the availability of abortion services. The upcoming midterm election, meanwhile, may signal which side can more effectively galvanize its supporters around the issue of abortion. Even as antiabortion groups are motivated by the prospect of a long-sought victory being within reach, the alarm felt by voters who support abortion rights — many of whom have taken legal abortion for granted for decades — could translate into a potent political force. “Our folks viscerally get it,” Hogue said. “We cannot keep up with the calls that are pouring in. We are ready to fight this fight.”"

The entire story can be read at:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-abortion-20180628-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter

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;

Friday, June 29, 2018

Motherisk: (Defunct Motherisk hair-testing lab at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children.) Major Development. (A very sad one, at that.) "It’s the end of the road for the parents in a hotly contested Motherisk case," Rachel Mendleson reports in the Toronto Star. "The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed their application to appeal a decision that denied them access to their daughter, who was apprehended by the Waterloo children’s aid society after a Motherisk lab test purported to show her mother was using cocaine. The mother denied the finding by the now discredited lab but was unable to disprove it."..."Before the Motherisk lab was closed in the spring of 2015 following a Star investigation, child welfare providers across Canada spent millions on the hair tests, believing the results were hard proof of parental substance abuse. In some instances, children were removed permanently from their families. Despite assurances from the Hospital for Sick Children, which housed the lab, that Motherisk’s evidence could be trusted, a government-commissioned review determined in late 2015 that the testing was “inadequate and unreliable” for use in court and recommended a review of individual cases."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: News of the newsroom shooting  at the Capital Gazette sent shivers down my spine. (Especially after spending years in the newsroom of  The Toronto Star - Canada's largest daily Newspaper);  My condolences go  to the families of the deceased; My  prayers  go to the injured. May they survive this horror.  My condolences - and wishes for strength -  also go to everyone at the Capital Gazette who work together to get the news out. My admiration goes to the extraordinary reporters and other staff of this tiny community newspaper who managed to get the news out during the height of the crises - and to publish a special issue from the floor of a parking garage within hours. An extraordinary display of journalistic integrity and courage - and a reminder of why we must value  and support - those who report the news for the rest of us.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

-----------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Although the girl, who is now 11, wished both to be adopted and to continue to see her parents, the prospective adoptive mother said she would not proceed if access was allowed. Based partly on the parents’ Indigenous heritage, which Campbell said should have triggered special considerations, he granted access but stayed its enforcement so there could be a hearing to decide whether contact with the parents was in the child’s best interest. In December 2017, the Court of Appeal overturned Campbell’s decision, in part because of the adoptive mother’s wishes. Justice Mary Lou Benotto, who wrote the decision, also said the child’s Indigenous heritage was based “on nothing but the parents’ self-identification.” “There is no evidence that the parents had any connection to their culture; that the child was ever exposed to the Indigenous culture; or that anyone from the Indigenous community had ever been involved with the parents or the child,” she wrote. The parents asserted that the Supreme Court should hear their case, in part, because the Court of Appeal “erred in its consideration of the children’s Indigenous heritage.” Considering the chronic overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care, the case presented Canada’s highest court with an opportunity to explore an issue of “critical public importance,” the parents said in their written arguments."

-------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Supreme Court won’t hear Motherisk case," by Investigative Reporter Rachel Mendleson, published by The Toronto Star on June 28, 2018.

GIST: "The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed their application to appeal a decision that denied the "It’s the end of the road for the parents in a hotly contested Motherisk case. The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed their application to appeal a decision that denied them access to their daughter, who was apprehended by the Waterloo children’s aid society after a Motherisk lab test purported to show her mother was using cocaine. The mother denied the finding by the now discredited lab but was unable to disprove it. The emotional court battle that followed underscored weaknesses in the child welfare system and how it treats Indigenous families, as well as the long-standing reliance on Motherisk’s flawed hair drug and alcohol tests in high-stakes cases in ways that often can’t be undone. The parents, who are identified by their initials to protect the identity of their daughter, were devastated by the news on Thursday. They had hoped for one last legal chance to win the right to see their daughter again. “I don’t know how I’m going to go on. I just don’t know how this can be,” said the mother, C.T. “I worked damned hard, and I just feel like it was all for nothing, to try and give my daughter a better life ... It’s like a fresh wound every day. It’s never going to go away. I just want my little bean sprout.” Said the father, J.B.: “The system failed us. I just know she won’t be young forever and there will come a day where she will come looking ... Bottom line, you just hope (she) turns out OK.” Before the Motherisk lab was closed in the spring of 2015 following a Star investigation, child welfare providers across Canada spent millions on the hair tests, believing the results were hard proof of parental substance abuse. In some instances, children were removed permanently from their families. Despite assurances from the Hospital for Sick Children, which housed the lab, that Motherisk’s evidence could be trusted, a government-commissioned review determined in late 2015 that the testing was “inadequate and unreliable” for use in court and recommended a review of individual cases. Motherisk Commissioner Judith Beaman concluded her review in February of nearly 1,300 affected child protection files in Ontario. In her report, Beaman described the widespread use of Motherisk’s testing in these cases as being “manifestly unfair and harmful.” She found the testing was “imposed on people who were among the poorest and the most vulnerable members of our society,” including a disproportionate number of Indigenous families. In this case, the girl was made a Crown ward in 2015, without access to her parents, following a trial that unfolded just as the concerns about Motherisk surfaced. The trial judge said that she had disregarded the positive cocaine hair tests and cited other factors, including concerns about the mother’s mental health. That view was shared by the Motherisk Commission, which examined the case and concluded in the spring of 2016 that Motherisk testing did not play a key role in the outcome. The mother applied for a judicial review of the commission’s decision, claiming she had been shut out of the process, but a divisional court dismissed the application. The parents appealed the trial judge’s 2015 decision and, in February 2017, a Superior Court judge overturned the “no access” order. Justice Grant A. Campbell found the Motherisk tests led to the apprehension of the girl in 2012, which he said was “based entirely on that now totally discredited drug testing conducted by Motherisk.” Although the girl, who is now 11, wished both to be adopted and to continue to see her parents, the prospective adoptive mother said she would not proceed if access was allowed. Based partly on the parents’ Indigenous heritage, which Campbell said should have triggered special considerations, he granted access but stayed its enforcement so there could be a hearing to decide whether contact with the parents was in the child’s best interest. In December 2017, the Court of Appeal overturned Campbell’s decision, in part because of the adoptive mother’s wishes. Justice Mary Lou Benotto, who wrote the decision, also said the child’s Indigenous heritage was based “on nothing but the parents’ self-identification.” “There is no evidence that the parents had any connection to their culture; that the child was ever exposed to the Indigenous culture; or that anyone from the Indigenous community had ever been involved with the parents or the child,” she wrote. The parents asserted that the Supreme Court should hear their case, in part, because the Court of Appeal “erred in its consideration of the children’s Indigenous heritage.” Considering the chronic overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care, the case presented Canada’s highest court with an opportunity to explore an issue of “critical public importance,” the parents said in their written arguments."


The entire story can be read at:
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/06/28/supreme-court-wont-hear-motherisk-case.html?source=newsletter&utm_source=ts_nl&utm_medium=email&utm_email=B06CE11218FAE36A81180C431CF6E0DA&utm_campaign=tmh_3660&utm_content=a11

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;

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Sandra Higgins: Ireland: The Irish Times reports that the childminder may challenge her case going to trial for the fifth time: Publisher's note: "Most recently, the fourth attempt to try the case collapses after prosecutors 'inadvertently' failed to inform the defence of an exchange of communications between expert witnesses. Six years of hell. Anxiety. Uncertainty. Fear. All of which should remind us that a criminal justice system is supposed to be an instrument of justice - not an instrument of mental torture (as in Higgin's oppressive proceedings); Higgin's prosecutors should not be permitted to bang away at her year after year intil somehow they get a conviction. This is far too cruel. Enough is enough."


PUBLISHER'S  NOTE: It comes down to unfairness.  Childminder Sandra Higgins has been put through four legal processes since she was charged with causing serious harm to a baby girl at her home on March 28th, 2012. (More than six years ago). Process 1: June, 2015: Mistrial after jury fails to reach a verdict. May, 2016: Retrial collapses after it emerged a jury had done independent research online - Googling the background of a witness in the case. January, 2018, another jury was sworn in for a third trial but an unspecified legal issue arose before the trial properly opened - causing the jury to be discharged. Most recently, the fourth attempt to try the case collapses after prosecutors 'inadvertently' failed to inform the defence of an exchange of communications between expert witnesses. (This was certainly no fault of her own); Six years of hell. Anxiety. Uncertainty. Fear. All of which should remind us that a criminal justice system is supposed to be an instrument of justice - not an instrument of mental torture (as in Higgin's oppressive proceedings);  Higgin's prosecutors should not be permitted to bang away at her year after year until somehow they get a conviction. This is far too cruel. Enough is enough.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Childminder may challenge case going to trial for fifth time," by reporter Conor Lally, published by The Irish Times on June 21, 2018.

SUB-HEADING: "Sandra Higgins (37) from Cavan is accused of causing serious harm to a baby."

GIST: "There is nothing to stop the State proceeding with a fifth trial process in the case of Sandra Higgins, though the 37-year-old from Cavan could mount a legal challenge to stop it, informed legal sources have said. Ms Higgins (37) of The Beeches, Drumgola Wood, Cavan, had pleaded not guilty to intentionally or recklessly causing serious harm to a baby girl at the accused’s home on March 28th, 2012. One source pointed to the long held legal view that an accused could only be tried three times. “It was never clear did that mean a trial process started three times, or a trial concluded three times without a verdict,” said one senior barrister. He added the Supreme Court in recent years effectively ruled against the view that three trials was the maximum. It did so in relation to Niall Byrne (36), of Crumlin Road Flats, Dublin. He was convicted last month of being the “inside man” in a cash in transit van robbery in March, 2005, when a Securicor worker and his family were held captive in their home in north Dublin and just over €2 million was stolen. After the first trials ended with a hung jury, Byrne attempted to halt any further prosecution but the Supreme Court eventually ruled he could be tried again. Legal sources said while Sandra Higgins had now been through four processes, only one was a full trial and in the other attempted trials very little evidence had been heard. For that reason they said they would not be surprised if the case went to trial again. But they added Ms Higgins could also go to the courts and challenge any further plans to prosecute her on the basis it was impacting on her mental state. “It definitely would not be a formality but she could go and argue that this was very much undermining her mentally,” said one source. In June, 2015, Ms Higgins first went on trial but the jury was discharged after failing to reach a verdict. A retrial followed in May, 2016, but it collapsed after it emerged a jury had done independent research online - Googling the background of a witness in the case. In January, 2018, another jury was sworn in for a third trial but an unspecified legal issue arose before the trial properly opened. It meant the jury was discharged. And now, during the fourth effort to try the case, the trial has collapsed. This time emails between expert witnesses in the case had not been disclosed to the defence. The fact the expert witnesses were in contact would normally not be contentious but it was the inadvertent non-disclosure of that contact to the defence side in the trial that caused problems. Judge Pauline Codd said as a result she was satisfied there was a reasonable doubt the accused could not get a fair trial."

The entire story can be read at: 
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/childminder-may-challenge-case-going-to-trial-for-fifth-time-1.3539505

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;

Rodney Reed: Texas: New Statesman reporter Chuck Lindell) reports that a new filing asserts that his conviction is based on bad science..."Defense lawyers say new evidence shows that Rodney Reed of Bastrop was sentenced to death based on testimony from scientific experts that is now acknowledged to have been be wrong. Testimony from the three experts was crucial to placing Reed at the scene of the 1996 crime at a time when only he could have strangled Stacey Stites, and defense lawyers told the state’s highest criminal court that the new evidence provided the last piece of the puzzle needed to undermine Reed’s conviction. “Mr. Reed has presented new scientific evidence which repudiates the state’s expert opinions offered at trial and establishes that the state’s theory of guilt is scientifically impossible,” lawyers told the Court of Criminal Appeals in a petition filed Tuesday evening."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The third prosecution expert, Dr. Roberto Bayardo, the former Travis County medical examiner, acknowledged in a 2012 affidavit that he was mistaken when he testified at Reed’s trial that the sperm cells must have been deposited “quite recently.” Bayardo also said testimony about a 24- to 26-hour time limit for intact sperm cells was not “medically or scientifically supported.” According to Reed’s new filing, the time frame established by the three prosecution experts was the linchpin of Reed’s conviction, establishing a time frame where only he could have been the killer and contradicting his claim of a consensual sexual relationship with Stites. “Faced with this evidence at trial, the jury had little choice but to convict,” the filing said."

STORY: "New filing: Rodney Reed conviction based on mistaken science," by reporter Chuck Lindell, published by The American-Statesman on June 27, 2018.

SUB-HEADING: "The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas death row inmate Rodney Reed’s request for DNA testing."

GIST: "Defense lawyers say new evidence shows that Rodney Reed of Bastrop was sentenced to death based on testimony from scientific experts that is now acknowledged to have been be wrong.
Testimony from the three experts was crucial to placing Reed at the scene of the 1996 crime at a time when only he could have strangled Stacey Stites, and defense lawyers told the state’s highest criminal court that the new evidence provided the last piece of the puzzle needed to undermine Reed’s conviction.  “Mr. Reed has presented new scientific evidence which repudiates the state’s expert opinions offered at trial and establishes that the state’s theory of guilt is scientifically impossible,” lawyers told the Court of Criminal Appeals in a petition filed Tuesday evening. The new filing asks the court to find Reed innocent — a highly unlikely outcome because prosecutors continue to believe that Reed is guilty — or return his case to Bastrop so Visiting Judge Doug Shaver can weigh the new evidence. Shaver has already recommended that the Court of Criminal Appeals deny Reed’s request for a new trial based on other evidence presented during a four-day hearing before the judge, including forensic experts who said Stites was killed when only her fiance, Jimmy Fennell, could have strangled her. The appeals court has not yet ruled on that matter, and defense lawyers presented the new information on the testimony of the prosecution’s scientific experts as an amendment to that appeal. According to Reed’s lawyers, the mistaken testimony centered on sperm cells found inside Stites that DNA testing concluded belonged to Reed. After first telling investigators he did not know the murder victim, Reed later said he and Stites were involved in an affair and last had consensual sex several days before she was killed. But prosecutors presented experts who said the condition of Reed’s sperm cells — with the tails still attached — showed that the semen had been deposited no more than 26 hours before the cells were examined, or around the time Stites had been killed in April 1996, because intact sperm cells can last no longer inside the human body. The finding bolstered prosecution arguments that Stites had been raped and killed by Reed as she drove from the Giddings apartment she shared with Fennell to her early-morning job at a Bastrop grocery store. But according to Reed’s latest filing, the Department of Public Safety recently acknowledged that its serologist, Karen Blakely, testified at Reed’s trial that sperm cells can remain intact for no longer than 26 hours based on a study that had “potential limitations” based on the way data was collected. Blakely also failed to testify that the study acknowledged separate research indicating that intact sperm cells can be found 72 hours later, according to an April 30 DPS letter to defense lawyers — a time frame that supports Reed’s defense, the new filing argued. In addition, Bode Cellmark Forensics Laboratory — which employed another prosecution expert, analyst Meghan Clement — acknowledged that Clement exceeded her expertise when she testified that sperm cannot remain intact beyond 24 hours based on her 10½ years as a serologist. Another Bode Cellmark analyst provided an affidavit saying that she had never encountered intact sperm because the processes used to prepare samples “break down the tails.” The third prosecution expert, Dr. Roberto Bayardo, the former Travis County medical examiner, acknowledged in a 2012 affidavit that he was mistaken when he testified at Reed’s trial that the sperm cells must have been deposited “quite recently.” Bayardo also said testimony about a 24- to 26-hour time limit for intact sperm cells was not “medically or scientifically supported.” According to Reed’s new filing, the time frame established by the three prosecution experts was the linchpin of Reed’s conviction, establishing a time frame where only he could have been the killer and contradicting his claim of a consensual sexual relationship with Stites. “Faced with this evidence at trial, the jury had little choice but to convict,” the filing said. Defense lawyers said the new evidence bolsters other claims presented in earlier appeals, including a co-worker who said Stites discussed having an affair with Reed and two others who recalled seeing Stites and Reed together in Bastrop. The three witnesses did not come forward until long after Reed was sentenced to death, the filing said. In a separate appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected Reed’s request for DNA testing of crime scene evidence. Defense lawyer Bryce Benjet said the next step will be a federal lawsuit seeking a court order for testing on items the killer probably touched in search of skin cells and other DNA evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to order the tests, saying contamination concerns raised questions about the effectiveness of a DNA analysis."

The entire story can be read  at:
https://www.statesman.com/news/new-filing-rodney-reed-conviction-based-mistaken-science/7hxsZp4uJx2qeUhkqufw0K/
  
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;

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Katie Garding: Montana: (Sentenced to 40-years in prison for vehicular homicide); Judge limits use Innocence Project lawyers could make of a crash reconstruction they had commissioned..."Garding’s argument for a new trial revolved around three primary issues: • that evidence was withheld from her defense team at the criminal trial, • that her attorney did a very poor job of defending her at trial, and • that a reconstruction of the crash commissioned by the Montana Innocence Project concluded that the style of vehicle she was driving would not have caused the specific injuries Parsons suffered. Before the two-day trial to hear arguments began, Larson had already ruled that the evidence was not withheld, and that the crash reconstruction could not be used as new evidence of innocence by Garding."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Before the two-day trial to hear arguments began, Larson had already ruled that the evidence was not withheld, and that the crash reconstruction could not be used as new evidence of innocence by Garding. On the latter issue, the judge sided with the prosecution’s view that it was simply new analysis rather than previously unavailable information. The second part of the judge’s ruling in particular significantly limited testimony from the witnesses the Montana Innocence Project brought this week. On Tuesday, crash investigator David Rochford — who was hired to do an analysis of the crash — was only able to testify that if Garding’s defense attorney at the criminal trial called him, he could have prepared such an analysis for her, and that its results would have been favorable to Garding. Keith Friedman, a researcher from Texas who also examined the case for the Montana Innocence Project, similarly was able to share little other than that to his knowledge, no scientifically based reconstruction of the crash was done before Garding’s criminal trial. The pair’s testimony was given in part to show the Montana Innocence Project’s claim that the public defense attorney who represented Garding was negligent in not obtaining a crash reconstruction to refute the prosecution’s view on what happened the night of Parsons’ death."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Judge to consider overturning Stevensville woman's homicide conviction," by reporter Dillon Kato, published by The Misoulian on June 26, 2018.
GIST: "A Missoula County District Court Judge will rule later this year whether a Stevensville woman convicted in a fatal hit-and-run should get a new trial. Katie Garding was convicted in 2011 of hitting Bronson Parsons with her vehicle in 2008 near East Missoula, killing the 25-year-old man. Garding was sentenced to 40 years in prison. But in 2015, with the help of the Montana Innocence Project, she filed to have her conviction overturned, which would pave the way for a new trial. At the end of Tuesday’s hearing, District Court Judge John Larson said both the Innocence Project as well as county prosecutors will be able to submit further court filings before he will rule on Garding’s request. No specific dates were set for the sides to file their follow-ups, although Larry Mansch — legal director for the Montana Innocence Project — said it will likely take weeks at least for a court transcript to be prepared by Larson’s court reporter. Garding’s argument for a new trial revolved around three primary issues: • that evidence was withheld from her defense team at the criminal trial, • that her attorney did a very poor job of defending her at trial, and • that a reconstruction of the crash commissioned by the Montana Innocence Project concluded that the style of vehicle she was driving would not have caused the specific injuries Parsons suffered. Before the two-day trial to hear arguments began, Larson had already ruled that the evidence was not withheld, and that the crash reconstruction could not be used as new evidence of innocence by Garding. On the latter issue, the judge sided with the prosecution’s view that it was simply new analysis rather than previously unavailable information. The second part of the judge’s ruling in particular significantly limited testimony from the witnesses the Montana Innocence Project brought this week. On Tuesday, crash investigator David Rochford — who was hired to do an analysis of the crash — was only able to testify that if Garding’s defense attorney at the criminal trial called him, he could have prepared such an analysis for her, and that its results would have been favorable to Garding. Keith Friedman, a researcher from Texas who also examined the case for the Montana Innocence Project, similarly was able to share little other than that to his knowledge, no scientifically based reconstruction of the crash was done before Garding’s criminal trial. The pair’s testimony was given in part to show the Montana Innocence Project’s claim that the public defense attorney who represented Garding was negligent in not obtaining a crash reconstruction to refute the prosecution’s view on what happened the night of Parsons’ death. But the standard for attorney negligence leading to a case being overturned requires that it be shown that the outcome of the case would likely be different if the attorney had done a better job. Innocence Project attorney Toby Cook said without the ability to say what the analysis would have shown if it had been commissioned for the criminal trial, there was no way to show the outcome would have been different. Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Philip Smart, who is also now the traffic homicide investigator for the Missoula district, was brought in after Garding filed to have her conviction overturned to review the crash reports for the prosecution. He said Tuesday that while he could make approximations to certain factors — such as where Parsons was hit and a range of speeds the vehicle that hit him was likely traveling — in his opinion there was not enough evidence to do a complete crash reconstruction."

The entire story can be read at:
https://missoulian.com/news/crime/judge-to-consider-overturning-stevensville-woman-s-homicide-conviction/article_ebd6b9bc-60e5-553e-bd1e-958827e46eb7.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/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;

Joe Bryan: Texas: Blood will tell: Dispatch 6: Pamela Colloff sets out what lays ahead for Joe Bryan - and for bloodstain pattern analysis as a whole, as part of the extraordinary New York Times/ProPublica series 'Blood will tell.'..."To make sure no one loses sight of what’s at stake here, I’m spending the summer investigating a dozen or so cases in which bloodstain pattern analysis was used to convict defendants who were later exonerated, acquitted, or who remain behind bars, despite serious questions about their guilt. More on that soon."



PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "What about the future of bloodstain pattern analysis? This summer has brought renewed scrutiny to the unreliability of the forensic discipline through two unscripted TV series: Netflix’s “The Staircase” and ABC’s “The Last Defense.” Both feature murder cases that ended in convictions based, in part, on the strength of questionable bloodstain pattern analysis. Additionally, as I mentioned in an earlier newsletter, the New York Times’ editorial board weighed in with a powerful indictment of bloodstain pattern analysis. “The scientific analysis of forensic evidence can be essential to solving crimes,” the board noted, “but as long as the process is controlled by the police and prosecutors, and not scientists, there will never be adequate oversight. Yet there has been no movement in recent weeks to make any substantive changes to the way that bloodstain pattern analysis is used in the courts. Any hope for reform lies with the Texas Forensic Science Commission."

--------------------------------------------------

GIST: Hi everyone:This is the last dispatch of the Blood Will Tell newsletter... for now. Every so often in the months to come, you’ll receive new reporting from me. But before I sign off, I wanted to let you know what lays ahead for Joe Bryan, and for bloodstain pattern analysis as a whole. Joe will not come up for parole again until May 2019, when he will be 78 years old. Will the increased attention on his case, and the questions that “Blood Will Tell” raised, make a difference to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles? That remains to be seen. Between now and then, there will be some major milestones in his case. First, the Texas Forensic Science Commission is expected to release its findings about the reliability of the bloodstain pattern analysis that helped win convictions in Joe’s 1986 trial and 1989 retrial. That may happen as soon as July, at the commission’s next quarterly meeting, or later in the year. I will keep you posted. Then, in August, Joe’s case will be back in court for the first time in 26 years—since he lost his last appeal in 1992. This is a day that his attorneys, Walter Reaves and Jessica Freud, and former Clifton Record editor Leon Smith have long worked toward and hoped for. At the evidentiary hearing, Reaves and Freud will be able to introduce new evidence that jurors in Joe’s trials never heard, and they will put witnesses on the stand who will, at last, challenge the now decades-old testimony of Robert Thorman, the detective who performed bloodstain pattern analysis in the case. The hearing will function as a sort of mini-trial, if you will—a proceeding that will likely span several days, and will include testimony from an array of witnesses. It will take place in Comanche, Texas, about 150 miles southwest of Dallas, where Joe’s retrial was held, and will begin on August 20. During the course of the hearing, the defense will make the case that there is enough new evidence that Joe should be granted a new trial. Unlike a trial, however, the burden of proof will be on the defense, and so Reaves and Freud will present their case first. Then the prosecution will be able to offer rebuttal witnesses. The presiding judge, Doug Shaver, will make recommendations to the state’s highest criminal court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, whose justices will be the final arbiters. I will be in Comanche to cover the proceedings in August. I also plan to keep writing about the latest developments in Joe’s quest for DNA analysis. He is currently waiting for a decision from Texas’ 11th Court of Appeals about whether or not testing on additional pieces of evidence should go forward. In the meantime, I’ll be pursuing a number of new leads, including some intriguing information that a family in Central Texas, who recently contacted me after reading my story, has provided about a possible alternative suspect. All updates on Joe’s case will be sent to you as soon as they are published via this newsletter. What about the future of bloodstain pattern analysis? This summer has brought renewed scrutiny to the unreliability of the forensic discipline through two unscripted TV series: Netflix’s “The Staircase” and ABC’s “The Last Defense.” Both feature murder cases that ended in convictions based, in part, on the strength of questionable bloodstain pattern analysis. Additionally, as I mentioned in an earlier newsletter, the New York Times’ editorial board weighed in with a powerful indictment of bloodstain pattern analysis. “The scientific analysis of forensic evidence can be essential to solving crimes,” the board noted, “but as long as the process is controlled by the police and prosecutors, and not scientists, there will never be adequate oversight. Yet there has been no movement in recent weeks to make any substantive changes to the way that bloodstain pattern analysis is used in the courts. Any hope for reform lies with the Texas Forensic Science Commission. Noted the Times, “The commission, whose recommendations are watched nationally, in February imposed on Texas a requirement that bloodstain-pattern analysis be performed by an accredited organization, which should make it harder for prosecutors to introduce testimony by analysts with minimal training and qualifications.” To make sure no one loses sight of what’s at stake here, I’m spending the summer investigating a dozen or so cases in which bloodstain pattern analysis was used to convict defendants who were later exonerated, acquitted, or who remain behind bars, despite serious questions about their guilt. More on that soon. Thank you for reading “Blood Will Tell” and my newsletters. It’s been hugely gratifying to see the response to this series, and to hear how many of you care about the issues I have written about. More later this summer. Until then, thanks for reading! Pamela

P.S. Here’s a list of the previous five dispatches:

The entire Dispatch can be read at the link below:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/16437a999eefd805

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;

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Brendan Dassey: Wisconsin: His lawyer reacts to the U.S. Supreme Court decision: "This Guy Got Screwed’, Law and Crime reports, in a story headed: "Attorney from ‘Making a Murderer’ Discusses Brendan Dassey’s Confession and Future."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This Blog is interested in false confessions because of the disturbing  number of exonerations in the USA, Canada and multiple other jurisdictions throughout the world, where, in the absence of incriminating forensic evidence the conviction is based on self-incrimination – and because of the growing body of  scientific research showing how vulnerable suspects   are to widely used interrogation methods  such as  the notorious ‘Reid Technique.’ Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

----------------------------------------------------------- 

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Buting has written a book about the case and his life as a criminal defense attorney. “It’s hard not to despair when you see what happened in this case . . . any ordinary person who watches these interrogations can’t help but feel bad for Brendan and think, ‘this guy got screwed.’ How is it that our justice system can allow this to happen . . . unfortunately, it happens a lot,” Buting said. “Despair leads to failure; hope leads to the truth,” he added during a call to action for greater involvement in the justice system and for legislative changes which could offer greater protection for those accused of crimes. “There are thousands of other juveniles out there who need help. People shouldn’t give up. We just need to be motivated, even more so now, to fight for justice in this country . . . it’s time to get rid of the bad prosecutors and sheriffs and judges that people have a right to elect and un-elect. It’s time to change some of our laws to limit the sort of coercive police techniques which were used against vulnerable juveniles.”

-------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "‘This Guy Got Screwed’: Attorney from ‘Making a Murderer (Jerome Buting) ’ Discusses Brendan Dassey’s Confession and Future," by Law and Crime staff, published by Law and Crime, a Dan Abrams production, on June 25, 2018.

GIST: Jerome “Jerry” Buting, who defended the uncle of ‘Making a Murderer’ subject Brendan Dassey, on Monday stuck up for Dassey on the Law&Crime Network. Buting made the appearance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition by Dassey’s lawyers to review his conviction. Watch the interview in the player above. During the interview, Buting said Dassey “got screwed” by interrogators who promised leniency in return for Dassey’s confession to murder.  Dassey and his uncle Steven Avery were convicted by Wisconsin juries in 2007 of murdering freelance photographer Teresa Halbach. Since defending Avery, but not Dassey, Buting has written a book about the case and his life as a criminal defense attorney. “It’s hard not to despair when you see what happened in this case . . . any ordinary person who watches these interrogations can’t help but feel bad for Brendan and think, ‘this guy got screwed.’ How is it that our justice system can allow this to happen . . . unfortunately, it happens a lot,” Buting said. “Despair leads to failure; hope leads to the truth,” he added during a call to action for greater involvement in the justice system and for legislative changes which could offer greater protection for those accused of crimes. “There are thousands of other juveniles out there who need help. People shouldn’t give up. We just need to be motivated, even more so now, to fight for justice in this country . . . it’s time to get rid of the bad prosecutors and sheriffs and judges that people have a right to elect and un-elect. It’s time to change some of our laws to limit the sort of coercive police techniques which were used against vulnerable juveniles.” The Supreme Court’s decision Monday morning not to accept Dassey’s case ultimately will result in Dassey remaining incarcerated unless one of four things occur in the future. First, his attorneys could uncover new evidence. Second, his attorneys could find something the prosecution didn’t properly disclose to the defense at trial. Third, Congress could change the law which allows federal courts to review state convictions. Fourth, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals could allow Dassey to re-file his appeal. For further analysis of the Avery and Dassey cases, click here."


The entire story can be read at: 
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/this-guy-got-screwed-attorney-from-making-a-murderer-discusses-brendan-dasseys-confession-and-future/

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;

Joe Bryan: Texas: 'Blood will tell; 'Dispatch 5: Pamela Colloff asks a perplexing question in relation to her extraordinary New York Times/ProPublica series: "How could someone be convicted on so little evidence?"




GIST: Hi everyone: Many of you have written to me to ask why Joe Bryan’s defense attorneys weren’t able to win an acquittal in 1986. Having written about wrongful and/or questionable convictions for more than 20 years, I wanted to share a few thoughts with you.  Joe’s attorneys were not inexperienced trial lawyers, nor were they overworked public defenders without the resources to properly investigate the case. Charles McDonald and Lynn Malone were among the best trial attorneys in Waco in the 1980s, and both believed in Joe’s innocence. Malone wept when he heard the verdict at the end of Joe’s first trial. A former colleague of Malone’s told me that the ex-prosecutor was never the same after losing the Bryan case. In 1999, shortly before his death, he called Leon Smith to thank the Clifton Record editor for his tireless work on Joe’s behalf. Joe’s convictions weighed on Malone even in the final months of his life. McDonald also believed Joe had been wrongly convicted. After the verdict came down in the first trial, McDonald begged jurors for leniency in sentencing, but as he did so, his frustration spilled over. “I never argue with a jury’s verdict,” he said, before doing just that, chastising jurors for finding a man guilty in a case full of reasonable doubt. “You have convicted an innocent man,” he told them. While I was reporting this story, there were many times that I wished I could have gone back in time and spoken to the key players in this case—particularly McDonald and Malone. There were so many questions I wanted to ask them. But both men are dead, so I could only wonder. In hindsight, it’s easy to second-guess some of the choices they made, but their defense of Joe was, by and large, a vigorous one. It’s important to remember that they were up against the district attorney’s office, a special prosecutor hired by Mickey Bryan’s brother, the Texas Rangers, the Clifton police, the state crime lab, and a bloodstain pattern analyst who spoke with authority about a type of forensic science that few in the courtroom knew much about. As I mentioned in Part II, the Innocence Project studied 325 DNA exonerations and found that roughly half of them were due to faulty forensics. This is a deeply troubling figure when you consider that the field of forensics has undergone little scrutiny or reform in the wake of these exonerations. Several readers have asked why McDonald and Malone did not retain a bloodstain pattern analyst who could testify for the defense. But back in the mid-1980s, there were few such analysts who a criminal defense attorney could hire. Nearly everyone trained in the discipline was a law enforcement officer and therefore testified for the prosecution. Only in more recent years, as more and more officers trained in bloodstain pattern analysis have retired and hung out shingles, have defense attorneys been able to hire expert witnesses of their own. But this state of affairs isn’t much better, since it usually results in a battle of witnesses. Who communicates more effectively with a jury—who looks and sounds more authoritative can become more important than the evidence itself. So if we consider why McDonald and Malone were not able to win an acquittal, it’s important to understand that the full force of the state was brought to bear on Joe. It was not easy to combat that, no matter how flimsy the prosecution’s evidence. I was reminded of this fact when I saw a reader comment on the New York Times website about my story, in which a reader noted that she thought Joe “looked” guilty. Yet Joe is one of the lucky ones. His current attorneys—Walter Reaves and Jessica Freud—have worked pro bono, for years, on his behalf. And Leon Smith spent years digging into his case. Few inmates have such resources. I’ll never forget the day I first met with Smith to discuss this case. Smith’s office is a tidy white house just down the block from his home in Clifton. When I went there last summer to meet him, he brought out one box, and then another, and then another. Each one contained papers that he had collected about the Bryan and Whitley cases—old newspaper articles, transcripts of interviews he had conducted, and public records about Dennis Dunlap, the police officer who was later fingered as the killer in the 1985 murder of Clifton teenager Judy Whitley. “I always meant to write a book,” he told me. “But I didn’t have an end.” Yet Smith never stopped asking questions—often uncomfortable questions that he posed to people in his own community—about a case that everyone wanted to go away. Many of you have written to me about the lack of an end to Joe’s story, and expressed a wish for resolution. The most common question that readers have asked me about my story is, “Will there be a part three?” While I don’t know the answer to that yet, I have some thoughts about what we can expect in the months to come, when Joe’s case will be back in a Texas courtroom. I’ll write more about that next time. Thanks for reading! Pamela."

The entire dispatch can be read at: 
https://go.propublica.org/webmail/125411/263605879/e2dfd8d4dd96a6e048bce578e7b6a32661b8ff35f64374ff29f54dadd05911cc

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;

Monday, June 25, 2018

Katie Garding: Montana; On-going bid to overturn vehicular homicide conviction? Did prosecutors conceal crucial evidence from the allegedly poorly conducted defence?..."In closed chambers during part of the first day of trial Monday, attorneys discussed a series of photos that were put into the file on Parsons' death by former state medical examiner Dr. Gary Dale midway through the original criminal trial. According to court filings, those photos show scenes of another crash involving a pedestrian, with similar injuries to the victim as Parsons had. Innocence Project attorneys say Garding’s defense attorney never knew about the photos, which could have added to doubt over whether her type of vehicle was involved and whether it should have had more damage."

Trial underway over whether to overturn Stevensville woman's homicide conviction | Crime | missoulian.com
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Last week District Court Judge John Larson, who is overseeing the bench trial, issued an order that said the prosecution did not withhold the X-ray of Parsons, saying they were listed in the medical examiner’s report, were mentioned in hearings before the trial, and could have been requested by the defense attorney. Larson also ruled that the crash reconstruction done by the Montana Innocence Project wouldn’t be allowed in the trial as an example of new evidence of Garding’s innocence, siding with a prosecution argument that it was merely new analysis of previously available evidence. But Larry Mansch, one of Garding's attorneys, said both pieces of evidence will be presented as part of the argument that Streano did a poor job of representing Garding at her criminal trial, and that had she done better the result would be different."

STORY: "Trial underway over whether to overturn Stevensville woman's homicide conviction," by reporter Dillon Kato, published by The Missoulian on June 25, 2018.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Katie Garding appears in Missoula County District Court on Monday for a trial to determine if her 2011 conviction for a vehicular homicide will be overturned. Garding is seeking a new trial in the death of Bronson Parsons in 2008."
GIST: "A trial to determine whether a Stevensville woman’s 2011 conviction for a hit-and-run that killed a man in East Missoula will be overturned started Monday in Missoula County District Court, and is expected to conclude Tuesday. Katie Irene Garding, handed a 40-year prison sentence after being found guilty of the New Year’s Day 2008 vehicular homicide of 25-year-old Bronson Parsons, filed a petition seeking a new trial in 2015 with the help of the Montana Innocence Project. Parsons was walking with his roommate along Montana Highway 200 when a vehicle swerved, hitting and killing him. Investigators had few leads until, according to court records, an inmate at the jail a year later said Garding came to his house the day of Parsons’ death to get a broken fog light on her vehicle repaired. Her ex-boyfriend, who was also in jail, later said she had been driving that night and hit something. In her petition to have her conviction overturned, Garding’s attorneys laid out several reasons they felt their request should be granted, including allegations that certain evidence wasn’t disclosed to her defense team prior to trial, and that her public defense attorney did an overall poor job of defending her. Specifically they said that attorney, Jennifer Streano, did not get an independent crash re-creation that could have been used to rebut the prosecution's case. Using a vehicle identical to Garding’s, the Montana Innocence Project contracted with a lab to re-create the crash that killed Parsons. Their results showed the vehicle would have sustained significant windshield damage if it struck Parsons at the speed and angle alleged at trial, according to court filings. Garding’s vehicle had no windshield damage. In court Monday a former investigator with the Public Defender’s Office, Lori Woods, who worked on the Garding trial, said Streano never raised the idea of obtaining such a reconstruction or contracting an outside expert in the field. Under cross-examination, Woods also said she never suggested to Streano that such an expert might have been useful. Innocence Project attorneys also claim X-rays of Parsons' injuries, which they believe could have shown that he was hit by a car rather than the SUV Garding was driving, were never disclosed to her attorney. Last week District Court Judge John Larson, who is overseeing the bench trial, issued an order that said the prosecution did not withhold the X-ray of Parsons, saying they were listed in the medical examiner’s report, were mentioned in hearings before the trial, and could have been requested by the defense attorney. Larson also ruled that the crash reconstruction done by the Montana Innocence Project wouldn’t be allowed in the trial as an example of new evidence of Garding’s innocence, siding with a prosecution argument that it was merely new analysis of previously available evidence. But Larry Mansch, one of Garding's attorneys, said both pieces of evidence will be presented as part of the argument that Streano did a poor job of representing Garding at her criminal trial, and that had she done better the result would be different. In closed chambers during part of the first day of trial Monday, attorneys discussed a series of photos that were put into the file on Parsons' death by former state medical examiner Dr. Gary Dale midway through the original criminal trial. According to court filings, those photos show scenes of another crash involving a pedestrian, with similar injuries to the victim as Parsons had. Innocence Project attorneys say Garding’s defense attorney never knew about the photos, which could have added to doubt over whether her type of vehicle was involved and whether it should have had more damage. Garding’s attempt to have her conviction overturned was originally scheduled to be heard by Larson in March 2017 but was delayed in part because of the discovery of the photos. The trial is scheduled to run through Wednesday, although Larson said he thinks it will wrap up Tuesday."

The entire story can be read at:
https://missoulian.com/news/crime/trial-underway-over-whether-to-overturn-stevensville-woman-s-homicide/article_d5ef2d60-073a-5138-87d6-51ef752bf49c.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

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;

Rodney Reed: Texas: Major Development. The US Supreme Court has denied his DNA testing appeal, KXAN reports..."For years Reed has pointed to Stites’ former fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, as the likely killer. Fennell was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2008 for a separate, unrelated crime. As a Georgetown police officer, Fennell was accused of raping a woman in his custody. He pleaded guilty to kidnapping and improper sexual activity with a person in custody and was released from prison on parole in March."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I adopt the words of the formidable Ohio criminal defence lawyer/blogger  Jeff Gamso..."JUST TEST THE FUCKING DNA.
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2018/05/what-is-truth-said-jesting-pilate.html

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog:

-----------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Reed, who was sentenced to death in the 1996 Bastrop County murder and sexual assault of Stacey Stites, has continually maintained his innocence. Reed’s execution was paused just days before he was set to be put to death in 2015. Bryce Benjet, Reed's attorney, said his team hoped the Supreme Court would immediately take up the constitutional issues raised by the rejection of DNA testing, but there is a separate civil action that can be taken in U.S. District Court for federal review of DNA. "We intend to pursue this remedy in the federal courts so that this important evidence can finally be tested," Benjet said Monday in a statement."

------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "US Supreme Court denies Rodney Reed's DNA testing appeal," by reporter David Barer, published by KXAN on June 25, 2018.


GIST: The United States Supreme Court rejected Rodney Reed’s petition on Monday for further DNA testing of crime scene evidence that Reed said could prove his innocence. Reed, who was sentenced to death in the 1996 Bastrop County murder and sexual assault of Stacey Stites, has continually maintained his innocence. Reed’s execution was paused just days before he was set to be put to death in 2015. Bryce Benjet, Reed's attorney, said his team hoped the Supreme Court would immediately take up the constitutional issues raised by the rejection of DNA testing, but there is a separate civil action that can be taken in U.S. District Court for federal review of DNA. "We intend to pursue this remedy in the federal courts so that this important evidence can finally be tested," Benjet said Monday in a statement. In his denied petition to the Supreme Court, called a writ of certiorari, Reed argued for further DNA testing of evidence, such as the belt used to strangle Stites. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had already rejected Reed’s request for such testing, but Reed’s defense said that rejection violated his due process rights and rights to access to the courts. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Reed’s defense said the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals used an “unfair and novel interpretation” of the chain of custody requirement that included a “lack of contamination element” that does not appear in the criminal code, according to the petition. The defense also said the state used an “arbitrary and fundamentally unfair interpretation” of the criminal code’s “unreasonable delay” element, which says a court may grant DNA testing so long as the request is not made to delay the execution of a sentence or administration of justice. Reed’s defense argued he has not tried to unreasonably delay proceedings, and he sought DNA testing in 1999 and 2014, according to the petition. For years Reed has pointed to Stites’ former fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, as the likely killer. Fennell was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2008 for a separate, unrelated crime. As a Georgetown police officer, Fennell was accused of raping a woman in his custody. He pleaded guilty to kidnapping and improper sexual activity with a person in custody and was released from prison on parole in March."

The entire story can be read at the link below:
https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/us-supreme-court-denies-rodney-reeds-dna-testing-appeal/1262317828

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;