Publisher's Note: I was fascinated to read The Jenner and Block account of their ground-breaking pro bono representation of Patrick Pursley which led to his acquittal 25 years after his conviction. 9, 478 hours worked pro bono by a team of lawyers - firmwide, more than 60 professionals – from lawyers to paralegals to library services – spending more than 10 years in their successful battle for post-conviction ballistics retesting employing new ballistics testing technology. "The firm then submitted the ballistics evidence to two preeminent and independent ballistics specialists who examined the evidence using new technology and concluded that Mr. Pursley’s firearm did not fire either of the bullets or either of the cartridge cases found at the crime scene." The Pursley case makes a powerful argument for retesting (without having to seek approval of courts and prosecutors) - and for providing truly meaningful support for public defenders for clients who, unlike Pursley, are unable to attract a powerful, well-resourced law firm for the defence such as Jenner and Block. Congrats to this firm for this incredible job. I have seen far too many U.S. cases where the defendant - often charged with a serious criminal offence - is represented by a single public defender with minimal investigative and expert witness resources available, The work these often beleagured public defenders do in these circumstances is extraordinary. If only they had the kind of resources made available to Patrick Pursley by Jenner and Block.There might well be far less miscarriages of justice.
Harold Levy. Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "A Jenner and Block team secured a significant victory on behalf of
pro bono client Patrick Pursley. On January 16, 2019, Mr. Pursley was
found not guilty of the 1993 first-degree murder of Andy Ascher in a
retrial before Illinois Circuit Judge Joseph McGraw. Mr. Pursley was originally convicted in a 1994 jury trial in which the
state relied heavily on the testimony of a state ballistics examiner
that a firearm attributed to Mr. Pursley fired the bullets and cartridge
cases found at the crime scene. Although Mr. Pursley maintained his
innocence and sought post-conviction ballistics testing, Illinois law
did not provide for this type of testing at the time, and his request
was denied. However, Mr. Pursley persisted. While in prison, Mr.
Pursley wrote an article stating that the law should keep up with
technology and allow for ballistics testing in post-conviction settings
just as it did at the time with DNA. After lobbying efforts on
Pursley’s behalf, the Illinois legislature amended the law in 2007 to
provide for post-conviction ballistics testing. In October 2008, at the request of Northwestern’s Center on Wrongful
Convictions, the firm agreed to assist Mr. Pursley in his effort to get
the state of Illinois to retest the ballistics evidence. On January
26, 2011, the Illinois Appellate Court, reversing a decision by the
lower court, granted his request, making People v. Pursley the first case in the country to allow a prisoner new ballistics testing under a Post-Conviction Testing Act. The firm then submitted the ballistics evidence to two preeminent and
independent ballistics specialists who examined the evidence using new
technology and concluded that Mr. Pursley’s firearm did not fire either
of the bullets or either of the cartridge cases found at the crime
scene. In December 2016, Judge McGraw of the Winnebago (IL) County
Circuit Court held a three-day evidentiary hearing on this evidence, and
on March 3, 2017 he vacated Pursley’s conviction and awarded him a new trial. At that time, Mr. Pursley was released on bond after spending more than 23 years in prison. The state then appealed Judge McGraw’s decision, to no avail. On January 10, Mr. Pursley’s retrial began in Winnebago County, with
closing arguments heard on January 15. On January 16, Judge McGraw
announced his decision to acquit Mr. Pursley, stating that the “evidence
in 1993 was scant by today’s standards, and when you start with scant
evidence you’re not in a good position to reevaluate it years later.”
He further commented that the defense’s ballistics experts demonstrated
conclusively that the cartridge cases were not fired from the gun
attributed to Mr. Pursley. For more than a decade, a diverse team of lawyers has been dedicated to overturning this wrongful conviction. Partners Robert R. Stauffer and Andrew W. Vail and Associates Kevin J. Murphy and Monika N. Kothari led significant aspects of the case. . Associate Sara Kim
and paralegals Eric Herling and Nick Perrone provided invaluable
assistance before and during trial. Firmwide, more than 60
professionals – from lawyers to paralegals to library services –
contributed 9,478 hours to this case over more than a decade. The case generated significant media attention throughout the years. Various news outlets such as NBC and the Associated Press have reported on the retrial and various pre-trial proceedings. In the past, both The National Law Journal and Law360 pointed to the case when awarding the firm with pro bono recognition."
https://jenner.com/library/posts/18583
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/
