PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Primarily, Hildwin was appointed a public defender who minimally investigated the case. When that attorney eventually resigned, Hildwin was assigned an attorney who’d been practicing law for less than four years, had never tried a murder case and was unable to effectively question witnesses on basic matters. But despite the attorney’s incompetence, he raised a number of challenges to the state’s withholding of key evidence. One such example is when the prosecution introduced blood evidence at the start of trial that allegedly tied Hildwin to the crime. When Hildwin’s lawyer said he had no prior knowledge of this evidence and no time to prepare to address it, the prosecution said that he hadn’t done his job to find it. The judge sided with the prosecution. Significantly, this evidence has since been proven to be false based on the DNA testing that resulted in the reversal of Hildwin’s conviction in 2014. It was this flawed serological testimony upon which Hildwin’s capital conviction largely rested. At trial, the prosecution presented a serology expert who incorrectly claimed that bodily fluids found on two pieces of crime scene evidence—women’s underwear and a washcloth—matched Hildwin. That evidence came from a FBI forensics expert who claimed that Hildwin was among only 11 percent of the world’s white male population who could have deposited the fluids. The expert also claimed that the fluids couldn’t have come from the victim’s boyfriend. In 1995, the Florida Supreme Court threw out Hildwin’s death sentence based on the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Then, in 2003, DNA testing excluded Hildwin as the source of semen and saliva found on the two pieces of crime scene evidence. For the next seven years, the Innocence Project fought prosecutors to submit the DNA profile into the CODIS DNA database to determine the source of the DNA. In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court finally ordered a DNA database search on the DNA profile, which matched to the victim’s boyfriend. In addition to the favorable DNA test results, Hildwin’s capital defense lawyers on appeal also uncovered evidence of Hildwin’s innocence that was never turned over to the defense."
-------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "In addition to the favorable DNA test results, Hildwin’s capital defense lawyers on appeal also uncovered evidence of Hildwin’s innocence that was never turned over to the defense. The victim’s nephew and another witness told investigators they saw the victim alive nearly 12 hours after the prosecution claimed Hildwin had killed her, yet neither were called to testify during trial. Now, with the impending retrial, Hildwin’s attorney Lyann Goudie (who is handling the case pro bono) has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment with Hernando County Circuit Judge Stephen Toner, arguing that it’s impossible for Hildwin to receive a fair trial. As Goudie notes, at least 12 witnesses from the 1986 trial are either dead, unavailable or don’t remember the key events."
---------------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE: "Paul Hildwin to be retried despite affirmative evidence of his innocence," released by The Inocence Project on March 29, 2019.
GIST: "Paul Hildwin spent decades on death row
for a 1985 murder until 2014, when the Florida Supreme Court overturned
his conviction based on the discovery of DNA evidence pointing to his
innocence. DNA testing obtained after many years of court battles with
the help of the Innocence Project proved that the critical evidence used
to connect Hildwin to the crime belonged to the victim’s boyfriend, who
the defense argued all along was the likely perpetrator. The Florida
Supreme Court ruled that “the scientific evidence relied upon at trial
has been proven to be false, and the new scientific evidence actually
supports Hildwin’s defense.” Now, Hildwin, who is now 59 years old and a three-time cancer
survivor, is facing a retrial on Monday where prosecutors say they will
again seek the death penalty. But as Andrew Cohen explains in a detailed Slate column published yesterday,
the long history of state misconduct and inadequate lawyering that
tainted Hildwin’s first trial, combined with the loss of key evidence
and witnesses in the ensuing three decades, make it impossible to give
Hildwin a fair trial now. In 1986, Hildwin was convicted of the 1985 murder of a woman whose
naked body was found in the trunk of her car in Hernando County.
Investigators suspected she had been sexually assaulted, and her death
was ruled a strangulation. Hildwin became a suspect after stolen
property from the victim’s car was found in his possession. When
questioned, Hildwin told investigators that he hitched a ride with the
victim and her boyfriend several days earlier and admitted to stealing
property from her car, but denied assaulting or murdering her. He
insisted that he left the victim with her boyfriend, with whom she had a
volatile relationship, by the roadside after the two got into a heated
argument and pulled over the car. Hildwin’s trial was flawed from the start. Primarily, Hildwin was
appointed a public defender who minimally investigated the case. When
that attorney eventually resigned, Hildwin was assigned an attorney
who’d been practicing law for less than four years, had never tried a
murder case and was unable to effectively question witnesses on basic
matters. But despite the attorney’s incompetence, he raised a number of
challenges to the state’s withholding of key evidence. One such example
is when the prosecution introduced blood evidence at the start of trial
that allegedly tied Hildwin to the crime. When Hildwin’s lawyer said he
had no prior knowledge of this evidence and no time to prepare to
address it, the prosecution said that he hadn’t done his job to find it.
The judge sided with the prosecution. Significantly, this evidence has
since been proven to be false based on the DNA testing that resulted in
the reversal of Hildwin’s conviction in 2014. It was this flawed serological testimony upon which Hildwin’s capital
conviction largely rested. At trial, the prosecution presented a
serology expert who incorrectly claimed that bodily fluids found on two
pieces of crime scene evidence—women’s underwear and a washcloth—matched
Hildwin. That evidence came from a FBI forensics expert who claimed
that Hildwin was among only 11 percent of the world’s white male
population who could have deposited the fluids. The expert also claimed
that the fluids couldn’t have come from the victim’s boyfriend. In 1995, the Florida Supreme Court threw out Hildwin’s death sentence
based on the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Then, in
2003, DNA testing excluded Hildwin as the source of semen and saliva
found on the two pieces of crime scene evidence. For the next seven
years, the Innocence Project fought prosecutors to submit the DNA
profile into the CODIS DNA database to determine the source of the DNA.
In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court finally ordered a DNA database search
on the DNA profile, which matched to the victim’s boyfriend. In addition to the favorable DNA test results, Hildwin’s capital
defense lawyers on appeal also uncovered evidence of Hildwin’s innocence
that was never turned over to the defense. The victim’s nephew and
another witness told investigators they saw the victim alive nearly 12 hours after the prosecution claimed Hildwin had killed her, yet neither were called to testify during trial. Now, with the impending retrial, Hildwin’s attorney Lyann Goudie (who is handling the case pro bono)
has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment with Hernando County
Circuit Judge Stephen Toner, arguing that it’s impossible for Hildwin to
receive a fair trial. As Goudie notes, at least 12 witnesses from the
1986 trial are either dead, unavailable or don’t remember the key
events.
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.innocenceproject.org/hildwin-retried-despite-evidence-of-innocence/
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
“No jury should ever be allowed to hear a capital case so disabled as this one has become over time.” – Andrew Cohen“If their original testimony was read into the record, that would mean no chance for vigorous questioning by the defense Goudie says was lacking in the first go-round,” writes Sue Carlton in the Tampa Bay Times. “She says this essentially makes her second-chair to a lawyer who would not even have been qualified for this case by today’s minimum standards.” Prosecutors have opposed the motion. “If [Judge] Toner accepts the premise of all these old appellate decisions, he will be incorporating into a second trial all of the constitutional flaws and failings of the first trial,” Andrew Cohen opines in Slate. “And he will be ignoring all of the facts and evidence we have learned about the crime since that first trial.” “The easy out here for the judge would be to allow the case to go to trial and then blame or credit the result on jurors,” concludes Cohen. “But no jury should ever be allowed to hear a capital case so disabled as this one has become over time. The right call here for [Judge] Toner, even if it is the difficult call, is to dismiss the indictment and bring an end to this sorry story once and for all.” With no ruling yet from the Court on the motion to dismiss, jury selection is set to begin Monday.""
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.innocenceproject.org/hildwin-retried-despite-evidence-of-innocence/
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
