PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "What is new in the Lamar Johnson case is not a technical innovation, but rather a social movement. That social movement is the election of prosecutors on reform platforms. Reform prosecutors like Gardner are starting Conviction Integrity Review Units that are revisiting the rare but nonetheless problematic cases like Lamar Johnson’s. Conviction Integrity Review Units like Gardner’s are dedicated to undoing past mistakes in police work and prosecution that led to an epidemic of mass incarceration. Gardner’s investigation of Johnson’s case uncovered ample evidence that if he were retried more fairly — without, among other things, the witness who recanted his testimony — it is reasonable to believe he would not be convicted. A new rule is needed because many people in his position are out of options in procedural terms."
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Conviction Integrity Review Units, like DNA forensics, are an important new correction to the imperfect field of criminal justice, and the Supreme Court needs to make a simple, crucial procedural fix to adjust for them. Justice in Missouri – which is this court’s domain – compels it."
-----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Supreme Court can fix Conviction Integrity Review innocence cases," published by The St. Louis American on January 22, 2020. (As per the St. Louis American: "Continuously published, without missing a single issue, since 1928, The St. Louis American newspaper has emerged as the leading, most-trusted voice of the area’s African-American community, and has extended its reach to become a major multi-platform media entity in Missouri. The St. Louis American is now the single largest weekly newspaper in the entire state of Missouri.")
GIST: "Lamar Johnson has been in prison for
25 years for a murder that in all probability he did not commit. St.
Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner’s Conviction Integrity Unit
investigated the 1994 case, and Gardner asked the St. Louis Circuit
Court to order a new trial that would clear the way for his release. The
circuit court judge refused to order a hearing on Gardner’s motion,
saying that court rules and statutes do not provide an innocent inmate a
remedy. In the Court of Appeals, Daniel Harawa, a Washington
University professor and former NAACP lawyer, argued persuasively on
behalf of Gardner that current law allows for a remedy in unusual cases
like Johnson’s. Thirty four prosecutors from 21 states supported the
circuit attorney’s and Johnson’s arguments in a friend-of-the-court
brief in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals,
appropriately, has transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court –
the one court that can provide a remedy if one does not already exist.
That’s because the Supreme Court has the constitutional power to adopt
rules providing procedures for a new trial in such circumstances. The
court itself in the past has provided a procedural remedy. Nearly 19
years ago, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a simple and important rule
that improved criminal justice in the state in response to an advance
in forensic technology. It is time for the court to do the same in
response to a social rather than technical advancement. On
February 20, 2001, the Missouri Supreme Court, which then consisted of
five conservative judges appointed by Gov. John Ashcroft and two
appointed by Gov. Mel Carnahan, ordered the adoption of the new
subdivision of an existing court rule entitled "Post-conviction Motion
for Forensic DNA Testing not Available at Trial.” It went into effect
September 1 of that year. “A person in custody of the Department
of Corrections claiming that forensic DNA testing will demonstrate the
person's innocence of the crime for which the person is in custody may
file a post-conviction motion in the sentencing court seeking such
testing,” subdivision 29.17 of Supreme Court Rule 29 begins. The rule
gets more densely procedural fast, but the gist is clear from the name
and the beginning of it. As of 2001, there were innocent people
languishing in Missouri prisons who would be exonerated through the
application of forensic testing of DNA evidence that had not been
available when they were convicted. The court introduced the new rule in
response to the new technology for a good and simple reason: It is the
court’s responsibility to ensure, not that unjust sentences are
preserved, but that justice is served. When
the Missouri Court of Appeals transferred Johnson’s appeal to the
Missouri Supreme Court on Christmas Eve, the three judges wrote an
important and instructive unanimous opinion. They stated that this was a
new kind of legal event that needs a new rule from the higher court —
and/or a new law from the Missouri Legislature, and indeed our argument
and guidance to the court here should be extended, mutatis mutandis, to
the Legislature. What is new in the Lamar Johnson case is not a
technical innovation, but rather a social movement. That social movement
is the election of prosecutors on reform platforms. Reform prosecutors
like Gardner are starting Conviction Integrity Review Units that are
revisiting the rare but nonetheless problematic cases like Lamar
Johnson’s. Conviction Integrity Review Units like Gardner’s are
dedicated to undoing past mistakes in police work and prosecution that
led to an epidemic of mass incarceration. Gardner’s investigation of
Johnson’s case uncovered ample evidence that if he were retried more
fairly — without, among other things, the witness who recanted his
testimony — it is reasonable to believe he would not be convicted. A new
rule is needed because many people in his position are out of options
in procedural terms. The same was true of countless people convicted
without forensic review of DNA evidence before 2001. Subdivision 29.17
of Supreme Court Rule 29 provided a procedural fix for people unjustly
convicted in Missouri without forensic review of DNA evidence.
If the court does not agree that its current procedures provide a remedy for Lamar Johnson, then the court needs a new subdivision to Rule 29 allowing Johnson and others whose convictions are called into question by a Conviction Integrity Review Unit to file a post-conviction motion in the sentencing court seeking a new trial. This does not open a floodgate – the circuit attorney must be persuaded that justice is lacking and then she must persuade the trial court that justice requires the granting of a new trial. The Missouri Supreme Court respects precedents. It has a precedent for handling Johnson’s case and more like it to come from Conviction Integrity Review Units. The precedent is in how the court added a procedural fix to adjust the criminal justice process in the light of DNA forensics. Conviction Integrity Review Units, like DNA forensics, are an important new correction to the imperfect field of criminal justice, and the Supreme Court needs to make a simple, crucial procedural fix to adjust for them. Justice in Missouri – which is this court’s domain – compels it."
The entire story can be read at:
If the court does not agree that its current procedures provide a remedy for Lamar Johnson, then the court needs a new subdivision to Rule 29 allowing Johnson and others whose convictions are called into question by a Conviction Integrity Review Unit to file a post-conviction motion in the sentencing court seeking a new trial. This does not open a floodgate – the circuit attorney must be persuaded that justice is lacking and then she must persuade the trial court that justice requires the granting of a new trial. The Missouri Supreme Court respects precedents. It has a precedent for handling Johnson’s case and more like it to come from Conviction Integrity Review Units. The precedent is in how the court added a procedural fix to adjust the criminal justice process in the light of DNA forensics. Conviction Integrity Review Units, like DNA forensics, are an important new correction to the imperfect field of criminal justice, and the Supreme Court needs to make a simple, crucial procedural fix to adjust for them. Justice in Missouri – which is this court’s domain – compels it."
The entire story can be read at:
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;
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful convictions): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.""
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20191210/da-drops-murder-charge-against-taunton-man-who-served-35-years-for-1979-slaying
----------------------------------------------------------------
