Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Walter Ogrod: Philadelphia: Likely Innocent and behind bars in a pandemic: (And other prisoners like him who are caught in the coronavirus era such as Rosa Jimenez (Texas) , Donald Lucas (Illinois), Jimmy Ates (Florida), and Christopher Smith (Cincinnati) and others): This likely innocent man, trapped on death row at huge risk because the prison authorities defied a judge's order requiring testing for the Coronavirus is not alone, Atlantic writer Barbara Bradley Hagarty reports..."Across the country, innocence lawyers are filing emergency petitions to get their clients released from prison before the virus can kill them. In the space of 24 hours, I heard from attorneys representing some two dozen clients in much the same legal position as Ogrod: A trial judge or appellate court had found credible proof of their innocence, their convictions were overturned, and the state was told to release them or give them a new trial. But now they are trapped in prison as their hearings are delayed, prosecutors appeal to higher courts, reviews are stalled, or the decisions sit on the desks of judges who could make the final determination. Attorneys say that hundreds more wrongly convicted people have cases lingering in various stages of litigation; those hearings will go to the back of the line, behind new criminal cases, once courts reopen."


QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Once the virus gets inside prison doors, “it will go through the prison like a hot knife through butter,” said Rich, the Brown professor. Soon enough, transmission will run in the other direction. As prisoners are infected, they will infect the otherwise healthy staff, who return to their families."

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The coronavirus reveals characteristics of the judicial system that will prove lethal. The virus is lightning fast, while the judicial system is glacially slow. The virus is nimble and opportunistic; the system is ponderous, inflexible in its rules, slow to reverse its mistakes, and quick to attach large punishments to small crimes. Experts say that America will now see the price of mass incarceration, and that it will be catastrophically high, both for people in prisons and for the communities around them. “Prisons are almost perfectly designed to promote the transmission of communicable disease,” says Homer Venters, the former chief medical officer at New York City’s Rikers Island. Forget about social distancing: Prisoners eat together, use the same showers, work or watch television side by side, and often sleep in the same dorm room with dozens of other inmates. Forget about hygiene: Prisons are “incredibly filthy, unsanitary places,” Venters says, where there’s often no soap, much less the freedom for hand-washing. But what makes prisoners especially vulnerable to this virus is the years of medical neglect. That’s particularly true of those claiming their innocence, who generally spend 10, 20, 30, or 40 years behind bars before they’re vindicated. But Josiah “Jody” Rich, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Brown University, told me that the same applies to most inmates."

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

STORY: "Innocent prisoners are going to die of the virus," by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, published by The Atlantic on March 31, 2020. (Barbara Bradley Hagerty is a contributing writer at The Atlantic. She is the author of Life Reimagined: The Science, Art, and Opportunity of Midlife.)

SUB-HEADING: When the machinery of justice is halted abruptly, some of the people trapped inside are not supposed to be there at all." 

GIST: "While millions of americans shelter in place, one group simply cannot escape the coronavirus: prisoners. Among them are hundreds of people who have plausible claims that they are innocent, whose cases were working their way through the courts—until the coronavirus ground regular court business to a halt. What these stories reveal is the threat the virus poses to prisoners, both innocent and guilty, and to the wider population as a whole.

Walter Ogrod is one of those prisoners. February 28 brought the news that Ogrod had been waiting for ever since he was convicted of killing a 4-year-old girl and placed on death row 23 years ago: The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office told a court that Ogrod was “likely innocent,” and that his conviction was a “gross miscarriage of justice” based on evidence that was “false, unreliable, and incomplete.” He should be released. The judge set a hearing for March 27, then rescheduled it for June. Delays happen. Most everyone believed that Ogrod would soon walk out of prison.

But on March 11, when he could almost taste his freedom, Ogrod fell ill. “He described his breathing as like breathing through sponge,” one of his attorneys, James Rollins, told me. His fever spiked to 103 degrees. He suffered bouts of coughing. These symptoms are typical of someone infected with the coronavirus. When the prosecutors and Ogrod’s attorneys learned of his illness, they quickly secured a court order instructing the prison to move him to a hospital so that he could be tested and treated for COVID-19. But the prison refused, arguing that two of its doctors said he needed no such test. “It took almost a week for him to actually get a decongestant to try to address his breathing,” Rollins said.

“We have a testing infrastructure in place and are following the COVID-19 CDC guidelines,” says Maria Finn, a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. “We are confident that any inmate who meets the criteria will be tested.”
Patricia Cummings, who heads the Conviction Integrity Unit in the Philadelphia DA’s Office, is skeptical. “It’s your worst nightmare,” she says. Convicting an innocent man is tragic enough. Much worse would be if, after the state admits the mistake, the inmate were to die while the judicial system ambled to a conclusion. But the current situation is worse yet: Nothing was done to treat this potentially contagious prisoner, even though signs abounded that a viral “bomb” was about to explode, Cummings says. “It seemed like such a conscious indifference to not only Walter Ogrod’s well-being, but everybody in that prison.”

The prison’s decision to forego testing was either lucky or correct. Ogrod has returned to his cell and is recovering. But to Cummings, an equally frightening nightmare could now be unfolding. “How many people did he infect, if in fact he [did] have COVID-19?” she asks. “And are we going to have a widespread pandemic in the prison system?”

Across the country, innocence lawyers are filing emergency petitions to get their clients released from prison before the virus can kill them. In the space of 24 hours, I heard from attorneys representing some two dozen clients in much the same legal position as Ogrod: A trial judge or appellate court had found credible proof of their innocence, their convictions were overturned, and the state was told to release them or give them a new trial. But now they are trapped in prison as their hearings are delayed, prosecutors appeal to higher courts, reviews are stalled, or the decisions sit on the desks of judges who could make the final determination. Attorneys say that hundreds more wrongly convicted people have cases lingering in various stages of litigation; those hearings will go to the back of the line, behind new criminal cases, once courts reopen.

The coronavirus reveals characteristics of the judicial system that will prove lethal. The virus is lightning fast, while the judicial system is glacially slow. The virus is nimble and opportunistic; the system is ponderous, inflexible in its rules, slow to reverse its mistakes, and quick to attach large punishments to small crimes. Experts say that America will now see the price of mass incarceration, and that it will be catastrophically high, both for people in prisons and for the communities around them.

“Prisons are almost perfectly designed to promote the transmission of communicable disease,” says Homer Venters, the former chief medical officer at New York City’s Rikers Island. Forget about social distancing: Prisoners eat together, use the same showers, work or watch television side by side, and often sleep in the same dorm room with dozens of other inmates. Forget about hygiene: Prisons are “incredibly filthy, unsanitary places,” Venters says, where there’s often no soap, much less the freedom for hand-washing. But what makes prisoners especially vulnerable to this virus is the years of medical neglect. That’s particularly true of those claiming their innocence, who generally spend 10, 20, 30, or 40 years behind bars before they’re vindicated. But Josiah “Jody” Rich, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Brown University, told me that the same applies to most inmates.

“When we look at the health profile of people who have been incarcerated, they would appear to be about 10 years older than their chronological age,” he said. “Somebody who’s been in and out of prisons and jails their whole life—at age 50 they have the heart disease, the lung disease, the morbidity of somebody on the outside who’s age 60.” Rich, who has been seeing patients in Rhode Island state prisons for more than 25 years, noted that half of all prisoners have a chronic medical condition. And the prison population is getting old: Inmates over the age of 55 make up the fastest growing demographic. Think nursing home, not fight club.

Donald Lucas, for example, was recently granted a new trial, two decades after he was convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder in Chicago. At 60, he has significant medical issues, including asthma, which has required several hospitalizations, and a severe seizure disorder. While he waits for a new trial, he is incarcerated at Cook County Jail, where more than two dozen detainees and staff have tested positive for COVID-19. The 73-year-old Jimmy Ates has seen his murder conviction overturned twice because the state failed to provide crucial evidence. Prosecutors in Florida will try him a third time. But his attorneys worry that he might not survive until then, as he has heart and respiratory conditions, as well as Type 2 diabetes—all of which make him vulnerable to COVID-19.
For these prisoners, justice delayed could be a death sentence. At 37, Rosa Jimenez sits in a Texas prison as her Stage 4 kidney disease progresses. Fifteen years ago, she was convicted of murder in the death of a 21-month-old who choked on a wad of paper towels while she was babysitting him. Since 2011, four different judges have concluded that Jimenez did not receive a fair trial and is probably innocent; most recently, a federal-district-court judge tossed out the murder conviction. The judge gave prosecutors until February 25 to release her or give her a new trial. State prosecutors appealed, and the district attorney in Austin, Margaret Moore, said she would review the case.

But now the pandemic has arrived and the court and the prosecutor’s office have closed their doors. “That has in effect halted” the review, says Jimenez’s attorney, Vanessa Potkin, who is also director of post-conviction litigation at the Innocence Project. She is being left “in limbo and in a place where she sits in a dorm with 33 other women. And as she said, if one woman in the dorm gets a cold, they all get a cold. It’s just a matter of time before COVID-19 enters the prison.” When it does, Jimenez has a good chance of dying, according to a kidney specialist  Potkin consulted. In a letter, the specialist noted that patients with Stage 4 kidney disease “are 60 percent more likely” to contract viral illnesses and pneumonia. They will likely be “similarly susceptible to COVID-19 and carry a risk of greater complications, including death.”

Defense attorneys say there are plenty of ways the state can release prisoners and still keep them close until prosecutors decide to retry them or not. For example, the court could set restrictions, such as home confinement or electronic monitoring, which is more likely to move them out of the pathogen’s way. “Before, it was about whether the accused would have their liberty back during this time period,” Potkin says. “Now it’s about their life.”

There are within the bounds of law so many and varied ways to slow down the release of an inmate believed to be wrongly convicted. A prosecutor can oppose and then appeal every defeat—in state trial court, appellate court, and the state’s highest court. If a federal district court orders relief, she can shift the appeal to the federal appeals court, and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. The state can also delay administratively, by, say, promising to launch an independent review, as in Jimenez’s case. Or a judge can simply neglect to rule on an innocence claim. All these approaches can take years, which may be infuriating in normal times but which is terrifying in the age of COVID-19.
Christopher Smith should have been released from prison, or granted a new trial, months ago. In 2008, Smith was convicted of armed robbery in Cincinnati and sentenced to 18 years in prison. It took 12 years, exhausting all his options in state court, before a federal appeals court recognized the weakness of the state’s case. The perpetrator had worn a costume—a wig, sunglasses, and a mask—which was later found in a truck owned by Smith’s girlfriend. The lab performed a DNA analysis, but the full results were withheld from Smith’s defense lawyer. Only after Smith was convicted did his attorney obtain the full report. It showed that the DNA of another man was on every article, and that Smith’s DNA was absent. In June, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction: “In a case with stronger evidence, the suppressed evidence might not be enough to create a reasonable probability of a different outcome,” the judges ruled in a unanimous decision. “But, here, it is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.”

The sixth circuit found in favor of Smith on a constitutional violation and sent it back to the lower court to finish final details. All that is left be to done is for Federal District Court Judge Timothy Black to approve the decision, which he’s had on his desk since November 7. Once that happens, Smith “will be presumed innocent,” says Michele Berry Godsey, Smith’s lawyer. “The state can choose to retry him, but he’s situated back to the very, very initial point where he’s presumed innocent.”

Yet for whatever reason—a backlogged docket, the holidays, objections from the prosecutor—Judge Black has not acted, and four months later, Smith faces a new, deadly threat. “It’s kind of mind-boggling to think that after your innocence is acknowledged, you’re a sitting duck for a virus,” Berry Godsey says. Black’s court has shut down, making an emergency hearing impossible. Nearly two weeks ago, Berry Godsey requested a phone call with the judge and prosecutor to resolve the case. The prosecutor, William Lamb, objected. “It’s not clear … what the urgencies may be,” he wrote in a letter to the judge, adding: “Smith will likely be treated better in his current setting in prison if medical exigencies arise than if he were released.”

“I have been dreaming of dying here lately,” Smith wrote to me in an email. “I feel like im being held captive. Or being held for ransom.” He has no soap or hand sanitizer, and the prison is not conducting daily checkups. “Everyone wants to be tough but you can see the fear and concern. once 1 person get this virus, we are in great trouble.”

It’s tempting to think that what happens in prison stays in prison. But a virus doesn’t respect boundaries. It sneaks in with the guards and staff: Each day, three shifts a day, hundreds of potentially infected people walk into a prison and handle the inmates, shackle them, transport them, give them food and medicine. Once the virus gets inside prison doors, “it will go through the prison like a hot knife through butter,” said Rich, the Brown professor. Soon enough, transmission will run in the other direction. As prisoners are infected, they will infect the otherwise healthy staff, who return to their families.

“Right now, we are on the cusp of really understanding how devastating the process has been,” says Venters, the former chief medical officer at Rikers Island. “Ignoring people behind bars, pretending like their health doesn’t matter, is now going to cause very serious consequences for them, and for the rest of us. Because it’s not just that we’re going to have preventable deaths in these places. It’s that it will drive this whole epidemic curve up when we’re trying to flatten it.” In other words, prisons are hot spots that America ignores at its peril.

It gets worse: Prisoners are likely to affect if not overwhelm the hospital system on the outside. After two or three weeks, Rich said, critically ill prisoners will start arriving at hospitals, many of them rural hospitals with few ICU beds and ventilators. “And you get to the point where there’s no more beds, and somebody [from the community] gets into a bad car accident, or they have COVID-19, or they have a heart attack, or they have some life-threatening illness,” Rich said. “They cannot get into the ICU bed, because that prisoner is there.” The doctor faces a Hobson’s choice of whom to save.
Multiply that by thousands of prisoners who are sure to become sick. “The epidemic is going to be already straining existing health-care systems,” Rich said. “They don’t need an influx of people coming from their local prisons.” Adds Potkin at the Innocence Project: “It’s unimaginable what’s about to happen.""

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 conviction cases):  "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:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Bryan: Texas: Great news (in rather bleak times). Finally. The former high school principal convicted by flawed blood splatter evidence is free - on parole. Kudos to ProPublica and investigative journalist Pamela Colloff for playing a huge role in his release and eventual exoneration which cannot come soon enough. HL. Here is Pamela Colloff's update to her 'Blood will tell" series readers. (Click on the link for Colloff's news story on Joe Bryan's release and what the future holds for him.)


BACKGROUND: "The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied Joe Bryan parole for a seventh time on Friday, citing the brutal nature of the crime he stands convicted of — the 1985 shooting death of his wife, Mickey — in concluding that the 78-year-old “poses a continuing threat to public safety.” Bryan has twice been convicted of Mickey’s murder, which took place in their Clifton, Texas, home. Bryan, then a beloved high school principal, had been attending an education conference in Austin, 120 miles away, in the days surrounding the murder. He has always maintained that he was asleep in his hotel room at the time of the crime. His conviction, for which Bryan has spent 31 years in prison, rested largely on bloodstain-pattern analysis, a technique still in use throughout the criminal justice system, despite concerns about its reliability. At an evidentiary hearing last year in Comanche, Texas, Bryan’s attorneys presented new evidence that jurors who convicted him never heard — most notably, that the forensic testimony used to convict him was erroneous. “My conclusions were wrong,” retired police Detective Robert Thorman, who performed the bloodstain-pattern analysis in the case, wrote in a sworn affidavit submitted to the court. “Some of the techniques and methodology were incorrect. Therefore, some of my testimony was not correct.” Last July, before the hearing, the Texas Forensic Science Commission — which investigates complaints about the misuse of forensic testimony and evidence in criminal cases — announced that the blood-spatter analysis used to convict Bryan was “not accurate or scientifically supported.” In December, however, Judge Doug Shaver, who presided over the evidentiary hearing, recommended that Bryan’s conviction stand, and that he not be granted a new trial. Shaver adopted the prosecution’s findings in their entirety.'
Pamela Colloff: ProPublic: April  5, 2019: “Blood will tell."
-------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: From Pamela Coloff (ProPublica) to her readers (Blood will tell) series, published on March 31, 2020.

GIST: "Hi everyone: This morning, Joe Bryan was released from prison after 33 years behind bars. “Thank you, Father, for taking care of me,” he said, extending his hand toward the sky, his voice choking with emotion. “Hallelujah, praise Jesus!”

I was on the scene in Huntsville, Texas, along with his attorneys and his brother, with whom he will be living in Houston. My latest story details his release and what the future holds for him.

As you may recall, Joe was denied parole seven times since he first became eligible in 2007. It is unclear why the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles reversed course this month; its deliberations are confidential and exempt from state open-record laws. But its actions followed a concerted effort by his parole attorneys, Allen and Shea Place, and his family to win his release. His legal team now plans to file a federal appeal in the case in the hopes of exonerating him.

Read the story: 
33 Years After Dubious Evidence Helped Convict Him, Joe Bryan Has Been Released on Parole

Thank you for following Joe’s case; I hope this update serves as good news in the midst of a difficult time for so many. Please stay healthy and safe."

Best wishes, 
Pamela Colloff"
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwHMZQqKMFfrznXNhGCwjLfdPst


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 conviction cases):  "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:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------

Annie Dookhan: Sonja Farak: Netflix four part documentary drops tomorrow - April 1, 2020. Reviewer Sarah D. Bunting says their stories are "like true-crime catnip." .."Drug Scandal moves right along to that last critical element of a compelling true-crime narrative: the miscarriage of justice, which the miscarriers blandly assert was just a mistake, an oversight, or not a miscarriage at all. (The fact that much of the state's motivation to dissemble derived from a petty disdain for one particular defense attorney is both contemptible and sad... much like Farak's behavior itself.)


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

TRAILER:
https://youtu.be/X4Hk1lOGWIA

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "I hadn't heard of the cases at the center of Drug Scandal before settling in for Carr's new four-parter on Netflix, which is odd in retrospect, because the story has a number of elements that are like true-crime-catnip. First of all, it's a scam/faker story in the Stephen Glass mold: Annie Dookhan, the first scientist to be unmasked, was a stereotypical "striver" (a very Edith Wharton way to describe this particular sort of frustrated overachiever, but one of the interviewees in Drug Scandal uses that exact word). Dookhan skipped procedures and mocked up results in order to look more productive than her colleagues, and even generated dummy emails in order to flirt by proxy with a handsome ADA, while dwelling in delusions of law-enforcement grandeur. Then there's the simultaneously enraging and pathetic addiction story at the center of the second unmasking: Sonja Farak, a good student and the first girl in her state to play high-school football. Farak wasn't faking results, but she was raiding the drug lockup — first the methamphetamine used for comparative testing at the lab, then evidence assigned to her for testing. Farak even made her own crack cocaine, and while she later claimed that she always tried to do a good job on the tests, the better to avoid detection, obviously any lab report she signed off during that period is suspect... and those lab reports were myriad."

REVIEW: "Netflix's engaging, enraging 'How to fix a drug scandal is  like crime catnip," by Sarah D. Downing, published by Primetimer on March 31, 2020. (Primetimer editor-at-large Sarah D. Bunting knows a thing or two about true crime. She founded the true crime site The Blotter, and is the host of its weekly podcast, The Blotter Presents. Her new weekly column here on Primetimer is dedicated to all things true crime on TV.)

SUB_HEADING: "Two rogue lab techs plus tens of thousands of cases equals a criminal justice outrage.

GIST: "The "fix" in the title of Erin Lee Carr's latest documentary project, How To Fix A Drug Scandal, works on two different levels. One meaning is to repair — repairing the damage done to trial outcomes and reputations by two separate state-lab scientists in Massachusetts whose results were, at best, unreliable. The other definition of "to fix" is "to manipulate," to rig an outcome, as it seems various people in the Massachusetts prosecutorial system tried to do once it became clear they'd have to throw out tens of thousands of drug cases.
I hadn't heard of the cases at the center of Drug Scandal before settling in for Carr's new four-parter on Netflix, which is odd in retrospect, because the story has a number of elements that are like true-crime-catnip. First of all, it's a scam/faker story in the Stephen Glass mold: Annie Dookhan, the first scientist to be unmasked, was a stereotypical "striver" (a very Edith Wharton way to describe this particular sort of frustrated overachiever, but one of the interviewees in Drug Scandal uses that exact word). Dookhan skipped procedures and mocked up results in order to look more productive than her colleagues, and even generated dummy emails in order to flirt by proxy with a handsome ADA, while dwelling in delusions of law-enforcement grandeur.
Then there's the simultaneously enraging and pathetic addiction story at the center of the second unmasking: Sonja Farak, a good student and the first girl in her state to play high-school football. Farak wasn't faking results, but she was raiding the drug lockup — first the methamphetamine used for comparative testing at the lab, then evidence assigned to her for testing. Farak even made her own crack cocaine, and while she later claimed that she always tried to do a good job on the tests, the better to avoid detection, obviously any lab report she signed off during that period is suspect... and those lab reports were myriad.
Drug Scandal also boasts several experienced talking-head commentators (including Rolling Stone's Paul Solotaroff, also seen in Amazon's Free Meek); and clear, process sequences that take viewers through the average day in the life of a bench scientist; how heroin travels from Afghanistan through the mid-Atlantic ports, gets branded, and arrives in New England; and how an overwhelmed scientist like Dookhan pulls off "dry-labbing," generating reports on testing she didn't actually perform. Carr's direction is at times too deliberate — an audience that chooses to watch Drug Scandal is likely versed in true-crime jargon, and doesn't need exculpatory evidence and Brady violations reviewed for them this carefully — and while it's always tempting to bag on The War On Drugs with quaint footage making (bigger) fools of past presidents, it's not a great use of time. But with those exceptions noted, Drug Scandal moves right along to that last critical element of a compelling true-crime narrative: the miscarriage of justice, which the miscarriers blandly assert was just a mistake, an oversight, or not a miscarriage at all. (The fact that much of the state's motivation to dissemble derived from a petty disdain for one particular defense attorney is both contemptible and sad... much like Farak's behavior itself.)
Drug Scandal is a worthwhile four hours spent covering a case that isn't as well known as it should be. Not only does it lend itself to Lifetime-movie fantasy-casting while you're watching, it's also well made; Erin Lee Carr is a very good director who's also exceptionally consistent in the quality of her output (see below), and Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room) is one of the executive producers..."
The entire review can be read at:
https://www.primetimer.com/features/how-to-fix-a-drug-scandal-on-the-biggest-case-youve-never-heard-of

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 conviction cases):  "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:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------

Julius Jones: Oklahoma: Commentator Nehemiah D. Frank (founder, director and executive editor of The Black Wall Street Times) expounds on "Julius Jones and Oklahoma’s miscarriage of justice." ..."After Texas and Virginia, Oklahoma ranks third in the nation in the number of executions since 1976. In 2015, the use of unauthorized lethal injection drugs resulted in the painful execution of an Oklahoma death row inmate, who, as he was dying, said, “My body is on fire.” State investigations and lawsuits were launched, halting all Oklahoma executions. Recently, the state announced it had a new and reliable source of lethal injection drugs, and it was ready to move forward on executions. It’s been half a decade since an execution has taken place in Oklahoma, buying time for death row inmates who feel wrongfully accused to file motions for retrials and clemency. Julius Jones, an Oklahoma death row inmate who’s fighting for his life, has filed for clemency. His story nearly mirrors the plot of Jamie Foxx’s the newly released film “Just Mercy,” based on the true story of Walter McMillian, a man unjustly placed on death row and later exonerated by American civil rights attorney and social justice activist Bryan Stevenson. Since 1981, 10 Oklahoma death row inmates, half of them African Americans, have been exonerated. Questions of official misconduct, perjury and false accusations are leading reasons the convictions have come under scrutiny."



PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Julius’ story reveals a miscarriage of justice that circles around a bad friend and accomplice, America’s second deadliest prosecutor and inexperienced capital trial attorneys who missed multiple opportunities to present evidence in court that would have sealed the needed-doubt into the minds of the jury and granted Jones an acquittal. Megan Tobey described her brother’s killer as a black man wearing a cap with hair that stuck out from under it about one inch. Christopher Jordan, Jones’ high school basketball teammate and co-defendant, had cornrows at the time of his booking and trial. Days before the incident, Jones was arrested for petty theft. He had a low fade or buzz cut in his booking photo. That photo was never presented to the jury during his trial. Moreover, on the night of Paul Howell’s murder, Jones’ siblings, Antoinette and Antonio Jones, recalled that their brother was home with them — a 21-minute drive from the murder scene. His mother even recalls Julius being home when she arrived that evening. Like the McMillian case, none of the Jones family was called to testify regarding Julius Jones’ whereabouts. Jordan, who testified against Jones, was offered less prison time on charges. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, “False accusations or perjury by witnesses who are promised lenient treatment or other incentives in exchange for their testimony is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions.” Jones’ fingerprints were never found on the vehicle, which was stolen from the crime scene. The only person on record describing the crime scene was Jordan."

COMMENTARY"Julius Jones and Oklahoma’s miscarriage of justice, by Nehemiah D. Frank, published by OA.com on   Feb 23, 2020. (Nehemiah D. Frank is founder, director and executive editor of The Black Wall Street Times and a member of the Tulsa World Community Advisory Board. Opinion pieces by community advisory board members appear in this space most weeks.)

PHOTO CAPTION: "Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt arrives at a press conference on Feb. 13 in Oklahoma City to announce plans for Oklahoma to resume executions by lethal injection."

GIST: "After Texas and Virginia, Oklahoma ranks third in the nation in the number of executions since 1976. In 2015, the use of unauthorized lethal injection drugs resulted in the painful execution of an Oklahoma death row inmate, who, as he was dying, said, My body is on fire.” State investigations and lawsuits were launched, halting all Oklahoma executions. Recently, the state announced it had a new and reliable source of lethal injection drugs, and it was ready to move forward on executions. It’s been half a decade since an execution has taken place in Oklahoma, buying time for death row inmates who feel wrongfully accused to file motions for retrials and clemency. Julius Jones, an Oklahoma death row inmate who’s fighting for his life, has filed for clemency. His story nearly mirrors the plot of Jamie Foxx’s the newly released film “Just Mercy,” based on the true story of Walter McMillian, a man unjustly placed on death row and later exonerated by American civil rights attorney and social justice activist Bryan Stevenson. Since 1981, 10 Oklahoma death row inmates, half of them African Americans, have been exonerated. Questions of official misconduct, perjury and false accusations are leading reasons the convictions have come under scrutiny. Julius’ story reveals a miscarriage of justice that circles around a bad friend and accomplice, America’s second deadliest prosecutor and inexperienced capital trial attorneys who missed multiple opportunities to present evidence in court that would have sealed the needed-doubt into the minds of the jury and granted Jones an acquittal. Megan Tobey described her brother’s killer as a black man wearing a cap with hair that stuck out from under it about one inch. Christopher Jordan, Jones’ high school basketball teammate and co-defendant, had cornrows at the time of his booking and trial. Days before the incident, Jones was arrested for petty theft. He had a low fade or buzz cut in his booking photo. That photo was never presented to the jury during his trial. Moreover, on the night of Paul Howell’s murder, Jones’ siblings, Antoinette and Antonio Jones, recalled that their brother was home with them — a 21-minute drive from the murder scene. His mother even recalls Julius being home when she arrived that evening. Like the McMillian case, none of the Jones family was called to testify regarding Julius Jones’ whereabouts. Jordan, who testified against Jones, was offered less prison time on charges. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, “False accusations or perjury by witnesses who are promised lenient treatment or other incentives in exchange for their testimony is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions.” Jones’ fingerprints were never found on the vehicle, which was stolen from the crime scene. The only person on record describing the crime scene was Jordan. Jones’ case has gained national attention. Tweets from iconic celebrities such as Kim Kardashian and John Legend have brought needed attention to the case. A letter by Bryan Stevenson and another by U.S. Rep. Kendra Horn to Gov. Kevin Stitt encourages the governor to consider clemency for Jones. Recently, Metropolitan Baptist Church and All Souls Unitarian Church held screenings of ABC’s “The Last Defense,” featuring Academy Award and Emmy-winning actress Viola Davis, coupled with letter-writing campaigns. Since 1973, 1,512 people have been executed in the U.S. and 166 people have been exonerated and released from death row, according to the Equal Justice Initiative. “For every nine people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated,” a fact that underscores the high probability of error in capital cases. Stitt proved that he can be a champion of criminal justice reform when he commuted the sentences of 450 inmates in November. It is my personal opinion that it would be a horrible miscarriage of justice — for Jones and the murder victim Paul Howell — if Stitt didn’t offer Jones clemency."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/columnists/nehemiah-d-frank-julius-jones-and-oklahoma-s-miscarriage-of/article_6745493d-090a-5340-a1a7-6dfb71d88eef.html

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

Read 'The terrifying case of Julius Jones, by Kratina Baker, published by medium.com at the link below for the prosecutor's connection with  controversial  forensic scientist  Joyce Gilchrist: (Really neat read too. HL);  "Over his career, District Attorney of Oklahoma County, Bob Macy sent 54 people to death row, more than any other district attorney in the United States. Prosecutorial misconduct was discovered in approximately one-third of Macy’s death penalty cases and the courts have reversed nearly half of his death sentences. Macy was forced to retire in 2001 in the wake of a scandal involving a forensic scientist by the name of Joyce Gilchrist, who it was discovered had been falsifying evidence in a number of cases. Three people Macy helped convict were exonerated and freed from death row and it is likely that others were executed before their innocence could be proven. According to a Harvard Law School study, Bob Macy sent more people to death row than any other individual district attorney in the United States,” Macy has ruined the lives of many of Oklahoman citizens-particularly African American citizens and was unapologetic for it."
https://medium.com/@freepaperspodcast/the-terrifying-case-of-julius-jones-878fec81e50f

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

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 conviction cases):  "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:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, March 30, 2020

Technology: Tele-forensic interviewing: Interviewing children suspected of having been abused during the pandemic: (Oh, oh. I sense something very troubling in what you are about to read - although the proponents admittedly are well-intentioned.) It's an article headed, 'Researchers Aid Child Witnesses With Tele-Forensic Interviewing' by Montclair State professors Jason Dickinson (Department of Psychology) and Nicole Lytle (Department of Social Work and Child Advocacy), published by 'Forensic' on March 30, 2020...What troubles me most: Although the article is centered around a study conducted by a body called, 'the National Science Foundation on tele-forensic interviewing' - described as a process that involves eliciting eyewitness testimony from children using tele-technology - there is no consideration of the need to consider the due process rights of persons caught in the criminal and civil court processes, let alone for their right to a fair (public) trial. My second big worry: Bring it on for the emergency - and then watch it stay forever. Does that sound forever? Read on. HL. PS: I would welcome any comments for possible publishing at hlevy15@gmail.com. HL)...


QUOTE  OF THE DAY: “Our original goal was to determine if this was an effective alternative to face-to-face interviewing when interviewers and children couldn’t connect because of geographic distances,” says Dickinson. “Given the pandemic, our work has taken on a more pressing context and we’re now working with professionals from around the country on how to implement interviewing protocols using this technology,” adds Dickinson. “Protecting children and investigating claims of abuse has to go on, and right now the field is struggling with how to do that in a way that is safe and effective.”

--------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "Professionals  shared their concerns, which ranged from broad questions to queries focusing on the smallest details. Topics included: ensuring that children are interviewed in a safe environment (e.g., not in the family home in an intrafamilial case); protecting the privacy of children; minimizing suggestive influences; and capturing the nuances of interviewing in a virtual environment. Practical concerns included choosing the best technology for recording and ensuring its authenticity, disinfecting the room where the child is being interviewed, and getting children and support staff to interview locations without exposing them to infection. The group outlined recommendations in a document published by the National Children’s Alliance titled “Emergency Tele-Forensic Interview Guidelines.” This week, the guidelines were distributed to over 800 Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) nationwide."
------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Researchers Aid Child Witnesses With Tele-Forensic Interviewing,"  published by The Forensic Magazine on March 30, 2020.
GIST: "Given shelter-in-place orders and  quarantines related to the COVID-19 outbreak, experts are expecting to see significant increases in child abuse cases as domestic violence rates rise in the coming weeks and months.
But how can professional child advocates protect the most vulnerable victims in a time of physical distancing?
Montclair State professors Jason Dickinson (Department of Psychology) and Nicole Lytle (Department of Social Work and Child Advocacy) are working to solve that problem.
As co-directors of the Talking Lab, Dickinson and Lytle have been working in conjunction with Debra Poole of Central Michigan University to finish a three-year study funded by the National Science Foundation on tele-forensic interviewing – a process that involves eliciting eyewitness testimony from children using tele-technology.
“Our original goal was to determine if this was an effective alternative to face-to-face interviewing when interviewers and children couldn’t connect because of geographic distances,” says Dickinson.
“Given the pandemic, our work has taken on a more pressing context and we’re now working with professionals from around the country on how to implement interviewing protocols using this technology,” adds Dickinson. “Protecting children and investigating claims of abuse has to go on, and right now the field is struggling with how to do that in a way that is safe and effective.”
Toward that end, Lytle, Dickinson and Poole quickly organized a March 20 conference call with approximately 500 Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs), and national stakeholders including the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations, to discuss the legal, logistical, technical and other challenges with the goal of drafting policy on best practices.
Professionals shared their concerns, which ranged from broad questions to queries focusing on the smallest details. Topics included: ensuring that children are interviewed in a safe environment (e.g., not in the family home in an intrafamilial case); protecting the privacy of children; minimizing suggestive influences; and capturing the nuances of interviewing in a virtual environment. Practical concerns included choosing the best technology for recording and ensuring its authenticity, disinfecting the room where the child is being interviewed, and getting children and support staff to interview locations without exposing them to infection.
The group outlined recommendations in a document published by the National Children’s Alliance titled “Emergency Tele-Forensic Interview Guidelines.” This week, the guidelines were distributed to over 800 Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) nationwide.
“CACs are already behind in their interviews, so figuring out how to put these guidelines into play is pressing,” says Dickinson. “The guidelines may seem simple, but putting them into practice is enormously complex.”
Lytle adds, “Our study found that tele-interviewing does not reduce the quality or accuracy of children’s testimony, which provides legal cover for helping professionals as they start to conduct tele-forensic interviews. We’re fortunate that we had the study’s results in hand when the pandemic struck and were able to help translate the findings into practice.""

The entire story can be read at: "The move to technology could cut costs, speed trial timelines and provide more access to rural areas when things return to normal. “It is forcing some of this technology in areas we should already have it,” said Duffie Stone of the National District Attorneys Association. Nina Ginsberg of the National Association of Defense Lawyers said video-conferencing “should be very temporary, and only with the defendant’s consent. People have the right to a public trial.”https://www.forensicmag.com/562526-Researchers-Aid-Child-Witnesses-With-Tele-Forensic-Interviewing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: (For article below on how courts are turning to technology during the crisis).  "The move to technology could cut costs, speed trial timelines and provide more access to rural areas when things return to normal. “It is forcing some of this technology in areas we should already have it,” said Duffie Stone of the National District Attorneys Association. Nina Ginsberg of the National Association of Defense Lawyers said video-conferencing “should be very temporary, and only with the defendant’s consent. People have the right to a public trial.”

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

To learn how courts are turning to technology during the crisis, check out this story published by   "The Crime Report" on March 30, 2020  at the link below: "The coronavirus pandemic has forced courts to abandon traditions and embrace long-resisted technology allowing legal work even if courtrooms are empty. The effort has frayed personal connections that build trust among lawyers and judges and challenged the idea that defendants have a right to confront accusers, the Wall Street Journal reports. A Florida attorney learned her trial in three days would be held via a video-conferencing technology she had never used. A Texas judge emptied a courtroom to allow a defendant to talk privately with his attorney by phone. A New York City judge declared a mistrial over an attorney’s coughing while questioning a witness by speakerphone. Judges are holding trials over Zoom, the online video-conference service, and attorneys are questioning witnesses or making oral arguments by phone. Defendants are pleading guilty without entering court. The measures are necessary to provide a resolution for defendants stuck in jail, protect domestic-violence victims in immediate danger and avoid a crippling backlog when courts reopen. The move to technology could cut costs, speed trial timelines and provide more access to rural areas when things return to normal. “It is forcing some of this technology in areas we should already have it,” said Duffie Stone of the National District Attorneys Association. Nina Ginsberg of the National Association of Defense Lawyers said video-conferencing “should be very temporary, and only with the defendant’s consent. People have the right to a public trial.” Defendants can be formally charged, have bail hearings and enter guilty pleas by video conference from jail. At San Antonio’s Bexar County courthouse, people mill about in 25 courtrooms daily, said District Attorney Joe Gonzales. To reduce crowds, some judges use video-conferencing. “Even some of our judges that may be old school are willing to learn,” he said.""
https://thecrimereport.org/2020/03/30/courts-turn-to-technology-during-coronavirus-crisis/

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

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 conviction cases):  "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:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------

Walter Ogrod: Philadelphia: Publisher's Note: It's not just the fact that Walter Ogrod is 'likely innocent', that makes him of interest to this Blog. It is also the fact that he, like any other prisoner who suspects he or she may have the Coronavirus ('likely innocent' or whatever) has a constitutional right to testing and treatment (which Ogrod is being denied by the prison system in spite of a court order. (A point which cannot be made loud enough). (As Prof. Judith Resnik notes on Bloomberg law in a commentary headed, "Protecting prisoners in pandemics is a constitutional must." (HL)


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: " Recently, Walter Ogrod, a Pennsylvania prisoner, exhibited the high fever and troubled breathing that are signatures of Covid-19. That news is, sad to say, not surprising. Within days, lawyers ran to court. He won, lost, and is trying again to get emergency relief for testing and treatment.  Ogrod’s case is not a one-off. In New York, as of March 26, 116 people held in that city’s jails have asked for release because they are particularly vulnerable to getting the virus. Similar cases are being filed across the country. Instead of fighting them, prison officials ought to acknowledge they have a constitutional obligation to help mitigate the risks.  Protecting prisoners from pandemics is not just a “should” or an “ought” but a “must”—as a matter of U.S. constitutional law."

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

COMMENTARY: Protecting prisoners in pandemics is a constitutional must, by Prof. Judith Resnik, published by Bloomberg Law on March 30, 2020. (Judith Resnik is the Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School where she teaches about federalism, procedure, courts, prisons, equality, and citizenship. She is also the author of the essay “(Un)Constitutional Punishments.)

SUB-HEADING: "Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School, says putting constitutional obligations into practice for the prison population—for Covid-19 and other diseases—is daunting. Yet there are ways to lower the risks, and we have guideposts."


GIST: "Recently, Walter Ogrod, a Pennsylvania prisoner, exhibited the high fever and troubled breathing that are signatures of Covid-19. That news is, sad to say, not surprising. Within days, lawyers ran to court. He won, lost, and is trying again to get emergency relief for testing and treatment. 
Ogrod’s case is not a one-off. In New York, as of March 26, 116 people held in that city’s jails have asked for release because they are particularly vulnerable to getting the virus. Similar cases are being filed across the country. Instead of fighting them, prison officials ought to acknowledge they have a constitutional obligation to help mitigate the risks. 
Protecting prisoners from pandemics is not just a “should” or an “ought” but a “must”—as a matter of U.S. constitutional law. That proposition was established more than 40 years ago when another prisoner (J.W. Gamble) told Texas staff that he had been injured by a falling 600-bale of cotton. Responding to his claim that the prison had ignored his pleas for care, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor. Ignoring serious medical needs violated the prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments.” 
The trigger is knowledge. That’s what the court’s key phrase—“deliberate indifference to serious medical needs”—means. 
What about infectious diseases? In 1993, the court explained that prisons cannot knowingly expose people to “a serious, communicable disease.” Rather than wait for a “tragic event,” prisons had to try to keep people away from “unsafe, life-threatening” conditions.
Even as the law is clear, putting these constitutional obligations into practice—for Covid-19 and other diseases—is daunting. Yet there are ways to lower the risks, and we have guideposts.

Lowering the Risks

Proximity is a source of transmission, and spacing people out helps. “Dedensifying” prisons is the new buzz word. Directors of prison systems generally have the power to decide placement, including assigning people to community programs. 
Other resources are the authority of governors to pardon people and to order compassionate release. We need vocal governors like New York’s Andrew Cuomo (D), already out in front on Covid-19, to step up. 
And courts cannot be left out of the picture. In the past, judges have issued population reduction orders because of unconstitutional health care. California’s severe density pushed the prison health system into collapse. In its 2011 opinion approving the mandate to lower the numbers incarcerated, the U.S. Supreme Court showed pictures of the cages where mentally-ill people spent hours awaiting attention. 
Other remedies require new policies that rethink how space is used inside prisons. Here an example comes from a 1993 Supreme Court decision about William McKinney, who argued that it was unconstitutional for Nevada to bunk him with man who smoked five packs a day. A part of the fix was moving McKinney to a dorm, and the other was a ban on smoking. The beneficiaries were prisoners and staff alike, all harmed by second-hand smoke. 
Terrible infra-structures are challenging, and not only for Covid-19. In Texas, a federal judge ruled in 2017 that, because extreme heat put people with heart conditions and diabetes at heightened risks of strokes and death, Houston’s failure to lower severe summer temperatures inside its jails violated the Constitution. That year, another federal judge found Florida in violation of the Constitution because it did not test for and treat Hep-C. By 2019, Houston had tried to make jails a bit cooler, and Florida had screened more than 55,000 prisoners, identified some 7,000 with chronic Hep-C, and treated 4,900. 

Improvements Are Possible

As these lawsuits exemplify, no rosy picture of prison health care can be painted. But look at what has changed. When J.W. Gamble filed his claim in the 1970s, Texas had one full-time doctor for 17,000 prisoners. And in both the 1970s and the 1990s, prison officials argued to courts that they had no constitutional obligation to provide more care than they were. 
Today, every prison system has health care staff, and no one thinks they don’t have an obligation to do all they can. Indeed, directors of prisons around the country are responding to Covid-19. But so far, too much of the focus has been on closing off prisons to outsiders. 
Departments of correction cannot alone figure out responses to this health emergency. Every state and local department of public health must be part of a team effort to reduce the spread of infection, in and outside of prison. Also needed are architects and engineers, tasked with designing new patterns of movement, hand-washing stations, and much more. 
None of us can afford to be indifferent to this serious and known medical need. Failing to do so not only violates the constitutional mandate to try to protect prisoners but also puts at risk the people who work in prison and the communities to which they return."
The entire commentary can be read at:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/insight-protecting-prisoners-in-pandemics-is-a-constitutional-must

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 conviction cases):  "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:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------