BACKGROUND: "(James) Dailey is a veteran who has spent 34 years on death row. His conviction was based almost entirely on the testimony of prolific jailhouse informants, one of whom was a known crooked cop facing over 20 counts of fraud and larceny. For his testimony, which also sent three other men to death row and many others to prison, the informant received leniency in his own sentencing. Over the years, numerous other informants have come forward to allege that a man named Jack Pearcy is solely responsible for the crime in question, the murder of a young woman, and, in fact, it was Pearcy that prosecutors initially went after for the crime, but, when a jury failed to hand down a death sentence for him, the prosecutors turned their focus and energy toward Dailey. Pearcy has repeatedly confessed to being the sole perpetrator in the homicide, even going so far as to sign a sworn affidavit at one point. Dailey has also been excluded as a source for the existing forensic evidence in the case, a hair found in the victim’s hand. But none of this really seems to matter in Florida, a state that leads the country in exonerations from death row, with 29, and that has carried the highest number of executions since reinstatement, a whopping 99. Despite all of these factors, Dailey has been unsuccessful at obtaining a new trial and still stands to be executed in the near future."
Hannah Cox: National Manager of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty
------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Until Pearcy took the stand this week, a question had hovered over the hearing: Would he actually say in open court that he committed the crime alone? Pearcy had previously shown himself to be anything but a dependable witness. Despite proclaiming Dailey’s innocence several different times over the years — most notably in a sworn affidavit he signed in 2017 — Pearcy had never managed to make such a declaration before a judge; when he was called to testify about the 2017 affidavit the following year, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In a near replay of that hearing, Pearcy remained mute on Thursday as Josh Dubin, a member of Dailey’s defense team, asked him a series of straightforward questions. Each was met with silence."
------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Seated nearby, unnoticed by the scrum of TV cameramen, was Florida death row exoneree Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin. (A case I followed on this Blog. HL): He had been Dailey’s neighbor on death row for nearly two years. They first met in 2009, he said, and during their time behind bars, they frequently talked about their cases — principally, how they had each been wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. Aguirre-Jarquin had thought of Dailey many times since being freed from death row. He had come to the hearing to show Dailey that he believed in his innocence. “I support him 100%,” Aguirre-Jarquin said. “His story has never changed.""
-----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "A Liar Put Him on Death Row. His Co-Defendant Could Help Set Him Free. Why Won’t He? by Pamela Colloff, published by ProPublica on March 6, 2020. (ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power.)
SUB-HEADING: "Reversing course, a key witness who could help
James Dailey stays silent in a Florida case that was built on dubious
jailhouse informant testimony. Dailey could face execution."
GIST: "For more than three
decades, Florida death row inmate James Dailey has maintained his
innocence, claiming that he played no part in the 1985 murder of
14-year-old Shelly Boggio. On Thursday, the one person whose word could
spare his life — his co-defendant, Jack Pearcy — took the stand in a
Clearwater courtroom. But when the time came for Pearcy to speak, he sat
in the witness box, stone-faced and silent. The subject at hand was an affidavit Pearcy signed in December,
in which he cleared Dailey of any involvement in the killing. “James
Dailey had nothing to do with the murder of Shelly Boggio,” it stated.
“I committed the crime alone. James Dailey was back at the house when I
drove Shelly Boggio to the place where I ultimately killed her.” No physical or forensic
evidence ties Dailey to the gruesome killing, nor has there ever been a
credible motive. At his 1987 trial, prosecutors secured his conviction
by relying on the dubious testimony of three jailhouse informants. One
of them — a prolific con-man-turned-jailhouse-informant named Paul
Skalnik — was the subject of a joint ProPublica-New York Times Magazine investigation.
He was released from jail five days after Dailey was sentenced to
death. (Skalnik has always maintained that his testimony in Dailey’s
trial was truthful and that he did not receive any benefits in return.) The affidavit from Pearcy
had helped persuade 6th Judicial Circuit Judge Pat Siracusa to grant
Thursday’s evidentiary hearing. Dailey, who had been transported nearly
200 miles from the Florida State Prison in Raiford for the proceedings,
watched Pearcy intently, studying his co-defendant from behind his
thick-framed, prison-issued glasses. The stakes for Dailey, who
is under an active death warrant, could not be any higher. The
73-year-old was scheduled to be executed on Nov. 7, 2019, but he was
granted a stay of execution last fall. That stay expired on Dec. 30.
Though Gov. Ron DeSantis has indicated that he will hold off on setting
an execution date until the case has played out in the courts,
Dailey is running out of options. For Pearcy, the stakes are far lower;
though prosecutors argued in a 1986 sentencing memo that he deserved
death because he was “the main actor” in Boggio’s murder, he received a
life sentence. Until Pearcy took the stand
this week, a question had hovered over the hearing: Would he actually
say in open court that he committed the crime alone? Pearcy had
previously shown himself to be anything but a dependable witness.
Despite proclaiming Dailey’s innocence several different times over the
years — most notably in a sworn affidavit he signed in 2017
— Pearcy had never managed to make such a declaration before a judge;
when he was called to testify about the 2017 affidavit the following
year, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In a near replay of that
hearing, Pearcy remained mute on Thursday as Josh Dubin, a member of
Dailey’s defense team, asked him a series of straightforward questions.
Each was met with silence. “It’s déjà vu all over again,” groused Assistant State Attorney Sara Macks. Before Pearcy was called
to the stand that day, Siracusa had solicited ideas from prosecutors,
the defense team and even Pearcy’s mother about how to ensure that
Pearcy actually testified. In a freewheeling exchange that took place in
the courtroom before a phalanx of TV cameras, Siracusa brainstormed
from the bench. “There are 7 seconds to go, and this is a Hail Mary, and
we need to put him in the end zone,” he said. Acknowledging how little
leverage even a judge has with a man who knows he will be spending the
rest of his life in prison, Siracusa added, “I’m sorry to mix my
metaphors, but switching from football to poker: I’ve got a pair of twos
and he knows he has a straight.” The judge ultimately
decided not to threaten Pearcy with contempt of court, concluding that
doing so would be ineffectual. Instead, he tried to reason with Pearcy.
“Today is the day to set the record straight,” the judge informed the
weathered, heavily tattooed 64-year-old. “You’ve made many sworn
statements over the years, many of which contradict each other.” “Testifying is not going to change my situation in any way whatsoever,” he told the judge. Pearcy’s refusal to
testify was not an accident, Dailey’s attorneys argued, suggesting that
he had buckled under pressure from his family not to take the blame for
the murder. They pointed to a series of phone calls that Pearcy’s
mother, Sally Simon, made to him in prison after she learned of the
affidavit he signed in December. “I was upset and I absolutely admit
that,” Simon told the judge of one such call, adding that she had always
urged her son to tell the truth. In February — after Pearcy had
received a slew of calls from his family, according to prison phone logs
— he gave a deposition in which he recanted his affidavit. But Siracusa tried again
and again to persuade him to testify. “You’ve told two different
stories,” the judge said, referring to Pearcy’s numerous accounts of the
murder over the years. (One narrative implicated Dailey, Siracusa
observed, while the other exonerated him.) “You understand that in the
future, we’re not going to be doing that anymore,” the judge said. He
added that Pearcy would have no more opportunities to testify: “Today’s
your last day.” Pearcy nodded, unmoved. “Nothing I can do or say to change your mind?” Siracusa asked. Pearcy shook his head. Finally, the judge
relented. “OK, Mr. Pearcy can go,” he said. The courtroom fell silent as
Pearcy was escorted out in handcuffs; with him seemed to go any hope of
bolstering Dailey’s claims of innocence. But Dailey’s attorneys had
one last argument to make. Pointing to statements Pearcy made in his
recent deposition, in which he conceded to being alone with Boggio
during a critical window in the early morning hours of May 6, 1985,
Dubin identified “new evidence that places Pearcy alone with the victim
at the time the state said the crime occurred.” Had jurors heard this
evidence, Dubin argued, they would likely have reached a different
verdict. A federal judge says key testimony
used to convict James Dailey of murder was likely false. Dailey’s
co-defendant has asserted — again — that Dailey had no involvement in
the crime. So far, that hasn’t made a difference in the court. Siracusa asked the
prosecution and defense to present written arguments on this point, and
he said he would issue a ruling on May 1. If he sides with the defense,
then he will grant a lengthier hearing that could span a week or more,
at which Dailey’s attorneys can present all his claims of innocence —
including testimony about how questionable jailhouse informant testimony
helped secure his conviction. As the hearing drew to a
close, Kalli Boggio, a sister of the victim, approached the judge. She
and other family members had sat together throughout the hearing,
quietly observing the proceedings. “Our family has been through enough,”
she said, her voice breaking. “It will be 35 years this May. It needs
to come to an end. We’re tired of hurting. We’re done. “Please,” she implored him. “Get this to an end.” Seated nearby, unnoticed by the scrum of TV cameramen, was Florida death row exoneree Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin.
He had been Dailey’s neighbor on death row for nearly two years. They
first met in 2009, he said, and during their time behind bars, they
frequently talked about their cases — principally, how they had each
been wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. Aguirre-Jarquin
had thought of Dailey many times since being freed from death row. He
had come to the hearing to show Dailey that he believed in his
innocence. “I support him 100%,” Aguirre-Jarquin said. “His story has never changed.""
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;
------------------------------------------------------------------
