PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In his last trial, the prosecution presented two pieces of evidence tying Barton to the crime: testimony from a felonious jailhouse informant who claimed that Barton had made admissions to her, a “trusty” felon who worked in a jail; and expert testimony that a bloodstain on Barton’s shirt was “high-impact” blood spatter. The informant’s uncorroborated testimony “strains credulity,” I observed in 2007. In fact, the use of the informant’s testimony, without disclosing her criminal record and the leniency she got from the state after her testimony, was a reason the court reversed the conviction in Barton’s previous trial. But the state’s use of that informant’s testimony in his last trial was upheld. In 2007 the blood-spatter evidence seemed to me utterly inconclusive. Since then a well-respected forensic scientist has examined the evidence and concluded that instead of high-impact blood spatters, the stains on Barton’s shirt were “transfer” stains, consistent with the account Barton had given at the time — that he got blood on his shirt when he bent down to pull the victim’s granddaughter away from Kuehler’s body. The forensic scientist also concluded that the clothing worn by Barton could not have been the clothing worn by the victim’s assailant, given the bloody nature of the attack. This answered the question my dissent posed in 2007: “How could Barton have perpetrated the kind of violent, forceful attack that killed Ms. Kuehler and walked away quite unstained by the effort?”
-----------------------------------------------------
GIST: "Like most Missourians, I do not know my fellow Missourian Walter Barton. But I know a few things about him, most notably that the state of Missouri is planning to kill him on Tuesday for the brutal stabbing murder of Gladys Kuehler, age 81, in her Ozark, Missouri, mobile home in 1991. The state has pursued this execution doggedly, bringing Barton to trial five times, persuading three juries to conclude — with questionable and tainted evidence — that he stabbed Kuehler about 50 times, a bloody butchery from which Barton, the supposed killer, walked away quite unstained by the effort. Unless Gov. Mike Parson intervenes by 6 p.m. Tuesday, when Barton is scheduled to die, that will be the end of the case and of Walter Barton.
If only we were sure that he did it.
Five trial settings? In the 13 years I served on the Missouri Supreme Court, Barton’s appeals came to that court three times. Barton’s first trial was a mistrial because the state did not list any witnesses. There followed three completed trials, state appeals that resulted in two reversals, and post-conviction proceedings that I described in a 2007 dissent as a “trail of mishaps and misdeeds that, taken together, reflect poorly on the criminal justice system.”
I highlighted this troubling history in 2007 when I dissented from the court’s opinion affirming Barton’s conviction and death sentence, a dissent joined by two of my colleagues. When Barton’s appeal came to the court after the state had prosecuted him a fifth time for this crime, my two colleagues and I had grave concerns about whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to convict him — let alone support a sentence of death — and whether the prosecutors’ repeated, years-long misconduct should have prevented the state from going after Barton a fifth time. The supreme court’s seven judges affirmed Barton’s conviction and punishment 4-3. The limited reviews in federal courts have not derailed the state’s plans.
In his last trial, the prosecution presented two pieces of evidence tying Barton to the crime: testimony from a felonious jailhouse informant who claimed that Barton had made admissions to her, a “trusty” felon who worked in a jail; and expert testimony that a bloodstain on Barton’s shirt was “high-impact” blood spatter.
The informant’s uncorroborated testimony “strains credulity,” I observed in 2007. In fact, the use of the informant’s testimony, without disclosing her criminal record and the leniency she got from the state after her testimony, was a reason the court reversed the conviction in Barton’s previous trial. But the state’s use of that informant’s testimony in his last trial was upheld.
In 2007 the blood-spatter evidence seemed to me utterly inconclusive. Since then a well-respected forensic scientist has examined the evidence and concluded that instead of high-impact blood spatters, the stains on Barton’s shirt were “transfer” stains, consistent with the account Barton had given at the time — that he got blood on his shirt when he bent down to pull the victim’s granddaughter away from Kuehler’s body. The forensic scientist also concluded that the clothing worn by Barton could not have been the clothing worn by the victim’s assailant, given the bloody nature of the attack. This answered the question my dissent posed in 2007: “How could Barton have perpetrated the kind of violent, forceful attack that killed Ms. Kuehler and walked away quite unstained by the effort?”
No court has ever addressed whether Barton was entitled to double jeopardy protection due to the prosecutorial misconduct that “plagued Barton’s trials from the outset” and allowed the state years to bolster its evidence and perhaps “find more snitches,” as our dissent pointed out. In our view, that issue deserved a hearing and should have at least factored into the court’s consideration of whether a death sentence was appropriate.
At this point, it is the governor’s call. Late last week, the Innocence Project, the Midwest Innocence Project, the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, and the American Bar Association asked Parson to appoint a Board of Inquiry to look into Barton’s murder conviction and death sentence.
More than 12 years have passed since the decision upholding Barton’s conviction and death sentence. I had doubts about Barton’s guilt at the time; the new evidence and reevaluation of the scant original evidence make those doubts even more troubling. Before Missouri moves forward with Barton’s execution, Parson should exercise his authority to convene an independent board of inquiry to determine whether the judiciary has ordered the execution of an innocent man."
The entire commentary can be read at:
https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/michael-a-wolff-should-missouri-kill-walter-barton/article_c79362e8-9607-53d1-ac74-bdca4262ecc8.html
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;
------------------------------------------------------------------
