PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
STOP TODAY'S SCHEDULED EXECUTION OF RUBEN GUTIERREZ BY THE STATE OF ALABAMA WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HE IS INNOCENT. THIS IS CRUEL, INHUMANE, UNJUST AND IRREVERSIBLE.
HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER: THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
WORDS TO HEED: FROM OUR POST ON KEVIN COOPER'S APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING (CALIFORNIA):
"Blogger/extraordinaire Jeff Gamso's blunt, unequivocal, unforgettable message to the powers that be in California: "JUST TEST THE FUCKING DNA." (Oh yes, Gamso raises, as he does in many of his posts, an important philosophical question: This post is headed: "What is truth, said jesting Pilate.")..."So what's the harm? What, exactly, are they scared of? Don't we want the truth?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELP SAVE JULIUS JONE'S LIFE: SIGN PETITION 'JULIUS JONES IS INNOCENT - DON'T LET HIM BE EXECUTED BY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA' AT THIS LINK:
Excellent support site:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From letter NBA superstar Trae Young to governor and parole board: I and so many other people have been called to raise concerns regarding Julius Jones’ case because of the many obvious ways in which the legal system failed him. Julius’ co-defendant, who testified against him, changed his story no fewer than six times when interviewed by the police. However, Julius’s attorneys, who lacked death penalty experience and were woefully unprepared, failed to cross-examine the co-defendant regarding his inconsistencies. They did not mention that Julius’ co-defendant had bragged to fellow inmates that he had committed the homicide, not Julius. Nor did they inform jurors that Julius did not meet the description of the shooter provided by the sole eye witness. Julius’ attorneys also failed to present evidence that Julius was home with his family the night of the murder. Finally, the prosecution used a scientifically discredited bullet analysis, presented by an analyst who pled guilty for giving false testimony only months after Julius’s trial."
-----------------------------------------
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Rarely are the nation's eyes more fixed on the country's justice system and its disturbing flaws than they are right now. We're seeing how easily innocent life is snuffed out at the hands of the government, how quickly our constitutional rights are disregarded and how little concern many have for the sanctity of human life and individual liberty. Just as police continue to display brazen acts of brutality at protests condemning these very actions, states also continue to act with impunity in the face of growing criticism."
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The data behind forensics is not nearly as foolproof as many would like to believe. Many practices used to convict people — such as microscopic hair analysis, bullet ballistics testing, bitemark evidence and blood spatter analysis — have been debunked as junk science. Though they're no longer allowed in courtrooms as evidence, the cases in which they were used to sentence have not been retried. And the misapplication of DNA evidence has been responsible in 45% of the thousands of wrongful convictions discovered thus far. Whether that misapplication be the result of contamination in the lab, faulty testing practices, labs that are overeager to produce results for the prosecution, or flat-out lies by scientists who've provided testimony on the government's behalf, all of it should make Americans wary of trusting this system with matters of life and death. All of that said, DNA evidence can be a powerful tool, especially when used to check the state's results — which with one person exonerated from death row for every nine executions, we know to be faulty. But getting states to allow for DNA to be tested post-conviction is nearly impossible."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "Executing Innocence in Texas," by Hannah Cox, published by 'Newsmax' on June 15, 2020. (Hannah Cox is the National Manager of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. )
GIST: "Rarely are the nation's eyes more fixed on the country's justice system and its disturbing flaws than they are right now.
We're seeing how easily innocent life is snuffed out at the hands of the government, how quickly our constitutional rights are disregarded and how little concern many have for the sanctity of human life and individual liberty.
Just as police continue to display brazen acts of brutality at protests condemning these very actions, states also continue to act with impunity in the face of growing criticism.
While much of the country is focused on saving lives in the midst of a global pandemic, a small number of states are continuing to carry out executions. Missouri recently executed a man with significant innocence claims; Oklahoma intends to kill Julius Jones, whose problematic case was detailed in the documentary "The Last Defense"; and Texas has scheduled an execution for a man named Ruben Gutierrez.
Gutierrez's case is as abysmal as many of the others we've recently witnessed in Texas. It involves a coerced confession, something for which law enforcement has become notorious. In fact, the Innocence Project estimates that 25% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA evidence also involved a false confession.
Upon initial investigations, police threatened Gutierrez with his wife and his children and elicited just such a statement. Gutierrez quickly recanted and has maintained his innocence for over two decades, most of it spent in solitary confinement. The only other evidence in the case was the testimony of a dubious witness.
It's shocking how little proof there needs to be in order to sentence a man to die. There is no physical or forensic evidence tying Gutierrez to the case. But significantly, there is DNA evidence that could exonerate him — DNA evidence the state is refusing to test.
If this sounds outlandish to you, it should. But unfortunately it's all too common. The problems with DNA evidence in our system run deep and wide. To begin with, this type of evidence is available in only 10% or fewer of cases. But many jurors and other actors in the justice system expect to see forensics in the courtroom and place way too much faith in the science's reliability — leading to what many have dubbed the "CSI effect."
The data behind forensics is not nearly as foolproof as many would like to believe. Many practices used to convict people — such as microscopic hair analysis, bullet ballistics testing, bitemark evidence and blood spatter analysis — have been debunked as junk science. Though they're no longer allowed in courtrooms as evidence, the cases in which they were used to sentence have not been retried.
And the misapplication of DNA evidence has been responsible in 45% of the thousands of wrongful convictions discovered thus far. Whether that misapplication be the result of contamination in the lab, faulty testing practices, labs that are overeager to produce results for the prosecution, or flat-out lies by scientists who've provided testimony on the government's behalf, all of it should make Americans wary of trusting this system with matters of life and death.
All of that said, DNA evidence can be a powerful tool, especially when used to check the state's results — which with one person exonerated from death row for every nine executions, we know to be faulty. But getting states to allow for DNA to be tested post-conviction is nearly impossible.
Too many Americans are under the impression that our lengthy appellate process is rigorously checking for errors, potential innocence or new information. In reality, this process could best be described as the state jumping through a number of hoops to uphold its own case. At best, the appellate process is ensuring that the defendant had adequate legal counsel, was mentally fit for trial and that prosecutorial misconduct was not committed. The bar for all of these is so embarrassingly low that the appellate process really ends up operating as a bit of justice system theater. It may look like we're dotting the i's and crossing the t's, but really we're just checking the boxes.
If Texas moves forward with the execution of Ruben Gutierrez, it certainly won't be the first person the Lone Star State has killed with potential innocence issues. Just last year, the state similarly killed Larry Swearingen. Officials only backed off the execution of another man with valid innocence claims, Rodney Reed, thanks to tremendous public outcry.
Don't look away from what they do next. Most of these operations have been allowed to function in the darkness for decades. If they execute a potentially innocent man while the spotlight on justice glares full force, just imagine what they'll do when it fades."
The entire commentary can be read at:
https://www.newsmax.com/hannahcox/capital-punishment-Texas/2020/06/15/id/972175/
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;
------------------------------------------------------------------
