Lydell Grant: Texas: (Part Two): Mistaken eyewitness identification: Great question asked by The Houston Chronicle: "DNA freed Lydell Grant. Why won’t Texas’ highest court let him go? "The 43-year-old Houstonian was released in November after spending eight years of a life sentence locked up for a murder he did not commit. His trial judge, George Powell, believes he’s innocent. Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg believes he’s innocent. Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo believes he’s innocent. Most importantly: science shows he’s innocent. DNA evidence excluded Grant as the suspect and identified the alleged killer who has since been arrested, has confessed and, according to basic laws of inference, believes Grant is innocent as well."

BACKGROUND: "As an experimental psychologist who conducts research on eyewitness identification, I’ve seen hundreds of examples of highly confident yet mistaken eyewitnesses – both in the laboratory and in actual court cases. My review of the transcripts from Grant’s trial suggests a simple explanation for these high-confidence mistakes: The police did not use scientific best practices for collecting the eyewitness identification evidence.  Scientific best practices for conducting eyewitness lineups require that the person administering the lineup not know who the police suspect. Just as double-blind clinical trials in medical studies are intended to prevent patients’ and doctors’ expectations from affecting outcomes of the clinical trial, double-blind lineups aim to prevent witnesses’ and administrators’ expectations from influencing the outcomes of the identification procedure.”

STORY: "How did six eyewitnesses identify the wrong man in a murder," by Laura  Smalarz, published by The  Daily Beast on July 11, 2020. (Laura Smalarz is an assistant professor of psychology, at Arizona State University.)

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=120008354894645705#editor/target=post;postID=2256892246058189787;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=5;src=postname

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

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "In an interview, Lydell put on a brave face, as seemed to be his nature, but his frustration and confusion were palpable. “I didn’t do it. What else can I say? What else can I do?” he said. “I don’t know what’s next. Do I wonder if I’m going back to prison?” He strained to understand how he can still be a suspect and why his DNA evidence isn’t the holy grail of innocence that it’s been in countless other cases.“They are taking witnesses’ statements over scientific evidence,” Grant said. “When did they start doing that?"

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

EDITORIAL: "DNA freed Lydell Grant. Why won't Texas' highest court let him go?,  published by The Houston Chronicle on July 4, 2020.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Lydell Grant, center, his mother Donna Poe, center-left, and brother Alonzo Poe, center-right, talk to reporters after Grant's release on bond on Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2019, in Houston. Earlier in the day, Grant was ordered released on bond after prosecutors and defense attorneys with the Innocence Project of Texas agreed that Grant should be released while the case is investigated further in light of new DNA evidence. Grant was convicted of capital murder in the 2010 stabbing death of Aaron Scheerhoorn outside of a Montrose bar, and he had spent seven years behind bars."

GIST: "The fastest-exonerated person in Texas history.

That was supposed to be Lydell Grant, according to a local TV report back in December, and according to just plain common sense.

The 43-year-old Houstonian was released in November after spending eight years of a life sentence locked up for a murder he did not commit.

His trial judge, George Powell, believes he’s innocent. Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg believes he’s innocent. Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo believes he’s innocent.

Most importantly: science shows he’s innocent.

DNA evidence excluded Grant as the suspect and identified the alleged killer who has since been arrested, has confessed and, according to basic laws of inference, believes Grant is innocent as well.

That’s why Grant can be forgiven if he got his hopes up last week, thinking that perhaps, finally, eight months after his release, the state’s highest criminal court would get around to clearing his name.

He can also be forgiven for breaking down crying in his car on Wednesday when the court inexplicably declined.

Instead of issuing the awaited exoneration order, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals directed the trial court to produce affidavits from witnesses regarding Grant’s claim of innocence. The court also sought photographs of the man who is now charged with the murder and tasked the trial court with concluding whether Grant is entitled to a new trial.

“Loss for words,” he told the editorial board moments after getting the news. “Don’t know what to say. It’s pitiful.”

We concur. It’s shameful treatment of a man who should have been freed from the cloud of suspicion many months ago and cleared to apply for $80,000 in state compensation for each year of his wrongful imprisonment.

Instead, he’s forced to languish in a legal purgatory while the black robes in Austin take their sweet time dotting I’s and crossing T’s. Grant remains a convicted murderer free on a $100,000 bond, required to do weekly checks with his bondsman, unable to land a job.

In an interview, Lydell put on a brave face, as seemed to be his nature, but his frustration and confusion were palpable.

“I didn’t do it. What else can I say? What else can I do?” he said. “I don’t know what’s next. Do I wonder if I’m going back to prison?”

He strained to understand how he can still be a suspect and why his DNA evidence isn’t the holy grail of innocence that it’s been in countless other cases.

“They are taking witnesses’ statements over scientific evidence,” Grant said. “When did they start doing that?”

Good question. The testimony of six eyewitnesses was key in Grant’s 2012 conviction in the death of Aaron Scheerhoorn, who was fatally stabbed outside a bar in Montrose in 2010. Mike Ware, head of the Innocence Project of Texas and Grant’s lawyer, said investigators used faulty identification measures that have since been changed by Texas law.

“Lydell should have been fully exonerated based on the DNA exclusion alone, just like hundreds of others,” Ware told the editorial board.

The court’s decision is particularly tone-deaf in the wake of mass protests calling for reforms to a justice system that unfairly targets Black men. While Black people make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they represent 47 percent of known exonerations, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. On average, Black murder exonerees spend three years longer in prison before release than their white counterparts.

In the seven months since he was released, Grant has found strength in his family and tried to get on with his life. He enrolled in online classes at American InterContinental University for a two-year degree in business, on his way to a career as an audio engineer.

The trial court has up to 90 days to respond to the appellate court’s order, after which it could be seven more months before Grant hears from them again. Even if it takes longer than that, Grant said he didn’t give up during all those years in prison. He is not going to lose hope now.

“God did not bring me this far to leave me,” he said.

We wish we had similar faith in the Texas court system. The CCA’s lack of urgency in clearing Grant’s name, and its apparent minimizing of conclusive DNA evidence only deepen our doubts. Such cases, especially those where the inmate is still imprisoned, should be prioritized and expedited.

The state of Texas stole eight years of Lydell Grant’s life. What’s more worthy of the court’s time than righting that grievous injustice? Surely, the fine judges of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have nothing better to do."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-DNA-freed-Lydell-Grant-Why-won-t-15384030.php

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;

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