Saturday, October 31, 2020

The 'CSI effect': Scientific evidence under social media attack. A sign of the times? HL. (Fascinating analysis by Attorney Randy Maniloff in ABA Journal): Prosecutors lose excuse for losing case as former judge takes empirical approach to the 'CSI effect' - and concludes it's a 'myth.'.."(Former Michigan Judge Donald) Shelton is referring to the idea that juries in criminal trials have a high expectation that prosecutors will present scientific evidence to prove their cases and that defendants are sometimes wrongfully acquitted because of a lack of it. So, the theory goes, the jurors came to court expecting to see such evidence, on account of watching CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and other law-related television programs."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Shelton acknowledges that television crime dramas and documentaries play a role in the tech effect and can influence jurors. However, he says that they are “simply one of the many inputs that jurors experience from the variety of information that is presented to them” True to the tech effect’s ever-evolving nature, Shelton says that “the biggest change, the biggest challenge, of jurors and technology and their perception of science comes from social media.” The problem here is that “facts gets filtered through political and social lenses,” he says. Even scientific facts are “simply denied” and “social media treats facts as disposal.” This, Shelton says, has led to a “growing skepticism of scientific testimony that we didn’t have before.” This sounds contradictory, I tell Shelton. It is. “Knowledge of technology and availability of information is a two-edge sword,” he says. “On one hand, jurors know that there is a lot of science out there that is available and relevant and probably very useful in deciding whether a person committed a crime or not. By the same token, the social media influence tends to say, ‘Well, we can’t even believe the scientific evidence anymore.’”


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


COMMENTARY:  ‘CSI effect remains a myth’   retired judge says on 20th anniversary of popular forensic science show,”  by lawyer Randy Maniloff, published by The ABA Journal on October 6, 2020. (Randy Maniloff is an attorney at White and Williams in Philadelphia and an adjunct professor at the Temple University Beasley School of Law. He runs the website CoverageOpinions.info.)


GIST: "The “CSI effect” is a myth, Donald Shelton tells me. “Like the unicorn and the mermaid,” the former Michigan judge adds. Just in case I didn’t get his point.


Shelton is referring to the idea that juries in criminal trials have a high expectation that prosecutors will present scientific evidence to prove their cases and that defendants are sometimes wrongfully acquitted because of a lack of it.


 So, the theory goes, the jurors came to court expecting to see such evidence, on account of watching CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and other law-related television programs.


The CSI effect is sometimes put forth by prosecutors as a reason why they lost a case. But Shelton, who presided over felony trials in Washtenaw County for 24 years, wanted more than just tales from grumbling prosecutors before accepting that a television show could really be to blame.


“I have a scientific bent that says, ‘We are not going to draw conclusions from anecdotes,’” Shelton, 76, told me last week during a phone interview from his “COVID workplace” in his home in Saline—the 10,000-resident town in southeastern Michigan where he served as mayor for eight years.


Shelton’s penchant for proof, coupled with an interest in statistics and forensics—he believes he is the first judge in Michigan to handle a case involving DNA evidence—led him to conduct surveys to determine if the CSI effect was real or just an excuse—“mainly from losers.”


The first episode of CSI aired 20 years ago today. The drama, which ran for 15 seasons on CBS, follows crime-scene investigators with the Las Vegas Police Department who use science and physical evidence to solve murders. The television program, named most-watched TV show in the world several times, spawned a genre of crime shows with a focus on forensics.


Shelton, who retired from the bench in 2014 and is now an associate professor of sociology and director of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Program at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, shared his views on the role that the wildly popular program, and others of its ilk, has had on the criminal justice system.

Shelton’s studies—conducted in 2006 and 2008-2009 along with two professors of criminology at Eastern Michigan University—revealed that jurors do have a high expectation that they will be presented with scientific evidence, and sometimes demand it as a condition of guilt. But a television show was not the cause.


Shelton’s belief in the nonexistence of the CSI effect remains unchanged since his earlier studies. But he is quick to make clear that the perception of a CSI effect, plus ever-evolving technology and social media, are altering the manner in which juries hear and decide cases.


In 2006, in the first empirical study of its kind, Shelton and his colleagues surveyed 1,027 randomly summoned jurors to Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), Michigan, and asked them about their television watching habits, what types of evidence they expected to see presented by the prosecutor in various types of criminal cases and whether they would demand scientific evidence before finding a defendant guilty. Prospective jurors were assured the surveys were anonymous and unrelated to their potential selection as a juror.


The results revealed that 46.3% of jurors expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in every criminal case. In particular, 21.9% of jurors anticipate DNA evidence and 36.4% expect fingerprint evidence. Expectations and demands for scientific evidence were also determined for specific crimes, taking into account whether other evidence was available, such as victim or eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence.


On the all-important question, Shelton and his team concluded that there was no significant difference, in the demand for scientific evidence as a condition of guilt between watchers of CSI and related shows and nonwatchers.


In 2008-2009, Shelton’s team, wanting to focus on an urban setting, conducted a similar study using 1,219 individuals summoned to jury duty in Wayne County, Michigan, which includes Detroit. Here, the absence of a CSI effect was even more pronounced.


In the Washtenaw County study, in only four of 13 crime scenarios was there a significant difference between CSI watchers and nonwatchers in their demand for scientific evidence before finding a defendant guilty. In Wayne County, for the same scenarios, there was no significant difference.


Law review and journal articles abound, from Shelton and his colleagues, dissecting their studies and providing all manner of statistics that disprove a CSI effect.


But even if the CSI effect is a myth, it can still loom large in courtrooms. “One of the things that influences jurors,” the former jurist tells me, “is that prosecutors, and in some cases judges, act like there is a CSI effect when they question jurors and sometimes in instructions or arguments.” Shelton explains that “talking in terms of the CSI effect is an influence on jurors. If they didn’t think about it before, they did after they went through the trial process.”


The CSI effect made its way into Emmanuel Robinson’s trial in Montgomery County, Maryland. A jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary. In 2014, the state’s highest court reversed his conviction on account of a flawed jury instruction. Robinson’s attorney had stated, during his opening argument, that there was no evidence that his client’s fingerprints or DNA were found on any paper, tape, weather stripping or screwdriver. The judge instructed the jurors that “there is no legal requirement that the state utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case.”


The court of appeals held that this charge, sometimes referred to as an “anti-CSI effect” instruction, was not warranted. On account of the inconclusive state of research whether a CSI effect exists—citing, among the sources, Shelton’s work—the court concluded that such an instruction is only necessary to correct an “overreaching by the defense.” This the defendant’s lawyer had not done. He merely pointed out what procedures may have been available to investigators and did not insinuate that the state had any obligation to perform such testing.

Instead of the CSI effect, which Shelton says was “just too simple” to blame for wrongful acquittals, he points to what he calls the “tech effect” as the reason for jurors’ high expectations—and in some cases demands—for being presented with scientific evidence.


They are being influenced, Shelton posits, by “rapid advances in science,” as well as “the information revolution” and exposure to “DNA and its ability to both convict and exonerate.”


 Support for a tech effect was found in the Wayne County study, which revealed that participants who used more tech gadgets had a higher expectation that the prosecutor would present scientific evidence. This was not tested in the Washtenaw County study.


By its nature, the impact of the tech effect on jurors expands with advances in technology. “It is much greater than it was back when we first studied it because of the difference in technology and information,” Shelton says. “Now jurors have more information on their phones than they ever learned in school.”


Shelton acknowledges that television crime dramas and documentaries play a role in the tech effect and can influence jurors. However, he says that they are “simply one of the many inputs that jurors experience from the variety of information that is presented to them”


True to the tech effect’s ever-evolving nature, Shelton says that “the biggest change, the biggest challenge, of jurors and technology and their perception of science comes from social media.” The problem here is that “facts gets filtered through political and social lenses,” he says. Even scientific facts are “simply denied” and “social media treats facts as disposal.” This, Shelton says, has led to a “growing skepticism of scientific testimony that we didn’t have before.”


This sounds contradictory, I tell Shelton. It is. “Knowledge of technology and availability of information is a two-edge sword,” he says. “On one hand, jurors know that there is a lot of science out there that is available and relevant and probably very useful in deciding whether a person committed a crime or not. By the same token, the social media influence tends to say, ‘Well, we can’t even believe the scientific evidence anymore.’”


To be sure, Shelton is not critical of jurors’ increasing demands for scientific evidence. To the contrary, it goes hand-in-hand with the prosecutor’s burden of proof. “Where there is an available scientific test that would produce evidence of guilt or innocence,” Shelton says, “and the prosecution chooses not to perform that test and present its results to the jury, it may not be unreasonable for the jury to doubt the strength of the government’s case.”


Indeed, Shelton goes further, calling it is both appropriate and constitutionally expected that jurors and their verdicts “will reflect the changes that have occurred in popular culture.”


I suspect that some prosecutors, feeling victimized by the CSI effect, do not take kindly to hearing it compared to the stuff of children’s stories. They don’t, Shelton tells me, and they often shrug off his conclusions as academic mumbo-jumbo. 


“Maybe your figures don’t show that,” Shelton says that prosecutors tell him. And then they add, in a tone of absolute certainty: “But I know it happens. I know what jurors do.""


The entire commentary can be read at:

https://www.abajournal.com/columns/article/csi-effect-remains-a-myth-says-retired-judge-on-20th-anniversary-of-popular-forensic-science-show?utm_source=salesforce_300374&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tech_monthly&utm_medium=email&utm_source=salesforce_300374&sc_sid=03008628&utm_campaign=&promo=&utm_content=&additional4=&additional5=&sfmc_j=300374&sfmc_s=52704587&sfmc_l=1528&sfmc_jb=454&sfmc_mid=100027443&sfmc_u=8946511

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;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
----------------------------------------------------------

Friday, October 30, 2020

Rosa Jimenez. Texas: Innocence Project puts spotlight on her 38th birthday in prison - in this cruel, heartless, unfounded prosecution based on flawed medical testimony. HL...."Rosa Jimenez has spent her last 17 birthdays behind bars, wishing to go home. Last year, on her 37th birthday, a judge overturned her murder conviction and ordered that she either be given a new trial or released within four months. But today, Rosa is spending her 38th birthday still in prison as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton pursues an appeal of the judge’s decision."

RELEASE: INNOCENCE PROJECT: October 28, 2020.

GIST; Rosa Jimenez has spent her last 17 birthdays behind bars, wishing to go home. Last year, on her 37th birthday, a judge overturned her murder conviction and ordered that she either be given a new trial or released within four months.

But today, Rosa is spending her 38th birthday still in prison as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton pursues an appeal of the judge’s decision.

In honor of her birthday, please take a moment to send Rosa an encouraging birthday note and then share it with your friends and family to bring her justice.

In 2003, while Rosa was preparing lunch for her 1-year-old daughter and Bryan Gutierrez, a toddler she regularly babysat, the boy began choking on paper towels. She rushed to his aid, but when that didn’t work, she brought him to her neighbor for help. The child was taken to the hospital where he was resuscitated, but months later he died from complications.

Rosa was seven months pregnant with her second child when she was arrested and accused of abusing the toddler, whom she’d loved like her own. After he died, she was charged with murder.

She was convicted based on flawed medical testimony and since her conviction, pediatric airway experts from leading U.S. hospitals have concluded that it would have been “nearly impossible” for Rosa to have forced the child to swallow the paper towels and that no evidence suggests his death was anything other than an accident. Four judges have also said that she is likely innocent.

Even though there’s so much evidence to point to Rosa’s innocence, the State of Texas is still fighting to keep her in prison.

Despite this injustice she’s experienced, Rosa said she still has hope that this will be her last birthday behind bars.

So if you can, take a moment today to tell Rosa you’re fighting for her on her birthday.

Send a birthday note
The entire release can be read at: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwKjBSNcKtXssBrTKdxTgdCMRpm

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;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
----------------------------------------------------------


Thursday, October 29, 2020

Frances Choi: Massachusetts: Arson 'science'. Well, the 'science' may have been right in this case - but there was still an issue as to who caused the fire - and there was another factor in play - a very ugly factor)...The ABA (American Bar Association) Journal story by reporter Debra Cassens Weiss is After Judge cites prosecutor's racist emails, DA declines to retry Asian American woman for murder."


QUOTE ONE OF THE DAY: "In a decision in mid-September, Judge Linda Giles vacated Choy’s 2011 convictions for arson and murder, partly citing evidence that her accuser had admitted that he was the actual perpetrator and that Choy’s trial lawyer had been ineffective. Giles also said newly discovered emails showed racial animus against Choy and her family."

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

QUOTE TWO OF THE DAY: "An appellate lawyer for Choy, John Barter, spoke with WBUR. “This may be the first case in the U.S. where a murder conviction has been thrown out because of racism on the part of prosecutors,” Barter said.

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

"STORY: After Judge cites prosecutor's racist emails, DA declines to retry Asian American woman for murder," by Senior Writer Debra Cassens Weiss,  published by The ABA Journal on October 5, 2020.

GIST: "Prosecutors said last week they won’t retry a woman convicted of setting a deadly fire after a judge vacated her conviction partly because of racist emails by prosecutors.

Prosecutors dropped charges against Frances Choy, an Asian American woman who was only 17 years old when she was accused of setting a fire to her Brockton, Massachusetts, home in 2003, killing her parents.

The New York Times and WBUR have coverage.

In a decision in mid-September, Judge Linda Giles vacated Choy’s 2011 convictions for arson and murder, partly citing evidence that her accuser had admitted that he was the actual perpetrator and that Choy’s trial lawyer had been ineffective. Giles also said newly discovered emails showed racial animus against Choy and her family.

The Plymouth County prosecutors “exchanged numerous images of Asian people, some accompanied by pejorative comments and some unexplained,” Giles wrote. “They exchanged ‘jokes’ about Asian stereotypes and mocking caricatures of Asians using imperfect English.”

Giles said had she been aware of the “racially and sexually degrading emails” at the time of the trial, she would have removed the prosecutors from the case and declared a mistrial.

Choy was imprisoned for 17 years. Her first two trials had ended with hung juries.

Two prosecutors wrote the emails. One now works in a different district attorney’s office. The other sued over being fired.

An appellate lawyer for Choy, John Barter, spoke with WBUR.

“This may be the first case in the U.S. where a murder conviction has been thrown out because of racism on the part of prosecutors,” Barter said."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/after-judge-cites-prosecutors-racist-emails-da-declines-to-retry-asian-american-woman-for-murder?utm_source=salesforce_300374&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tech_monthly&utm_medium=email&utm_source=salesforce_300374&sc_sid=03008628&utm_campaign=&promo=&utm_content=&additional4=&additional5=&sfmc_j=300374&sfmc_s=52704587&sfmc_l=1528&sfmc_jb=454&sfmc_mid=100027443&sfmc_u=8946529

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;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
----------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Anthony Ray Hinton: Alabama. Flawed Ballistics. Free after 30 years on death row, this wrongfully convicted man still believes there is such a thing as 'justice' - and justice requires voting - against Donald Trump - by Reporter Sebastien Duval, published by 'Barons' on October 25, 2020. Produced by Agence France-Presse..."Anthony Ray Hinton, an innocent man, spent 30 years on death row in Alabama because, he says, he was "black and poor." His name finally cleared, he now campaigns for justice -- which he says can only be achieved by beating Donald Trump at the ballot box."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Arrested in July 1985, Hinton was sentenced to death the following year, at the age of 29, for allegedly murdering two employees of fast-food restaurants, killed in separate armed hold-ups in Birmingham, the largest city in the southern state of Alabama. His court-appointed lawyer, Hinton later told talk-show host Oprah Winfrey, had rejected his protestations of innocence, telling him "All of y'all (Blacks) is always doing something, and then saying you didn't do it. There was no fingerprint evidence against Hinton and the testimony of a ballistics expert hired by his attorney was torn apart when it emerged the man was half-blind. Nor did an alibi from Hinton's employer help. He was convicted largely because bullets recovered at the scene appeared to come from a gun owned by Hinton's mother, with whom he lived. "The state of Alabama, in one word, kidnapped me," he said firmly, speaking in his deep, sonorous voice. "Because we have a system that, if you are born Black and poor in America, the system can pretty much do with you as it pleases." 

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  In a book review series on this Blog,  I ran the following 'headnote.' "The Sun Does Shine by Anthony Ray Hinton with Lara Love Hardin" – a case involving ballistics - reviewed by Tim Adams..." When (civil rights icon Bryan)  Stevenson took up the case in 1999, he engaged independent firearms experts who unanimously agreed that Hinton’s mother’s gun was not that used in the murders. It took another 16 years of contested litigation, however, for Hinton’s case to be reheard by the Alabama courts, and for his acquittal. During his time in jail, Hinton watched 54 men walk past his door on their way to be executed." Putting the ballistics issues aside for a moment,  it's fair to say that few people could have a better understanding of what 'justice'  means  than an  innocent  man, like Anthony Ray Hinton, who has spent 30 years of his life locked up on death row.  It is  fascinating to note, from this excellent story in 'Barron's', produced for 'Agence France-Presse'  by Sebastien Duval, that he still believes in justice, and that justice requires 'voting' - against Donald Trump.

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

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

STORY: "Wrongly Jailed For 30 Years, Black Alabaman Says Justice Requires Voting,"  by Reporter Sebastien Duval,  produced for Agence France-Presse, published by 'Barrons' on October 25, 2020.

GIST: "Anthony Ray Hinton, an innocent man, spent 30 years on death row in Alabama because, he says, he was "black and poor." His name finally cleared, he now campaigns for justice -- which he says can only be achieved by beating Donald Trump at the ballot box.


The 64-year-old African-American, his hair and beard graying, has mixed memories of the fateful day of April 3, 2015.


After three decades behind bars -- and under constant threat of execution -- he regained his freedom on that day to start the second phase of his life.

"It was like I was walking on clouds" as he fell into the arms of welcoming relatives, he recalled.


But his sense of joy was tempered. "It was good that I was finally free. It was bad that my mother was no longer here on this Earth to see her baby boy walk out of prison."

That day -- which he had dreamed of so often before waking up, innocent, in a claustrophobic "five by seven" foot cell -- finally ended his judicial nightmare.


Arrested in July 1985, Hinton was sentenced to death the following year, at the age of 29, for allegedly murdering two employees of fast-food restaurants, killed in separate armed hold-ups in Birmingham, the largest city in the southern state of Alabama.


His court-appointed lawyer, Hinton later told talk-show host Oprah Winfrey, had rejected his protestations of innocence, telling him "All of y'all (Blacks) is always doing something, and then saying you didn't do it."


There was no fingerprint evidence against Hinton and the testimony of a ballistics expert hired by his attorney was torn apart when it emerged the man was half-blind. Nor did an alibi from Hinton's employer help.


He was convicted largely because bullets recovered at the scene appeared to come from a gun owned by Hinton's mother, with whom he lived.


"The state of Alabama, in one word, kidnapped me," he said firmly, speaking in his deep, sonorous voice. "Because we have a system that, if you are born Black and poor in America, the system can pretty much do with you as it pleases."



Slavery and segregation:


It was not until 1999, when lawyer Bryan Stevenson -- founder of the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) -- took up Hinton's case that the truth began to emerge. Very, very slowly.



Hinton was to spend another 16 years on death row, saved only by a new ballistics test, an intervention by the US Supreme Court and a second trial.

For years in prison he obsessed over the thought of gaining revenge for his wrongful conviction.


"I would wake up and all I could think about was revenge," he said. But he came to realize that "that's not who I am."


"I can't enjoy even being alive when you've got this much hate for someone," Hinton said, speaking from the EJI offices in a historic building in the city of Montgomery where slaves were once warehoused, after arriving by boat, before being sold.


So "I sat back and I asked the God that I believe in to remove that hatred from me."

Other ghosts of segregation haunt this central Alabama city, a cradle of the equal-rights struggle. It was there, in a celebrated act of civil disobedience, that a quiet but determined Black woman named Rosa Parks refused in 1955 to give up her bus seat to a white passenger.


That simple act catalyzed a historic protest movement that had its echoes this year after the death in Minnesota -- under the knee of a white police officer -- of African-American George Floyd.


But for Hinton, taking to the streets is not enough.


"The best protest, to me, is when you go to that ballot box, November 3," he said. "And when you protest by voting, that's when you send a loud and clear message: We're not going to stand for it anymore."


President Trump, he adds, "had all the opportunity to denounce racism, he had all the opportunity to try and bring the citizens together. If anything, I think he has divided.

"If America is to survive, we only can survive if we get him out of office, November 3."


The entire story can be read at:

https://www.barrons.com/news/wrongly-jailed-for-30-years-black-alabaman-says-justice-requires-voting-01603683605

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONS ENTRY (BY MAURICE POSSLEY);  "The trial court authorized Hinton’s attorney to spend $1,000 to retain a ballistics expert. The attorney could not get a qualified expert for only $1,000, so instead of requesting more money, the lawyer hired a retired civil engineer whose experience was confined to working with heavy artillery in World War II. The expert had no training or experience in firearms identification, he did not know how to use a microscope to examine bullets, he did not test-fire the gun and he admitted during cross-examination that he was visually impaired—he only had one eye. He testified that the results of his examination were inconclusive."
------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Registry of Exonerations entry by Maurice Possley can be read at the link below:
"On February 23, 1985, 49-year-old John Davidson, the assistant manager of Mrs. Winner’s fried chicken restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, was fatally shot in an after-hours robbery. About $2,100 was missing from the safe.

Davidson was still alive when an exterminator came to the restaurant and found him in the restaurant cooler with two gun shot wounds in the head. Davidson died on February 25 following surgery. The two bullets were removed and turned over to police.

On July 2, 1985, 39-year-old Thomas Wayne Vason, the night manager at Captain D’s restaurant in Bessemer, Alabama, was found dead in the restaurant’s cooler. He had been shot twice in the head and $650 was missing from the safe. Two bullets were removed from Vason’s body.

Police investigators said that based on their examination, the bullets in both crimes were fired from the same gun. There were no fingerprints or other items of physical evidence. Police believed that both men were confronted in the parking lots of the restaurants after closing up for the night and that both were ordered back inside and forced to open the safes. Because both men were found shot in the restaurant coolers, the media branded the perpetrator the “Cooler Killer.”

On July 25, 1985, 55-year-old Sidney Smotherman, the night manager of Quincy’s Family Steak House in Bessemer, closed the restaurant and on his way home stopped at a grocery store shortly after midnight. Another restaurant employee, who coincidentally stopped at the same store, later said that a black man appeared to be watching Smotherman while shielding his face.

Smotherman left the store after making a purchase and while driving home, his car was bumped from behind by another car. When he got out, the driver of the other car emerged with a gun. The gunman forced Smotherman to drive the gunman’s car to Quincy’s and go inside and empty the safe. The gunman ordered him to go to the restaurant’s freezer. Smotherman, who was aware of news accounts of the two other restaurant robbery/murders, said he told the gunman he wanted to be in the cooler because it was not as cold. Smotherman knew that he could lock the cooler from the inside. The gunman agreed and when Smotherman walked into the cooler and turned to pull the door shut, the gunman fired two shots. One struck Smotherman in the head, but did not pierce his skull. Instead, the bullet traveled under his skin and exited down his neck and wound up in his shirt pocket. The other bullet took off the end of a finger of his hand that he had raised to try to protect himself and ricocheted into the cooler. As he fell down, Smotherman kicked the door shut and it locked automatically.

Smotherman waited about 10 minutes and then emerged and called police. Police compared the two bullets from this shooting and said their examination showed that all six bullets in the three crimes were fired by the same gun.

An artist for the Bessemer newspaper worked with police and Smotherman to create a composite sketch. Reginald White, an employee of Quincy’s, told police he recognized the sketch as 29-year-old Anthony Hinton, a man he knew from a second job he had in nearby Hoover, Alabama. White said that about two weeks prior, Hinton approached him and asked him if he was still working at Quincy’s. When he said he was, Hinton asked if “Mr. Don” was the manager. White said that he told Hinton that there was a new manager who had just bought a new Fiero automobile. White said Hinton also asked what time the restaurant closed.

The police prepared a photographic lineup for Smotherman, who selected Hinton as the man who robbed and shot him.

On July 31, 1985, police went to Hinton’s home where he lived with his mother. They found an old, very-worn .38-caliber revolver under his mother’s mattress, but failed to find any evidence linking him to the crimes. He was arrested that day and charged with the robbery of Smotherman.

The gun was turned over to the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences. Examiners test-fired the gun and said that all six bullets from the three crimes were fired by the gun. The police then charged Hinton with capital murder in the deaths of Davison and Vason.

Hinton went to trial in Jefferson County Circuit Court in September 1986 on the capital murder charges. He never went to trial on the robbery and shooting of Smotherman.

Smotherman identified Hinton as the gunman who robbed and shot him. Smotherman’s co-worker identified Hinton as the man he saw following Smotherman in the grocery store. White testified about his conversation with Hinton prior to the robbery and shooting of Smotherman.

The state firearms experts testified that the bullets from all three crimes had been fired from the gun found under Hinton’s mother’s mattress.

The trial court authorized Hinton’s attorney to spend $1,000 to retain a ballistics expert. The attorney could not get a qualified expert for only $1,000, so instead of requesting more money, the lawyer hired a retired civil engineer whose experience was confined to working with heavy artillery in World War II. The expert had no training or experience in firearms identification, he did not know how to use a microscope to examine bullets, he did not test-fire the gun and he admitted during cross-examination that he was visually impaired—he only had one eye. He testified that the results of his examination were inconclusive.

Hinton testified in his own defense and said he was working at a warehouse where employees were locked inside from midnight until 6 a.m. on the night of the robbery and shooting of Smotherman at Quincy’s. He denied involvement in all three crimes. He said he was driving a small red Nissan at the time of the Quincy’s robbery and owned a small yellow Volkswagen—neither of which fit the description of the larger automobile that Smotherman said his attacker was driving.

On September 17, 1986, the jury deliberated for an hour before convicting Hinton of both murders. In December 1986, the jury voted 10-2 to sentence Hinton to death. Hinton had taken a polygraph examination and although the examiner said Hinton showed no deception when he denied involvement in the crimes, the trial judge declined to allow the jury to hear the polygraph results.

His convictions and death sentence were upheld on appeal to the Alabama Court of Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court. In 1998, Equal Justice Initiative, a non-profit organization in Alabama that provides legal assistance to indigent defendants and prisoners, began representing Hinton.

In 2002, EJI commissioned a re-examination of the bullets and gun by three different experts. One was a forensic consultant named John Dillon, who had worked on ballistics identification at the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s forensics laboratory and, from 1988 until he retired in 1994, had been a chief in the identification unit at FBI headquarters in Quantico. The other two experts had worked for many years as firearms examiners at the Dallas County Crime Laboratory and had each testified as experts in several hundred cases. All three experts examined the physical evidence and testified that they could not conclude that any of the six bullets had been fired from the revolver.

The prosecution’s response was to ignore the findings and argue that the EJI experts essentially said the same thing that Hinton’s ballistic examiner said at trial—that the results were inconclusive.

In February 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated Hinton’s conviction and death sentence and ordered a new trial. The Court ruled that Hinton’s trial lawyer had provided a constitutionally inadequate legal defense by failing to seek more money to obtain a qualified ballistics expert.

The Court also held that the trial judge had been mistaken when he said the defense was entitled to only $1,000 for an expert. The statute relating to such expenses, which at one time had a $1,000 cap, had been amended prior to Hinton’s trial to allow for “any expenses reasonably incurred” as long as the expenses were approved in advance by the trial judge.

Subsequently, in preparation for a retrial, the prosecution had new experts re-examine the bullets and gun. The prosecution experts also concluded that they could not link the bullets from the victims to the gun found in Hinton’s home.

On April 2, 2015, a judge granted the motion by the Jefferson County District Attorney to dismiss the charges and Hinton was released. Efforts to pass legislation in 2017 approving compensation for Hinton failed.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4669


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


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;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------
Tune into The Charles Smith Blog at:
http://www.smithforensic.blogspot.com
-------------------------------- 
Tune into 'The Selfless Warriors Blog," at:
selflesswarriors.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Calvin Hoover: Guy Paul Morin: Toronto police recently announced they had identified him as the killer of 9-year-old Christine Jessop in 1984 using genetic geneology: Now, the Toronto Star reports, in a story by Reporter Wendy Gillis, that "Innocence Canada on Monday called for an independent, “carefully targeted” review into how the Durham Regional Police Service and then, years later, the Toronto police “failed to long ago detect and investigate” the now-deceased Hoover as a viable suspect in the nine-year-old’s slaying, a killing that led to the high-profile wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Joanne McLean, one of Morin’s lawyers and a member of Innocence Canada, said the organization regularly gives police training on how to avoid wrongful convictions. It’s worthwhile to understand why Hoover was not on the radar earlier, she said.


“It was stunning to learn, 36 years after Christine Jessop was murdered, and 25 years after Guy Paul Morin’s exoneration based on DNA testing, that multiple police investigators on multiple police forces failed to follow up on the Jessop family friend whose existence was known to investigators,” McLean said."

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "As someone within the Jessop family’s social circle, Calvin Hoover should have been “identified early on as someone else deserving of close police scrutiny,” Innocence Canada said in a statement Monday. “The failure to home in on him and closely examine his alibi for the day of Christine’s abduction… has led to decades of indescribable agony for Mr. Morin and his family, and for the Jessop family.”

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

STORY: "How did police miss Calvin Hoover during lengthy Christine Jessop investigation? Group for the wrongly convicted calls for 'targeted' review," by reporter Wendy Gillis, published by The Toronto Star on October 27, 2020.

GIST: "In the wake of the sudden announcement that Christine Jessop’s 1984 murder has been solved, a Canadian organization that advocates for the wrongly convicted is calling for further review of police handling of the case — and how presumed killer Calvin Hoover evaded scrutiny for over three decades.


Innocence Canada on Monday called for an independent, “carefully targeted” review into how the Durham Regional Police Service and then, years later, the Toronto police “failed to long ago detect and investigate” the now-deceased Hoover as a viable suspect in the nine-year-old’s slaying, a killing that led to the high-profile wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin.


Hoover, who died by suicide in 2015, was a family acquaintance of the Jessops, his now ex-wife once a good friend of Jessop’s mother, Janet. Earlier this month, Toronto Police Service (TPS) announced Hoover as Jessop’s presumed killer after linking his DNA to a semen stain left on Jessop’s underwear using the new investigative technique of genetic genealogy.


Toronto police confirmed Hoover was never before considered a suspect, but he was in the investigative file as someone who had access to Jessop.


After releasing Hoover’s photograph and receiving dozens of tips from the public, police have launched a tip line about Hoover’s actions around the time of Jessop’s death up until his 2015 suicide. Police are examining the possibility he may be linked to other unsolved crimes.


As someone within the Jessop family’s social circle, Calvin Hoover should have been “identified early on as someone else deserving of close police scrutiny,” Innocence Canada said in a statement Monday.


“The failure to home in on him and closely examine his alibi for the day of Christine’s abduction… has led to decades of indescribable agony for Mr. Morin and his family, and for the Jessop family.”


Jessop disappeared from the Queensville, Ont., family home on Oct. 3, 1984, her body found three months later in a field in Durham region. Morin, who was the Jessop family neighbour, quickly became a suspect and was charged and convicted of murder by Durham police investigators before being exonerated by DNA evidence in 1995.


That same year, Toronto police took over the investigation, launching a task force to re-investigate the killing that saw detectives interview 300 people and obtain DNA samples from scores of men to compare against a semen stain left on Jessop’s underwear. The task force disbanded in 1998.


Morin’s wrongful conviction launched a public inquiry that resulted in a scathing 1998 report by commissioner and former Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Fred Kaufman, which concluded Morin was failed in part by police and prosecutor tunnel vision, which saw officials fixated on Morin at the expense of probing other suspects.


Now that police have identified Hoover, “invaluable lessons can and must be extracted from this 36-year debacle to provide guidance to future investigations,” Innocence Canada’s statement said, stressing the importance of “rigorously adhering to elementary, methodical investigative steps.”


Dave Selby, a spokesperson for Durham police, said last week that he was not aware of plans to review officers’ handling of the case in light of Hoover’s identification as the likely killer, saying the “people who were involved with the original investigation are either deceased or retired.”


Asked about Innocence Canada’s calls for further review Monday, Selby said Durham police “would participate, of course. As you know, TPS is the lead agency on the file now.”


Asked at a press conference whether Hoover could have been caught earlier, interim Toronto police chief James Ramer confirmed Hoover was “not a suspect at the time.”

“But anything else would be pure speculation on my part and I’m not prepared to comment on it,” Ramer said.


Meaghan Gray, a spokesperson for the Toronto police, said Monday that “we understand the position put forth by Innocence Canada.”


“Should an independent third-party review of the original TPS investigation be ordered, we will cooperate to the fullest extent the law allows. In the meantime, we will continue to actively investigate this case,” Gray said.


Innocence Canada said the funding and structure of any future review would be the responsibility of Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General. On Monday, after being asked about a possible review, a spokesperson for the ministry said it is “premature to consider a public inquiry” while Toronto police continues its investigation.


“Public inquiries are usually established when there is no other effective mechanism to examine an issue. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time,” a MAG spokesperson said.


Kirk Makin, co-president of Innocence Canada and a former Globe and Mail reporter who wrote “Redrum the Innocent,” a book on the Jessop case, stressed that a further review of how police failed to identify Hoover earlier “would in no way duplicate” the Kaufman review, but could be done through a cost-efficient review.


Innocence Canada said such a review has recently been launched in Nova Scotia, into the wrongful conviction of Glen Assoun, a Halifax man who spent nearly 17 years in jail for a 1995 murder before the conviction was overturned last year. Earlier this month, Nova Scotia’s police watchdog announced it has asked British Columbia’s Independent Investigative Office to review the actions of a joint RCMP-Halifax police unit in connection to the case.


Joanne McLean, one of Morin’s lawyers and a member of Innocence Canada, said the organization regularly gives police training on how to avoid wrongful convictions. It’s worthwhile to understand why Hoover was not on the radar earlier, she said.


“It was stunning to learn, 36 years after Christine Jessop was murdered, and 25 years after Guy Paul Morin’s exoneration based on DNA testing, that multiple police investigators on multiple police forces failed to follow up on the Jessop family friend whose existence was known to investigators,” McLean said.


Kenney Jessop, Christine’s brother, said in an interview earlier this month that Hoover may have been among a select few who knew Jessop would be alone at the family’s home on the day Christine disappeared.

With Star file


The entire story can be read at:


https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/10/26/how-did-police-miss-calvin-hoover-during-lengthy-christine-jessop-investigation-group-for-the-wrongly-convicted-calls-for-targeted-review.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;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD (FOR NOW!): "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;