PUBLISHER'S NOTE: PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This Blog is interested in eye-witness identification issues because wrongful identifications are at the heart of so many DNA-related exonerations in the USA and elsewhere - and because so much scientific research is being conducted with a goal to making the identification process more transparent and reliable- and less subject to deliberate manipulation. I have also reported far too many cases over the years - mainly cases lacking DNA evidence pointing to the suspect - where the police have rigged the identification process in order to make an identification inevitable. Sure sounds like obstruction of justice to me. PS: And what if the witness is simply lying, for whatever iniquitous purpose that might be?
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "On March 25, officials with the district attorney’s office heard from a counselor at a drug treatment facility in Terrebonne County, about an hour southwest of New Orleans. Gumpright was a patient at the facility, and he had recanted his testimony. Two attorneys with the district attorney’s office quickly drove to the facility and helped Gumpright swear out an affidavit. There was no robbery, Gumpright said. He had spent the money on drugs and been afraid to tell his father what happened. He said that when the police showed him the photo array, he picked Hudson at random. “For the last 20 years since this happened, I have been tortured by the lie I told,” Gumpright said. “I am sorry for all the pain and suffering I have caused Jermaine Hudson and his family.” The district attorney’s office found no evidence of contact between Gumpright and Hudson. In addition, Gumpright had no knowledge that prosecutors had already agreed to release Hudson on time served. On March 26, prosecutors dismissed the charge against Hudson. Emily Maw, chief of the district attorney’s civil rights division, said during a brief hearing that everything Gumpright said in his affidavit was “entirely consistent with the case.” She told the Times-Picayune that prosecutors in 1999 had interviewed an alibi witness for Hudson but disbelieved her. Hudson was released from prison later that day."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Hudson was released from prison later that day. He noted that he had turned down a plea deal of five years in prison, because he wasn’t going to admit to something he didn’t do. “I just thank God that it’s finally over,” he said. “Thank God for revealing the truth. I forgive the guy and pray that he gets his life back on track.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTRY: "Jermaine Hudson; Louisiana: Recent entry to National Registry of Exoneration. (April 13, 2021.) Author Ken Otterbourg:
Gumpright would later testify that he went home and woke his father, who then called the police. Gumpright gave a description to a police officer, saying that the person who robbed him was a black male, about 5 foot 8 inches, weighing 140 pounds, wearing a blue cap, a black short-sleeved shirt, and blue jeans. Police canvassed the area but made no arrests.
Two months later, on May 5, 1999, two detectives came to the Applebee’s and asked Gumpright to look at a six-pack photo array. One of the photos was of 20-year-old Jermaine Hudson, who had a previous armed robbery conviction. Gumpright looked at the photos and then told the officers that Hudson was the man who robbed him.
Hudson was indicted on June 29, 1999, and charged with armed robbery and possession of a weapon by a felon.
His trial began and ended on March 22, 2000. The state called only two witnesses, Gumpright and the officer who responded to the 911 call.
Gumpright testified that his bartending job required him to be good at remembering faces. He said he was nervous testifying because he was in the same room with the man who robbed him at gunpoint. He recounted the robbery, telling jurors how Hudson had ripped the St. Christopher’s medallion from a chain around his neck.
A prosecutor asked: “Are you a hundred percent certain that this man right here put a gun to your head and robbed you?
Gumpright responded: “A hundred and ten percent certain.”
Hudson’s attorney did not present any evidence. According to a court transcript, the attorney declined to put a potential witness on the stand, telling the court that he had reason to believe the witness would not tell the truth.
The jury, by a vote of 10-2, convicted Hudson on March 22 of armed robbery. At the time, Louisiana and Oregon were the only states that allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts. Prosecutors separately dismissed the weapons charge.
On April 12, 2000, a judge sentenced Hudson to 99 years in prison after prosecutors invoked his previous felony conviction as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
Hudson filed several appeals in state courts, but they were dismissed at the trial and appellate levels.
On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of non-unanimous verdicts. While Louisiana had already amended its constitution to bar such verdicts, that change only applied to crimes committed after 2018. The newer ruling opened a pathway to defendants such as Hudson.
On February 10, 2021, Jamila Johnson, the managing attorney for the Unanimous Jury Project at the Promise of Justice Initiative in New Orleans, filed a petition on Hudson’s behalf for post-conviction relief based on the Supreme Court’s ruling. While Hudson hadn’t raised the issue of a non-unanimous verdict in his appeals, Johnson said the issue was still preserved; until the Supreme Court’s ruling, she wrote, the claim was not “remotely available.”
By this time, Hudson had been in prison for more than 20 years. On February 26, 2021, Johnson reached an agreement with the Orleans Parish District Attorney. The state vacated his conviction, with the understanding that Hudson would plead guilty to armed robbery on March 24, 2021, and then be released on time served.
Because of scheduling issues, that plea date was moved back to early April. Then, something occurred that Johnson would later call “one of the miracles of the universe.”
On March 25, officials with the district attorney’s office heard from a counselor at a drug treatment facility in Terrebonne County, about an hour southwest of New Orleans. Gumpright was a patient at the facility, and he had recanted his testimony.
Two attorneys with the district attorney’s office quickly drove to the facility and helped Gumpright swear out an affidavit. There was no robbery, Gumpright said. He had spent the money on drugs and been afraid to tell his father what happened. He said that when the police showed him the photo array, he picked Hudson at random.
“For the last 20 years since this happened, I have been tortured by the lie I told,” Gumpright said. “I am sorry for all the pain and suffering I have caused Jermaine Hudson and his family.”
The district attorney’s office found no evidence of contact between Gumpright and Hudson. In addition, Gumpright had no knowledge that prosecutors had already agreed to release Hudson on time served.
On March 26, prosecutors dismissed the charge against Hudson. Emily Maw, chief of the district attorney’s civil rights division, said during a brief hearing that everything Gumpright said in his affidavit was “entirely consistent with the case.” She told the Times-Picayune that prosecutors in 1999 had interviewed an alibi witness for Hudson but disbelieved her.
Hudson was released from prison later that day. He noted that he had turned down a plea deal of five years in prison, because he wasn’t going to admit to something he didn’t do. “I just thank God that it’s finally over,” he said. “Thank God for revealing the truth. I forgive the guy and pray that he gets his life back on track.”
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5945
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: "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;
