PUBLISHER'S NOTE: (False eye-witness identifications): This Blog is interested in false 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 (or other forensic evidence pointing to the suspect - where the police have rigged the identification process in order to make an identification inevitable.
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: (From the transcript ordering a new trial.) "One of the appellants had brake repairs made and picked up his car the day of the Memorial Day weekend incident. The newly discovered eyewitness evidence from two officers also present at the scene conflicts with the testimony of the original officers and supports the testimony of appellants that they did not commit the crimes alleged. The evidence is material, exculpatory, useful for impeachment purposes, and constitutes a Brady violation. Appellants were prejudiced by the suppressed evidence and their due process rights were violated. Appellants are entitled to a new trial.”
STORY: "Cleveland men released on $50,000 after claiming to be wrongly imprisoned for 10 years," by Reporter Colin Cunningham, published by The Crooked River Chronicle on May 5, 2021.
GIST: A pair of Clevelanders who say they were wrongly imprisoned for over 10 years in connection to a crime they didn't commit were released on Monday and are currently awaiting a new trial.
Per FOX8, an Ohio court of appeals granted a new trial and a $50,000 bond for Michael Sutton and Kenny Phillips, a pair of men who were sent to prison in 2007 on accusations of attempted murder.
It stems from a 2006 incident in which they say they witnessed a shooting and another car speeding away.
Instead of chasing the gold car, the two claim the police pulled up behind their vehicle and arrested the two of them, who were both 17 at the time, according to 3News.
The court determined that neither of the men had attempted to murder anyone on Monday, after officers had testified during the 2006 trial that shots had been fired from the car Sutton and Phillips were found in at the time of their arrest. Sutton was sentenced to more than 40 years in prison and Phillips got 61 after a jury determined their fates.
But the two men maintained their innocence in future court appearances, and their case was eventually picked up by the Ohio Innocence Project and the Wrongful Conviction Process, who argued to the appeals court that there was a lack of physical evidence implicating Sutton and Phillips at the initial trial.
“This is the best Mother’s Day," Sutton's mother, Roberta, told the station. "I don’t want nothing but my son right there in my arms."
19 News reported that Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge John O'Donnell decided both men would be released on the same bond until their new trial, a date for which has yet to be set.
“Two Cleveland police officers, one current and one former have come forward and said the original testimony from other officers doesn’t make sense from what they saw,” OIP Attorney Donald Caster said in Nov. 2020, according to the station.
"It was clear to the court of appeals that Michael and Kenny were wrongfully convicted, and the court of appeals went so far as to call Michael and Kenny's trial 'a travesty of justice," he told 3News.
The entire story can be read at:
cleveland-men-released-on-50-000-bonds-after-claiming-to-be-wrongly-imprisoned-for-10-years
------------------------------------------------------------
19 News: Transcript (Link below): "Their fate was in the hands of the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals, a ruling to reexamine their case could end up with both men free.
This is the result of Thursday’s ruling:
“The trial court’s decision that appellants are not entitled to a new trial is in error. The state’s case was based solely on the alleged eyewitness testimony of two police officers that appellants shot the victims and shot at one of the officers. The broad police search discovered no evidence of weapons, shells, bullet holes, or other evidence that appellants possessed or fired guns. The sole physical evidence in the case was a minimal amount of possible GSR on the hand of one appellant that experts testified:
- may have been transferred from the police vehicle during transport,
- did not prove the individual shot a gun, or
- may possibly have been brake lining material or fireworks residue that have the same chemical composition.
One of the appellants had brake repairs made and picked up his car the day of the Memorial Day weekend incident. The newly discovered eyewitness evidence from two officers also present at the scene conflicts with the testimony of the original officers and supports the testimony of appellants that they did not commit the crimes alleged. The evidence is material, exculpatory, useful for impeachment purposes, and constitutes a Brady violation. Appellants were prejudiced by the suppressed evidence and their due process rights were violated. Appellants are entitled to a new trial.”
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;
