PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Judge Timothy Easter wrote the opinion published Thursday. In the filling, Easter wrote about Smith's alleged prior threats against the victims, a witness placing his car at the home the night of the murders, a life insurance policy taken out by Smith for the three victims and a recording of a 911 call during which one of the teens yelled "Frank, no." "Thus, the court concludes there is not a reasonable probability that the recently discovered DNA evidence would have prevented Petitioner's prosecution or conviction," Easter wrote. The stay of execution motion before the Tennessee Supreme Court remained pending Friday afternoon. "
----------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Criminal Appeals Court denies motion to reopen case against death row inmate Oscar Franklin Smith," by Breaking News Reporter Kirsten Fiscus, published by The Nashville Tennessean, on April 15, 2022.
GIST: "A motion to reopen the case against death row inmate Oscar Franklin Smith based on the discovery of unknown DNA on a murder weapon was denied by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
The court issued the ruling late Thursday, hours after Smith's federal public defender Amy Harwell filed a motion to the Tennessee Supreme Court seeking a stay of execution so the lower court could have time to consider the two motions before them.
"Petitioner has not presented new scientific evidence establishing that he is actually innocent of the murders of the victims," the filing from the appeals court says.
Smith's execution by lethal injection is scheduled for April 21.
He was convicted of the 1989 murders of his estranged wife, Judith Robirds Smith, and her two teenaged sons, 16-year-old Chad Burnett and 13-year-old Jason Burnett.
Robirds Smith was shot in the neck then stabbed several times. Her eldest son was shot in the left eye and then in the upper chest and left torso. His younger brother was stabbed in the neck and abdomen.
Police only found one of three murder weapons — an awl.
Harwell appealed to the Davidson County Criminal Court seeking to reopen the case after the Serological Research Institute, a private forensics lab in California, found unknown DNA on the handle the awl.
"After 32 years of adamantly asserting his innocence, Oscar Smith finally has proof that someone else murdered his family," Harwell wrote in a new release. "This new DNA evidence can and should be matched to the actual killer — who also left their fingerprints on the murder weapon — so that Mr. Smith may finally be exonerated.”
All three victims and Smith were excluded as contributors to this unknown DNA, Harwell wrote in her motion to the state Supreme Court.
When the Davidson County court denied the motion Monday, Harwell filed to the appeals court.
Judge Timothy Easter wrote the opinion published Thursday.
In the filling, Easter wrote about Smith's alleged prior threats against the victims, a witness placing his car at the home the night of the murders, a life insurance policy taken out by Smith for the three victims and a recording of a 911 call during which one of the teens yelled "Frank, no."
"Thus, the court concludes there is not a reasonable probability that the recently discovered DNA evidence would have prevented Petitioner's prosecution or conviction," Easter wrote.
The stay of execution motion before the Tennessee Supreme Court remained pending Friday afternoon. "
The entire story can be read at:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
READ PLEA BY 'TENNESSEANS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE DEATH PENALTY AT THE LINK BELOW:..."Please stop the execution of Oscar Smith."
https://actionnetwork.org/letters/please-stop-the-execution-of-oscar-smith/
"Mr. Smith is currently scheduled to be executed by the state of Tennessee on April 21, 2022. We are asking that Oscar be given an immediate reprieve to have his claims reviewed and that he be granted clemency on the grounds that his conviction was based, in part, on discredited junk science and at least two jurors have said they did not intend for Mr. Smith to be executed.
Governor Lee should grant clemency because the State’s fingerprint examiner’s testimony that secured Mr. Smith’s conviction is junk science and unsupportable.
● State attorneys called the identification of the bloody palm print found at the crime scene the “most important piece of evidence presented to the jury,” and at trial, the prosecution instructed the jury that it should convict Mr. Smith based solely on the testimony identifying Mr. Smith’s print. However, the State’s supposed expert’s conclusion that the print belonged to Mr. Smith has since been rebutted with scientifically reliable evidence.
● A renowned expert in fingerprint analysis, with decades of experience and impeccable credentials, reviewed the fingerprint analysis of the State’s expert. In a sworn declaration, she stated that the methodology of latent print examination has significantly changed in the last thirty years, making an identification based on a number of matching “points” as in Mr. Smith’s analysis, outdated and unreliable. She also stated that she was unable to find any record that the State’s comparison was ever verified by another qualified examiner, which, even in 1990, was a mandated procedure for a Certified Latent Print Examiner.
● On the day the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021 became law, Mr. Smith filed for post-conviction relief presenting the updated analysis refuting the State’s palm print evidence. The Court denied relief, summarily determining that the proof is not favorable to Mr. Smith. Such a conclusion is incredible; expert testimony that the sole proof identifying Oscar as the perpetrator was junk science clearly is “favorable.” The court also applied the wrong standard to Mr. Smith’s petition and considered whether his evidence would have changed his sentence under the wrong law. Mr. Smith’s appeal is currently moving through the courts, but there is no assurance of resolution before his execution date.
Governor Lee should grant clemency because Oscar Smith was denied a bedrock principle of our justice system—an informed and impartial jury.
● Mr. Smith’s unanimous death sentence was actually imposed by one set of jurors who did not believe Oscar should or would be executed, and another set of jurors who engaged in misconduct to ensure that he would be executed.
● Two jurors have stated that they did not intend for Mr. Smith to be executed but believed that he would be released if they did not vote for a death sentence. They also believed that, because Tennessee had not executed anyone since 1960, Mr. Smith would never be executed. Their belief that Mr. Smith would have been released if they had not imposed a death sentence stems from the unavailability of a sentence of life without parole at the time of his trial, which became an option for Tennessee juries only a few years after Mr. Smith’s sentencing, as well as the erroneous belief—discussed openly in the jury room—that a life sentence was only 13 years.
● According to at least two jurors, Mr. Smith would have received a life sentence had the trial court instructed the jury on when Oscar would have been eligible for parole. Under Tennessee’s criminal code at the time, he would have not been eligible for parole for at least 36 years per murder, less sentence credits, and the Court could have ordered the sentences to run consecutively—meaning he would not have been eligible for parole for 108 years, ensuring Mr. Smith would never be released from prison.
● Though Mr. Smith’s trial counsel requested a jury instruction clarifying when he would be parole eligible, the court denied the request.
● Capital punishment is only constitutional when jurors follow the law and that did not happen in Mr. Smith’s case. Two jurors held prior, stalwart beliefs in favor of the death penalty, making them unqualified to serve on a capital jury. They hid this bias so that they could participate in a capital trial. In their sworn declarations, these jurors admit that they failed to follow the law by disregarding the trial court’s instructions to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors when determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Smith while sticking to their pretrial belief that death was the appropriate sentence regardless of the proof.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
