Friday, September 30, 2022

Richard Glossip: Oklahoma; (False confession case/ missing or destroyed evidence/lack of physical proof/recantation)...Fox News (Reporter Audrey Conklin) reports on petition by Glossip's lawyers with support from 62 Oklahoma state representatives for a new evidentiary hearing in his murder case and say they have new evidence for the court of appeals to consider while they review the petition..."Glossip was sentenced to death in the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese. Prosecutors allege that Glossip killed Van Treese, the owner of a motel where Glossip worked as a manager, by convincing Sneed, then a 19-year-old maintenance worker, to execute his killing. Sneed is serving a life sentence after pleading guilty to beating Van Treese to death with a baseball bat in a room at the Oklahoma City motel. Sneed testified that he killed Van Treese, but only after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000 to commit the crime. Reed Smith's most recent report suggests that Sneed intended to recant at one point. Evidence from the law firm includes a handwritten note in which Sneed asks his attorney, "Do I have the choice of recanting at anytime during my life?" Glossip's attorneys argue that public defenders veered Sneed away from recanting and hid evidence that may have contributed to a different ruling for Glossip decades ago. "The truth is, in this case… it becomes ever more apparent with each passing day, that not only did the prosecution destroy evidence – they manufactured evidence," Knight said Thursday. "They changed people's testimony, they broke the rules, all to try and get a conviction against Rich Glossip on a death penalty case that should've never been brought at all." He continued: "Rich Glossip is a nobody. He's not some powerful person. He's just like all the rest of us. This is what the government can do when they're allowed to run amok. To do whatever they want in a case when the lawyers aren't good, when the lawyers hide evidence, when the government runs an incomplete investigation.”



STORY: "Oklahoma officials reveal new evidence  in murder case of death row inmate set to die last week," by Reporter Audrey Conklin, published by Fox News on September 26, 2022.


SUB-HEADING: Richard Glossip's execution date was pushed back for the fourth time in August;


GIST: "Richard Glossip was set to die last week in Oklahoma, but his execution was pushed back – for the fourth time – last month.


Glossip's lawyers have filed a clemency petition with support from 62 Oklahoma state representatives for a new evidentiary hearing in his murder case and say they have new evidence for the court of appeals to consider while they review the petition.


"If the state wants to dispute any of this, we'd welcome that. We'd welcome the hearing. We're not asking anyone to let Richard Glossip go. We're just saying, give us that chance. Give us that hearing," Don Knight, Glossip's attorney, said during a Sept. 22 press conference.


Glossip, 59, was convicted in the 1997 murder-for-hire of his boss, and has spent 25 years in prison but still maintains his innocence. His execution had been delayed three times previously, and his most recent death date, which had been scheduled for Thursday, was pushed back until January.


Knight is pointing to evidence uncovered in an independent investigation by the Reed Smith law firm released on Tuesday showing what Glossip's legal team says are prosecutors' alleged attempts to feed information to another man involved in the case, Justin Sneed, that ultimately kept him from becoming a primary suspect.


The petition states that Glossip "had no prior criminal record and has been a model prisoner for over 25 years while he has maintained his innocence," and that the death row inmate is currently facing his fourth execution date while Sneed, whom Glossip's attorneys allege is the "real killer… is serving a life sentence for the same crime."


Glossip was sentenced to death in the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese. Prosecutors allege that Glossip killed Van Treese, the owner of a motel where Glossip worked as a manager, by convincing Sneed, then a 19-year-old maintenance worker, to execute his killing.


Sneed is serving a life sentence after pleading guilty to beating Van Treese to death with a baseball bat in a room at the Oklahoma City motel. Sneed testified that he killed Van Treese, but only after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000 to commit the crime.


Reed Smith's most recent report suggests that Sneed intended to recant at one point. Evidence from the law firm includes a handwritten note in which Sneed asks his attorney, "Do I have the choice of recanting at anytime during my life?"


Glossip's attorneys argue that public defenders veered Sneed away from recanting and hid evidence that may have contributed to a different ruling for Glossip decades ago.


"The truth is, in this case… it becomes ever more apparent with each passing day, that not only did the prosecution destroy evidence – they manufactured evidence," Knight said Thursday. "They changed people's testimony, they broke the rules, all to try and get a conviction against Rich Glossip on a death penalty case that should've never been brought at all."


He continued: "Rich Glossip is a nobody. He's not some powerful person. He's just like all the rest of us. This is what the government can do when they're allowed to run amok. To do whatever they want in a case when the lawyers aren't good, when the lawyers hide evidence, when the government runs an incomplete investigation.”


Oklahoma State Rep. Justin Humphrey, R-Lane – one of the many lawmakers advocating for a new hearing – said Thursday that their efforts are "not about the DA's office."


"This is about process," the state representative said. "


The entire story can be read at:


https://www.foxnews.com/us/oklahoma-officials-reveal-new-evidence-murder-case-death-row-inmate-set-die


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


Read the excellent  September 23, 2022 analysis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct published by Intercept Reporters Liliana Segura and Jordan Smith, two of the finest observers of America's broken criminal justice system,  at the link below.  (This is a portion of a lengthy piece well  worth reading in its entirety. HL): 


GIST: "Perhaps one of the most stunning new revelations is that the prosecutors who retried Glossip in 2004 were aware that Sneed had considered recanting — and took extraordinary steps to keep that from happening. “In his August 25, 2022 interview, Sneed confirmed that he met with representatives of the District Attorney’s Office along with his attorney, Gina Walker, before Glossip’s retrial where his plea agreement and his not wanting to testify were discussed,” the report says. Notes found in the prosecutors’ file document a series of meetings with Assistant District Attorney Connie Smothermon, Sneed, and Walker regarding Sneed’s reluctance to testify — information that, by law, should have been turned over to the defense. Smothermon’s trial partner Gary Ackley told Reed Smith he didn’t know anything about this, and that it was cause for concern. “Any prosecutor would be concerned about any cooperating witness in any big case regarding the uncertainty of the waffling back and forth and the disingenuous bad faith nature of such actions,” Ackley said. Not only was this information never disclosed to the defense, Smothermon also apparently worked with Sneed’s attorney as Glossip’s second trial was underway to keep Sneed in line. In a May 2004 memo to Walker, Smothermon laid out six detailed questions for Sneed based on the testimony already delivered by other witnesses at the retrial. The apparent goal was to try to square Sneed’s testimony with what others had said: a maneuver that would violate rules designed to insulate witness testimony from being contaminated by outside information or from the testimony of another witness. The most egregious example involves testimony from Dr. Chai Choi, the medical examiner who conducted Van Treese’s autopsy. At the retrial, Choi testified that Van Treese had puncture wounds, “a stabbing-type injury,” to his chest. Although there was a knife found at the scene, Sneed had previously said that he did not use the knife — an inconsistency that Smothermon sought to fix before Sneed took the stand. “Our biggest problem is still the knife,” Smothermon wrote in the memo to Walker. “Justin tells the police that the knife fell out of his pocket and that he didn’t stab the victim with it.” But when Sneed took the stand at the retrial, he testified for the first time that he had in fact stabbed Van Treese. “This reversal of his statement given to police does not appear to be a coincidence,” Reed Smith wrote. “Rather, it appears to be manufactured in response to ADA [Smothermon’s] communication during trial to Sneed’s attorney explicitly about what had been testified to by other witnesses about the knife.” Ackley told Reed Smith that the change in Sneed’s testimony was “night and day,” and that if it was prompted by Smothermon’s memo, it would be a problem."


richard-glossip-execution-investigation


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


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resurce. 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;



SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:


https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985



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;

Thursday, September 29, 2022

'The Great Charles Randal Smith': How the media helped create him; My recent presentation to the Nexus Conference on Wrongful Convictions 2022 (NCWC)..."In this paper, I will focus on a question which has fascinated me for years. How was Smith transformed from a rather mundane, little-known physician into a God-like figure in the world of paediatric forensic pathology? Put another way, how did he become a renowned 'expert,' adored by police and prosecutors, for his ability to secure convictions in cases where there was scant, if any, evidence. My answer may surprise some of you."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  Yesterday I had the pleasure of making a virtual presentation to  The Nexus Conference on Wrongful Convictions  (2022) - an important international forum which is devoted to bringing representatives of common law jurisdictions, "to discuss common challenges, share success stories, review the latest jurisprudence and advances in forensic science, and collaborate on recommendations for best practices and reform...The NCWC is jointly organized by the UBC Innocence Project, Innocence Canada, Innocence Project London, Griffith University Innocence Project, and The International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy."  I had the good fortune of being on a panel containing  really bright, experienced participants from whom I learned a great deal. The panel was called, "The role of the media in remedying and uncovering wrongful convictions"...My fellow panelists were: Jon Robins: Editor of The Justice Gap (UK); Greg Stratton: The Bridge of Hope Innocence  Initiative; Rachel Mendleson; The Toronto Star, and myself. Our panel was ably moderated by  Suzanne Gower of the Manchester Innocence Project. (UK); Here is the paper I delivered. 

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "It is important to stress that these journalistic accounts, typical of much of the reporting on Charles Smith before he began his slide into infamy, did not portray the 'real' Charles Smith. I can choose from many examples of the 'real' Charles Smith which I reported  over the years. Here are but a few of them:  Let's start with the day  this  "strong Christian" who says he shares  'God's  love of  the little children', brought  his 11-year-old son to the exhumation  of an 11-month-old baby boy, as the deceased baby's horrified grand-father looked on. Then there's  the night this star of Ontario's  forensic pediatric establishment,  gots into a confrontation with the  Ontario Provincial Police Officer  who pulled him over  for speeding. In her official complaint, she said Smith  boasted  about his importance and threatened to cut off his office's services to dead children in the area, if she persisted  in giving him the ticket. Or how about the occasion when this supposedly independent coronial   official agreed to participate in a secret police wiretap operation on the grieving mother of a deceased child, while making an official visit to her home."

PRESENTATION:

Who is Charles Smith?

Charles Smith is  a flawed Canadian pathologist who  has deservedly has been turfed out of Ontario's medical profession.

Some believe that he has been responsible for more wrongful convictions than anyone else in Canadian history.

His flawed opinions and testimony  destroyed the lives of loving parents and caregivers.

Some were sent to prison as murderers of their own children.

Others had their surviving children  wrested away from them by Child welfare authorities and put up for adoption.

Babies and children sadly die for many reasons.

Natural reasons too;

But in Smith's mind, they were always 'murdered'.

Indeed, the book I set out to write years ago - which morphed into The Charles Smith Blog - was going to be called "Manufacturing murder."

It was to be about a self-admitted ignoramus with an important public trust  who admittedly overstated his knowledge, ability and qualifications - and confessed to a  public Inquiry that he believed his job was to help the police get convictions.

Unfortunately, he did a very good job at that.

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

In this paper,  I will focus on a question which has fascinated me for years.

How was Smith  transformed  from a rather mundane, little-known physician into a God-like figure in the world of paediatric forensic pathology?

Put another way, how did he become a renowned 'expert,' adored by police and prosecutors, for his ability to secure convictions in cases where there was scant, if any, evidence.

My answer may surprise some of you.

Police, prosecutors, hospital administrators, government officials, and regulators  bear some of the responsibility.

In my view, however, the biggest culprit, for reasons which I will articulate, was the media, which helped create The Great Dr. Charles Randal Smith  who caused all these horrors -  and  the media bears some responsibility for the wrongful convictions he caused.

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

So, how did this come about?

I explored this question  in 2007 in a post on my 'Charles Smith Blog', headed, 'Smith and the Media; Part One: Why the media share the blame."


In this post I explained that Charles Smith was a masterful manipulator who had an uncanny way of attracting the media, noting that:


"He was accessible, articulate,  intense  - read 'photogenic' - (he) welcomed the cameras in his labs, appeared genuinely sympathetic, provided excellent copy and knew all of the buttons to push in order to get placed above the fold."


Smith even tried to manipulate me on one occasion - unsuccessfully I should add - after  refusing to comment on of my Toronto Star stories. (Most likely after talking to his lawyer!);


I still get the shivers when I remember him saying words to the effect of:


"Harold. Some day, when this is all over, I will invite you to my club. We will stand  in front of a warm fire, have a drink,  (I think it may have been 'Scotch') and I will explain everything to you. And you will understand." 
That sickened me at the time, and still does today."
Shortly thereafter, after I refused to talk to him off the record,  Smith stopped answering my calls.
However, as a rule, Smith could be extremely persuasive.

Even some of the best, most experienced  columnists and reporters  around,  such as the late Christie Blatchford, then a columnist  at the Globe and Mail,  fell under this master manipulator's sway.

During a particularly gruesome trial, Christie wrote:

 "Another day, when Dr. Charles Smith, a pediatric pathologist who has performed autopsies upon the bodies of hundreds and hundreds of children, was testifying, he could not help but remember his visit the day Randy was found dead, to the Dooley townhouse and the small second-floor room where the boy slowly died," Blatchford continued. "Dr. Smith is a gentle man, and a religious one. "God loves the little children," he whispered to me on his way out of court. "As a Christian, I wondered, how did the love of God ever penetrate that bedroom?"

As Christie wrote In another Globe and Mail column:

"In the several court cases I covered at which he testified (some of which are at issue in this Inquiry, I found Dr. Smith a compelling witness, an odd duck but so seemingly square.  He pronounced himself a strong Christian, had a soft voice, and gentle mannerisms, and used  to wear cartoon-print ties to court so as to remind jurors he had feelings too." 

My former Toronto Star colleagues  Kevin Donovan and Moira Welsh - really fine reporters, like Christie - also  canonized Smith, as in the case of Tammy Marquardt, who had been charged with murdering her child,  but was ultimately exonerated, as were several  other innocent individuals who had been featured  in a very negative light in a Star series on child welfare agencies.

"Charles Smith, pathologist, cleans up after other people's mistakes, the kind made by children's aid workers and doctors who miss or fail to act on the warning signs of children at risk," their  story reads.

"His tools consist of a scalpel and scissors. The dead children he examines, most are just babies, require nothing more.

When he has completed each autopsy there is not much left of the child, just an empty sack really.

In the blinding light of his autopsy room, Ontario's leading pediatric forensic pathologist sees all the missed opportunities that could have saved a life.

And then he gently puts the child's body into a bag, and goes on to the next case."

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

It is important to stress that these journalistic accounts, typical of much of the reporting on Charles Smith before he began his slide into infamy, did not portray the 'real' Charles Smith.

I can choose from many examples of the 'real' Charles Smith which I reported  over the years. Here are but a few of them: 

Let's start with the day  this  "strong Christian" who says he shares  'God's  love of  the little children', brought  his 11-year-old son to the exhumation  of an 11-month-old baby boy, as the deceased baby's horrified grand-father looked on.

Then there's  the day this star of Ontario's  forensic pediatric establishment,  gots into a confrontation with the  Ontario Provincial Police Officer  who pulled him over  one night for speeding.

In her official complaint, she said Smith  boasted  about his importance and threatened to cut off his office's services to dead children in the area, if she persisted  in giving him the ticket.

Or how about the occasion when this supposedly independent coronial   official agreed to participate in a secret police wiretap operation on the grieving mother of a deceased child, while making an official visit to her home.

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


It is also  useful to contrast the glowing journalistic reports with the words of  Doctor Marc Gabel, the chairman of the College of Physicians and Surgeons  discipline panel that turfed Smith out of the medical profession in 2014: 

"Your transgressions were egregious in nature, repulsive in result, and caused irreparable harm to many innocent victims,"  Gabel said to the empty chair reserved for Smith. (Who hadn't bothered to show up for his defrocking.)  

"You had a duty to the public, to the administration of justice and to your profession. Your failure in all of these respects is abominable to this panel, to your fellow physicians and, as importantly, to the public." 

Smith's actions compromised the administration of justice and he did not act morally, ethically or with the best interests of patients, said Gabel. 

"By your actions you abysmally failed to do so in these areas and have subsequently disgraced our profession," he said. "We publicly deplore and denounce your behaviour.

So, that was the true Charles Smith - not the saintly, fair, impartial, legendary Doctor Charles Randal Smith  the media largely depicted -  perhaps in its  very human search for heroes, and in the well-meaning empathy for deceased children it shares with the public.

Suffice it to say, as noted in the post, I  have talked to reporters who were shocked to learn that the man they had written about so glowingly was now accused of being responsible for destroying  lives  and causing  wrongful convictions.

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

So where are we now, fourteen years after Justice Stephen Goudge released his report on his independent inquiry  on  October 14, 2008 to a chorus of promised reforms? 

Year after year I scan the papers on the anniversary date, which is coming up soon, hoping to learn if any the promised reforms were actually carried out.

Sadly, I'm still waiting, and due to media indifference the public still has no idea whether necessary steps have been taken  to protect it from similar sagas.

Although we don't know whether the promises have been fulfilled, we do know that the reporter's  job as the public's 'watchdog'  is to keep an unflinching eye on public officials and institutions in nightmarish  sagas such as this.

Yet, we let the public down when we helped create 'the Great Dr. Charles Randal Smith'.

Moreover, we compounded that failure, when we just moved on to other stories, and allowed this huge, tragic experience to fade into the dustbins of history.

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

And I'm still waiting  for the answers to other important questions which need more than ever to be probed by the media.

For example: Where is Charles Smith  and what is he up to? 

Is he teaching pathology as he once did somewhere in Europe?

Is he practicing his trade in a hospital somewhere where his infamy is not known - or, who knows maybe  war zone  where they just don't care?

Is  he laying low until the uninformed public forgets his ugly past, so can take advantage of time and disinterest to rewrite history and resuscitate the great Dr. Charles Randal Smith?

Why was he never prosecuted for possible crimes such as perjury and obstruction of justice. (Many of his innocent victims were prosecuted on the flimsiest 'evidence', which was little more than Charles Smith's twisted opinion);

And why has the media (other than the Charles Smith Blog)  largely ignored the the three cases still before the courts - moving very slowly indeed - in which his victims are seeking vindication?

My final question, to end on a constructive note, is how can the media prevent the anointment of future Charles Smith's and his ilk - bearing in mind that Smith is not the only one: How about Colin Manock in Australia, Michael Heath in the U.K. and Barbara Knox in the U.S.A, all of  whom have found there way into The Charles Smith Blog.

The answer to this final question, is, believe it or not,  quite simple: Just do what journalists are expected to do in every story. Just do your job!

As my former Toronto Star colleague Donovan Vincent - now Toronto Star Ombudsman - recently explained when commenting on another issue:

"No matter how sympathetic the victim, reporters still need to ask probing questions and maintain a level of skepticism."

Yet Donovan also wisely acknowledges that journalists,  as human beings,  "have to balance skepticism with compassion," and that, "It isn't an easy task."

I couldn't agree more.

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

So, thank you  Nexus for giving me the opportunity to present my views on this important topic.

I also want to thank my friend Win Wahrer of' Innocence Canada for involving me in this  conference', and for  giving me so much support and inspiration with  my writing on wrongful convictions over many years 

One disclaimer:

My comments today are directed toward a general media failure.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that there has been  some stellar excellent  reporting  on Smith, and Smith related issues, over the years.

This includes: The Fifth Estate, a Canadian TV investigative program, Writer Jane O'Hara in McLean's magazine,  and local reporters  covering Smith trials.

Last, but not least, on this list, is  my fellow panelist Rachel Mendleson, the Toronto Star investigative reporter  (A true watch-dog with sharp teeth) who, after my retirement from the paper, exposed the Motherisk tainted hair drug-testing lab scandal at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto - Charles Smith's employer and protector for years.

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resurce. 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;



SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:


https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985



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;

Wednesday, September 28, 2022

Trisha Woodworth: Indiana: Shaken Baby Syndrome; Major (Welcome) Development): Her conviction in connection with the death of her former friend's 8-month-old daughter (sentenced to a minimum of 20 years has been set aside..."The state's medical experts testified Maci died from shaken baby syndrome and likely suffered an injuries shortly before she became unconcious. Defense experts testified Maci likely suffered a stroke while in Woodworth's care April 15, 2016, as a result of a blood clot that formed after she fell April 11, 2016, at her parent's home while playing with a "jump-a-roo" toy.."..."Woodworth and her family members applied cold compresses to Maci and took her outside for fresh air in the minutes before calling 911, he said. "I think those are reasonable actions to take," he (Judge Cappas) said. In many neglect cases, the caregiver waits hours before seeking medical attention after a child is injured. Woodworth's case was different, he said. "So now I'm left with sentencing a woman to between 20 and 40 years in prison for arguably a nine-minute delay in calling the ambulance," he said."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Judge Samuel Cappas listened to arguments from Woodworth's attorney Harold Hagberg and Lake County Supervisory Deputy Prosecutor Eric Randall about Woodworth's motion to correct errors.  However, the judge ultimately set aside Woodworth's conviction on the neglect count on his own motion. Cappas said Hagberg provided ineffective counsel at trial and concluded it would be an manifest injustice to sentence. Woodworth to a minimum of 20 years in prison on evidence presented at trial showing she waited less than 10 minutes to call for an ambulance after Maci became unresponsive. The judge said he was not reweighing the evidence. Cappas said Hagberg was clearly an experienced trial attorney, but asked if he had ever tried a criminal case before. Hagberg said Woodworth's case was his first criminal trial."

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

STORY: "Judge sets aside babysitter's conviction, by Reporter Sarah Reese, published by The NWI Times on  September 27, 2022.

GIST: "A Lake Criminal Court judge set aside a jury's verdict Tuesday in a case against a babysitter charged in connection with the death of her former friend's 8-month-old daughter in 2016.


Trisha Woodworth, 32, of Calumet Township, was convicted in July of a felony count of neglect of a dependent but acquitted of two felony counts of battery in the death of Maci Moor.


Judge Samuel Cappas listened to arguments from Woodworth's attorney Harold Hagberg and Lake County Supervisory Deputy Prosecutor Eric Randall about Woodworth's motion to correct errors. 


However, the judge ultimately set aside Woodworth's conviction on the neglect count on his own motion.


Cappas said Hagberg provided ineffective counsel at trial and concluded it would be an manifest injustice to sentence 

Woodworth to a minimum of 20 years in prison on evidence presented at trial showing she waited less than 10 minutes to call for an ambulance after Maci became unresponsive. The judge said he was not reweighing the evidence.


Cappas said Hagberg was clearly an experienced trial attorney, but asked if he had ever tried a criminal case before. Hagberg said Woodworth's case was his first criminal trial.

Hagberg never put any proposed plea offers on the record ahead of trial, and he didn't address the facts related to the neglect count in his closing arguments, Cappas said.



Randall said Hagberg was assisted by attorney Andreas Kyres and others from the Alvarez Law Office, all of whom are experienced criminal defense attorneys. 


He objected to Woodworth's release on her own recognizance, arguing she could be a flight risk, he said.


Cappas said Woodworth has appeared in court while on bond for years and was not a flight risk. He granted Kyres' request to release Woodworth.

Woodworth was expected to receive a new trial on one count of neglect of a dependent, a level 1 felony.


Prosecutors planned to consult with the Indiana attorney general's office about a possible appeal of Cappas' decision to set aside the July verdict, Randall said.


Cappas said both parties made logical arguments, and there were two different theories about what caused Maci's death.


The state's medical experts testified Maci died from shaken baby syndrome and likely suffered an injuries shortly before she became unconcious.


Defense experts testified Maci likely suffered a stroke while in Woodworth's care April 15, 2016, as a result of a blood clot that formed after she fell April 11, 2016, at her parent's home while playing with a "jump-a-roo" toy.


Hagberg said jurors' decision to acquit Woodworth of the battery counts showed the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Woodworth caused the injury that resulted in Maci's death.



Randall said the jury had already weighed the credibility of evidence at trial, and it wasn't clear if they believed testimony from Woodworth's relatives about events the day Maci became unresponsive.


"Despite the acquittal, I believe the jury believed there was an injury that day," Randall said.


Evidence was presented that Maci's injury was inflicted, he said.

"They don't like it, but it was a reasonable verdict," he said.


Cappas appeared to agree with Hagberg's interpretation of the evidence.


Woodworth and her family members applied cold compresses to Maci and took her outside for fresh air in the minutes before calling 911, he said. 


"I think those are reasonable actions to take," he said.

In many neglect cases, the caregiver waits hours before seeking medical attention after a child is injured. Woodworth's case was different, he said.


"So now I'm left with sentencing a woman to between 20 and 40 years in prison for arguably a nine-minute delay in calling the ambulance," he said."


The entire story can be read at:


https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-sets-aside-babysitters-conviction-in-infants-death-nearly-six-years-ago/article_1a76001a-bc86-559c-b9a2-c46e0b18da98.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resurce. 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;



SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:


https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985



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;


Tuesday, September 27, 2022

Gary Bryant Jr: Rap lyrics, gang investigations, police, prosecutors, and the criminal courts: A bill before California Gov. Gavin Newsom would force prosecutors to seek a judge’s approval to introduce rap lyrics to a jury, KQLD reports. Reporter Nigel Duara neatly explores the 'junk science' nature of rap lyrics analysis - and why civil liberties advocates oppose its use in the criminal courts to reveal a defendant's mindset and as confessionals..."Civil liberties advocates are also challenging the practice in New York. “There’s a pretty large body of information and a pretty strong body of opinion that prosecutors and their gang experts have their heads on backwards,” said Stephen Munkelt, executive director of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which wrote in support of the bill. Munkelt compared gang investigations to evidence that has begun to be rooted out of courtrooms, like bite-mark analysis or polygraph tests."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Andrea Dennis, a University of Georgia law professor who pioneered the analysis of creative expression in criminal trials and wrote the 2019 book Rap on Trial, reviewed Bryant’s trial’s transcripts for his appeal. “The prosecution utilized racially coded and inaccurate assumptions of rap music as criminal confessions and autobiographies and stereotypes of Black men as inherently dangerous criminals to secure Gary Bryant’s conviction,” she wrote. To show the mindset of prosecutors who use rap lyrics at trial, Dennis quoted from Bureau of Justice Assistance guidance to local prosecutors in 2004. “Invariably, by the time the jury sees the defendant at trial, his hair has grown out to a normal length, his clothes are nicely tailored, and he will have taken on the aura of an altar boy,” wrote Alan Jackson for the American Prosecutors Research Institute. “But the real defendant is a criminal wearing a do-rag and throwing a gang sign. Gang evidence can take a prosecutor a long way toward introducing that jury to that person.” According to Kuluk, that’s exactly what happened to Bryant: In court, his music videos and Facebook posts were introduced to the jury. He was photographed in a do-rag, and he made a letter “B” with his hands, which prosecutors alleged was a local gang sign."


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


STORY: "A bill before Gov. Gavin Newsom would force prosecutors to seek a judge’s approval to introduce rap lyrics to a jury," by Reporter Nigel Duara, published by KQLD, on September 21, 2022.


GIST: "Gary Bryant Jr. exchanged gunfire with a man in an Antioch apartment parking lot on a July afternoon in 2014. Both were struck by bullets. Bryant survived and the other man died.


Police said it was part of a string of gang shootings in the East Bay. At trial, prosecutors alleged—and a jury agreed—that Bryant and an accomplice were guilty of first-degree murder.


Bryant, then 28, was a local rapper in Pittsburg who uploaded music videos to YouTube. In his lyrics, he talked about gang war, shooting at rivals and challenging other rappers. At Bryant’s trial, an Antioch police officer testified that the lyrics were key to understanding his criminal mindset.


When Bryant said the phrase “geeked up,” the police officer alleged, he meant he was armed with guns. His words “lay a demo,” the officer said, meant shooting at someone.


A University of California, Irvine, professor acting as a witness for Bryant disagreed, saying that “geeked up” was commonly understood to mean intoxicated, and “laying a demo” meant to record a track.


Bryant may have been convicted without the introduction of rap lyrics—prosecutors and police said he and another man were in the parking lot to rob a carload of people.

But readily using such lyrics as evidence in a criminal case may soon change in California.


A bill before Gov. Gavin Newsom would force prosecutors who want to use rap lyrics, or any other form of creative expression, to hold a pretrial hearing away from the jury to prove that the lyrics or other artistic expression are relevant to the case.


The bill by Democratic Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer of Los Angeles would require judges to balance the value of the evidence with the “undue prejudice” and racial bias possible when that evidence is presented to a jury. 


Assembly Bill 2799 passed the Legislature late last month, with no registered opposition.


Civil liberties advocates are also challenging the practice in New York.


“There’s a pretty large body of information and a pretty strong body of opinion that prosecutors and their gang experts have their heads on backwards,” said Stephen Munkelt, executive director of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which wrote in support of the bill.


Munkelt compared gang investigations to evidence that has begun to be rooted out of courtrooms, like bite-mark analysis or polygraph tests.


As early as 1991, prosecutors have used rap lyrics both to reveal a defendant’s mindset and as confessionals: They wanted juries to believe that rappers quite literally did the things they were rapping about.


In the 2000s, Louisiana prosecutors repeatedly used the lyrics of New Orleans rappers against them in murder trials, including Corey Miller, McKinley Phipps Jr. and, most recently, Torrence Hatch, who raps as Lil Boosie.


Nationwide, researchers have found approximately 500 cases of lyrics—almost always rap—introduced in state or federal trials.


Looking back, Bryant’s attorney, Evan Kuluk, said he would have challenged the introduction of lyrics at the 2017 trial, but research into the use of creative expression was in its infancy.


“I wish I had the information and the materials I have now with which to make the objection at that time,” he said.


“Unfortunately, when Mr. Bryant tried to explain to the jury the bigger cultural picture of rap music, he was shut down by prosecution objections that were mostly sustained.”


Kuluk’s office searched all Contra Costa County trials that resulted in appeal, and found that lyrics were introduced in 13 of them, all related to rap music. Ten of the defendants were Black and three were Latino. None was white.


Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton declined to comment on the bill or Bryant’s case. Becton took office in September 2017, months after Bryant’s conviction.


Becton is a member of the progressive Prosecutors Alliance of California, a small group of district attorneys that supports alternatives to incarceration. The Prosecutors Alliance also declined to comment on the bill.


'When Mr. Bryant tried to explain to the jury the bigger cultural picture of rap music, he was shut down by prosecution objections that were mostly sustained.'Evan Kuluk, Gary Bryant's attorney


Bryant, sentenced to life in prison, is appealing his conviction, though his case isn’t explicitly about rap lyrics. Instead, he’s using a broader law from 2020, arguing that the original trial violated AB 2452, the Racial Justice Act. The act allows individuals to appeal their convictions if they can show prosecutors or their witnesses used racially discriminatory language to get a conviction.


Bryant is also seeking to remove the gang enhancements to his conviction, arguing both were improperly influenced by racist stereotypes.


Andrea Dennis, a University of Georgia law professor who pioneered the analysis of creative expression in criminal trials and wrote the 2019 book Rap on Trial, reviewed Bryant’s trial’s transcripts for his appeal.


“The prosecution utilized racially coded and inaccurate assumptions of rap music as criminal confessions and autobiographies and stereotypes of Black men as inherently dangerous criminals to secure Gary Bryant’s conviction,” she wrote.


To show the mindset of prosecutors who use rap lyrics at trial, Dennis quoted from Bureau of Justice Assistance guidance to local prosecutors in 2004.


“Invariably, by the time the jury sees the defendant at trial, his hair has grown out to a normal length, his clothes are nicely tailored, and he will have taken on the aura of an altar boy,” wrote Alan Jackson for the American Prosecutors Research Institute. “But the real defendant is a criminal wearing a do-rag and throwing a gang sign. Gang evidence can take a prosecutor a long way toward introducing that jury to that person.”


According to Kuluk, that’s exactly what happened to Bryant: In court, his music videos and Facebook posts were introduced to the jury. He was photographed in a do-rag, and he made a letter “B” with his hands, which prosecutors alleged was a local gang sign.


'The whole music industry uses violence in their songs, you know? But my son is not violent. Those lyrics don’t portray who he is.'Denise Holdman, Bryant's mother

The bill before the governor also highlights the role of gang investigators, who tend to be working police officers, academics or retired members of law enforcement.

In Bryant’s case, his attorney has challenged the prosecution’s use of an officer without academic training in gang investigations working in the department that investigated Bryant’s case. The officer later testified to the lyrics’ so-called meaning, which were contested by the defense.


Robert Grant III, a former Los Angeles police officer who now does consulting work in gang investigations, said the bill before Newsom would “narrow” the way gang investigators do their jobs.


“The question is really, what is the person rapping about?” Grant said. “Is it literally their participation in gang activities in this incident? Is what the substance is close enough to their actual physical activity?”


Grant said police officers often are legitimate experts in gang investigations. As beat cops or supervisors, they’re closest to the people they’re investigating, and most familiar with the use and intent of what might be very local slang.


“Defense attorneys always want to describe us officers as a bunch of knuckle-dragging thugs that just come up with opinions out of our butt,” Grant said. “We are a lot more intelligent about what we try to do in the field.”


'As much as they would like for (rap lyrics) to be outside of the consideration for us as experts, I still get to consider it now and I still will.'Robert Grant III, former Los Angeles police officer


“The whole music industry uses violence in their songs, you know?” Holdman said. “But my son is not violent. Those lyrics don’t portray who he is.”


Holdman will be in court Sept. 30, when Bryant has a hearing for a new trial.

Grant, the gang investigator, said proponents of the bill “hoping gang investigations will be minimized or destroyed” will be disappointed by the outcome.


“There’s going to be a lot of people upset when they realize that for me as an expert, I get to use both admissible and inadmissible evidence to describe my opinion,” Grant said, meaning he can still interpret what lyrics or gang signs mean.


“As much as they would like for (rap lyrics) to be outside of the consideration for us as experts, I still get to consider it now and I still will.”


The entire story can be read at:


https://www.kqed.org/arts/13919403/rap-on-trial-california-bill-would-limit-prosecutors-use-of-lyrics-as-evidence



PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resurce. 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;



SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL:


https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985




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;