GIST: "The state Supreme Court broke new ground Tuesday when it established a procedure that will allow people convicted of crimes to benefit, retroactively, from judicial decisions made years after they were found guilty and incarcerated.
The unanimous decision written by Justice Andrew McDonald turns on the case of Edgar Tatum, convicted of murder in 1990 largely on the basis of what the court called unreliable, in-court eyewitness identifications by two drug abusing witnesses who had previously identified someone else.
Tatum argued in his initial appeal that the in-court identifications were suggestive and unreliable. After being called to the witness stand, the two witnesses were asked if they saw the killer, known to be a Black man, in the courtroom. Both identified Tatum, the only Black man at the defense table.
In 1994, the Supreme Court, hearing the case for the first time, upheld the conviction after rejecting Tatum’s argument about the unreliability of the eyewitness identifications.
But 22 years later, the court revisited questions about such identifications in light of an evolving and persuasive body of scientific evidence that characterized them as subject to suggestion and frequently unreliable.
In the 2016 decision in State v Andrew Dickson, the court said, “in cases in which identity is an issue, in-court identifications that are not preceded by a successful identification in a non suggestive identification procedure implicate due process principles and, therefore, must be prescreened by the trial court.’’
The court, in 2016, continued, “we are hard-pressed to imagine how there could be a more suggestive identification procedure than placing a witness on the stand in open court, confronting the witness with the person whom the state has accused of committing the crime, and then asking the witness if he can identify the person who committed the crime.’’
Tatum, then in prison for more than two decades, embarked on a succession of post-conviction actions based on the decision in Dickson. He argued that the Dickson court had adopted the very argument he made and lost in his initial 1994 appeal
Tatum lost again, repeatedly, in both state and federal courts, because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision which effectively barred lower courts from retroactively applying decisions like the Connecticut Supreme Court’s Dickson decision.
In its decision Tuesday, the state Supreme Court said it interprets the rights due criminal defendants more broadly than the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision establishes a procedure in Connecticut that allows the retroactive application of decisions in cases where litigants, like Tatum, make arguments that are later adopted by the court.
The state court wrote that although the retroactive application of decisions may be “moribund” in the federal courts, “we conclude that it has continued viability in Connecticut.” Elsewhere the court said, “We do not believe that we should follow the (U.S.) Supreme Court’s lead …by foreclosing the possibility of the retroactive application of new procedural rules in all cases.”
The court issued instructions to lower courts to reconsider Tatum’s latest appeal in view of Tuesday’s decision. The instructions will likely prove moot. Tatum was released from prison in 2023 by the state Board of Pardons and Paroles after serving 35 years. The decision could result in the murder conviction being removed from his record."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.courant.com/2024/07/16/ct-supreme-court-breaks-new-ground-in-case-about-eyewitness-identifications/PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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;
