PUBLISHER'S NOTE: WORDS TO HEED: FROM OUR POST ON KEVIN COOPER'S APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING; CALIFORNIA: (Applicable wherever a state resists DNA testing): "Blogger/extraordinaire Jeff Gamso's blunt, unequivocal, unforgettable message to the powers that be in California: "JUST TEST THE FUCKING DNA." (Oh yes, Gamso raises, as he does in many of his posts, an important philosophical question: This post is headed: "What is truth, said jesting Pilate."...Says Gamso: "So what's the harm? What, exactly, are they scared of? Don't we want the truth?")
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The Innocence Project reports 375 DNA exonerations in criminal cases between 1989 and 2020. Before 2000, only a handful of states allowed post-conviction DNA testing. That changed in 2004 with the passage of the Justice for All Act. In her 2020 article, Chi-Hsin Engelhart argues that post-conviction DNA testing is a procedural due process right that should be constitutionally protected. She notes this protection is especially important in the context of death row to explore the potential of wrongful execution, concluding that a denial of access and testing could lead to a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Ms. Engelhart argues that courts should shift their emphasis from finality to accuracy in the legal system , and that allowing for DNA testing in post-conviction proceedings would advance this goal."
——————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The case of Marcellus “Khaliifah” Williams, who was executed on September 24, 2024, illustrates that even when DNA evidence can be obtained from the crime scene, forensic materials may degrade or become contaminated, rendering them unusable for proving a defendant’s innocence.
Robert DuBoise was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Florida in 1983 based on faulty forensics, including the since-debunked practice of bite mark matching. DNA testing ultimately exonerated him in 2020 and in February 2024, Mr. DuBoise received $14 million compensation for his wrongful conviction. As scientific and technological progress continues, many prisoners may benefit from these advancements. However, many legal procedural barriers continue to block prisoners from accessing DNA evidence that has the potential to exonerate them."
———————————————————————————————————
ENTRY: The Limitations of DNA Evidence in Innocence Cases, by Data FellowLukas Niparko and The Delta Penalty Information Center, on October 23, 2024.
GIST: "Death-sentenced prisoners with credible evidence of innocence have gained significant attention this month with the execution of Marcellus Williams in Missouri, the near-execution of Robert Roberson in Texas, and the U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma. There is a common misconception that DNA evidence is widely available in all cases and central to exonerations, but the reality is that DNA exonerations in death penalty cases are relatively rare."
DPI has identified 34 cases across 15 US states in the modern death penalty era of people who have been exonerated from death row with DNA evidence—with the first case being Kirk Bloodsworth in 1993 (he was convicted in 1985).
These numbers represent just 17% of the 200 death row exonerations.
The average time spent on death row by people exonerated thanks to DNA is 18.6 years, for a total across the 24 cases of 631 years spent in prison for crimes they did not commit.
Few of these exonerees have been adequately compensated.
The Innocence Project reports 375 DNA exonerations in criminal cases between 1989 and 2020. Before 2000, only a handful of states allowed post-conviction DNA testing.
That changed in 2004 with the passage of the Justice for All Act. In her 2020 article, Chi-Hsin Engelhart argues that post-conviction DNA testing is a procedural due process right that should be constitutionally protected.
She notes this protection is especially important in the context of death row to explore the potential of wrongful execution, concluding that a denial of access and testing could lead to a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Ms. Engelhart argues that courts should shift their emphasis from finality to accuracy in the legal system, and that allowing for DNA testing in post-conviction proceedings would advance this goal.
During a recent discussion moderated by DPI Executive Director Robin Maher at the French Ambassador’s Residence in Washington, D.C., Vanessa Potkin, Director of Special Litigation at the Innocence Project, noted that DNA evidence is available in less than 10% of crimes.
The case of Marcellus “Khaliifah” Williams, who was executed on September 24, 2024, illustrates that even when DNA evidence can be obtained from the crime scene, forensic materials may degrade or become contaminated, rendering them unusable for proving a defendant’s innocence.
Robert DuBoise was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Florida in 1983 based on faulty forensics, including the since-debunked practice of bite mark matching.
DNA testing ultimately exonerated him in 2020 and in February 2024, Mr. DuBoise received $14 million compensation for his wrongful conviction.
As scientific and technological progress continues, many prisoners may benefit from these advancements.
However, many legal procedural barriers continue to block prisoners from accessing DNA evidence that has the potential to exonerate them."
The entire entry can be read at:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/the-limitations-of-dna-evidence-in-innocence-cases
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;
