David Temple; Texas; Prosecutor Kelly Siegler; Major Development; White Elephant Case? The former football coachas been granted a new trial by Texas's highest court - because the state - read 'Siegler' - had illegally withheld crucial information during his 2007 trial in the murder of his pregnant wife - and his lawyer says he will be eligible for release on bond in a few weeks barring appeals from the state..."It will be up to the incoming Harris County District Attorney, Kim Ogg, whether to appeal the court’s latest ruling or agree to go forward with a new trial. The court filing Wednesday said several hundred pages of police reports had been withheld from the defense until sometime during the trial in violation of legal precedent. “The prosecutor believed, as evidenced by her testimony at the writ hearing, that she was not required to turn over favorable evidence if she did not believe it to be relevant, inconsistent or credible,” the filing said."

In the years since I started publishing this Blog I have become increasingly disturbed by the 'white elephant' in the room: Sheer, unadulterated, willful   misconduct in the criminal justice system - much  of it involving forensic evidence - committed by lab technicians,  pathologists, police officers, prosecutors and others.  Think Annie Dookhan; Think Sonia Farak; Think David Kofoed; Think Charles Smith; Think Ken Anderson; Think Gene Morrison. Think Michael West;   I have therefore decided to run this image of a white elephant at the top of every applicable post henceforth, to draw our reader's attention to   what I see as a major problem in all too many criminal justice system's - my own included.  Harold Levy; Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
"Reformers have for years recommended that all forensic labs be independent from law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies' and this is a key reform promoted by The Justice Project (2008). But fixing these problems is only half the answer' because half of the wrongful convictions attributed to misleading forensic evidence involved deliberate forensic fraud' evidence tampering' and/or perjury.
From "The Elephant in the Crime Lab," by co-authored by Sheila Berry and Larry Ytuarte; Forensic Examiner; Spring, 2009;

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to grant a new trial  to former football coach David Temple in this famous case comes during an extraordinary two week period for cases being followed by this Blog. The other cases I am following which are marked by   a mind-boggling period of 'Major  Developments'  are as follows:  First, in Louisiana,  Rodricus Crawford won his appeal on first degree murder charge in the death of his son Roderius, and was freed on bond, while prosecutors determine if they will proceed with a  new trial. Second, Kirstin Lobato,  Nevada, won a reversal of a lower court decision denying her appeal. The door has been opened for her for an evidentiary hearing before a new judge which will  consider grounds relating to  forensic evidence,   police and prosecutor misconduct issues, and issues involving ineffective assistance of counsel. Third, the San Antonio Four (Texas), Elizabeth Ramirez, Cassandra Rivera, Kristie Mayhugh and Anna Vasquez, (Texas) were declared innocent and exonerated. Fourth, in Australia, in a surprise move, Susan Neill-Fraser's has had a date set for her appeal made possible under Tasmania's new right-to-appeal legislation. Add David Temple to the list (a second one for Texas); Quite a fortnight! 

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;  

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

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "This was her opportunity to enhance her resume to the point where she would get her TV show,” Looney said. “It worked, she got the show (“Cold Justice” on TNT). But boy, at what a price. At the price of David Temple’s life, at the price of an entire family’s reputation, and at the price of her own integrity.”

Houston Attorney Paul Looney:

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

SECOND QUOTE OF THE DAY: "If Kelly’s bizarre interpretation of that rule were ever to be the law, then all a prosecutor would ever have to do to keep any witness statement away from the defense is say, ‘Well, I didn’t believe it, so I didn’t give it to the defense.’ That’s never been the law, it would totally eliminate law, but she just boldly stated it — and the only thing I can figure is she’s trying to find some arguable basis to try to defend her law license from the ultimate scrutiny of the State Bar of Texas, which undoubtedly is going to happen over this case.”

Houston Attorney Paul Looney:

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

POST: "David Temple granted new trial," by Charles Huffner, published on his Blog, on November 24, 2016.

GIST: The state’s highest criminal court on Wednesday granted a new trial to David Temple, a former Katy football coach accused of killing his pregnant wife in 1999. In an opinion posted online Wednesday morning, the court of criminal appeals sided with Temple’s lawyers, who argued in state district court in 2015 that Harris County prosecutors had illegally withheld crucial information during the 2007 trial. “First things first: We get David out of jail,” said attorney Stan Schneider Wednesday in his downtown office. Schneider said Temple will be eligible to bond out of jail in a few weeks, barring appeals from the state. If Temple’s case gets a new trial, Schneider will lead the defense, though he couldn’t say if the evidence withheld in the 2007 trial seemed likely to change the outcome. It will be up to the incoming Harris County District Attorney, Kim Ogg, whether to appeal the court’s latest ruling or agree to go forward with a new trial. The court filing Wednesday said several hundred pages of police reports had been withheld from the defense until sometime during the trail, in violation of legal precedent. “The prosecutor believed, as evidenced by her testimony at the writ hearing, that she was not required to turn over favorable evidence if she did not believe it to be relevant, inconsistent or credible,” the filing said..........The CCA isn’t exactly known for second-guessing prosecutors, so this is a big deal. Kelly Siegler has vigorously defended her actions since the allegations about her withholding evidence came out during the district court hearing last year, but as yet I have not seen a statement from her. It will be interesting to see what Kim Ogg decides to do with this – she could decline to go forward, try to work a plea deal, or ask the court to reconsider its decision. Whatever she decides to do, I’m guessing she’ll take her time making that decision."

The entire post can be found at:

 http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=77736

For background, see Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association  July 9, 2015 post   - under the heading 'egregious prosecutorial misconduct' -  at the link below: "David Temple, the innocent man Kelly Siegler finally convicted, may finally get a new trial. In his 19-page findings of fact, Judge Gist notes at least 36 instances of prosecutorial misconduct; he paints a picture of a prosecutor willing to win at any cost and failing to follow her duty to disclose, or timely disclose, evidence favorable to the defense. Siegler, he notes, testified she didn’t need to turn over the evidence because she didn’t believe it was true. The prosecutor’s personal belief in the truth of the favorable evidence can never be the benchmark for what prosecutors must disclose. Almost always, the Brady information which must be disclosed will be contrary to the prosecutor’s case or at least at issue with a portion of their case. But that’s exactly why it must be disclosed; defense attorneys are entitled to explore and investigate that information which may tend to exculpate their client. Defense attorneys are entitled to information which could harm the prosecutor’s case or cast doubt upon their witnesses. That’s been the law for decades. Certainly, if a prosecutor were to believe the information, her duty would be not only to disclose the information but also to dismiss the prosecution. Read more from the Houston Chronicle: Judge Finds Fault with Legendary Local Prosecutor; HCCLA in the news criticizing ex-prosecutor Kelly Siegler’s conduct in the David Temple murder case (excerpts here): Gist made his findings after a 10-week hearing that began in December, in which attorneys Stanley Schneider and Casie Gotro questioned prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys about what happened throughout the murder trial. The two took over Temple’s appeal from DeGuerin. “The evidence supports the findings,” Schneider said. “I feel relieved. The next step is getting David a new trial.” Commenting on Siegler’s conduct outlined in the judicial findings, trial attorney dick DeGuerin is quoted: “I think it’s bad, and I think she ought to be held accountable,” Dick DeGuerin said. “But I’m going to let someone else decide that.” On behalf of HCCLA, JoAnne Musick, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, said Gist’s findings show “egregious” conduct. The organization of defense attorneys is reviewing transcripts of the hearing to determine if a grievance should be filed. “Whether it’s Morton or Graves or whoever, we see prosecutors who want to win, so they don’t want to disclose everything,” Musick said. “If they’re hiding things or playing games, that’s not upholding their duty to do justice. That’s trying to win.” One of Temple’s attorneys who spent days questioning Siegler blasted the former prosecutor: “Charles Sebesta was just disbarred for this same kind of conduct,” said Casie Gotro. “Dick DeGuerin stood on the courthouse steps and told the world Kelly Siegler had finally convicted an innocent man. These findings reveal exactly how she did it.” This is certainly one story that will continue as Judge Gists’ findings are forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for review. The Houston Press is following this story as well, read more (excerpts here): Prosecutors “intentionally, deliberately, or negligently failed to disclose” investigators’ reports and witness statements that pointed to other suspects, but Siegler continued the suppression even following the conviction, according to the findings. Siegler testified in the habeas hearing that potential exculpatory evidence didn’t need to be disclosed if prosecutors “did not believe it was true,” according to the findings. Gist also wrote that Siegler influenced post-trial maneuvers by telling police and officials within the DA’s Office not to disclose public records if they were requested. The findings also state that Siegler continued to pull strings even after leaving the DA’s Office in 2008, after 21 years, by getting an alleged witness who approached DeGuerin after the trial to change his story. In that situation, Daniel Glasscock gave DeGuerin a sworn statement that he overheard another man implicate himself in the murder. Glasscock passed a polygraph administered by the DA’s Office and also gave the same story to a DA’s investigator. But Siegler “asked” a Harris County Sheriff’s deputy — who was involved with the trial investigation — to contact Glassock and another witness “before they could be contacted by the Special Prosecutor [in the habeas investigation] or current members of the District Attorney’s Office. The Deputy did so and afterwards, their stories were significantly different than the original version,” according to the finding. “In substance, Glasscock repudiated the most important details to the extent that his future credibility as a witness is significantly impaired,” Gist wrote. Houston attorney Paul Looney, who worked on Temple’s case before DeGuerin took over, told theHouston Press that Siegler’s ultimate goal was to use the case as leverage to get her own TV reality series — an idea she had unsuccessfully pitched once before. Siegler then asked to take over the Temple case, which had been languishing for years because the original grand jury chose not to indict. “This was her opportunity to enhance her resume to the point where she would get her TV show,” Looney said. “It worked, she got the show (“Cold Justice” on TNT). But boy, at what a price. At the price of David Temple’s life, at the price of an entire family’s reputation, and at the price of her own integrity.” As for Siegler’s impression of exculpatory evidence, Looney said, “If Kelly’s bizarre interpretation of that rule were ever to be the law, then all a prosecutor would ever have to do to keep any witness statement away from the defense is say, ‘Well, I didn’t believe it, so I didn’t give it to the defense.’ That’s never been the law, it would totally eliminate law, but she just boldly stated it — and the only thing I can figure is she’s trying to find some arguable basis to try to defend her law license from the ultimate scrutiny of the State Bar of Texas, which undoubtedly is going to happen over this case.” But Looney alleged that Siegler not only violated professional ethical standards, but that she committed a felony by obstructing justice. “If Kelly Siegler’s a lawyer in five years, I’ll be shocked,” Looney said. “And if she’s not a felon in five years, it’ll be because [District Attorney] Devon Anderson decided to protect her own friend.” Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Lisa Falkenberg hits the nail on the head with her column: Judge is Right: Prosecutor Didn’t Live Up to Her Duty The prosecutor’s duty is to seek justice, not win at all costs. Her “ego” wouldn’t let her lose this cold case. Cited twice now, once by the appellate court and now by the habeas judge, Kelly’s conduct is egregious and intentional as she hid evidence, failed to disclose evidence, and lied to the court about the evidence."

https://www.hccla.org/egregious-prosecutorial-conduct/

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.

Kirk Odum; District of Columbia: Story on discredited hair analysis evidence touches on history of hair analysis in criminal investigations..."Analyzing hair as part of criminal investigations dates back at least to the early 1900s. "By the twentieth century it was not common, but it was certainly being attempted," said Skip Palenik, a senior microscopist at Microtrace LLC. Palenik says one can find this mirrored in detective fiction of the time, like Sherlock Holmes. Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project, has been tracing the origins of hair comparison in courts, and found an early example that involved eyeballing a hair. "One of the earliest recorded cases that involved the use of hair microscopy was a murder of a plantation owner in Mississippi in the late 1800s," said Fabricant. "And you can kind of see the probative value of a hair that appeared to be the same color as the victim's, and it was bloody and it was found in a noose...You could just take a look at it and decide for yourself how relevant that was to the prosecution." By the mid twentieth century, the FBI's crime lab had begun training experts in comparative hair techniques. This specifically involved examining strands of hair, side by side under the microscope, and then presenting those findings in court. Keep in mind, this was also before DNA testing was introduced in the late 1990s. The practice was used in cases like Kirk Odom's." Reporter Elana Gordon; WHHY;

STORY: "Hairy evidence: how a misconstrued forensic tool led to time behind bars," by reporter Elana Gordon, published by WHYY on  November 25, 2016.

SUB-HEADING:  "Kirk Odom spent more than two decades in prison for a crime that was later proven he didn't do.

GIST: "Kirk Odom spent more than two decades in prison for a crime that was later proven he didn't do "It was something that was worse than a nightmare," he recalled from his D.C.-area home.
While in prison, he was sexually assaulted. He contracted HIV. He broke down, and at one point, attempted to take his own life. "It was just a complete mess," he said. "Mentally, it just tore me down. It put more fear in me than I ever experienced or ever heard of." A big part of Odom's fate, determined in the spring and fall of 1981, and those years of trauma in prison had to do with hair. And more specifically, the techniques that had long been used to compare a suspect's hair to those found at the scene of a crime. The only problem was, those techniques and their interpretation were often misconstrued and oversold in the courts. In the largest post conviction review of evidence, the FBI is now revisiting federal cases involving comparative hair analysis, many of which date back decades. The agency is also encouraging state and local crime labs to do the same.  That's because in its review of hundreds of cases thus far, they're discovering a lot of errors in the way this forensic tool had been applied. But it doesn't stop there. The review has been followed by calls by some in the science community for more evidence and standards when it comes to other comparative tools that have long been used, and are still used, in criminal investigations....Analyzing hair as part of criminal investigations dates back at least to the early 1900s. "By the twentieth century it was not common, but it was certainly being attempted," said Skip Palenik, a senior microscopist at Microtrace LLC. Palenik says one can find this mirrored in detective fiction of the time, like Sherlock Holmes. Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project, has been tracing the origins of hair comparison in courts, and found an early example that involved eyeballing a hair. "One of the earliest recorded cases that involved the use of hair microscopy was a murder of a plantation owner in Mississippi in the late 1800s," said Fabricant. "And you can kind of see the probative value of a hair that appeared to be the same color as the victim's, and it was bloody and it was found in a noose...You could just take a look at it and decide for yourself how relevant that was to the prosecution." By the mid twentieth century, the FBI's crime lab had begun training experts in comparative hair techniques. This specifically involved examining strands of hair, side by side under the microscope, and then presenting those findings in court. Keep in mind, this was also before DNA testing was introduced in the late 1990s. The practice was used in cases like Kirk Odom's. Odom recalls how during the spring of 1981, a local D.C. police officer approached him because he thought he looked similar to the sketch of a suspect from a recent crime. They brought Odom in and took hair samples. "Still, I didn't know what was going on, what I was being charged with," said Odom. Turns out he was being charged with breaking into a woman's apartment and raping her at gunpoint. Odom was 18 years old at the time. During the trial itself, an FBI-trained analyst testified that the hair found at the scene was microscopically similar to Odom's, and that this similarity was really, really rare. As Odom listened, he couldn't understand it."I was saying to myself, I knew it wasn't me, it wasn't my hair because I know I was not there," he said. Still, he was convicted. Errors identified:  In 2013, FBI began its post conviction review in collaboration with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project. By 2015, it had mined through hundreds of cases and identified errors in 90 percent of the testimony given by experts during trial. Fabricant, with the Innocence Project, says one problem stems from the hair analysis being presented in misleading ways. "These hair comparison presentations are not just verbal testimonies, but are often accompanied by elaborate visual demonstrations, that if you look at the hair at issue and the suspect's hair, they appear to match," said Fabricant. In nine of these cases, the FBI reported that defendents had already been executed. Fabricant says hair errors don't necessarily alter the outcome of a case. Oftentimes other evidence supports a conviction, but the reviews have already reversed the outcomes of some cases. Last month, two cases were reopened in Arkansas as a result of the review identifying flawed testimony from experts. Beyond the federal post conviction review, Fabricant's group has found that about a quarter of the some 300 wrongful convictions that have ever been overturned by DNA evidence have involved faulty hair evidence."

 

The entire story can be found at:

 

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/health-science/item/98665-hairy-evidence-how-a-misconstrued-forensic-tool-led-to-time-behind-bars

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.

René Bailey; Aaron Bruns; Dr. Waney Squier; Leo Ackley; Joshua Burns; Shaken Baby Syndrome: Blogger Sue Luttner writes in "On SBS" that "the shaking debate is back in the courts and in the news, in a post that is loaded with examples..."The landscape in the shaken baby debate is shifting again, with a series of developments that have locked in gains, slowed losses, and even claimed new ground in the struggle against unproven science in the courtroom."..." Other individual victories seem to have triggered a resurgence of press coverage highlighting the controversy. In Minnesota, for example, reporter Tom Lyden at Fox 9 pulled together a provocative treatment with the title “Critics, parents, question diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome,” featuring a local father acquitted at trial; a family whose own experts convinced the county to drop charges; and a mother now fighting the loss of her son. The treatment closes with a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which persists in shifting the question from whether the brain findings prove abuse (No, they do not) to whether shaking is even dangerous (Yes, of course); The assertions of the AAP notwithstanding, the real uncertainties about shaken baby theory were acknowledged this fall, briefly but officially, in a presidential report on forensic sciences in the courtroom, undertaken in the wake of the 2009 study that found “serious deficiencies” and called for “major reforms” of the nation’s forensic science system. The follow-up report, published this fall by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), notes that DNA evidence has disproved past forensic techniques like bite-mark matching and visual hair analysis, and it recommends strategies for bringing courtroom testimony in line with scientific knowledge. Footnote 15 cites an “urgent” need to examine shaken baby theory, which has not been addressed in past studies."

POST: "Shaking debate back in the courts and in the news," by Sue Luttner, on her Blog 'On SBS' published on November 20, 2016.

GIST:  "The landscape in the shaken baby debate is shifting again, with a series of developments that have locked in gains, slowed losses, and even claimed new ground in the struggle against unproven science in the courtroom. In New York state last week, an appeals court affirmed the 2014 reversal of the murder conviction of care provider René Bailey, who said she was out of the room when a little girl jumped or fell from a chair. Prosecution experts had testified, however, that only shaking could explain the brain findings, and that children don’t die from short falls. In his decision reversing the conviction, Judge James Piampiano accepted the argument by Bailey’s appeal attorneys that changes in medical thinking since her 2001 trial constituted new evidence. Last week’s ruling rejected an appeal by the state, noting that “advancements in science and/or medicine may constitute newly discovered evidence” and explicitly mentioning the evolving SBS research. Coverage in the Democrat and Chronicle led with the optimistic proclamation: “For the first time, a New York appellate court has ruled that evidence once used to convict people in shaken-baby cases may no longer be scientifically valid.” That same evidence failed earlier this month to convince a South Dakota jury, which found Aaron Bruns innocent of murdering his 3-month-old son Levi in what appears to be a pure shaking case. Coverage in The Daily Republic offers this summary of the father’s report:......... Other individual victories seem to have triggered a resurgence of press coverage highlighting the controversy. In Minnesota, for example, reporter Tom Lyden at Fox 9 pulled together a provocative treatment with the title “Critics, parents, question diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome,” featuring a local father acquitted at trial; a family whose own experts convinced the county to drop charges; and a mother now fighting the loss of her son. The treatment closes with a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which persists in shifting the question from whether the brain findings prove abuse (No, they do not) to whether shaking is even dangerous (Yes, of course); The assertions of the AAP notwithstanding, the real uncertainties about shaken baby theory were acknowledged this fall, briefly but officially, in a presidential report on forensic sciences in the courtroom, undertaken in the wake of the 2009 study that found “serious deficiencies” and called for “major reforms” of the nation’s forensic science system. The follow-up report, published this fall by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), notes that DNA evidence has disproved past forensic techniques like bite-mark matching and visual hair analysis, and it recommends strategies for bringing courtroom testimony in line with scientific knowledge. Footnote 15 cites an “urgent” need to examine shaken baby theory, which has not been addressed in past studies: All these developments come in the same season as the decision to reinstate Dr. Waney Squier’s right to practice medicine, and the release of a literature review by a panel of Swedish scientists who concluded that shaken baby theory has not been proven, both of which have generated international news coverage. New Scientist, for example, published a news report about the Swedish study, with a sidebar on Dr. Squier’s case and a promo that nailed the character of the debate, calling it “toxic and polarised.”.........The past few weeks have also brought a number of disappointments—in Michigan, a second trial resulted in another guilty verdict against Leo Ackley, whose first conviction had been vacated on appeal, and an appeals court affirmed the conviction of Joshua Burns, who has served his jail time and reunited with his family, although he remains on probation. Both appeals had been pressed by the Michigan Innocence Clinic, which has been focusing on shaking cases. Leo Ackley’s family insists they will keep fighting for him, and last month the Michigan Innocence Clinic won a grant to help defend clients who may have been wrongfully convicted in shaking cases. Despite two disappointments this season, the clinic will surely keep up the pressure against a flawed theory that’s been winning in court way too long."
ing-debate-back-in-the-courts-and-in-the-news/

The San Antonio Four: Anna Vasquez. Elizabeth Ramirez, Kristie Mayhugh and Cassandra Rivera. Aftermath (1); Rolling Stone explores how junk forensic science was used in trial of four lesbians known as the "San Antonio Four."..."A recantation never should have been necessary to see the allegations were false, but child abuse expert Dr. Nancy Kellogg, who frequently testifies for prosecutors, lent them credence by first telling authorities deciding whether to prosecute, and then testifying in both trials, that a mark she observed on the hymen of one of the girls was a scar likely caused by painful penetration. However, as the American Academy of Pediatrics explained in a 2007 report, "torn or injured hymens do not leave scars as a matter of scientific fact." Variations like the ones Dr. Kellogg claimed were evidence of traumatic injury are normal and she has since admitted her testimony was flawed. She suggested her methods were accepted science back then, but other experts say they had been discredited at the time. What had definitely been debunked was the idea that satanic cults were preying on children. Yet Kellogg concluded that the alleged assault might be "satanic related" and shared her suspicions with authorities. Kellogg, who does not appear in the film, continues to be considered an expert in the field."

 
STORY: "How junk forensic science was used in trial of four lesbians known as the "San Antonio Four," by Bridgette Dunlap, published by Rolling Stone on October 13, 2016;

SUB-HEADING: "Inside Case Behind Wrongful Conviction Doc 'Southwest of Salem.'

SUB-HEADING: "Documentary 'Southwest of Salem: the Story of the San Antonio Four' unravels the case against four lesbians accused of abuse."

 

SUB-HEADING:  "Homophobia and hysteria didn't deprive these women of their freedom – prosecutors did."

GIST: "In the summer of 1994, 22-year-old Elizabeth Ramirez and her friends Anna Vasquez, Kristie Mayhugh and Cassandra Rivera were accused of raping Ramirez's two young nieces during a week-long stay at her apartment in San Antonio, Texas. The allegations against the women, all of whom were openly gay, were outlandish and constantly changing. The nieces, their father and grandmother told various authorities and two courts that Aunt Liz and her friends had suddenly called the nieces in from playing one day to strip them naked, hold them down and violently penetrate them with a syringe of unidentified liquid, white powder and a tampon. They claimed one of the women had put a weapon to their heads – a knife in one telling, but later a gun, then two guns. All the women were convicted. Ramirez was tried first and sentenced to 37 years, while Vasquez, Mayhugh and Rivera were tried together and each sentenced to 15 years. Now, the documentary Southwest of Salem: the Story of the San Antonio Four, tells the story of those convictions, made on the basis of inexplicable allegations and junk forensic science. .........Homophobia and hysteria didn't deprive these women of their freedom – prosecutors did......... A recantation never should have been necessary to see the allegations were false, but child abuse expert Dr. Nancy Kellogg, who frequently testifies for prosecutors, lent them credence by first telling authorities deciding whether to prosecute, and then testifying in both trials, that a mark she observed on the hymen of one of the girls was a scar likely caused by painful penetration. However, as the American Academy of Pediatrics explained in a 2007 report, "torn or injured hymens do not leave scars as a matter of scientific fact." Variations like the ones Dr. Kellogg claimed were evidence of traumatic injury are normal and she has since admitted her testimony was flawed. She suggested her methods were accepted science back then, but other experts say they had been discredited at the time. What had definitely been debunked was the idea that satanic cults were preying on children. Yet Kellogg concluded that the alleged assault might be "satanic related" and shared her suspicions with authorities. Kellogg, who does not appear in the film, continues to be considered an expert in the field. She's on the faculty at the University of Texas, leads a center specializing in assessing children for abuse and, not only trains other medical professionals, but created a computer program for diagnosing abuse that is sold to hospitals. Dr. Kellogg has testified in over 800 abuse cases. And this isn't the only one in which the accuser of someone she helped convict has recanted. It's anyone's guess how many innocent people are in prison thanks to her testimony. But Dr. Kellogg may not be so unusual. The use of junk forensic science in criminal courts is rampant. Fortunately for the San Antonio Four, Texas is one of few states that has taken steps to address wrongful convictions based on bad scientific evidence. Its 2013 statute, informally known as the "junk science law," allows people to challenge their convictions where there is new or changed scientific evidence, even if they've exhausted their appeals. The film captures the court hearing in which the women challenged their convictions under the new law. The district attorney's office agreed Kellogg's testimony was unsound and the women were entitled to new trials. The judge, who had admitted the testimony when he presided over the original trial of Ramirez's friends, objects to the district attorney characterizing Kellog's testimony as "junk science," claiming it was accepted at the time. The judge ultimately agreed new trials were warranted, but found the women had not proven they were actually innocent.........Homophobia and hysteria didn't deprive these women of their freedom – prosecutors did. The state's reluctance to take responsibility in a case where its failings have been unusually well-documented and publicized suggests locking up the occasional innocent person isn't that big a deal. With that conviction-at-all-costs mentality pervasive among prosecutors in the U.S., we can expect there are many more innocent people in prison than we know."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/southwest-of-salem-san-antonio-four-junk-forensic-science-w444481

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.

Susan Neill-Fraser case: Major Development: Bulletin: In a surprise move - in a case which has been paralleled with the notorious wrongful conviction and imprisonment of Lindy Chamberlain, famous for telling police a dingo had stolen her 10-week-old baby Azaria from a tent in Central Australia in 1980 - a judge has accelerated her appeal to March, 1917, reports "ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)"..."Pressure for an inquiry into the case came from Tasmanian federal independent politician Andrew Wilkie and QC Robert Richter, who in 2013 wrote to Attorney-General Brian Wightman claiming key witnesses and documents were not drawn to the jury's attention.Mr Richter likened the case to that of Lindy Chamberlain, whose conviction for murdering daughter Azaria at Uluru was quashed. "There's no dingo, but there's significant DNA and other evidentiary material to require answers which are not circumscribed by the adversarial and limited appellate processes," Mr Richter told documentary filmmakers. Attorney-General Wightman rejected Mr Richter's call and said if Neill-Fraser had new evidence she should take it to the courts. She will get that chance in March, 2017."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The past two weeks have been marked by a mind-blogging series of 'Major Developments; in cases this Blog has been following. First, in Louisiana,  Rodricus Crawford won his appeal on first degree murder charge in the death of his son Roderius, and was freed on bond, while prosecutors determine if they will proceed with a  new trial. Second, Kirstin Lobato,  Nevada, won a reversal of a lower court decision denying her appeal. The door has been opened for her for an evidentiary hearing before a new judge which will  consider grounds relating to  forensic evidence,   police and prosecutor misconduct issues, and issues involving ineffective assistance of counsel. Third, the San Antonio Four, Elizabeth Ramirez, Cassandra Rivera, Kristie Mayhugh and Anna Vasquez, (Texas) were declared innocent and exonerated. And now,  in a surprise move, Susan Neill-Fraser's has had a date set for her appeal made possible under Tasmania's new right-to-appeal legislation. Quite a fortnight! 

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog,

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

"A woman who is six years into a 23-year jail sentence for murdering her partner has had a date set for another appeal at freedom. In 2010, a jury was unanimous in its verdict Susan Neill-Fraser, 62, murdered her partner Bob Chappell, 65, on-board their yacht Four Winds off Hobart on Australia Day 2009. Neill-Fraser's conviction also came despite no body and no murder weapon being found.  One prominent legal identity, Melbourne criminal barrister Robert Richter QC, has drawn parallels to the case with the notorious wrongful conviction and imprisonment of Lindy Chamberlain, famous for telling police a dingo had stolen her 10-week-old baby Azaria from a tent in Central Australia in 1980.The Neill-Fraser case has sharply divided opinion as to the businesswoman's guilt or otherwise, with a documentary film devoted to "one of the most intriguing and alarming legal cases in recent Australian history" and Facebook pages and online petitions arguing she has been wrongfully convicted. Neill-Fraser appealed in 2011 and lost, albeit with a small victory of a three-year reduction to her original sentence of 26 years. The following year, an application for leave to appeal to the High Court was refused. In 2014, a coroner ruled Neill-Fraser had acted alone, with police rejecting any need to review the case. Tasmanian legislation passed in 2015 means Neill-Fraser could have another, previously unavailable, chance at freedom. On Thursday, in a surprise move, a judge set a date for Neill-Fraser to appeal. Under new Tasmanian right-to-appeal laws, the Court of Criminal Appeal could order Neill-Fraser's acquittal or retrial if she could satisfy the court there was "fresh and compelling evidence" and there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice. The case was last in court on November 21 when Neill-Fraser's legal team indicated they wanted Justice Shan Tennent disqualified from hearing the new appeal. The hearing on whether Justice Tennent should be disqualified was set down for December. But on Thursday Justice Tennent relisted the appeal — saying she was concerned about the time it was taking to get to appeal to the stage that it could be heard. Justice Tennent told the court she was vacating the December hearing as to whether she should be disqualified — not because she was conceding it had merit but to expedite matters. She said Neill-Fraser's appeal hearing would be heard by another judge when court sittings resumed next year. In 2010, Neill-Fraser told police she had left the yacht at 2:00pm on the day of the murder, went to Bunnings, afterwards going home to her West Hobart house where she stayed. But police could not find CCTV showing Neill-Fraser entering the hardware store. The case included circumstantial evidence from the Crown that 15 years earlier Neill-Fraser had asked a petty criminal, Phillip Triffitt, to kill her brother Patrick on a yacht and then dump the body at sea. DNA evidence from blood on the yacht was found to match that of Meaghan Vass, a homeless teenager at the time, further complicating matters. Failure by the prosecution to recall Ms Vass as a witness formed one of the grounds for the unsuccessful 2014 appeal......... Pressure for an inquiry into the case came from Tasmanian federal independent politician Andrew Wilkie and QC Robert Richter, who in 2013 wrote to Attorney-General Brian Wightman claiming key witnesses and documents were not drawn to the jury's attention."

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-25/bob-chappell-convicted-killer-susan-neill-fraser-appeal-date-set/8056718?pfmredir=sm

The San Antonio Four: Elizabeth Ramirez, Cassandra Rivera, Kristie Mayhugh, and Anna Vasquez. Texas; Aftermath (2): Bulletin: Insightful Texas Monthly story: 'San Antonio 4' declared innocent and exonerated..."An outcome 22 years in the making, after the women spent more than fifteen years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit."..."It was the science that let the women appeal their convictions in the first place. In 2013, the Texas Legislature passed a law that allowed for state habeas applications on basis of so-called “junk science” being used to convict. The law was the first of its kind in the nation to allow for that kind of state-level appeal. The case had to show that scientific evidence known now wasn’t available at the time of the trial and that if the evidence had been presented the person wouldn’t have been convicted. In this case, that was the expert-witness testimony from pediatrician Nancy Kellogg about what she determined was physical evidence of sexual trauma. Kellogg later signed an affidavit stating that if the case was brought today she would have not reached the same conclusion. The plurality ruling, written by Judge David Newell, states that the scientific evidence was just part of why the court determined the women met their “herculean” burden to prove actual innocence. He pointed to the inconsistencies in statements from the nieces; the fact that a well-known expert who conducts psychosexual examinations for the state determined that she would not be able to treat the women as they were not sex offenders “so there would be nothing to treat;” and that the state’s case should be taken into account, as the state “did not recommend denying or granting relief on actual innocence, but rather stated that, now that it is known that Dr. Kellogg’s testimony in the trials in the 1990’s was wrong” and that “what is left is ‘purely the credibility of the witnesses, which is for the Court to determine.'” Link to entire court ruling;

QUOTE OF THE DAY:  “They are innocent. And they are exonerated.”

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals;

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

"At first there was confusion. Then disbelief. Then tears and screams.As news of their exoneration reached them and their relatives, the women known as the San Antonio Four, all began to realize—it’s finally over......... “They are innocent. And they are exonerated,” read the plurality ruling from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals..........Elizabeth Ramirez, Anna Vasquez, Kristie Mayhugh, and Cassandra Rivera have fought for 22 years to clear their names since Ramirez’s two nieces, then 7 and 9, accused all four women of a bizarre sexual assault that even spurred talk of Satanism. One of those accusers recanted and said that nothing happened during that 1994 visit. Anti-gay bias seeped into the trials, especially that of Ramirez, who was tried separately and received 37 ½ years. “I wasn’t expecting this and we just bought a house and all the family is coming over for Thanksgiving,” Ramirez said in a rush of words as she talked about the news. Ramirez had been sleeping yesterday morning when she got a call about the court’s decision. And then she saw a text from their attorney, Mike Ware, of the Innocence Project of Texas. “It said, ‘we did it,’ and I ran into my son’s room and I probably scared him because I was just screaming and crying,” Ramirez said.  “I didn’t know what to expect and with the elections and the holidays I just was waiting and didn’t know if anything would happen.” The plurality opinion of the court—seven of the nine judges heard the case and five agreed on “actual innocence”—means the women are now entitled to compensation from the state. From the beginning, all four have said money is not the end goal but to be declared innocent. “It’s music to my ears,” Vasquez said during a call after first hearing the news. “It’s been 22 years. Twenty-two years. Can you believe that? I want to go straight to the courthouse and tell them I don’t need to be in their system anymore. I don’t have to get permission to go places or leave the state,” she said. All four women have been out of prison and on bond since 2014—Vasquez had been released a year earlier on parole but also was moved to being out on bond—following a deal with the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office after prosecutors agreed the science that helped prosecute the women was now debunked. So even though they were no longer behind bars, they had to follow some restrictions and ask for permission to travel, which during 2016 picked up tremendously with the release of Southwest of Salem a documentary about the case. It was the science that let the women appeal their convictions in the first place. In 2013, the Texas Legislature passed a law that allowed for state habeas applications on basis of so-called “junk science” being used to convict. The law was the first of its kind in the nation to allow for that kind of state-level appeal. The case had to show that scientific evidence known now wasn’t available at the time of the trial and that if the evidence had been presented the person wouldn’t have been convicted. In this case, that was the expert-witness testimony from pediatrician Nancy Kellogg about what she determined was physical evidence of sexual trauma. Kellogg later signed an affidavit stating that if the case was brought today she would have not reached the same conclusion. The plurality ruling, written by Judge David Newell, states that the scientific evidence was just part of why the court determined the women met their “herculean” burden to prove actual innocence. He pointed to the inconsistencies in statements from the nieces; the fact that a well-known expert who conducts psychosexual examinations for the state determined that she would not be able to treat the women as they were not sex offenders “so there would be nothing to treat;” and that the state’s case should be taken into account, as the state “did not recommend denying or granting relief on actual innocence, but rather stated that, now that it is known that Dr. Kellogg’s testimony in the trials in the 1990’s was wrong” and that “what is left is ‘purely the credibility of the witnesses, which is for the Court to determine.'”

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/san-antonio-4-declared-innocent-exonerated/
  
 Link to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling:
 http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=77738544-6ca4-4ce8-84b5-b44cf72669cc&coa=coscca&DT=OPINION&MediaID=aa112588-0a4e-438b-83c3-8ff51a94c5cb

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

Kirstin Lobato : Nevada; Major development: (Great news): The Nevada Supreme Court has reversed a lower court decision denying her appeal - Evidentiary hearing before a new judge expected - numerous grounds (many of which relate to forensic evidence. Door also opened to raising police and prosecutor misconduct issues - and to issues involving ineffective assistance of counsel..." Many of these grounds relate to important forensic issues, such as : Ground 1. New forensic entomology evidence that Duran Bailey’s time of death in Las Vegas was after sunset on July 8, 2001, when the Petitioner was 170 miles away in Panaca, Nevada; Ground 2. New forensic pathology evidence that Bailey’s time of death was after 8 pm on July 8, 2001, when the Petitioner was 170 miles away in Panaca. Ground 3. New forensic entomology and forensic pathology evidence that Bailey’s body did not have cockroach and other predator bites, which establishes his time of death was close to discovery of his body in Las Vegas, when Petitioner was 170 miles away in Panaca. Ground 4. New expert psychology evidence the Petitioner’s Statement describing a sexual assault at an east Las Vegas hotel is not a confession to Bailey’s murder at a west Las Vegas bank. Ground 7. New forensic pathology evidence that more than one person was involved in Duran Bailey’s murder, and it excludes the Petitioner." Wrongly Convicted Group; Wrongly Convicted Group)

POST: "Nevada Supreme Court reverses denial of appeal," by Stephen Jackson, published by The Wrongly Convicted Group on November 24, 2016. (Stephen Jackson is  a public defender and  Peabody award winning journalist.)

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

BACKGROUND: See Wikipedia entry at the link below: "Kirstin Blaise Lobato is a Nevada woman who is serving time for the July 2001 murder and mutilation of Duran Bailey, a homeless man from St. Louis who was living in Las Vegas at the time of his death.^[1] At her first trial in May 2002, she was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 40 to 100 years in prison.^[2][3] In a 2006 retrial, she was convicted of the lesser charges of voluntary manslaughter and sexual penetration of a dead body and sentenced to 13 to 45 years. Lobato's case gained significant notoriety due to the large amount of evidence that advocates for her release believe points to her innocence of the crime.^[4] Prior to being accused of this crime, she confessed to another incident where she stabbed a man in the penis. In this previous incident, she claims that a man was going to rape her, and so she stabbed him in the penis. She told this to eight friends. The police did not charge her for this incident. However, when the police heard about this, they suspected her in the death of the homeless man. ^ACCUSATIONS:In May 2001, Kirstin Lobato, then 18, described an attempted sexual assault that supposedly took place at a Budget Suites hotel. Lobato stated that during the attempted assault, she pulled out a knife and mutilated her attacker's penis. She went on to tell several friends about the alleged attack in the following months.^[1][6]On July 8, 2001, the mutilated corpse of Duran Bailey, a homeless man, was found on the opposite side of Las Vegas. Lobato was charged with the crime more than ten days later, after one of Lobato's friends informed police of her account of the sexual assault that supposedly occurred two months before. During a police interrogation, Lobato acknowledged stabbing a man in the groin, and police believed this constituted a confession to Bailey's murder, while Lobato claimed to be describing her attack.^{[7 FIRST TRIAL:} While prosecutors expected Lobato to plead not guilty by reason of self-defense, Lobato denied committing the crime entirely; she even refused a plea deal offering a 3-year prison sentence on the charge of manslaughter.^[8] She insisted that she was at home in Panaca, Nevada, nearly 200 miles from Las Vegas, on July 8, 2001, and her family confirmed that.^[9] Her attorneys also attempted to discount her supposed confession. However, prosecutors contended that Lobato was a known methamphetamine user and that she killed Bailey during a dispute over sex and drugs. During the May 2002 trial, Lobato testified to her innocence,^[10] and her attorneys brought in experts who also stated that Lobato could not have committed the crime based on physical evidence, but Judge Valorie Vega suppressed much of the experts' testimony.^[11] In their closing statement, Lobato's attorneys compared her trial to the Salem witch trials.^[12] After deliberating through the night, the jury convicted Lobato of first-degree murder. On August 27, 2002, she was sentenced to 40 to 100 years in prison.^{[3] APPEALS, SECOND TRIAL AND ONGOING LITIGATION:}  "Over two years after her conviction, on September 3, 2004, Lobato's conviction was reversed; the Supreme Court of Nevada argued that her attorneys were unable to cross-examine a prosecution witness, who was a woman whom Lobato was incarcerated with while awaiting trial. Her case was remanded for a new trial.^[13] On October 6, 2006, she was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 13 to 45 years in prison.^[4] Lobato's appeal of her conviction was denied by the Supreme Court of Nevada in October 2009. In May 2010, Lobato filed a writ of habeas corpus petition that asserted 79 grounds for a new trial. Among those was her claim of actual innocence based on new evidence discovered after her trial proving she was in Panaca, Nevada, during the time when Bailey was killed. Judge Vega denied Lobato's petition in June 2011. Lobato appealed that ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court on August 1, 2011. In February 2011 Lobato filed a post-conviction petition for DNA testing of crime scene evidence. The Innocence Project agreed to pay for the testing if Lobato's petition was granted. The petition was opposed by the Clark County District Attorney's Office, and denied by Judge Vega. Lobato appealed that ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court, which on January 12, 2012 dismissed her appeal on the basis Judge Vega's ruling was not appealable under NRS 176.0918. After Lobato's DNA testing petition was denied, an online petition has called for the Nevada courts to test the crime scene evidence in Lobato's case, claiming it can prove she is an innocent person.^[6] A book about the case, entitled Kirstin Blaise Lobato's Unreasonable Conviction by Hans Sherrer was published in May 2008 by the Justice Institute, and a second edition in November 2010.^[14] As of March 17, 2015 more than 53,000 copies have been downloaded at no charge from the website, Justice Denied.^[15] Retired FBI agent Steve Moore, noted for his advocacy on behalf of Amanda Knox, has referred to the case documents in the Lobato case as, "...complete and utter bullshit."^[1] After having been charged with misconduct and publicly reprimanded by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, Judge Vega,^[16][17] the judge in both of Lobato's trials, did not run for re-election in 2014 and stepped down from the bench in January 2015.^[17][18] On September 9, 2014 the Nevada Supreme Court, sitting En banc, heard oral arguments related to Lobato's habeas petition. The case has been "Submitted for Decision. En Banc",^[19] and the Court's ruling is pending as of April 1, 2015."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Kirstin_Lobato 

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

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

GIST: Stephen Jackson explains the the Supreme Court decision: "Basically, the court held that the trial court (Judge Valorie Vega) did not do an adequate job fleshing out Lobato’s claims for relief. The court specifically cited several areas where Vega should have ordered an evidentiary hearing." Jackson notes that  "The court specifically cited several areas where Vega should have ordered an evidentiary hearing. The court said that grounds 1–24 and 78 should have been given more than a quick denial by Vega." Many of these grounds relate to important forensic issues, such as : Ground 1. New forensic entomology evidence that Duran Bailey’s time of death in Las Vegas was after sunset on July 8, 2001, when the Petitioner was 170 miles away in Panaca, Nevada;  Ground 2. New forensic pathology evidence that Bailey’s time of death was after 8 pm on July 8, 2001, when the Petitioner was 170 miles away in Panaca. Ground 3. New forensic entomology and forensic pathology evidence that Bailey’s body did not have cockroach and other predator bites, which establishes his time of death was close to discovery of his body in Las Vegas, when Petitioner was 170 miles away in Panaca. Ground 4. New expert psychology evidence the Petitioner’s Statement describing a sexual assault at an east Las Vegas hotel is not a confession to Bailey’s murder at a west Las Vegas bank. Ground 7. New forensic pathology evidence that more than one person was involved in Duran Bailey’s murder, and it excludes the Petitioner. Ground 8. New forensic pathology and crime scene evidence Duran Bailey was alive when his rectum was injured means the Petitioner was convicted of a non-existent violation of NRS 201.450. Ground 9. New forensic pathology evidence that on July 8, 2001, Bailey experienced two attacks two hours apart and likely separated by a meal. Ground 10. New forensic pathology evidence related to the circumstances and time of Bailey’s murder excludes the Petitioner as a perpetrator. Ground 11. New forensic science evidence establishes the Petitioner’s shoes could not have been worn by Bailey’s murderer. Ground 12. New forensic science evidence establishes the shoeprints imprinted in blood on cardboard covering Bailey and on concrete leading out of the trash enclosure were made by his murderer, and the Petitioner’s shoeprints are excluded. Ground 13. New forensic science evidence excludes the Petitioner and her car from the crime scene, and undermines the prosecution’s theory of the crime. Ground 18. New forensic science, dental, and crime scene evidence the prosecution’s theory was impossible that Bailey was hit in the mouth by a baseball bat in the trash enclosure’s northwest corner, and fell backwards and hit his head on the south curb. Ground 23. New forensic entomology, forensic pathology, forensic science, crime scene reconstruction, psychology, alibi witness, dental, third-party culprit, police perjury, and prosecution and police misconduct evidence establishes the Petitioner is actually and factually innocent of murdering Bailey and the post-mortem cutting of his rectum on July 8, 2001.........Two grounds deal with police  and prosecutor misconduct: Ground 21. New evidence LVMPD Detective Thomas Thowsen testified perjuriously multiple times in an effort to falsely link the Petitioner to Bailey’s murder. Ground 22. New evidence of police and prosecutor misconduct by prosecuting the Petitioner when they had evidence the Petitioner did not murder Bailey or cut his rectum after death. The court also gave some weight to Lobato’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and remanded the motion back to the trial court for more evidence on Grounds 38 and 40. Some grounds also relate to ineffective assistance of counsel; Those are: Ground 38. Petitioner’s counsel prejudicially failed to retain a forensic entomologist and introduce expert entomology testimony about Bailey’s time of death. Ground 40. Petitioner’s counsel prejudicially failed to retain a forensic pathologist and introduce exculpatory expert forensic pathology testimony about the medical evidence related to Bailey’s murder......... The court repeatedly stated that an evidentiary hearing should have been held. So, it seems like Lobato is going to get an evidentiary hearing in front of a new judge. Judge Vega has (thankfully) left the bench and can no longer preside over this case. It also cannot be overstate(d)  that the ruling was unanimous. No timeline has been set, but expect the court to start ramping up pretty quickly. We should know more on Monday, but rest easy knowing Kirstin’s going back to court!"

The entire post can be found at:

 https://medium.com/@swjlv/explainer-on-nevada-supreme-court-decision-5800420b5ec5#.vcjqijjuj

 Stephen Jackson's explanation of the decision can be found at the link below;

https://wronglyconvictedgroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/kirstin-lobato-nevada-sc-reverses-denial-of-appeal/

A copy of the complete ruling is here.

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.