CECILIA GARCIA CORTES CASE; BREAKING NEWS; CHARGES DROPPED; DEATH RULED ACCIDENTAL; INNOCENT MOTHER IS FREED FROM CUSTODY; VENTURA COUNTY STAR;

"(DEFENCE LAWYER) LEWIS CRITICIZED THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BY DUNLEVY TO SUPPORT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO DISMISS, CRITICIZING HOW POLICE INTERROGATED HER CLIENT FROM 7 P.M. TO 6 A.M., USING TREMENDOUS PRESSURE TO GET A CONFESSION."

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

"THE TREATING PHYSICIAN AT CHILDRENS HOSPITAL IN LOS ANGELES CONCLUDED THE BABY HAD SUFFERED FROM SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME AND NOT “NON-ACCIDENTAL INJURIES,” DUNLEVY STATED IN HIS MOTION.

LEWIS ARGUED THAT A DOCTOR’S SUSPICION IS “FAR DIFFERENT THAN CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE.”"

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

REPORTER RAUL HERNANDEZ; THE VENTURA COUNTY STAR;

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

Background: Cecilia Cortes was charged with assault on a child resulting in death on April 27, 2009; A police report provides the following details: INCIDENT: 273ab PC / Assault on a child resulting in death; DATE/TIME: 04/27/2009; LOCATION: 4800 Block Saviers Rd. Oxnard; VICTIM/S: 4 month old female child; SUSPECT/S: Cecilia Garcia Cortes, 23 years; PREPARED BY: Sergeant Jim Seitz, Homicide Supervisor; DETAILS: On 4-28-2009 a twenty three (23) year old mother of three was arrested for assaulting her 4 month old child who subsequently died as a result of her injuries.The mother identified as 23 year old Cecilia Garcia Cortes, who recently moved to Oxnard from Fillmore, was home with her three children ages 2 years, 1 year and 4 months on Monday when she apparently became upset due to the 4 month old crying continuously. It is believed that the mother began to violently shake the baby in an attempt to get the child to stop crying. Several hours later the child appeared to have stopped breathing. The child was taken to a local hospital and then airlifted to Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles. The child was on life support until she eventually died at 1:00 pm Thursday afternoon. The mother is in custody at the Ventura County Jail. Her bail is set at $500,000. If convicted of the crime she is facing a sentence of 25 years to life. The other two siblings are in custody of Child Protected Services." On July 30, 2009, a local paper reported that the medical examiner had ruled that the baby's death was accidental - yet Ms. Cortes remained in jail pending a further medical report to be obtained by prosecutors;

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

Cecilia Garcia Cortes has finally been cleared in the tragic death of her 4-month-old daughter, the Ventura County Star reported earlier today;

"The Ventura County District Attorney’s Office dismissed felony charges today against a woman who was accused of assaulting her 4-month-old daughter who died earlier this year," the story. by reporter Raul Hernandez began, under the heading, DA dismisses charges against mother accused of killing infant.

"Deputy District Attorney Thomas Dunlevy declined to comment about the dismissal of the charges," the story continued;

"However, he stated in a motion to dismiss that the criminal charges were dropped on the grounds that the offense cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on conclusions contained in the autopsy report by the Ventura County Medical Examiner.

Chief Medical Examiner Ronald O’Halloran ruled last month that the April 30 death of Guadalupe Cardoza, from blunt-force trauma, was an accident. The death was attributed to an accidental fall.

The 23-year-old mother Cecilia Garcia Cortes of Oxnard has been in jail under a $500,000 bail since her arrest in May.

Ventura County Superior Court Edward Brodie granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the charges.

Cortes’ lawyer, Barbara Lewis who works for the Public Defender’s Office, said she was happy that the charges had been dismissed and pleased with the outcome.

“I am very pleased and relieved and I think they came to the right

decision,” Lewis said in an interview.

In the courtroom, relatives of Cortes said they were happy she was being freed.

“I am very happy. We thank God,” said Cortes’ sister, Marisela

Fernandez, adding that Cortes now has to get back her two other children from state child protective services.

Lewis criticized the statement of facts filed by Dunlevy to

support the district attorney’s motion to dismiss, criticizing how

police interrogated her client from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m., using tremendous pressure to get a confession.

“In the course of their investigation, they (Oxnard police officers)

interviewed the infant’s mother, Cecilia Cortes. In the course of the

interview, Cortes admitted that on April 27, 2009, she became

frustrated with her baby because she would not stop crying. Cortes

admitted that she raised the infant over her head and shook her

violently for approximately seven minutes. Cortes demonstrated to the detective the manner in which she shook the infant using a stuffed animal,” Dunlevy’s motion states.

Lewis said the entire interrogation is on videotape, and it

contradicts what detectives are saying.

“She never said she shook the baby violently. What they are taking is a statement that was made after hours of questioning,” Lewis said. “During that course of that questioning, they told her repeatedly that she had caused injury to the child and they basically convinced her that she had caused injury to the child. For hours, she insisted that she did not.”

Lewis said Cortes showed police how she held the baby over her head.

“She never described a violent shaking motion. What she described was a rocking back and forth motion that parents are familiar with in order to comfort the child. She cried and said, ‘I didn’t know that could hurt the baby.’”

Lewis said an officer who questioned Cortes said “there is no question that you did this. The question is whether you did this because you were frustrated or you are a monster.”

The medical examiner concluded that the defendant’s “shaking of the baby” was not the cause of death, according to Dunlevy’s motion.

Death was a result of an accidental fall onto the floor of a vehicle in which the baby landed on her head, the motion states.

Cortes’ boyfriend, Victor Hugo, said after the hearing that the baby

slid from his arms and fell inside the truck as he got her out of her

baby seat. He said he admitted to police that he dropped the child,

saying they interviewed him for more than three hours. He said he took a lie-detector test.

“I was telling the truth. I never asked for a lawyer,” Hugo said.


Lewis argued that a doctor’s suspicion is “far different than conclusive evidence.”"

The story can be found at:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/aug/05/da-dismisses-charges-against-mother-accused-of/

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

JURYGATE; CRITICAL COMMENT; UNFLINCHING EDITORIAL AND COLUMN IN THIS MONTH'S CANADIAN LAWYER MAGAZINE;

"In this issue, both Legal Ethics columnist Philip Slayton and incoming Canadian Bar Association president Kevin Carroll touch on the explosive issue of police and prosecutors doing background checks on potential jurors," begins Canadian Lawyer's editorial, by editor Gail Cohen, under the heading, "Disbar those bad apples."

"At least two mistrials in Ontario were declared once the irregular, perhaps even illegal, practice came to light," the editorial continues;

"Ontario’s privacy commissioner and Attorney General Chris Bentley jointly have sent out detailed questionnaires to all 54 Crown prosecution offices in the province “to determine the nature and extent of this practice.” The Ontario Criminal Lawyers’ Association has also demanded that Bentley’s office provide “full disclosure of all information in the ministry’s possession relating to any prior jury trials in this province in which this practice is known to have occurred.”

Chances are there are more cases in which this has occurred than the few that have become public. It’s not just a question of whether the privacy of jurors has been breached but that secret background checks on the jury pool are essentially illegal under the Ontario Juries Act.

The implications of this practice do more than simply bring the administration of justice into disrepute, it will be costly on many levels. If it’s found to be widespread, there will be a wave of defence counsel filing appeals, which will take valuable court time. Likely there will be civil lawsuits filed against police and prosecutors. Will it be the individuals involved that are going to pay damages if they’re found culpable? Unlikely. Taxpayers will, once again, have to foot the bill.

The AG must come down hard on prosecutors who have participated in this folly: any Crowns who may have been involved should be reported to the law society. It, in turn, must institute disciplinary proceedings. Those Crowns found to have been involved should be disbarred. It would send a message both to other Crowns and to the public that the justice system has integrity — and don’t mess with it.

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

Phillip Slayton's column, runs under the heading, "The system has been compromised:
Legal Ethics;"

"It turns out Ontario police have been conducting background checks on prospective jurors," the column begins;

"Don’t confuse this with traditional jury vetting, when both prosecution and defence publicly question, and perhaps challenge, prospective jurors in open court," it continues;

"What happened in Ontario is the secret gathering by police of information from confidential computer databases. This information was then handed over to Crown prosecutors, who apparently had asked for it in the first place. Prosecutors used this stuff to identify and pick jurors who might be more inclined to convict, and to weed out those who might be sympathetic to the accused. To add injury to insult, when the story came to light, the Crown tried to suppress it by seeking a publication ban. It’s all reminiscent of the stasi, East Germany’s notorious secret police.

This is a big deal. It’s an abuse of state power. It brings the administration of justice into question. Police and lawyers may have broken the law, and lawyers may be in breach of their own rules of professional conduct. Criminal defence lawyers, appalled by the whole thing, have started opening up old files to see if appeals are possible. Expect an avalanche of these appeals, at huge cost to the heavily burdened taxpayer. We should all be mighty angry about what has happened. What were the police and Crown attorneys thinking?

In June, a Barrie, Ont., judge scrapped two lists of 120 potential jurors when secret background checks on prospective jurors became known. Handwritten annotations next to some names on the lists noted Highway Traffic Act convictions, mental health problems, and the like. In some cases, the notes bordered on farce; “neighbour shot his cat” was one. Other names had “OK” written next to them. Did that mean they were likely to decide in the Crown’s favour? One note next to a name was, “dislikes police.”

But all right, it was only Barrie. An isolated incident, perhaps. But then, a few days later, a judge in Windsor declared a mistrial in a murder case two months after it had begun because he discovered that police and Crowns had been up to the same thing. The Windsor police chief admitted the practice was “routine.” Almost immediately after that, it turned out that background checks on prospective jurors had also been conducted in Thunder Bay. Where else has it happened? At press time that was it but, no doubt we’ll find out soon enough. There are 54 Crown offices in Ontario.

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley condemned the practice, claiming that it was not a “widespread issue” (how wide would it have to be before it could be considered “widespread?”). He ordered a provincial probe. Apparently a March 2006 directive from then-attorney general Michael Bryant had said only criminal record checks of prospective jurors could be conducted and all information must be shared with the defence; everyone seems to have forgotten about this. OPP commissioner Julian Fantino has made a statement referring to “the practice of some of our OPP detachments of conducting background checks on potential jurors at the requests of local Crown attorneys.” Fantino ordered the practice stopped.

Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian began an investigation to see if privacy laws had been broken. A statement from her office said: “The focus of our investigation will be whether this was a proper use of police databases and whether the privacy rights of potential jurors have been compromised. . . . We will determine whether any provisions of Ontario’s three privacy laws: the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, were breached.”

But Brian Beamish, assistant privacy commissioner, admitted the privacy commissioner lacks subpoena powers on anything other than health-related information. She can order bodies to stop collecting information and destroy any information already collected, but can’t compel them to participate or co-operate in an investigation.

Let’s be clear about one thing: background checks of potential jurors are illegal. Several sections of the Ontario Juries Act make plain that jury lists shall contain only the name, place of residence, and occupation of those on the list. And s. 20 of the act says: “The jury roll and every list containing the names of the jury drafted for any panel shall be kept under lock and key by the sheriff, and except in so far as may be necessary in order to prepare the panel lists, and serve the jury summons, shall not be disclosed . . . until ten days before the sittings of the court for which the panel has been drafted. . . .” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, giving judgment for a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada, clearly and definitively described the jury selection process in the 2001 case of R. v. Find. She stressed the primacy of jury impartiality.

Perhaps Crown attorneys who were involved in all this should also worry about law society disciplinary action. Rule 4.06(1) of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct says: “A lawyer shall encourage public respect for and try to improve the administration of justice.”

Commentary on Rule 4.05(1) says, “a lawyer should not conduct or cause another, by financial support or otherwise, to conduct a vexatious or harassing investigation of either a member of the jury panel or a juror.” It will be interesting to see if the law society steps up to the plate on this one. It may be a decisive test of the regulatory body.

I’m not a great fan of judicial commissions of inquiry. So often, they are used by the powers that be to shunt problems aside and silence critics. But, in this case, we need one badly. The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General is severely compromised. So are the police. The privacy commissioner is toothless. Only a judge can get to the bottom of this horrible mess."

Philip Slayton has been dean of a law school and senior partner of a major Canadian law firm.

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE; (5); J.D. TUCCILLE; A FORENSIC SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE;

"A REPORT ON THE STATE OF FORENSIC MEDICINE FOR THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE CONCEDES THAT "THE FACT IS THAT MANY FORENSIC TESTS -- SUCH AS THOSE USED TO INFER THE SOURCE OF TOOLMARKS OR BITE MARKS -- HAVE NEVER BEEN EXPOSED TO STRINGENT SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY." OVERALL, SAYS THE REPORT: [I]N SOME CASES, SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION AND TESTIMONY BASED ON FAULTY FORENSIC SCIENCE ANALYSES MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. THIS FACT HAS DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL DANGER OF GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT TO EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY DERIVED FROM IMPERFECT TESTING AND ANALYSIS. MOREOVER, IMPRECISE OR EXAGGERATED EXPERT TESTIMONY HAS SOMETIMES CONTRIBUTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ERRONEOUS OR MISLEADING EVIDENCE."

J.D. TUCCILLE; CIVIL LIBERTIES EXAMINER;

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

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

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

J.D. Tuccille's perceptive column on the Dillon case ran on June 15, 2009, on Examiner.com under the heading, "Prosecution dog put innocent people behind bars (and other bogus 'evidence' does the same)" - and the sub-heading "Police detection dogs can be helpful -- but they're at least as fallible as any other tool or technology."

Tuccille describes himself "a writer and editor based in northern Arizona" who can best be described as "a political junkie with a radical-libertarian bent."

"William Dillon spent 27 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit," the column begins;

"Wilton Dedge spent a similar stretch behind bars before finally being exonerated," it continues;

"Juan Ramos was sentenced to death before being freed from prison over a crime he didn't commit. The three men are linked not just by their innocence, but by the role played in their cases by dog handler John Preston, a one-time Pennsylvania state trooper, and his amazingly talented dog, Harass II. Preston was only one of many "scientific" experts later exposed as a fraud, some of whose victims may still wait to be revealed.

Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel has the details regarding Preston and the wreckage he left behind. But the fact that Preston and his "wonder dog" were so relied upon by prosecutors and courts until exposed in the media and humiliated by one judge demonstrates just how much suspension of disbelief (or outright dishonesty) is behind the acceptance of "forensic science" that too often turns out to be either poorly applied -- or even pure hocum.

Reason magazine's Radley Balko has made justified waves in recent years by exposing the nonsense disguised as medicine peddled by Dr. Michael West, a dentist who offered scientifically implausible evidence of guilt (in several cases, of defendants later proven innocent), based on his exclusive bite-mark "technique."

Balko was also largely responsible for (hopefully) ending the career of the notorious Dr. Steven Hayne, a medical examiner without credentials who seemed to customize his testimony to meet the needs of prosecutors.

But it's not just corrupt individuals who deserve skepticial consideration -- so do whole areas of forensic "science." Drug testing, for instance, is a highly subjective "science" that has a lot to do with the skill -- and honesty -- of technicians. It's not at all uncommon for ordinary soap to test positive for illegal intoxicants.

A report on the state of forensic medicine for the National Academies of Science concedes that "The fact is that many forensic tests -- such as those used to infer the source of toolmarks or bite marks -- have never been exposed to stringent scientific scrutiny."

Overall, says the report:

[I]n some cases, substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people. This fact has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Moreover, imprecise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence.

"Faulty" science has to include the evidence of dogs, which have become so ubiquitous in recent years because of their supposed ability to connect defendants to crime scenes, or to simply detect forbidden substances.

But, despite the legendary power of their noses, canine-based evidence has to be taken with a grain of salt. For starters, dogs' "testimony" is highly dependent on the word of their handlers. In fact, there's no standard way for a dog to tell us that something has been detected. Some dogs just sit, others jump up and bark -- interpretation is in the eye of the handler.

Dogs, also, are notoriously easy to manipulate, since they develop close bonds with their handlers. For a 2004 report on the unreliability of detection dogs, Auburn University professor Larry Myers, a leading expert on canine detection programs, told CBS News, “They can tell you that something's there, that's not there, simply to get praise, to get food, to get whatever they're working for.”

Through improperly training his dogs, or simply lying about their alerts, it was easy for John Preston to manufacture evidence of the guilt of innocent men.

But fallibility can be as dangerous as fraud. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in 2007 that canine testimony was acceptable in a case where the dog was only 54% accurate.

How many years of prison time are we willing to let ride on a 54% accuracy rate?

None of this is to say that forensic science is worthless. Properly used and understood it's absolutely necessary. After all, William Dillon and Wilton Dedge were freed of the shackles placed on them by bogus canine testimony because of the more rigorous standards set by DNA evidence.

But presenting fallible and sometimes fraudulent evidence as if it's beyond question runs the risk of discrediting good science along with the bad. The damage done by the John Prestons of the world can only be undone if we treat science as an imperfect part of an imperfect world -- not as the magic so-often peddled by charlatans."

The column can be found at:

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m6d15-Prosecution-dog-put-innocent-people-behind-bars-and-other-bogus-evidence-does-the-same

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE: (4); FLORIDA INNOCENCE PROJECT'S PROFILE OF THE CASE - ANATOMY OF A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WITH BRUTAL RESULTS;

"PRESTON, A PURPORTED EXPERT IN SCENT TRACKING HIRED BY THE STATE, TESTIFIED THAT HIS DOG, HARASS II, HAD, PRIOR TO TRIAL, LINKED DILLON TO THE CRIME SCENE AND THE YELLOW T-SHIRT. PRESTON’S CLAIMS HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF SCENT TRACKING, MEDIA REPORTS (INCLUDING AN EXPOSE ON THE TV SHOW 20/20), MULTIPLE STATE SUPREME COURTS (INCLUDING THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, WHICH CALLED HIM A “CHARLATAN”), POLICE TRAINING MANUALS, AND LAW REVIEW ARTICLES. AND IN 1984, WHEN HE WAS A CAPITAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, CURRENT BREVARD COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY NORMAN WOLFINGER, SAID, “I WOULDN’T WANT MY LIFE TO DEPEND ON WHAT [PRESTON’S] DOG SAYS.”"

FLORIDA INNOCENCE PROJECT;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

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

"On November 18, 2008, William Dillon was freed from prison after 27 years when postconviction DNA testing demonstrated his actual innocence of a 1981 murder<" the Innocence Project's account begins.

"Dillon’s 27 years equals the longest time served by any of the 232 DNA exonorees nationwide. He is the third man to be exonerated in Brevard County in recent years," the account continues;

"The Crime
On the morning of August 17, 1981, James Dvorak was found murdered at Canova Beach. He had been brutally beaten to death and left in a wooded area, an apparent homosexual meeting place near the beach.

Dillon became a suspect because several days after the murder, while hanging out at Canova Beach, he was approached by police who were questioning people about the crime. Dillon had read about the murder in the newspaper and had seen the yellow police tape in a wooded area near the beach. He told police that he assumed the taped area was where the crime occurred. Perhaps because they had no other suspects, police inferred from this that Dillon had further information about the crime and subsequently brought him in for questioning. After several days and multiple interrogations, police arrested Dillon.

The Trial
The State’s case was based largely on the testimony of four key witnesses—an admitted perjurer, a fraudulent dog scent expert, a snitch whose charges were dropped in return for his testimony, and a half-blind eyewitness—as well as a t-shirt worn by the killer, which now reveals that Dillon was not the murderer.

(1) Donna Parrish: Parrish, Dillon’s sometime sexual partner, was the only witness to testify that she saw Dillon at the crime scene. However, she did not witness the murder itself. She gave inconsistent statements to police throughout the investigation and gave implausible, confused testimony at trial, which seemed to suggest that she had stumbled upon the already-dead body independent of Dillon, told no one, and later followed him back to the body. She also claimed that on the night in question, Dillon was wearing the yellow t-shirt.

Less than a month after trial, Parrish recanted her trial testimony in its entirety, under oath, stating that she had been pressured by the Sheriff’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office and threatened with 25 years in prison. In particular, she said that she had lied about following Dillon to the body and had lied when she said that he had worn or even owned the yellow t-shirt. In fact, she said that she and Dillon had spent the night in question at a motel room with acquaintances, and her entire trial testimony regarding their whereabouts was a fabrication. Furthermore, Florida Today newspaper reported that, during the investigation, Parrish and the lead investigator, Sgt. Charles Slaughter, had a sexual liaison. Slaughter was suspended and eventually resigned as a result.

(2) John Preston: Preston, a purported expert in scent tracking hired by the State, testified that his dog, Harass II, had, prior to trial, linked Dillon to the crime scene and the yellow t-shirt. Preston’s claims have been thoroughly discredited by experts in the field of scent tracking, media reports (including an expose on the tv show 20/20), multiple state supreme courts (including the Arizona Supreme Court, which called him a “charlatan”), police training manuals, and law review articles. And in 1984, when he was a capital defense attorney, current Brevard County State Attorney Norman Wolfinger, said, “I wouldn’t want my life to depend on what [Preston’s] dog says.”

(3) Roger Dale Chapman: Chapman’s testimony was suspect from the outset. He said that Dillon confessed to the murder and reenacted it in the middle of the jail dining hall. Despite the presence of other inmates, however, there were no other witnesses to this alleged confession. Furthermore, Chapman’s report of the confession included numerous details that were at odds with the facts of the case. For example, Chapman said that Dillon had told him that the crime occurred on a beach miles away from the beach where it actually occurred, Canova Beach.

After Chapman agreed to testify against Dillon, the State dropped pending charges against him for the rape of a sixteen-year-old girl.

(4) John Parker: Parker testified that on the night of the murder, he picked up a sweaty, bloody man hitchhiking near the scene of the crime and the two had oral sex. The man, who called himself “Jim,” left behind a bloody yellow t-shirt that Parker later turned over to police. At trial, Parker identified that man as Dillon.

There has always been ample reason to doubt Parker’s identification. He was legally blind in one eye and his description of the assailant differed markedly from Dillon’s actual characteristics. Furthermore, at trial, Parker conceded that he wasn’t sure that Dillon was, in fact, the man he picked up.

(5) The Yellow T-shirt: At trial, the State’s theory was clear: the killer wore the yellow t-shirt during the crime and later left it in Parker’s truck. The State referenced the t-shirt dozens of times throughout trial. By repeatedly linking the t-shirt to the crime scene and Dillon to the t-shirt, the State was able to link Dillon to the crime scene. For example, Parker testified that he picked up the hitchhiker with the t-shirt near the scene of the crime and Parrish testified that Dillon was wearing the t-shirt on the evening of the murder. In addition, through a convoluted series of scent lineups and scent detections, Preston’s dog was able to link Dillon to the t-shirt and to the crime scene.

Postconviction
DNA evidence that demonstrates Dillon’s innocence came as a result of a 2007 motion filed by Dillon’s attorneys, Mike Pirolo and the Innocence Project of Florida. DNA testing revealed that DNA from sweat on the bloody yellow t-shirt (the State’s key piece of evidence at trial) did not come from Dillon; it came from person(s) unknown. This confirmed what Dillon had said all along — that someone other than Dillon committed the murder.

On November 14, 2008, Dillon’s conviction was vacated. He was released on November 18, 2008, when the court granted him bond and he walked out of the Brevard County Jail with his family and his legal team. The State declined to re-try Dillon and filed a Nolle Prosequi with the court on December 10, 2008. Dillon spent over 27 years in prison for a crime he did not commit."

The specifics:

Jurisdiction: Eighteenth Circuit County: Brevard

Charge: First-Degree Felony Murder

Conviction: First-Degree Felony Murder

Sentence: Life

Year of Conviction: 1981

Exoneration Date: 12/10/08

Sentence Served: 27 Years

Real perpetrator found? Not Yet

Contributing Causes: Eyewitness Misidentification, Informant/Snitch, Unreliable/Limited Science, Perjured Witness Testimony, Manufactured Evidence

Compensation? Not Yet

This account can be found at:

http://floridainnocence.org/content/?page_id=49

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE: (3) COLUMNIST SCOTT MAXWELL ASKS IF A "MAGICAL DOG" JAILED A FOURTH INNOCENT MAN - HE HAS BEEN IN PRISON MORE THAN TWO DECADES;

"NOW COMES WORD THERE MAY BE A FOURTH: ANOTHER MAN STILL IN PRISON MORE THAN TWO DECADES AFTER PRESTON AND HIS GERMAN SHEPHERD PROVIDED THE KEY EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY TYING HIM TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.

"THERE ARE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE OTHERS," SAID BREVARD-SEMINOLE'S ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER, MIKE PIROLO. "I MEAN, IT'S SCARY HOW SIMILAR MANY OF THESE CASES ARE.""

ORLANDO SENTINEL COLUMNIST SCOTT MAXWELL;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

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

"In hindsight, it's hard to believe that John Preston and his magical dog were ever allowed to testify in court" columnist Scott Maxwell asks in his column which appeared on June24, 2009, under the heading, "Did magical dog jail a fourth innocent man?"

"Preston's claims — that his dog could track scents through water, even years after a suspect supposedly left them — were preposterous. And Preston was, ultimately, discredited in court," the column continues;

"Since then, three of the Brevard County men whom Preston helped convict subsequently had their convictions overturned.

Now comes word there may be a fourth: another man still in prison more than two decades after Preston and his German shepherd provided the key evidence allegedly tying him to the scene of the crime.

"There are a lot of similarities between this case and the others," said Brevard-Seminole's assistant public defender, Mike Pirolo. "I mean, it's scary how similar many of these cases are."

What's also scary is how many of these cases have yet to be scrutinized

Preston testified in dozens of Central Florida cases in the early '80s. A judge would later say prosecutors retained Preston and his act "to confirm the state's preconceived notions about cases."

And yet, until now, there has been no thorough check to see whether others were wrongfully convicted as well.

That, however, is starting to change.

•A national legal group has taken up the cause of the fourth person.

•The Public Defender's Office in Brevard opening a broader inquiry of its own.

•And this tale of perverted justice will get a national audience tonight when Anderson Cooper is slated to spotlight Preston and his cases during his 10 o'clock show on CNN.

Meanwhile, as others search for justice, some of Florida's highest-placed officials — Gov. Charlie Crist, Attorney General Bill McCollum and Brevard-Seminole State Attorney Norm Wolfinger — remain uninvolved and unmoved.

A gruesome murder
The biggest news is the emergence of nationally renowned Centurion Ministries, a faith-based legal group in Princeton, N.J., that has helped exonerate more than 40 people.

Centurion is taking on the case of Gary Bennett, a Palm Bay man convicted in the 1983 murder of 54-year-old Helen Nardi.

Nardi's death was a gruesome one.

According to Sentinel reports from the time, she was found stabbed 26 times in the neck, chest and back with an ice pick, steak knife, screwdriver and pair of scissors. The ice-pick blade and scissors were left embedded in her nude body.

Prosecutors, however, needed to tie Bennett to the weapons, which Preston and his dog helped do. The dog first sniffed Bennett and then, according to Preston, found the same scent on crucial evidence.

Prosecutors also relied upon fingerprints in the victim's house, which Bennett argued he probably left three days earlier when visiting the victim, whom he knew. They also used testimony from jailhouse snitches — who were promised leniency in exchange for their help.

Centurion Ministries attorney Kate Germond did not want to discuss details of Bennett's case this week, saying she hoped she could work hand in hand with local officials. If she does, she might not be working with Wolfinger, who as a public defender briefly represented Bennett before he was elected state attorney in 1984.

At Wolfinger's request, Gov. Charlie Crist assigned another prosecutor to handle any new developments in the case: Orange-Osceola's Lawson Lamar.

A new inquiry
Meanwhile, Brevard-Seminole Public Defender James Russo is launching an inquiry of his own.

Russo's goal is to try to find out how many other people Preston helped convict. And he received some help last weekend from Florida Today, the Melbourne-based newspaper that did an impressive job scanning its archives to uncover the names of about a dozen more cases in which Preston was involved.

The public defender had hoped Wolfinger's office would actually pursue this matter.

Said Pirolo: "He has an obligation from a legal, moral and ethical standpoint."

Wolfinger knows that some of Preston's cases, which predate his tenure, went bad. He has not only admitted it; he apologized on his office's behalf after much-belated DNA tests directly contradicted some of the state's prior claims. But he has refused to conduct an investigation to see whether others were improperly convicted, essentially arguing that the burden is on the convicted to mount their own defense.

That line infuriates Gary Bennett's niece, Rebecca, 27, who was a toddler when her uncle went to prison — and whose family has always believed her uncle is innocent.

"You know, that sounds good, saying we should just take care of it ourselves," Rebecca Bennett said. "But we're a middle-class family. We can't afford top-notch lawyers. And this has just been awful."

The recent spate of attention has given the Bennetts the first hope they've had in years.

I certainly don't know for sure whether Bennett was wrongfully convicted.

But I do know that three of John Preston's cases have already been overturned — and that Preston was involved in dozens more cases that have not yet been scrutinized.

And those facts alone are enough to know that justice demands better."

The article can be found at:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-asecorl-maxwell-preston-062409062409jun24,0,6590313.columnScott Maxwell can be reached at 407-420-6141 or smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com.

Harold Levy15@gmail.com;

CECILIA CORTES CASE; CHARGED WITH FATALLY SHAKING 4-MONTH OLD DAUGHTER TO DEATH; DETAINED; EXAMINER NOW SAYS DEATH ACCIDENTAL; SHE REMAINS IN JAIL;

"THE CHILD DIED APRIL 30, ACCORDING TO POLICE, AND CORTES WAS ACCUSED OF FATALLY SHAKING THE GIRL. LEWIS SAID THE AUTOPSY WAS PERFORMED MAY 1, BUT SHE DIDN’T GET A COPY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE UNTIL JULY 17. SHE SAID SHE WAS TOLD PROSECUTORS RECEIVED THE RESULTS A DAY EARLIER.

LEWIS SAID PROSECUTOR THOMAS DUNLEVY INDICATED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS GOING TO SEEK A SECOND OPINION, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICE HAS RELIED ON THE VENTURA COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER TO DO HUNDREDS OF AUTOPSIES.

“THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT HIS OPINION HERE,” SHE SAID."

REPORTER RAUL HERNANDEZ; VENTURA COUNTY STAR; (CALIFORNIA);

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

Background: Cecilia Cortes was charged with assault on a child resulting in death on April 27, 2009; A police report provides the following details: INCIDENT: 273ab PC / Assault on a child resulting in death; DATE/TIME: 04/27/2009; LOCATION: 4800 Block Saviers Rd. Oxnard; VICTIM/S: 4 month old female child; SUSPECT/S: Cecilia Garcia Cortes, 23 years; PREPARED BY: Sergeant Jim Seitz, Homicide Supervisor; DETAILS: On 4-28-2009 a twenty three (23) year old mother of three was arrested for assaulting her 4 month old child who subsequently died as a result of her injuries.The mother identified as 23 year old Cecilia Garcia Cortes, who recently moved to Oxnard from Fillmore, was home with her three children ages 2 years, 1 year and 4 months on Monday when she apparently became upset due to the 4 month old crying continuously. It is believed that the mother began to violently shake the baby in an attempt to get the child to stop crying. Several hours later the child appeared to have stopped breathing. The child was taken to a local hospital and then airlifted to Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles. The child was on life support until she eventually died at 1:00 pm Thursday afternoon. The mother is in custody at the Ventura County Jail. Her bail is set at $500,000. If convicted of the crime she is facing a sentence of 25 years to life. The other two siblings are in custody of Child Protected Services." On July 30, 2009, a local paper reported that the medical examiner had ruled that the baby's death was accidental - yet Ms. Cortes remained in jail pending a further medical report to be obtained by prosecutors;

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

The Ventura County Star's story, by reporter Raul Hernandez, appeared under the heading, "Baby's death ruled accident, mother still in jail", on Thursday, July 30, 2009.

"The death of a 4-month-old girl, whose mother remains in jail on suspicion of assaulting the child, has been ruled an accident," the story begins;

"The infant died from blunt-force trauma, according to the Ventura County Medical Examiner," it continues;

"“The manner of death was ruled as accidental,” Chief Deputy Medical Examiner James Baroni said Wednesday.

The mother, Cecilia Garcia Cortes, 23, of Oxnard, has been in jail with bail set at $500,000 since her arrest in April.

Cortes’ lawyer, Barbara Lewis, who works for the Public Defender’s Office, said the baby was accidentally dropped by Cortes’ boyfriend.

The child died April 30, according to police, and Cortes was accused of fatally shaking the girl. Lewis said the autopsy was performed May 1, but she didn’t get a copy of the results from the District Attorney’s Office until July 17. She said she was told prosecutors received the results a day earlier.

Lewis said prosecutor Thomas Dunlevy indicated the district attorney is going to seek a second opinion, even though the office has relied on the Ventura County Medical Examiner to do hundreds of autopsies.

“There is no reason to doubt his opinion here,” she said.

Lewis said she will try to meet with Dunlevy this week or next to discuss the case.

An early disposition conference on the case is scheduled for Wednesday, Lewis said.

Dunlevy declined to comment. He said his office will conduct further investigation and know in the next few weeks whether the charges against Cortes will be dismissed.

Baroni said the child died because she didn’t get enough oxygen to the brain after the blunt-force trauma. He said the autopsy required further tests and everything had to be thoroughly reviewed before the medical examiner could issue the findings.

Lewis said Cortes has always maintained that the death was an accident. “She knew the truth would come out,” Lewis said.

Oxnard police initially alleged the infant was crying continuously and Cortes became upset with her. Police said they believed Cortes violently shook the baby to get her to stop crying.

The alleged incident occurred April 27 in the 4800 block of Saviers Road in Oxnard, where Cortes lived after having recently moved from Fillmore, according to police.

The baby stopped breathing several hours later, police said. The child was taken to the hospital and died three days later, police said."

The story can be found at:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/jul/30/babys-death-ruled-accidental-but-mother-still-in/

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE (2); ORLANDO SENTINEL EDITORIAL (JULY 26); A MUST READ; TAKES ON MAGIC DOGS, THEIR FRAUDULENT MASTERS - AND DEMANDS JUSTICE;

"AT THAT MOMENT IN 1984, EVERY ONE OF THE CASES IN WHICH PRESTON TESTIFIED SHOULD'VE BEEN REVIEWED.

SO SAYS STATE SEN. DAN GELBER, A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND ONE OF TWO DEMOCRATS HOPING TO FACE THE REPUBLICAN KOTTKAMP IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RACE NEXT FALL. "THE NIGHTMARE OF ANY PROSECUTOR IS TO PUT AN INNOCENT PERSON IN JAIL," GELBER SAID. "IT'S AN ABOMINATION OF THE SYSTEM.""

EDITORIAL; THE ORLANDO SENTINEL; 26 JULY, 2009;
PHOTO: ILL DILLON ON HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

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

It is refreshing to see the principled editorial published by the Orlando Sentinel on the Bill Dillon case under the heading, "Investigations and elections provide new hope for justice."

"State Attorney Norm Wolfinger has finally launched an investigation into the tale of twisted justice that involves false testimony, wrongfully imprisoned men and a supposedly magic dog in Brevard County," the editorial,published on July 26, 2009, begins.

"The investigation, which he confirmed Friday afternoon, centers on discredited dog handler John Preston," the editorial continues.

"The review comes much too late for the men Preston helped convict — two of whom spent more than 20 years behind bars before they were exonerated and freed.

But others are still in prison or have been released and are living with felony records.

And, for the first time, politicians statewide are getting involved.

In fact, when contacted last week, all but one of the leading candidates for governor and attorney general vowed to look into the Preston cases, if elected.

Democratic candidate for governor Alex Sink said such a review was simply "logical," given what's known.

Republican A.G. hopeful Jeff Kottkamp said, "Equal justice for all is a guiding principle of our society. Obviously a case of wrongful incarceration — or in this instance, cases ... is something we cannot tolerate."

Kottkamp's passionate remarks stand in stark contrast to the uninterested and dismissive responses from both his boss, Gov. Charlie Crist, and the man he wants to replace, Attorney General Bill McCollum.

Despite repeated calls to investigate the Preston cases — and the possibility that others may have been wrongfully convicted — both Crist and McCollum have sat on the sidelines, saying that getting involved is simply not their job.

Both are now seeking higher offices.

The wonder dog
It all started back in the early 1980s when Preston, a former state trooper from Pennsylvania, began wowing juries with what seemed like a wonder dog.

Preston claimed his German shepherd could do all kinds of things that most dogs could not — tracking scents across water, through treetops, even years after they were left.

The feats may sound ridiculous for any canine that's not wearing a cape and doesn't fly.

But prosecutors and the juries ate it up — until one judge finally put Preston and his dog to the test.

During a 1984 trial, Judge Gilbert Goshorn asked Preston and his dog to track a fresh scent, but the two failed miserably and Preston left town.

"The dog simply could not track anything," Goshorn would later say in an affidavit. "In short, I believe that Preston was regularly retained to confirm the state's preconceived notions about cases."

At that moment in 1984, every one of the cases in which Preston testified should've been reviewed.

So says State Sen. Dan Gelber, a former prosecutor and one of two Democrats hoping to face the Republican Kottkamp in the attorney general's race next fall. "The nightmare of any prosecutor is to put an innocent person in jail," Gelber said. "It's an abomination of the system."

His Democratic opponent, Dave Aronberg, agreed. "The attorney general has an obligation to do justice, no matter what. And justice is not just convictions," he said. "I will look at this. I will not ignore it."

None of the three candidates for attorney general vowed to do anything as specific as impaneling a statewide grand jury. Nor did they promise to free a single soul or overturn a single case. Nor should they. In fact, no one is asking them to.

All they have vowed to do is look into the cases — which is all anyone has asked.

New perspectives?
Until now, Attorney General McCollum's only response was that all this was beyond his "jurisdiction."

But then last week, the man who wants to be your next governor tweaked that response just a bit. Said spokeswoman Sandi Copes: "... upon further consideration of this situation, he would invite these individuals to seek relief through clemency."

Clemency places the responsibility on the shoulders of those who were imprisoned. But it took two of the men Preston helped imprison more than 20 years — and the help of national groups like the Innocence Project — to finally win their freedom.

That's why Brevard-Seminole Public Defender James Russo and the Innocence Project have called for wholesale review of the cases.

Wolfinger, who took office after Preston had been discredited, said Friday that he would welcome such a review.

"I certainly do not want an innocent person to be in jail," he said.

In the meantime, Wolfinger said his office will continue doing it's own "re-review."

Wolfinger calls it a "re-review" because he argues that his office looked into the Preston cases long ago.

"The perception is that nothing has ever been done and that hundreds of people are in jail," he said. "Well, that's not true. This office does care and has cared."

Still, it's obvious that Wolfinger's original effort wasn't a complete success — as evidenced by the fact that courts freed two men long after his "review" was complete.

So far, Wolfinger says his office has found only four Preston-related convicts still behind bars.

And he feels confident that three of those four men belong there.

He would not comment on the third, Gary Bennett — because another nationally respected group believes it will soon prove Bennett's innocence as well. The groundwork for an appeal is under way.

It's good that Wolfinger is taking a closer look and compiling a complete list of all the Preston-related cases.

But it's even better that most of the statewide candidates are vowing to get involved.

Because after a quarter century and three wrongful convictions tied to the same man, an independent investigation is long overdue."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;