"Current law allows for re-reviewing cases when DNA evidence might change the outcome. Kathryn Kase, a death-penalty lawyer who directs the Trial Project at the Texas Defender Service, supports legislation that would apply to additional types of evidence.
"We need to extend the law, so that changes in science, or the practice of shoddy science, allows a person to go back and seek re-testing and re-review."
A bill pending in the state House goes half-way, says Kase, who wants it amended to not only incorporate current science, but also the problem of "junk science.""
PETER MALOF: PUBLIC NEWS SERVICE; Motto: News in the public interest. "The Public News Service (PNS) provides reporting on a wide range of social, community, and environmental issues for mainstream and alternative media that amplifies progressive voices, is easy to use and has a proven track record of success. Supported by over 400 nonprofit organizations and other contributors, PNS provides high-quality news on public issues and current affairs."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"HOUSTON - After a forensic psychologist was banned this month from making retardation evaluations in Texas courts, defense attorneys hoped to reopen past convictions that used his now-discredited testimony," the public news service story by reporter Peter Malof published on April 25, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Courts Resist Revisiting “Junk Science” Convictions."
"But with courts extremely wary of revisiting any closed case, it may take legislative action to force them to bend to scientific consensus," the story continues.
"Current law allows for re-reviewing cases when DNA evidence might change the outcome. Kathryn Kase, a death-penalty lawyer who directs the Trial Project at the Texas Defender Service, supports legislation that would apply to additional types of evidence.
"We need to extend the law, so that changes in science, or the practice of shoddy science, allows a person to go back and seek re-testing and re-review."
A bill pending in the state House goes half-way, says Kase, who wants it amended to not only incorporate current science, but also the problem of "junk science."
The banned psychologist, George Denkowski, provided testimony that helped convict at least 14 prisoners on death row, who he claimed had normal intelligence. Kase is convinced that at least some of them are, in fact, mentally retarded. Executing the mentally retarded has been forbidden since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2002.
Kase says, in matters of life and death, there's no room for casual, sloppy, or fraudulent science.
"If I went to a doctor and got tested to find out if I had cancer, and then I later found out that that doctor wasn't doing the cancer tests at all, would I go back to another doctor and get retested? You bet I would!"
Peer reviews said Denkowski, in effect, made up his own criteria, including inflating some IQ scores because traditional testing supposedly didn't account for culture, lifestyle, and race. Denkowski agreed to abandon his courtroom practice in a settlement that stated his violations could not be used as the basis for re-litigating other criminal cases for which he'd served as an expert.
Peter Malof, Public News Service - TX"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/19692-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com
Thursday, April 28, 2011
UNIQUE FUNDRAISER BY THE ASSOCIATION IN DEFENCE OF THE WRONGLY CONVICTED (AIDWYC): "AWARENESS THROUGH ART;" JUNE 11, 2011;
The Association In Defence of the Wrongly Convicted is embarking on a unique program to raise funds for its crucial activities - "Awareness Through Art."
As the organization points out in a recent release:
"On June 11, 2011, AIDWYC (Association In Defence of The Wrongly Convicted ) is hosting the "Awareness Through Art” Art Show/Auction in order to raise funds to enable us to continue our important work on behalf of the wrongly convicted.
The Art show will be held at the Bezpala Brown Gallery, 17 Church Ave, Toronto, Ontario from 7 pm. to 10 pm. Wine and Cheese will be served.
Wrongful convictions are tragic. The “Awareness Through Art” show is one way of raising awareness for correction and prevention.
A number of our wrongly convicted clients will attend and will contribute pieces of art they have personally created to depict their journeys.
Tickets are $ 15.00 per person
Wine & Cheese will be served.
FOR TICKET SALES OR TO MAKE A DONATION, PLEASE CONTACT :
Win Wahrer , Client Services Director at AIDWYC (416) 504-7500 x 227
Maria Shepherd at (647) 688-7363
SPECIAL THANKS TO :
* Bezpala Brown Gallery
* Various Contributing Artists
* Victoria Mongrain of Tori Mongrain Art
* Raul Crespo (Photography)
* Alfred Crespo (Photography)
* Cregg Photography
* Performances by Jordan Carter & Melanie Garcia
* Margaret Fiorino at Publish-This.com
* DJ Carl Allen and DJ LaZe of 88.1 CKLN
and more to come.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
As the organization points out in a recent release:
"On June 11, 2011, AIDWYC (Association In Defence of The Wrongly Convicted ) is hosting the "Awareness Through Art” Art Show/Auction in order to raise funds to enable us to continue our important work on behalf of the wrongly convicted.
The Art show will be held at the Bezpala Brown Gallery, 17 Church Ave, Toronto, Ontario from 7 pm. to 10 pm. Wine and Cheese will be served.
Wrongful convictions are tragic. The “Awareness Through Art” show is one way of raising awareness for correction and prevention.
A number of our wrongly convicted clients will attend and will contribute pieces of art they have personally created to depict their journeys.
Tickets are $ 15.00 per person
Wine & Cheese will be served.
FOR TICKET SALES OR TO MAKE A DONATION, PLEASE CONTACT :
Win Wahrer , Client Services Director at AIDWYC (416) 504-7500 x 227
Maria Shepherd at (647) 688-7363
SPECIAL THANKS TO :
* Bezpala Brown Gallery
* Various Contributing Artists
* Victoria Mongrain of Tori Mongrain Art
* Raul Crespo (Photography)
* Alfred Crespo (Photography)
* Cregg Photography
* Performances by Jordan Carter & Melanie Garcia
* Margaret Fiorino at Publish-This.com
* DJ Carl Allen and DJ LaZe of 88.1 CKLN
and more to come.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
JOHN THOMPSON: (18) PROF. ERWIN CHEMERINSKY; NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL; DISTURBING MESSAGE SENT OUT BY SUPREME COURT;
"For example, early this month, the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law released a study in which it documented 102 California cases, and 31 from Los Angeles County, in which prosecutors engaged in misconduct. Egregious prosecutorial misconduct has occurred in high-publicity cases, such as the prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse players and the conviction of the now late Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not gotten the message........."
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY; NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL; (Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and distinguished professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The case concerning a prisoner's exoneration is Connick v. Thompson, 09-571, which arose from a $14 million jury award in favor of a former inmate who was freed after prosecutorial misconduct came to light. The former inmate, John Thompson, sued officials in the district attorney's office in New Orleans, saying they had not trained prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor there failed to give Mr. Thompson's lawyers a report showing that blood at a crime scene was not his. Mr. Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 in solitary confinement. He once came within weeks of being executed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The U.S. Supreme Court is oblivious to a serious problem in the American legal system: prosecutorial misconduct," the commentary by Erwin Cherminsky published in the National Law Review on April 25, 2011, begins, under the heading, "Head in the sand over prosecutorial misconduct: The Supreme Court has sent a disturbing message that it just doesn't realize there is a serious problem infecting our criminal justice system."
"Study after study has demonstrated serious prosecutorial misconduct at both the federal and state levels," the commentary continues.
"For example, early this month, the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law released a study in which it documented 102 California cases, and 31 from Los Angeles County, in which prosecutors engaged in misconduct. Egregious prosecutorial misconduct has occurred in high-publicity cases, such as the prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse players and the conviction of the now late Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not gotten the message. Twice in the past three years the Court has considered lawsuits by innocent individuals who were convicted and spent years in prison because of prosecutorial misconduct. In both instances, the Court held that the victims could not recover. Together, these cases send a disturbing message that the Court is shielding prosecutors from liability. The result is no compensation for wronged individuals and a lack of adequate deterrence of prosecutorial misconduct.
Two years ago, in Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009), the Court dismissed a suit against prosecutors by a man who spent 24 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit. Tommy Lee Goldstein was convicted of murder even though there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, no eyewitness and no confession. The key evidence against Goldstein was the testimony of two witnesses who said that they heard him admit to the killing. One later recanted.
The other, the key witness, was a jailhouse informant, Edward Fink, who had a long history of making deals with prosecutors to get a reduction in charges and punishments in exchange for giving testimony against other inmates. Fink claimed that Goldstein made incriminating statements when they shared a jail cell together. The prosecutors never disclosed Fink's history to Goldstein's lawyers nor the discussions about the benefits Fink would receive for testifying against Goldstein.
After Goldstein prevailed in his habeas corpus petition and was exonerated, he sued the then-district attorney for failing to institute a policy of disclosing such information to criminal defendants, as is required by the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court unanimously held that Goldstein's civil suit had to be dismissed because of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
ABSOLUTE VS. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
The Supreme Court has held that prosecutors have absolute immunity for their prosecutorial acts, but only qualified immunity for their administrative and investigative acts. See, e.g., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Goldstein argued that his suit was based on the administrative failure of the district attorney, including the failure to adequately train and supervise district attorneys on the need to disclose impeachment material. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and declared: "[W]e conclude that prosecutors involved in such supervision or training or information-system management enjoy absolute immunity from the kind of legal claims at issue here."
On March 29, in Connick v. Thompson, 2011 WL 1119022 (U.S.), the Court ruled against a man who was convicted and spent 18 years in prison, and 14 years on death row, because of prosecutorial misconduct. One month before he was to be executed, John Thompson's defense lawyers found blood evidence that prosecutors possessed, but did not disclose, that exonerated him for an armed robbery for which he had been convicted and that greatly affected his murder trial.
Two days before Thompson's trial, the assistant district attorney received the crime lab's report, which stated that the perpetrator had blood type B. The defense was not told of this, not at the trial and not until the report was discovered shortly before Thompson's scheduled execution. Thompson has type O blood.
The district attorney conceded that it violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), in not turning over the blood evidence. Thompson sued for prosecutorial misconduct, and a jury awarded him $14 million. But the Supreme Court reversed, in a 5-4 decision, and held that the city could not be held liable for the prosecutorial misconduct. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, said that a single instance of prosecutorial misconduct was not enough to show sufficient deliberate indifference to allow the city to be sued.
But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her dissenting opinion, this was not a single instance of misconduct. She wrote: "Throughout the pretrial and trial proceedings against Thompson, the team of four engaged in prosecuting him for armed robbery and murder hid from the defense and the court exculpatory information Thompson requested and had a constitutional right to receive. The prosecutors did so despite multiple opportunities, spanning nearly two decades, to set the record straight.…What happened here, the Court's opinion obscures, was no momentary oversight, no single incident of a lone officer's misconduct. Instead, the evidence demonstrated that misperception and disregard of Brady's disclosure requirements were pervasive in Orleans Parish."
These two cases share much in common. Both involved innocent men convicted and imprisoned for a long period of time because of prosecutors' failure to comply with the constitutional duty to turn material over to the defense. It is exactly the kind of misconduct that studies show happens with alarming frequency. In both cases, the Court rejected claims that constitutional violations occurred because prosecutors were inadequately trained and instructed as to their constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment material.
Most importantly, in both cases, the Court ruled against the innocent victims of prosecutorial misconduct. In doing so, the Court has made it much harder to hold prosecutors accountable and has sent a disturbing message that it just doesn't realize that there is a serious problem that infects our criminal justice system."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commentary can be found at:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202491215314&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&cn=20110427nlj&kw=Head%20in%20the%20sand%20over%20prosecutorial%20misconduct&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY; NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL; (Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and distinguished professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The case concerning a prisoner's exoneration is Connick v. Thompson, 09-571, which arose from a $14 million jury award in favor of a former inmate who was freed after prosecutorial misconduct came to light. The former inmate, John Thompson, sued officials in the district attorney's office in New Orleans, saying they had not trained prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor there failed to give Mr. Thompson's lawyers a report showing that blood at a crime scene was not his. Mr. Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 in solitary confinement. He once came within weeks of being executed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The U.S. Supreme Court is oblivious to a serious problem in the American legal system: prosecutorial misconduct," the commentary by Erwin Cherminsky published in the National Law Review on April 25, 2011, begins, under the heading, "Head in the sand over prosecutorial misconduct: The Supreme Court has sent a disturbing message that it just doesn't realize there is a serious problem infecting our criminal justice system."
"Study after study has demonstrated serious prosecutorial misconduct at both the federal and state levels," the commentary continues.
"For example, early this month, the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law released a study in which it documented 102 California cases, and 31 from Los Angeles County, in which prosecutors engaged in misconduct. Egregious prosecutorial misconduct has occurred in high-publicity cases, such as the prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse players and the conviction of the now late Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not gotten the message. Twice in the past three years the Court has considered lawsuits by innocent individuals who were convicted and spent years in prison because of prosecutorial misconduct. In both instances, the Court held that the victims could not recover. Together, these cases send a disturbing message that the Court is shielding prosecutors from liability. The result is no compensation for wronged individuals and a lack of adequate deterrence of prosecutorial misconduct.
Two years ago, in Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009), the Court dismissed a suit against prosecutors by a man who spent 24 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit. Tommy Lee Goldstein was convicted of murder even though there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, no eyewitness and no confession. The key evidence against Goldstein was the testimony of two witnesses who said that they heard him admit to the killing. One later recanted.
The other, the key witness, was a jailhouse informant, Edward Fink, who had a long history of making deals with prosecutors to get a reduction in charges and punishments in exchange for giving testimony against other inmates. Fink claimed that Goldstein made incriminating statements when they shared a jail cell together. The prosecutors never disclosed Fink's history to Goldstein's lawyers nor the discussions about the benefits Fink would receive for testifying against Goldstein.
After Goldstein prevailed in his habeas corpus petition and was exonerated, he sued the then-district attorney for failing to institute a policy of disclosing such information to criminal defendants, as is required by the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court unanimously held that Goldstein's civil suit had to be dismissed because of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
ABSOLUTE VS. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
The Supreme Court has held that prosecutors have absolute immunity for their prosecutorial acts, but only qualified immunity for their administrative and investigative acts. See, e.g., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Goldstein argued that his suit was based on the administrative failure of the district attorney, including the failure to adequately train and supervise district attorneys on the need to disclose impeachment material. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and declared: "[W]e conclude that prosecutors involved in such supervision or training or information-system management enjoy absolute immunity from the kind of legal claims at issue here."
On March 29, in Connick v. Thompson, 2011 WL 1119022 (U.S.), the Court ruled against a man who was convicted and spent 18 years in prison, and 14 years on death row, because of prosecutorial misconduct. One month before he was to be executed, John Thompson's defense lawyers found blood evidence that prosecutors possessed, but did not disclose, that exonerated him for an armed robbery for which he had been convicted and that greatly affected his murder trial.
Two days before Thompson's trial, the assistant district attorney received the crime lab's report, which stated that the perpetrator had blood type B. The defense was not told of this, not at the trial and not until the report was discovered shortly before Thompson's scheduled execution. Thompson has type O blood.
The district attorney conceded that it violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), in not turning over the blood evidence. Thompson sued for prosecutorial misconduct, and a jury awarded him $14 million. But the Supreme Court reversed, in a 5-4 decision, and held that the city could not be held liable for the prosecutorial misconduct. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, said that a single instance of prosecutorial misconduct was not enough to show sufficient deliberate indifference to allow the city to be sued.
But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her dissenting opinion, this was not a single instance of misconduct. She wrote: "Throughout the pretrial and trial proceedings against Thompson, the team of four engaged in prosecuting him for armed robbery and murder hid from the defense and the court exculpatory information Thompson requested and had a constitutional right to receive. The prosecutors did so despite multiple opportunities, spanning nearly two decades, to set the record straight.…What happened here, the Court's opinion obscures, was no momentary oversight, no single incident of a lone officer's misconduct. Instead, the evidence demonstrated that misperception and disregard of Brady's disclosure requirements were pervasive in Orleans Parish."
These two cases share much in common. Both involved innocent men convicted and imprisoned for a long period of time because of prosecutors' failure to comply with the constitutional duty to turn material over to the defense. It is exactly the kind of misconduct that studies show happens with alarming frequency. In both cases, the Court rejected claims that constitutional violations occurred because prosecutors were inadequately trained and instructed as to their constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment material.
Most importantly, in both cases, the Court ruled against the innocent victims of prosecutorial misconduct. In doing so, the Court has made it much harder to hold prosecutors accountable and has sent a disturbing message that it just doesn't realize that there is a serious problem that infects our criminal justice system."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commentary can be found at:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202491215314&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&cn=20110427nlj&kw=Head%20in%20the%20sand%20over%20prosecutorial%20misconduct&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
GEORGE DENKOWSKI(10) LINK TO RENEE FELTZ' VIDEO REPORT; KEY INTERVIEW; TEXAS DEFENDER SERVICE LAWYER KATHRYN KASE AND PSYCHOLOGIST DR. JEROME BROWN;
"Democracy Now! first covered Dr. Denkowksi in January 2010 in a video report by Renée Feltz that accompanied her story for The Texas Observer magazine. For an update, we’re joined by Texas Defender Service attorney, Kathryn Kase, and by Dr. Jerome Brown, the psychologist filed the complaint that ultimately resulted in Denkowksi’s agreement to stop evaluating people in criminal cases."
TEXAS STANDDOWN PROJECT;
LINK TO THE VIDEO:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/21/dr_death_agrees_to_stop_evaluating
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Standdown project is directing readers to a video prepared for Texas Observer Magazine on "The Denkowski Sanction" presented by "Democracy Now."
'
""'Dr. Death' Agrees to Stop Evaluating Mentally Disabled Texas Death Row Prisoners," is the Democracy Now segment, today. You can watch the video at the link," the April 13, 2011 Texas Standdown Project post begins.
"Last Friday, Texas reprimanded a psychologist who used what critics say were unscientific methods to examine at least 25 Texas death row prisoners for intellectual disabilities, two of whom were later executed," the post continues.
"Dr. George Denkowski was the go-to psychologist for prosecutors who wanted to prove defendants were not mentally handicapped—and therefore eligible for the death penalty. Democracy Now! first covered Dr. Denkowksi in January 2010 in a video report by Renée Feltz that accompanied her story for The Texas Observer magazine. For an update, we’re joined by Texas Defender Service attorney, Kathryn Kase, and by Dr. Jerome Brown, the psychologist filed the complaint that ultimately resulted in Denkowksi’s agreement to stop evaluating people in criminal cases.
The participants include:
Kathryn Kase, attorney with the Texas Defender Service. Dr. George Denkowski said her client, Daniel Plata, was eligible for execution but a judge later said the evaluation was full of "fatal errors" and commuted Plata’s death sentence to life.
Dr. Jerome Brown, a clinical psychologist who worked as an expert for the defense on five death penalty cases in which Denkowski worked for the prosecution. He filed the complaint that ultimately led Denkowksi to stop evaluating people in criminal cases.
Renee Feltz, new Democracy Now! producer. Her exposé of Dr. Denkowski for The Texas Observer magazine, supported by The Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute, was a finalist for a 2010 Investigative Reporters and Editors Award."
The Texas Standdown Project post can be found at:
http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2011/04/democracy-now-on-the-denkowski-sanction.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
TEXAS STANDDOWN PROJECT;
LINK TO THE VIDEO:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/21/dr_death_agrees_to_stop_evaluating
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Standdown project is directing readers to a video prepared for Texas Observer Magazine on "The Denkowski Sanction" presented by "Democracy Now."
'
""'Dr. Death' Agrees to Stop Evaluating Mentally Disabled Texas Death Row Prisoners," is the Democracy Now segment, today. You can watch the video at the link," the April 13, 2011 Texas Standdown Project post begins.
"Last Friday, Texas reprimanded a psychologist who used what critics say were unscientific methods to examine at least 25 Texas death row prisoners for intellectual disabilities, two of whom were later executed," the post continues.
"Dr. George Denkowski was the go-to psychologist for prosecutors who wanted to prove defendants were not mentally handicapped—and therefore eligible for the death penalty. Democracy Now! first covered Dr. Denkowksi in January 2010 in a video report by Renée Feltz that accompanied her story for The Texas Observer magazine. For an update, we’re joined by Texas Defender Service attorney, Kathryn Kase, and by Dr. Jerome Brown, the psychologist filed the complaint that ultimately resulted in Denkowksi’s agreement to stop evaluating people in criminal cases.
The participants include:
Kathryn Kase, attorney with the Texas Defender Service. Dr. George Denkowski said her client, Daniel Plata, was eligible for execution but a judge later said the evaluation was full of "fatal errors" and commuted Plata’s death sentence to life.
Dr. Jerome Brown, a clinical psychologist who worked as an expert for the defense on five death penalty cases in which Denkowski worked for the prosecution. He filed the complaint that ultimately led Denkowksi to stop evaluating people in criminal cases.
Renee Feltz, new Democracy Now! producer. Her exposé of Dr. Denkowski for The Texas Observer magazine, supported by The Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute, was a finalist for a 2010 Investigative Reporters and Editors Award."
The Texas Standdown Project post can be found at:
http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2011/04/democracy-now-on-the-denkowski-sanction.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
LARRY SWEARINGEN: ANOTHER SETBACK MOVES HIM CLOSER TO DEATH; FIFTH CIRCUIT TURNS DOWN HIS LATEST APPEAL IN JUST FOUR PARAGRAPHS;
"Swearingen contends that he learned for the first time in 2008 of tissue samples that exonerate him of the murder of Melissa Trotter. He further contends that he could not have discovered the existence of the samples prior to 2008 and that his attorneys provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to uncover and employ this evidence. As the district court explained, however, these arguments are unavailing. The evidence existed at the time of trial, 2009 WL 4433221 at *16-17, and even if it were not discoverable through due diligence, it does not constitute "clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found [Swearingen] guilty of the underlying offense."
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS: FIFTH CIRCUIT;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit decision published on April 7, 2011, Appeals Court dismisses Larry Swearingen's latest application in just four paragraphs. Strip away the citations and the legal verbiage - - which I have included for this purpose - and it becomes apparent that the Court has devoted even less space in it's frighteningly technical approach to the very crucial and compelling issues raised by Mr. Swearingen. It is this type of cold, heartless approach that can only draw Texas' judiciary into further disrepute. To this scribe, it's just another form of hurrying the defendant on to execution because the courthouse office closes at 5. 00 PM - as happened in yet another notorious Texas case;
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER. THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: Larry Swearingen was sentenced to death in 2000 for the murder of Melissa Trotter in 1998. Melissa Trotter went missing on 8 December 1998. Larry Swearingen was arrested three days later, and has been incarcerated ever since. The body of Melissa Trotter was found in a forest on 2 January 1999. Larry Swearingen was tried for her murder, and sentenced to death. He maintains his innocence of the murder. Several forensic experts have provided statements and testimony that support his claim. One of these experts, Dr Joyce Carter, is the former Chief Medical Examiner of Harris County in Texas who performed the autopsy of Melissa Trotter and testified at Larry Swearingen’s trial that in her opinion, Melissa Trotter had died 25 days before her body was found. In an affidavit signed in 2007, Dr Carter stated that she had looked again at the case and changed her opinion. She concluded that Melissa Trotter’s body had been left in the forest within two weeks of it being found. If accurate, this would mean that the body was dumped at a time when Larry Swearingen was already in custody.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARAGRAPH ONE: "Appellant Larry Ray Swearingen was scheduled for execution on January 27, 2009. He sought permission to file a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus, which this court granted in part the day before his execution. In re Swearingen, 556 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2009). On remand, however, the district court concluded that Swearingen failed to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Swearingen v. Thaler, No. H-09-300, 2009 WL 4433221 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2009). He appeals that decision.
PARAGRAPH TWO; A successive habeas petition is appropriate where:
(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
PARAGRAPH THREE; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B). Swearingen contends that he learned for the first time in 2008 of tissue samples that exonerate him of the murder of Melissa Trotter. He further contends that he could not have discovered the existence of the samples prior to 2008 and that his attorneys provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to uncover and employ this evidence. As the district court explained, however, these arguments are unavailing. The evidence existed at the time of trial, 2009 WL 4433221 at *16-17, and even if it were not discoverable through due diligence, it does not constitute "clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found [Swearingen] guilty of the underlying offense." See Johnson v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 901, 911 (5th Cir. 2006) (explaining the high threshold for § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) innocence showing). Likewise, we affirm the district court's conclusion that Swearingen has not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel. Swearingen's trial counsel developed a reasonable strategy, including expert testimony regarding the time of Trotter's death. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984).
PARAGRAPH FOUR; We AFFIRM the dismissal of Swearingen's successive habeas corpus petition.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DECISION CAN BE FOUND AT:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020110407122.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
"GEORGE DENKOWSKI (9); COUNTY CONTINUED TO PAY HIM - EVEN AFTER A JUDGE DENOUNCED HIS METHODS AND COMMUTED A DEATH SENTENCE TO LIFE; TEXAS TRIBUNE;
"The Harris County invoices, which the Texas Defender Service obtained through a public information request, include more than $20,000 the county paid to Denkowksi after a judge issued a scathing denouncement of the psychologist's methods and commuted the death sentence of inmate Daniel Plata to life in prison. From 2005 to 2007, Harris County paid Denkowski more than $20,000 to evaluate whether Plata was so mentally disabled he would be ineligible for the death penalty. Denkowski said Plata was not mentally disabled, and he was sentenced to death. But in September 2007, Harris County state district judge Mark Ellis concluded that, "Dr. Denkowski invalidated the norms of the test by committing errors in administration and scoring.""
REPORTER BRANDI GRISSOM; THE TEXAS TRIBUNE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Harris County paid Dr. George Denkowski, a forensic psychologist who was reprimanded earlier this month and agreed never again to perform death row evaluations in Texas, more than $300,000 to test defendants for intellectual disabilities from 2002 until 2008," the Texas Tribune story by reporter Brandi Grissom published earlier today under the heading, "County Used Doctor After Methods Challenged," begins.
"And the county continued to pay Denkowksi even after a judge harshly rebuked his work, according to documents obtained by the Texas Defender Service," the story continues.
"Denkowski, a Fort Worth psychologist, evaluated 14 current Texas death row inmates and two who have been executed. His methods, though, came under intense scrutiny from defense lawyers and from other psychologists, who said Denkowski used flawed techniques that artificially inflated disability scores, making defendants eligible for the death penalty. The evaluations started after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that states could not execute mentally disabled people.
As part of a settlement, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists this month issued a reprimand against Denkowski. He did not admit wrongdoing, but he agreed not to conduct intellectual disability evaluations in future criminal cases and to pay a fine of $5,500. In return, the board dismissed the complaints against him. An attorney for Denkowski has said he vigorously defends his practice.
The Harris County invoices, which the Texas Defender Service obtained through a public information request, include more than $20,000 the county paid to Denkowksi after a judge issued a scathing denouncement of the psychologist's methods and commuted the death sentence of inmate Daniel Plata to life in prison. From 2005 to 2007, Harris County paid Denkowski more than $20,000 to evaluate whether Plata was so mentally disabled he would be ineligible for the death penalty. Denkowski said Plata was not mentally disabled, and he was sentenced to death. But in September 2007, Harris County state district judge Mark Ellis concluded that, "Dr. Denkowski invalidated the norms of the test by committing errors in administration and scoring."
Despite the judge's ruling, Harris County used Denkowksi at least three more times, paying him more than $20,000 collectively in those cases, including one in which he concluded the defendant would be eligible for the death penalty. "For years, the Harris County district attorney's office turned a deaf ear to leading authorities who asserted that Denkowski's methodologies were not grounded in accepted science,” said Kathryn Kase, an attorney for Plata.
Denkowski was an expert witness for the prosecution in at least 25 capital and noncapital cases in Texas and around the country, according to the Defender Service. In some cases, he testified for the defense.
A spokeswoman for the Harris County district attorney's office did not immediately respond."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/death-penalty/county-used-doctor-after-methods-challenged-/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
REPORTER BRANDI GRISSOM; THE TEXAS TRIBUNE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Harris County paid Dr. George Denkowski, a forensic psychologist who was reprimanded earlier this month and agreed never again to perform death row evaluations in Texas, more than $300,000 to test defendants for intellectual disabilities from 2002 until 2008," the Texas Tribune story by reporter Brandi Grissom published earlier today under the heading, "County Used Doctor After Methods Challenged," begins.
"And the county continued to pay Denkowksi even after a judge harshly rebuked his work, according to documents obtained by the Texas Defender Service," the story continues.
"Denkowski, a Fort Worth psychologist, evaluated 14 current Texas death row inmates and two who have been executed. His methods, though, came under intense scrutiny from defense lawyers and from other psychologists, who said Denkowski used flawed techniques that artificially inflated disability scores, making defendants eligible for the death penalty. The evaluations started after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that states could not execute mentally disabled people.
As part of a settlement, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists this month issued a reprimand against Denkowski. He did not admit wrongdoing, but he agreed not to conduct intellectual disability evaluations in future criminal cases and to pay a fine of $5,500. In return, the board dismissed the complaints against him. An attorney for Denkowski has said he vigorously defends his practice.
The Harris County invoices, which the Texas Defender Service obtained through a public information request, include more than $20,000 the county paid to Denkowksi after a judge issued a scathing denouncement of the psychologist's methods and commuted the death sentence of inmate Daniel Plata to life in prison. From 2005 to 2007, Harris County paid Denkowski more than $20,000 to evaluate whether Plata was so mentally disabled he would be ineligible for the death penalty. Denkowski said Plata was not mentally disabled, and he was sentenced to death. But in September 2007, Harris County state district judge Mark Ellis concluded that, "Dr. Denkowski invalidated the norms of the test by committing errors in administration and scoring."
Despite the judge's ruling, Harris County used Denkowksi at least three more times, paying him more than $20,000 collectively in those cases, including one in which he concluded the defendant would be eligible for the death penalty. "For years, the Harris County district attorney's office turned a deaf ear to leading authorities who asserted that Denkowski's methodologies were not grounded in accepted science,” said Kathryn Kase, an attorney for Plata.
Denkowski was an expert witness for the prosecution in at least 25 capital and noncapital cases in Texas and around the country, according to the Defender Service. In some cases, he testified for the defense.
A spokeswoman for the Harris County district attorney's office did not immediately respond."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/death-penalty/county-used-doctor-after-methods-challenged-/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
GEORGE DENKOWSKI; (8) HIS TESTIMONY IS DESCRIBED AS REMINISCENT OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST JAMES GRIGSON - ANOTHER "DR. DEATH" - IN CHRONICLE STORY;
"Denkowski's testimony was reminiscent of that of forensic psychiatrist James Grigson, another prosecutor favorite in the 1980s.
Grigson was nicknamed "Dr. Death" because he repeatedly testified in competency hearings for the state and frequently opined in capital trials that defendants represented a future danger (a requirement of the Texas capital murder statute at the time), even in cases where he conducted no evaluation of or had any contact with the defendant."
REPORTER MIKE TOLSON: HOUSTON CHRONICLE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Although I veer away from making sweeping comparisons this much occurs to me: Both Denkowski and Grigson were Texas forensic scientists who were hired by the state to make the critical decision as to whether the defendant should die or not - after prosecutors vouched for their scientific prowess and judges ruled that they should be permitted to testify. They were both given enormous power to influence a key state decision far greater than the so-called science they pretended to exercise so confidently, deserved. They drew their disciplines into disrepute by enthusiastically allowing themselves to be used an an instrument of the state's drive to kill. But they didn't do this alone.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A controversial Texas psychologist whose criminal justice work had made him a modern-day version of the notorious "Dr. Death" — who testified for the state in hundreds of capital punishment trials a generation ago — has reached a settlement with a state licensing board in which he agrees to conduct no more evaluations of intellectually challenged defendants in criminal proceedings," the Houston Chronicle story by reporter Mike Tolson published on April 16, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Psychologist agrees not to testify again: Deal with state lets controversial witness in capital cases keep license."
"While admitting no wrongdoing, psychologist George Denkowski agreed to stop evaluating criminal defendants for possible mental retardation after the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists determined that his techniques lacked scientific credibility. The board had become concerned that Denkowski's methods were being used to make life-and-death decisions but had not been validated," the story continues.
"The board also issued a formal reprimand and a fine of $5,500 in exchange for dropping complaints against Denkowski. The settlement came after increasing opposition to Denkowski's opinions, which had been used to keep 16 Harris County killers on Texas' death row after the Fort Worth psychologist concluded that they were intellectually capable enough to be subject to execution. Two of those inmates were executed.
But the tide turned against him as lawyers for inmates marshaled the collective opinion of clinical psychology. In in 2008, a state judge in Harris County tossed out a Denkowski evaluation in a capital case because the judge said it lacked evidence of accepted methodology. The defendant's sentence was commuted to life. Two years later, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities cautioned against using Denkowski's methods until they had been scientifically proved.
Denkowski could not be reached for comment.
Essentially, his approach often sought to appraise an individual's lack of knowledge about certain ordinary things in light of his impoverished or cultural background, arguing that those could be responsible things he did not understand instead of a lack of basic intelligence.
Favorite of prosecutors
Denkowski also deviated from the norm when using standard questionnaires about adaptive behavior and life skills, an assessment that is supposed to show how well the person functioned in society. Typically these are given to those who know the examinee well, including relatives and close friends. Denkowski favored questioning the subject instead, saying that others overstate the degree of impairment. Many other psychologists dispute this.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mentally retarded may not be executed, but it left it to the states to develop ways of determining retardation. Denkowski's reliance on his own approach to determining mental ability made him a favorite expert for prosecutors, albeit one who often was dismissed by other experts. He offered opinions in at least 17 capital cases, finding in all but one that the defendant's intellect was sufficient to make him eligible for prosecution.
Parallels to 'Dr. Death'
Denkowski's testimony was reminiscent of that of forensic psychiatrist James Grigson, another prosecutor favorite in the 1980s.
Grigson was nicknamed "Dr. Death" because he repeatedly testified in competency hearings for the state and frequently opined in capital trials that defendants represented a future danger (a requirement of the Texas capital murder statute at the time), even in cases where he conducted no evaluation of or had any contact with the defendant.
He once testified that defendant Kelsey Patterson, an oft-delusional schizophrenic, was sane when he inexplicably killed two people in Palestine in 1992, even though in previous non-lethal assaults by Patterson, Grigson had consistently found that Patterson, because of schizophrenia, was not sane when he attacked people.
In time, Grigson also ran afoul of professional organizations and became largely discredited. Though he thumbed his nose at the professional disapproval, claiming it was politically motivated, his testimony became a double-edged sword too dangerous for prosecutors to use. Grigson died in 2004.
Unlike Grigson, who critics claimed would find a way to tailor his testimony to the facts of a case, Denkowski has not uniformly produced results favorable to prosecutors.
In the case of convicted murderer Robert Smith, sentenced to die for a 1992 killing, he was brought in by the Harris County District Attorney's Office to confirm Smith's intelligence. Denkowski agreed with the expert hired by Smith's attorney, and Smith's sentence later was commuted."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7524138.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Grigson was nicknamed "Dr. Death" because he repeatedly testified in competency hearings for the state and frequently opined in capital trials that defendants represented a future danger (a requirement of the Texas capital murder statute at the time), even in cases where he conducted no evaluation of or had any contact with the defendant."
REPORTER MIKE TOLSON: HOUSTON CHRONICLE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Although I veer away from making sweeping comparisons this much occurs to me: Both Denkowski and Grigson were Texas forensic scientists who were hired by the state to make the critical decision as to whether the defendant should die or not - after prosecutors vouched for their scientific prowess and judges ruled that they should be permitted to testify. They were both given enormous power to influence a key state decision far greater than the so-called science they pretended to exercise so confidently, deserved. They drew their disciplines into disrepute by enthusiastically allowing themselves to be used an an instrument of the state's drive to kill. But they didn't do this alone.HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A controversial Texas psychologist whose criminal justice work had made him a modern-day version of the notorious "Dr. Death" — who testified for the state in hundreds of capital punishment trials a generation ago — has reached a settlement with a state licensing board in which he agrees to conduct no more evaluations of intellectually challenged defendants in criminal proceedings," the Houston Chronicle story by reporter Mike Tolson published on April 16, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Psychologist agrees not to testify again: Deal with state lets controversial witness in capital cases keep license."
"While admitting no wrongdoing, psychologist George Denkowski agreed to stop evaluating criminal defendants for possible mental retardation after the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists determined that his techniques lacked scientific credibility. The board had become concerned that Denkowski's methods were being used to make life-and-death decisions but had not been validated," the story continues.
"The board also issued a formal reprimand and a fine of $5,500 in exchange for dropping complaints against Denkowski. The settlement came after increasing opposition to Denkowski's opinions, which had been used to keep 16 Harris County killers on Texas' death row after the Fort Worth psychologist concluded that they were intellectually capable enough to be subject to execution. Two of those inmates were executed.
But the tide turned against him as lawyers for inmates marshaled the collective opinion of clinical psychology. In in 2008, a state judge in Harris County tossed out a Denkowski evaluation in a capital case because the judge said it lacked evidence of accepted methodology. The defendant's sentence was commuted to life. Two years later, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities cautioned against using Denkowski's methods until they had been scientifically proved.
Denkowski could not be reached for comment.
Essentially, his approach often sought to appraise an individual's lack of knowledge about certain ordinary things in light of his impoverished or cultural background, arguing that those could be responsible things he did not understand instead of a lack of basic intelligence.
Favorite of prosecutors
Denkowski also deviated from the norm when using standard questionnaires about adaptive behavior and life skills, an assessment that is supposed to show how well the person functioned in society. Typically these are given to those who know the examinee well, including relatives and close friends. Denkowski favored questioning the subject instead, saying that others overstate the degree of impairment. Many other psychologists dispute this.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mentally retarded may not be executed, but it left it to the states to develop ways of determining retardation. Denkowski's reliance on his own approach to determining mental ability made him a favorite expert for prosecutors, albeit one who often was dismissed by other experts. He offered opinions in at least 17 capital cases, finding in all but one that the defendant's intellect was sufficient to make him eligible for prosecution.
Parallels to 'Dr. Death'
Denkowski's testimony was reminiscent of that of forensic psychiatrist James Grigson, another prosecutor favorite in the 1980s.
Grigson was nicknamed "Dr. Death" because he repeatedly testified in competency hearings for the state and frequently opined in capital trials that defendants represented a future danger (a requirement of the Texas capital murder statute at the time), even in cases where he conducted no evaluation of or had any contact with the defendant.
He once testified that defendant Kelsey Patterson, an oft-delusional schizophrenic, was sane when he inexplicably killed two people in Palestine in 1992, even though in previous non-lethal assaults by Patterson, Grigson had consistently found that Patterson, because of schizophrenia, was not sane when he attacked people.
In time, Grigson also ran afoul of professional organizations and became largely discredited. Though he thumbed his nose at the professional disapproval, claiming it was politically motivated, his testimony became a double-edged sword too dangerous for prosecutors to use. Grigson died in 2004.
Unlike Grigson, who critics claimed would find a way to tailor his testimony to the facts of a case, Denkowski has not uniformly produced results favorable to prosecutors.
In the case of convicted murderer Robert Smith, sentenced to die for a 1992 killing, he was brought in by the Harris County District Attorney's Office to confirm Smith's intelligence. Denkowski agreed with the expert hired by Smith's attorney, and Smith's sentence later was commuted."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7524138.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
