Sherman Brown; Roy Watford; Virginia; Their respective innocence claims have been pleaded in the Virginia Supreme Court..."On Wednesday Susan Friedman, one of Brown's lawyers with The Innocence Project, told the justices that, "DNA has proven Sherman Brown is innocent ... No rational trier of fact would have found Mr. Brown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As for any chain-of-custody issue about who handled and had access to the almost half-century-old evidence, she said, "You can't speculate evidence was tampered with."..." Watford never spent a day in jail thanks to a remarkable plea deal that gave him a 10-year suspended sentence which he took on the advice of his grandfather, who wanted him to finish high school. Watford, who has no other criminal record, was just 18 years old when he pleaded guilty to the 1977 rape of the girl, with whom he was friends. DNA testing in 2016 found that Watford's DNA did not match the genetic profile identified in sperm recovered from the victim and her jeans. It also did not match two other genetic profiles found in sperm from two mattress stains found in the vacant house where the assault occurred. Testing in 2010 also failed to match the DNA profiles of Watford's two younger brothers - also suspects - with any of three suspect DNA profiles. Because the crime happened so long ago and because Watford pleaded guilty, there is little trial information. The justices ordered an evidentiary hearing that was held in April in Portsmouth Circuit Court. At the hearing, the now-adult victim testified that when she entered the vacant house, she saw one of Watford's brothers and other men inside. However, she said a blanket was thrown over her head, so she did not see her assailants. She said she could not recall seeing or hearing Watford - whom she knew - at the scene or recall telling police that he was among her assailants. On Wednesday Watford's lawyer, Jonathan Sheldon of Fairfax, told the justices that in light of the April hearing, "We don't have any evidence of guilt at all. How would a rational trier of fact find guilt?" Mims, noting that Watford was given no jail or prison time for the crime, told Armstrong, "That's part of why the case is troubling." Chief Justice Donald Lemons questioned whether the court should give any credence to the guilty plea."

PASSAGE OF  THE DAY: "Alice T. Armstrong, a senior assistant attorney general, argued against Brown's petition, among other things telling the justices that the DNA testing was not performed by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science as called for by state law. "Mr. Brown has not, and furthermore cannot, satisfy (that) mandatory requirement," she said. The testing was performed by Bode Cellmark Forensics, in Lorton, after the Department of Forensic Science was unable to obtain conclusive results and an Albemarle County judge approved further testing by Bode.Bode has been used by the state forensic laboratory in other innocence cases but under state contracts, which was not done in this case. Justice D. Arthur Kelsey asked if the court had some discretion in allowing the Bode results. "They're not some Mickey-Mouse lab," he said. Armstrong said she did not believe there was any room for discretion. She also argued, "There is not a valid chain of custody in this case ... We don't know who collected the sample or prepared the slide." And, said Armstrong, "We don't know where the thing has been for more than 40 years."

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

STORY: "Attorneys for two men claiming innocence present their cases to Va. Supreme Court," by  reporter Frank Green, published by  The Richmond  Times-Dispatch, on January 10, 2018.

GIST:Two men claiming innocence in decades-old crimes took their cases Wednesday to the Virginia Supreme Court, where lawyers on both sides were questioned by the justices. Sherman Brown, 70, serving life for the 1969 slaying of a 4-year-old boy in Albemarle County, and Roy L. Watford III, 58, convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in Portsmouth in 1977, contend that DNA testing in recent years proves their innocence. State law requires they show by clear and convincing evidence that no rational judge or juror would have convicted them in light of the new evidence. The Virginia attorney general's office opposes both petitions - strongly, in Brown's case, and less so in Watford's, which it concedes is "challenging." Brown was convicted of the Oct. 1, 1969, murder of a 4-year-old Albemarle boy. He was identified by the child's mother, who was stabbed, beaten and apparently raped in the same attack that took her son's life. A vaginal swab was taken from the mother at a hospital emergency room and was used to create a microscope slide. The slide was discovered in a Charlottesville-area warehouse in 2015 and subjected to DNA testing. A partial male DNA profile was identified on the slide that does not match Brown or the woman's husband. It is unclear if the woman, who lost consciousness, was sexually assaulted. The commonwealth's theory of the case was that the boy was slain to eliminate a witness to the rape of his mother. The mother's DNA profile was not identified in the material on the slide. However, the hospital pathology department noted that sperm was identified on the slide. On Wednesday Susan Friedman, one of Brown's lawyers with The Innocence Project, told the justices that, "DNA has proven Sherman Brown is innocent ...  No rational trier of fact would have found Mr. Brown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As for any chain-of-custody issue about who handled and had access to the almost half-century-old evidence, she said, "You can't speculate evidence was tampered with." Alice T. Armstrong, a senior assistant attorney general, argued against Brown's petition, among other things telling the justices that the DNA testing was not performed by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science as called for by state law. "Mr. Brown has not, and furthermore cannot, satisfy (that) mandatory requirement," she said. The testing was performed by Bode Cellmark Forensics, in Lorton, after the Department of Forensic Science was unable to obtain conclusive results and an Albemarle County judge approved further testing by Bode. Bode has been used by the state forensic laboratory in other innocence cases but under state contracts, which was not done in this case. Justice D. Arthur Kelsey asked if the court had some discretion in allowing the Bode results. "They're not some Mickey-Mouse lab," he said. Armstrong said she did not believe there was any room for discretion. She also argued, "There is not a valid chain of custody in this case ... We don't know who collected the sample or prepared the slide." And, said Armstrong, "We don't know where the thing has been for more than 40 years." Kelsey asked if the court must require perfection as far as chain of custody is concerned and asked Armstrong if she thought the court could draw inferences. Armstrong said she did not believe inferences can be strung together. Unlike Brown, who has been locked up since his arrest in 1969, Watford never spent a day in jail thanks to a remarkable plea deal that gave him a 10-year suspended sentence which he took on the advice of his grandfather, who wanted him to finish high school. Watford, who has no other criminal record, was just 18 years old when he pleaded guilty to the 1977 rape of the girl, with whom he was friends. DNA testing in 2016 found that Watford's DNA did not match the genetic profile identified in sperm recovered from the victim and her jeans. It also did not match two other genetic profiles found in sperm from two mattress stains found in the vacant house where the assault occurred. Testing in 2010 also failed to match the DNA profiles of Watford's two younger brothers - also suspects - with any of three suspect DNA profiles. Because the crime happened so long ago and because Watford pleaded guilty, there is little trial information. The justices ordered an evidentiary hearing that was held in April in Portsmouth Circuit Court. At the hearing, the now-adult victim testified that when she entered the vacant house, she saw one of Watford's brothers and other men inside. However, she said a blanket was thrown over her head, so she did not see her assailants. She said she could not recall seeing or hearing Watford - whom she knew - at the scene or recall telling police that he was among her assailants. On Wednesday Watford's lawyer, Jonathan Sheldon of Fairfax, told the justices that in light of the April hearing, "We don't have any evidence of guilt at all. How would a rational trier of fact find guilt?" Mims, noting that Watford was given no jail or prison time for the crime, told Armstrong, "That's part of why the case is troubling." Chief Justice Donald Lemons questioned whether the court should give any credence to the guilty plea. He said the sentence and the lack of a written plea agreement indicate this was handled as a way to just solve the case and get it over with. "I understand, your honor," said Armstrong. Watford, who attended the Wednesday arguments, said he felt good about things and hopeful his name will be cleared. It is not known when the justices will rule on the petitions.

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.richmond.com/entertainment/attorneys-for-two-men-claiming-innocence-present-their-cases-to/article_c83fd5af-a4e9-5d8c-857f-c330cd2527ad.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog."

Darrell Jones: Massachusetts: Read and weep. Thirty years of his life wiped out because of racial bias and police tampering with a videotaped interview of a key witness to remove exculpatory evidence - in order to convict him..."Juror Eleanor Urbati, a white Hingham resident who always regretted convicting Jones, told NECIR that two jurors had told her they thought the defendant was guilty because he was black."..."The unidentified juror was “racially biased” and “he was not joking. He was not being sarcastic,’’ the judge wrote. “The defendant did not receive a trial before an impartial jury.”..." McGuire also wrote that he supported Jones allegations that a videotape recording of witness Terri Lynn Starks had been manipulated. Jones claimed police tampered with the videotape played in the courtroom, in which a brief segment of the “The Phil Silvers Show,” a 1950s send-up of Army life, suddenly appeared in the middle of the interview. The lead investigator on the case, Brockton police detective Joseph Smith, called the glitch an honest pre-trial mistake in handling the tape. But forensic specialists and lawyers working for Jones, using technology not available at the time of the trial, said the recording was not the original and was missing up to two minutes of the interview. To examine the allegations, McGuire summoned Smith, now retired, to testify. Smith told the court that he did not have “the technical ability” to delete material. But McGuire determined that testimony to be false. He said Smith knew how to edit the video and provided false testimony to the jury — but did not conclude he was the one who manipulated the tape. He said Smith, realizing the tape had been altered, feared that admitting this to the jury “would appear highly suspicious” and instead gave a false explanation. McGuire determined that if the jury had known of Smith’s “false testimony and that the police edited the recording” the jury may have ruled differently. “Because Det. Smith’s false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment, a new trial is required,” he wrote. "

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Jones claimed police tampered with the videotape played in the courtroom, in which a brief segment of the “The Phil Silvers Show,” a 1950s send-up of Army life, suddenly appeared in the middle of the interview. The lead investigator on the case, Brockton police detective Joseph Smith, called the glitch an honest pre-trial mistake in handling the tape. But forensic specialists and lawyers working for Jones, using technology not available at the time of the trial, said the recording was not the original and was missing up to two minutes of the interview."

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

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "(Jone's attorney) Kavanaugh said the judge’s decision was remarkable because judges don’t often recognize “that police officers are not above lying and racial bias is a profound problem in our system.”

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

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Kudos to the New England Center for Investigative Reporting and WBUR public radio for their outstanding work on this case.

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

STORY: "After 30 years denying he was a murderer, Darrell Jones will get a new trial," by Jennifer McKim, published by The New England Center for Investigative Reporting on December 19, 2017.

GIST: "Darrell Jones has steadfastly maintained his innocence in a murder that has kept him in prison for more than three decades. On Tuesday, on his third attempt, the 50-year-old Boston man learned he would get a new trial. After a three-month review of the case, Superior Court Judge Thomas F. McGuire Jr. overturned Jones’s conviction for the 1985 murder of Guillermo Rodriguez in a Brockton parking lot, saying the case was tainted by racial bias and misconduct. “Since the defendant did not receive a fair trial, his conviction cannot stand,’’ McGuire wrote in a 39-page ruling released Tuesday. Beth Stone, a spokeswoman from the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office, said the office is reviewing the decision “and will determine our next course of action.” Jones’s attorney, Lisa Kavanaugh, said she was notified of the decision Tuesday morning and drove directly to the state’s maximum security prison in Shirley to tell her longtime client the news. She plans to file a motion Wednesday morning for his immediate release. “He was quite overcome with emotion,’’ said Kavanaugh, director of the Innocence Program at the state public defender’s office. “It was pretty wonderful.” Jones filed a motion to reopen his case in 2015 based on allegations that police tampered with a videotaped interview of a key witness to remove exculpatory evidence. The tape, shown at his trial, was pivotal because none of the eyewitnesses testified in court that they were sure Jones was the shooter. McGuire, who now presides in Bristol County Superior Court, is hearing Jones’s case because he was seated in Plymouth when the motion was first filed. He wrote that he first learned of allegations of racial bias as part of a 2016 investigation published by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting and WBUR public radio. Juror Eleanor Urbati, a white Hingham resident who always regretted convicting Jones, told NECIR that two jurors had told her they thought the defendant was guilty because he was black. In September, McGuire summoned Urbati to court as part of a reexamination of the Jones verdict in what is believed to be the first such review in Massachusetts since the US Supreme Court ruled in March that a trial judge must pry into typically secret discussions if there is evidence of racial bias. McGuire Jr. also interviewed three other jurors who couldn’t remember and allegations of racism during deliberations of the all-white panel.
McGuire said in his decision that although other jurors did not confirm Urbati’s testimony, he believed she was “was very precise and consistent in her description.” “It was clear” the case had “weighed heavily” on Urbati over decades, he wrote. McGuire said that racial allegations are important in a state with a “long, sad history of racial bias that persists today.” The unidentified juror was “racially biased” and “he was not joking. He was not being sarcastic,’’ the judge wrote. “The defendant did not receive a trial before an impartial jury.” McGuire also wrote that he supported Jones allegations that a videotape recording of witness Terri Lynn Starks had been manipulated. Jones claimed police tampered with the videotape played in the courtroom, in which a brief segment of the “The Phil Silvers Show,” a 1950s send-up of Army life, suddenly appeared in the middle of the interview. The lead investigator on the case, Brockton police detective Joseph Smith, called the glitch an honest pre-trial mistake in handling the tape. But forensic specialists and lawyers working for Jones, using technology not available at the time of the trial, said the recording was not the original and was missing up to two minutes of the interview. To examine the allegations, McGuire summoned Smith, now retired, to testify. Smith told the court that he did not have “the technical ability” to delete material. But McGuire determined that testimony to be false. He said Smith knew how to edit the video and provided false testimony to the jury — but did not conclude he was the one who manipulated the tape. He said Smith, realizing the tape had been altered, feared that admitting this to the jury “would appear highly suspicious” and instead gave a false explanation. McGuire determined that if the jury had known of Smith’s “false testimony and that the police edited the recording” the jury may have ruled differently. “Because Det. Smith’s false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment, a new trial is required,” he wrote. Smith, now 76 years old and reached at his home, said he was surprised by the judge’s decision. He said he worked at the Brockton Police Department for 30 years. “First time I have ever been called a liar,’’ he said. Kavanaugh said the judge’s decision was remarkable because judges don’t often recognize “that police officers are not above lying and racial bias is a profound problem in our system.” 

The entire story - co-published with the Boston Globe - can be found at the link below;

https://www.necir.org/2017/12/19/after-30-years-denying-he-was-a-murder/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog."

Arthur Greer case: West Australia: Counsel Malcolm McCusker, who successfully fought to have the High Court quash Andrew Mallard's murder conviction is going to bat for Arthur Greer pro bono..." A growing number of respected legal minds are now comparing Greer’s case to the infamous Beamish, Mallard and Button wrongful convictions that rocked the State’s justice system. “Apart from the insufficiency of the evidence which resulted in your conviction on a retrial, it appears there was a withholding of significant evidence,” Mr McCusker, a former WA Governor, wrote in a letter to Greer in October."..."Greer, who had a long criminal record, was found guilty of wilful murder in a 1993 trial, but due to a legal technicality, that conviction was overturned and a retrial a year later convicted him of the lesser charge of murder, with a minimum of seven years. Since then, there have been questions about the investigation generally and the forensic evidence in particular. Two of WA’s most respected forensic pathologists have theorised Sharon Mason’s remains may have been frozen for some years before they were buried and then discovered behind where Greer’s business had once been."

STORY: "Sharon Mason murder: Bid to clear man jailed for murder of Perth teenage girl," by reporter Tony Barrass, published by Perth Now on December 23, 3017.

GIST: "Eminent  QC Malcolm McCusker believes that “significant evidence” was withheld from the 1994 trial of notorious child killer Arthur Greer, who is still in jail for the mutilation murder of schoolgirl Sharon Mason 35 years ago. Mr McCusker, who successfully argued to have the High Court quash Andrew Mallard’s murder conviction, has written a letter to Greer offering to work pro bono on an appeal. “I have great sympathy for your plight,” Mr McCusker wrote. And in a separate development surrounding the case, Prisoners Review Board chairman Robert Cock has agreed to bring forward Greer’s parole hearing to January which could see him free within weeks and deported to his native UK. If he is not granted parole – which must be approved by Attorney-General John Quigley and Governor Kerry Sanderson — new laws to be introduced next year will allow Mr McCusker to go directly to the Court of Appeal in a bid to overturn Greer’s conviction. The Prisoner Review Board has approved Greer’s release on a previous occasion only to be overruled by former attorney-general Michael Mischin, who also refused to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. A growing number of respected legal minds are now comparing Greer’s case to the infamous Beamish, Mallard and Button wrongful convictions that rocked the State’s justice system. “Apart from the insufficiency of the evidence which resulted in your conviction on a retrial, it appears there was a withholding of significant evidence,” Mr McCusker, a former WA Governor, wrote in a letter to Greer in October. Now 80, in ill health in Acacia Prison, Greer was convicted of murdering Sharon Mason at his Mosman Park dress shop in 1983, dismembering her body and burying her remains under a shed in the back carpark. He was charged a decade later when her remains were discovered by two bobcat drivers digging up a carpark behind the old Stirling Highway shops. Greer, who had a long criminal record, was found guilty of wilful murder in a 1993 trial, but due to a legal technicality, that conviction was overturned and a retrial a year later convicted him of the lesser charge of murder, with a minimum of seven years. Since then, there have been questions about the investigation generally and the forensic evidence in particular. Two of WA’s most respected forensic pathologists have theorised Sharon Mason’s remains may have been frozen for some years before they were buried and then discovered behind where Greer’s business had once been. Mr Quigley, who in Opposition expressed concerns about the integrity of Greer’s conviction, would not comment on the matter yesterday, only to say new laws would remove politicians from a process that should be unique to the courts. “If anyone has viable grounds for appeal, then that should be determined by the courts, not by a politician. The Attorney-General should not be the gatekeeper of such things,” he said. Mr McCusker, who did not wish to comment to The Sunday Times, told Greer in the October 26 letter that he agreed with fellow QC Tom Percy, who has long fought for Greer’s release. He stated the new laws would “enable a person who has fresh and compelling evidence that there has been a miscarriage of justice, to apply directly to the Court of Appeal, rather than go ... to the Attorney-General, the present position”."

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/sharon-mason-murder-bid-to-clear-man-jailed-for-murder-of-perth-teenage-girl-ng-b88698611z

See also a related story at the link below: (Sharon Mason: The teenage murder mystery that shook Perth.) " Nine years later, a major murder investigation exploded into life with the gruesome discovery behind the old shops. A cursory check of the tenants in 1983 turned up Prunella Fashions, a dress shop owned by Arthur Boycott Greer. Records showed Greer sold the business five months after Sharon’s disappearance and moved on. It turned out that “Paddy” Greer, a volatile character who had arrived in Australia in the 1960s from the hard streets of Belfast, had a substantial criminal record, including two counts of sexual assault and an attempted murder conviction in NSW. He was also a known wife-beater. Bingo. Now a caretaker of a block of Sackville Terrace units in Scarborough, Greer was arrested and questioned at length. He denied any knowledge of Sharon or her murder. Detectives put it to Greer that Sharon, sick of her part-time job chopping up squid in a fish-and-chip shop, was lured into Greer’s web by a sign in Prunella’s window seeking a young assistant to work in the dress shop. Once in there, they believed Greer murdered the youngster before dismembering her body in the bathroom at the back of the store. Detectives believed Greer then put Sharon’s remains into plastic bags the shop used to transport garments and then buried the two separate bundles underneath a small garden shed that sat a metre or so behind the shop in the carpark. Arthur Boycott Greer was charged with the wilful murder of Sharon Mason in July 1992. The Crown presented a purely circumstantial case. Nobody had seen Sharon walk into Greer’s shop. Nobody testified that the pair had ever met. There was no forensic evidence linking Greer to the skeletal or decomposing remains. In fact, the only fingerprint found at the scene — on the adhesive tape — was not his, the forensic officer Sheridan would later tell Justice Len Roberts-Smith at Greer’s trial. The yellow ribbon ties used to wrap up the plastic bags were similar to those used in the dress shop, but Prunella’s was one of countless shops that used the same type of ribbon. Greer said he had never seen the grotesque mask that was uncovered at the crime scene. However, his son, John, told police that he had seen his father putting it on and skylarking around the shop. Greer was convicted of wilful murder in 1993 and sentenced to strict security life imprisonment, but due to a legal technicality, that conviction was thrown out. At his subsequent retrial the following year, he was convicted of the lesser charge of murder and sentenced to life with a minimum of seven years. He fought the conviction all the way to the High Court — represented in May 1997 pro bono by no less a legal mind than the current WA Chief Justice Wayne Martin. Unless Martin is a very good actor, one could safely assume he also believes Greer’s conviction is unjust. He, of course, can’t comment in his current position. Since then, major concerns about what could well become WA’s biggest injustice will not go away. Clive Cooke and Derek Pocock, both former WA chief forensic pathologists, have over the years cast serious doubts over the Crown’s assertion as to how Sharon’s remains came to be in the carpark. Dr Pocock believes there was a notable difference in the “degree of decomposition between the top part of the body and the bottom part” and suspects the lower part may “have been frozen for a considerable part of the nine years” that Sharon was missing. He believes that “given the evidence stated in the post mortem report, it is unlikely that the full facts and conclusions were presented to the jury to enable them to come to a verdict”. There are also numerous questions about plumbing and excavation work being done over the crime scene years after Sharon went missing, yet no remains were found when digging began in the same spot where Sharon’s remains were eventually found. Paddy Greer has now been in jail for 25 years. Private investigator Mick Buckley, the Sellenger Centre at Edith Cowan University and eminent lawyers Mark Trowell, Tom Percy, Jon Davies and now Malcolm McCusker all suspect there has been a major miscarriage of justice."

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/sharon-mason-the-teenage-murder-mystery-that-shook-perth-ng-b88699046z

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

Clarence Moses-EL; Colorado; A year after he was acquitted following a new trial, he has filed a civil rights lawsuit for malicious prosecution - alleging, amongst other things, destruction of evidence..."The accuser identified him as the attacker after a dream while medicated and hospitalized because of injuries she received in the attack. Police mistakenly destroyed DNA evidence after Moses-EL raised $1,000 from other inmates to pay for testing."..."The 98-page lawsuit recounts the nearly three-decade ordeal, laying out details of the police investigation, the two trials, and how detectives questioned the victim and failed to investigate other potential suspects. The lawsuit names LC Jackson as the attacker and blames the city for leaving him on the streets to commit more crimes, including a 1992 violent rape of a woman and her 9-year-old daughter. Jackson was a former neighbor of Moses-EL and the victim. The victim originally named Jackson as a possible suspect in her rape and beating because she had been drinking with him in the hours before the attack. “Mr. Jackson was left at liberty to victimize other members of the Denver community,” the lawsuit said. “And he did just that.” Jackson wrote Moses-EL from prison and appeared to be on the verge of admitting he was the attacker. But Jackson recanted after talking to an investigator from the district attorney’s office."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Moses-EL had been convicted of raping and beating a neighbor in 1987. He went through two trials before a jury determined last year that he was not guilty of first-degree sexual assault, second-degree assault and second-degree burglary. The brutal rape and attack of a woman who lived in the Five Points neighborhood remains unsolved. From the beginning, Moses-EL insisted he was innocent and that the victim falsely identified him. He refused to accept plea bargains that were offered over the years. The case featured many twists and turns. The accuser identified him as the attacker after a dream while medicated and hospitalized because of injuries she received in the attack."

STORY:  "Clarence Moses-EL files civil rights lawsuit against Denver for malicious prosecution Lawsuit comes a year after Moses-EL was acquitted in a new trial," by reporter Noelle Phillips, published by The Denver Post on December 15, 2017.

GIST: "A Denver man who spent 28 years in prison for a rape and assault he did not commit is filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city, a former district attorney and police investigators. Clarence Moses-EL, acquitted by a jury in November 2016, is accusing the defendants of malicious prosecution, destruction of evidence, manufacturing false evidence, mishandling evidence, conspiracy to violate his civil rights and fundamental unfairness of prosecution, according to a copy of the lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Denver. The lawsuit asks for an unspecified amount in damages. But the lawsuit exposes the city to another legal liability and potentially expensive payout. In the past three years, Denver has spent more than $19 million to settle claims against its police and sheriffs department. Jenna Espinoza, a city spokeswoman, said the city had not been served with the lawsuit. “Once we receive the complaint, we will evaluate the claims and respond to them,” she said in an email. Moses-EL had been convicted of raping and beating a neighbor in 1987. He went through two trials before a jury determined last year that he was not guilty of first-degree sexual assault, second-degree assault and second-degree burglary. The brutal rape and attack of a woman who lived in the Five Points neighborhood remains unsolved. From the beginning, Moses-EL insisted he was innocent and that the victim falsely identified him. He refused to accept plea bargains that were offered over the years. The case featured many twists and turns. The accuser identified him as the attacker after a dream while medicated and hospitalized because of injuries she received in the attack. Police mistakenly destroyed DNA evidence after Moses-EL raised $1,000 from other inmates to pay for testing. Another man, who lived in the neighborhood and had been partying with the victim the night of the attack, confessed to the crime and then recanted. In December 2015, a Denver District Court judge ordered a new trial, saying new evidence and previously submitted evidence most likely would lead to an acquittal in a new trial. Moses-EL was released from prison. Still, former District Atttorney Mitch Morrissey pushed ahead with a new trial.........The 98-page lawsuit recounts the nearly three-decade ordeal, laying out details of the police investigation, the two trials, and how detectives questioned the victim and failed to investigate other potential suspects. The lawsuit names LC Jackson as the attacker and blames the city for leaving him on the streets to commit more crimes, including a 1992 violent rape of a woman and her 9-year-old daughter. Jackson was a former neighbor of Moses-EL and the victim. The victim originally named Jackson as a possible suspect in her rape and beating because she had been drinking with him in the hours before the attack. “Mr. Jackson was left at liberty to victimize other members of the Denver community,” the lawsuit said. “And he did just that.” Jackson wrote Moses-EL from prison and appeared to be on the verge of admitting he was the attacker. But Jackson recanted after talking to an investigator from the district attorney’s office."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/15/clarence-moses-el-civil-rights-lawsuit-malicious-prosecution/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

Technology series: Part Five: A judge has given the Grand Strand police department 30 days to improve procedures for managing high tech evidence as defence lawyers press for full disclosure..."Another issue is that prosecutors have been turning in edited body camera videos to defense lawyers during the discovery phase of a case. Richardson said the identities of informants and crime victims should be edited out, not to mention the irrelevant footage. But defense lawyers have insisted the entire videos should be provided, not just the parts prosecutors want to use at trial. “I want to see everything,” said Morgan Martin, a Conway defense attorney and former prosecutor. “Only then do I know if I have evidence which is exculpatory in nature… Why is it that you are entitled to it and I’m not?”

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  This is a hugely important story about the growing pains caused by the sudden addition of massive amounts of video evidence in police agencies across the USA - (and, no doubt in police agencies far beyond America's borders. Serious issues relating to disclosure and the risk of withholding exculpatory evidence (whether deliberate or not) are raised by the situation which the Grand Strand police department now is facing   - a judge's order to develop a set of procedures for collecting and transferring high-tech evidence such as officer body camera videos and cell phone data within 30 days.  No doubt defence lawyers, prosecutors and police departments will be watching these events unfold very closely.

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

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

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “The problem of managing digital evidence is not unique to Grand Strand police agencies or even South Carolina departments. This is a huge issue at agencies across the country,” said Seth Stoughton, a former police officer who now teaches criminal law at the University of South Carolina’s School of Law. “The sudden addition of a massive amount of video evidence is going to take some getting used to. This is disruptive, but it may be useful to think of the disruption as growing pains — necessary adjustments that the system needs to make to accommodate this new technology.”

Former police officer  Seth Stoughton - now teaching  criminal law at the University of South Carolina’s School of Law.

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


STORY: "Judge gives Grand Strand police departments 30 days to improve procedures for managing evidence," by reporter Charles D.  Perry, published by 'My Horry News' on December 26, 2017.

GIST: A circuit court judge gave Grand Strand police agencies until next month to develop a set of procedures for collecting and transferring high-tech evidence such as officer body camera videos and cell phone data after defense attorneys raised concerns about access to those records during recent criminal trials, authorities said. Earlier this month, Judge Steven John called together law enforcement leaders from Horry and Georgetown counties and told them they had 30 days to craft a plan for addressing evidence-related problems that have arisen in recent cases, said 15th Circuit Solicitor Jimmy Richardson, who expects the plan to be finished by the second week of January. “This is us trying to get our own house cleaned up,” he said. John could not be reached for comment, but Richardson and Conway Police Chief Reggie Gosnell attended the meeting and said the judge expressed concerns about the management of evidence and the need for prosecutors and defense lawyers to have access to all video, audio and other records in order to prepare for trial. “[The judge] laid down the law,” Gosnell said. Richardson said the issues won’t stifle the justice system because most of his cases end in plea deals. However, he stressed that finding a resolution is critical. “This is not going to be Armageddon,” he said. “This is only coming up and getting ugly when we have a trial.” In the cases in question, defense attorneys have not accused the solicitor’s office of withholding exculpatory evidence, but they have insisted that all records be made available for them to analyze in order for them to best represent their clients. Police and government officials insist the problem is the volume of records they are now processing, particularly the hours of video from body and dash cameras and cell phone records. If multiple officers respond to a scene, each one could have several hours of video from an incident. That evidence must be processed and stored, and many agencies are struggling to manage all of that information. “That’s the biggest cost when you’re looking at body cameras,” Horry County Administrator Chris Eldridge said. “The actual purchase of the camera is the cheap part. It’s the storage [that’s expensive]. And of course the state’s not providing any help for that at all. And we didn’t even get reimbursed for the actual camera purchases 100 percent yet. So we know that. And then the other thing  … we have different agencies in Horry County using different

technology. So that creates problems when it comes to storage and management, too.” Years ago, the file for a car break-in case might consist of a few photos and five pages of records, Richardson, the solicitor, said. Now that same case could contain thousands of pages of evidence. “It’s much easier to misplace two pieces of paper out of 3,000 than it is to lose two pieces of paper or misplace or misfile two pieces of paper out of five pages,” Richardson said. In one recent case, an officer testified that police did not retrieve data from a defendant’s cell phone. But during that testimony, an evidence technician told a prosecutor she had collected those records on her own. The prosecutor then had to explain the awkward situation to the judge and the defense counsel. “Even the judges realize when we’re in court we have been completely honest in turning over all of the evidence, and I think the police are honest,” Richardson said. “With this mass amount of stuff going out, you might have 10 different officers. And it wouldn’t be fair to say the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. … But if you’ve got 10, it’s a lot easier for somebody to have done something that the other ones didn’t know about than if you had one or two.” Another issue is that prosecutors have been turning in edited body camera videos to defense lawyers during the discovery phase of a case. Richardson said the identities of informants and crime victims should be edited out, not to mention the irrelevant footage. But defense lawyers have insisted the entire videos should be provided, not just the parts prosecutors want to use at trial. “I want to see everything,” said Morgan Martin, a Conway defense attorney and former prosecutor. “Only then do I know if I have evidence which is exculpatory in nature. … Why is it that you are entitled to it and I’m not?” The problem of managing digital evidence is not unique to Grand Strand police agencies or even South Carolina departments. “This is a huge issue at agencies across the country,” said Seth Stoughton, a former police officer who now teaches criminal law at the University of South Carolina’s School of Law. “The sudden addition of a massive amount of video evidence is going to take some getting used to. This is disruptive, but it may be useful to think of the disruption as growing pains — necessary adjustments that the system needs to make to accommodate this new technology.” Stoughton pointed out that editing video could be viewed the same way as an officer’s written report. Not every detail is included in a report; it’s a summary of key information. “But here’s where things get complicated,” Stoughton said. “A Supreme Court case, Brady, requires prosecutors to turn over to the defense any information in the government’s possession that may exculpate the defendant, including information collected or retained by a police agency. Most officers don’t get much, if any, training in addressing Brady issues. So when an officer is preparing a report or putting together an investigative file to give to a prosecutor, the officer might include the information that she believes is relevant without thinking about the potential Brady issues. That may mean providing video snippets, instead of an entire video, or not providing any video because, from the officer’s perspective, it isn’t relevant or helpful (to the prosecution).” Yet even if a police department turns over all the video evidence, there are other challenges. Someone has to watch the hours of footage, and formatting can be an issue. “Sometimes the video is provided in a specific format that requires special software to play,” Stoughton said. “Sometimes the video is made available via the internet, but only if the viewer agrees to the vendor’s terms of service, which defense attorneys and judges may not be willing to do when they have a legal right to access the video without preconditions.” Body cameras became a focus of South Carolina police departments after state lawmakers passed a law in 2015 directing law enforcement agencies to implement the technology. The law was approved just months after a white North Charleston police officer shot a fleeing black man in the back. That officer, Michael Slager, initially said he was struggling with Walter Scott when Scott tried to use Slager’s Taser on the officer. However, a bystander’s cell phone video showed Scott running from Slager when the officer shot him multiple times. Slager eventually pleaded guilty to violating Scott’s civil rights. This month, Slager was sentenced to 20 years in prison. At the time South Carolina lawmakers passed the body camera law, many law enforcement leaders touted the move as a show of transparency that would build public trust in police. But Richardson said there have been many unforeseen challenges, which Judge John highlighted in his meeting with the police chiefs this month. “I was so naive,” Richardson said, “and I think a lot of police departments were.” Still, the cameras have proven helpful in some ways. “They’ve really been an excellent tool for us, particularly when it comes to the citizens’ complaints,” said Gosnell, the Conway police chief. “It just shows exactly what’s happened.” Gosnell acknowledged that storage has been a problem, but he’s optimistic about what has happened since the police chiefs met with the judge. A group made up of officers from both large and small local agencies has been meeting to develop a plan to get all the departments following the same protocol for managing evidence and, ideally, using the same software. “It’ll be easier to streamline in it, absolutely,” Gosnell said. “It’ll make it much easier for everybody once we get on the seamless transfer of these files.” Jonny McCoy, a Myrtle Beach defense attorney, agreed that having a uniform system for managing video evidence would benefit all sides in the justice system. “It’s an evolving technology, so it’s a good thing we’re getting on the same page,” he said. “I applaud Judge John for sure, and for Jimmy to work with him in any capacity.” The solicitor said the group working on the problems is considering a system that would allow defense attorneys interested in seeing all video to watch it at the police agency that recorded it. Prosecutors would watch the video there, too. He also said the committee is trying to standardize procedures for using body cameras, including when to turn them on and off. Under the current system, the process can vary from agency to agency. Richardson said each department in the two-county circuit needs to follow the same guidelines for processing evidence. He compared the problem facing law enforcement to getting his son’s uniform cleaned after a baseball tournament. “When we get home from a baseball tournament, I stop my son right in the washroom and I get all that he’s got on that needs to be washed right there,” he said. “What’s happening now is [evidence is] not getting dumped immediately and it’s getting up to the room and you find stinky socks under the bed two months later. Let’s dump everything and know what we’ve got.” If the police departments and the solicitor can find a system that works, Richardson said it could serve as a model for the rest of the state. He recently attended a solicitors conference, and he said every circuit has these difficulties. But getting an evidence system that works for both the prosecution and the defense won’t be simple. Martin, the Conway defense lawyer, said he doesn’t want to watch videos at the police department. He said he needs to analyze the footage with his own experts. However, he hopes a workable solution can be reached. “It’s growing pains,” he said. “But you’ve got to be sure you don’t do it at the expense of either party in the criminal justice system.”"

The entire story can be read at:

 https://www.myhorrynews.com/news/local/horry_county/judge-gives-grand-strand-police-departments-days-to-improve-procedures/article_29f37db6-ea80-11e7-896c-5f6e497144cb.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

Sherman Brown; Roy Watford: Virginia; Exoneration hearings set for Wednesday in cases of The murder of a 4-year-old boy almost half a century ago and the four decades-old rape of a 12-year-old girl..."The Virginia attorney general's office is opposing both claims while lawyers for the men contend new DNA testing of purported evidence in the crimes prove their innocence."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In Brown's case, the biological evidence at issue was discovered on a microscope slide created in 1969. To be exonerated by the supreme court, Watford and Brown must prove by clear and convincing evidence that no rational judge or juror would have convicted them in light of the new evidence. Their lawyers contend both men have cleared that hurdle while the state contends they have not. As far as it is known, no one has won a writ of actual innocence in cases opposed by the attorney general. Watford, who has no other criminal record, was just 18 years old when he pleaded guilty to the 1977 rape of the girl on the advice of his grandfather in a plea deal that called for no time in jail and that allowed him to try and finish high school. DNA testing in June 2016 found that Watford's DNA did not match the genetic profile identified in sperm recovered from the victim and her jeans and two other genetic profiles found in sperm from two mattress stains found in the vacant house where the assault occurred. Testing in 2010 also failed to match the DNA profiles of Watford's two younger brothers - also suspects - with any of three suspect DNA profiles identified by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science. The attorney general's office says only that the profile identified from a vaginal swab taken from the victim can confidently be associated with the crime."

STORY: "Virginia justices consider exoneration pleas in two decades-old cases," by reporter Frank Green, published by The Richmond Times-Dispatch, on January 5, 2017.

GIST: "The murder of a 4-year-old boy almost half a century ago and the four decades-old rape of a 12-year-old girl will be at issue before the Virginia Supreme Court on Wednesday. Petitions for writs of actual innocence are pending in the high court for Sherman Brown, 70, a prison inmate serving life for a 1969 slaying in Albemarle County; and Roy L. Watford III, 58, convicted of raping a girl in Portsmouth in 1977, but who never served a day in jail. The Virginia attorney general's office is opposing both claims while lawyers for the men contend new DNA testing of purported evidence in the crimes prove their innocence. Absence of DNA in and of itself does not prove innocence and the test results in each case are not as definitive as in cases where not only is the convicted person's DNA excluded from relevant, undisputed evidence of the crime, but the real perpetrator is identified by testing. Among other things the attorney general's office questions the significance of some of the test results and whether the material tested was actually related to the crime. In Brown's case, the biological evidence at issue was discovered on a microscope slide created in 1969. To be exonerated by the supreme court, Watford and Brown must prove by clear and convincing evidence that no rational judge or juror would have convicted them in light of the new evidence. Their lawyers contend both men have cleared that hurdle while the state contends they have not. As far as it is known, no one has won a writ of actual innocence in cases opposed by the attorney general. Watford, who has no other criminal record, was just 18 years old when he pleaded guilty to the 1977 rape of the girl on the advice of his grandfather in a plea deal that called for no time in jail and that allowed him to try and finish high school. DNA testing in June 2016 found that Watford's DNA did not match the genetic profile identified in sperm recovered from the victim and her jeans and two other genetic profiles found in sperm from two mattress stains found in the vacant house where the assault occurred. Testing in 2010 also failed to match the DNA profiles of Watford's two younger brothers - also suspects - with any of three suspect DNA profiles identified by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science. The attorney general's office says only that the profile identified from a vaginal swab taken from the victim can confidently be associated with the crime. Many questions about the crime and trial remain unanswered because it happened so long ago and, since Watford pleaded guilty, there is not a detailed trial record. After Watford petitioned for a writ of actual innocence and the attorney general's office responded, the justices ordered an evidentiary hearing that was held in April in Portsmouth Circuit Court. At the hearing the now-adult victim testified that when she entered the vacant house, she saw one of Watford's brothers and other men inside. However, she said a blanket was thrown over her head, so she did not see her assailants. She said she could not recall seeing or hearing Watford - whom she knew - at the scene or recall telling police that he was among her assailants. The attorney general's office does not comment on pending petitions, although in Watford's case it said in pleadings that the case was troubling, but nevertheless argued that he had not met the burden required by law for exoneration. Jonathan Sheldon, Watford's lawyer, believes his client's innocence claim is conclusive in light of the testimony at the hearing. Brown was convicted of the Oct. 1, 1969, murder of a 4-year-old Albemarle County boy. He was identified by the child's mother, who was stabbed, beaten and apparently raped in the same attack that took her son's life. A vaginal swab was taken from the mother at the University of Virginia Hospital emergency room where she was treated after the attack. It was used to create a microscope slide that was given to the hospital's pathology department on Oct. 2, 1969. The slide was discovered in a Charlottesville-area warehouse in 2015 and subjected to DNA testing. The Innocence Project filed a petition for a writ of actual innocence with the Virginia Supreme Court citing the DNA test results which they said is powerful evidence he did not commit the crime and that the mother's identification was mistaken. The partial male DNA profile identified in material on the slide does not match Brown or the woman's husband. The commonwealth's theory of the case was that the boy was slain to eliminate a witness to the rape of his mother. According to the state, the mother's DNA profile has not been identified in what is said to be her vaginal swab. The state says that a DNA profile developed when testing the slide is inconsistent with her DNA. The attorney general's office asked the justices to dismiss the petition, arguing among other things, that Brown made self-incriminating statements, that there were problems with the DNA testing and that the material tested may not even be associated with the case. The state argues that Brown cannot document who made the slide or who has had custody or access to it from 1969 to 2015 in order to show the evidence had not been altered, tampered with or substituted. The Innocence Project says they have shown a sufficient chain of custody for the slide which has been kept in a metal file cabinet, stored for a number of years at the hospital and transferred to a locked, state-run warehouse. When the slide was located at the hospital's pathology lab, it was immediately placed in a plastic container that was closed and later delivered to police. They said the evidence is old and degraded and it is not surprising that the mother's DNA was not identified on the slide. The DNA profile found on the slide that is "inconsistent" with the mother does not mean the slide was not made from her vaginal swab but rather that the profile came from the perpetrator. The Innocence Project said the self-incriminating statements cited by the attorney general were made during a parole interview and "reflect a desire to be paroled rather than a true confession of guilt." The justices have set aside 40 minutes Wednesday for Brown's case and 30 minutes for Watford. Watford said last week that he will be unable to attend the hearing."

http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/virginia-justices-consider-exoneration-pleas-in-two-decades-old-cases/article_5922f452-0741-59e1-98ff-c83e20acd877.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

•  
  

Bulletin: Davontae Sanford; 23; Michigan: Cleared of 4 murders gets $408,000 compensation..."Sanford was 14 years old when he walked up to a homicide scene in his neighborhood in 2007, became a suspect and was arrested. He was 15 when he pleaded guilty to second degree murder in 2008. Sanford said he felt desperate and poorly represented by his lawyer, who was not present when he says he was (pressured) by authorities to confess under interrogation. A Detroit hit man, Vincent “Vito” Smothers, later signed an affidavit saying he had committed the four killings, not Sanford. WWJ/AP; January 5, 2018.

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: ".Later that night, police picked up Sanford again and brought him back to the police station. Sanford would later say that when he asked for a lawyer, he was told he was a “dumb ass” and that no lawyer was around at that time of night. The detectives said they knew he was involved because he had blood on his shoes, which was not true. Sanford said the questioning became confrontational and when he was told he could go home if he gave the officers “something,” he began making up details or picking up details based on questions and statements the officers made."

Maurice Possley: National Registry  of Exonerations;

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

"The state of Michigan has agreed to pay $408,000 to a young Detroit man who spent eight years in prison for four murders before prosecutors agreed to drop the conviction. Records show Davontae Sanford is the latest person to qualify for compensation in a wrongful conviction. Sanford was 14 years old when he walked up to a homicide scene in his neighborhood in 2007, became a suspect and was arrested. He was 15 when he pleaded guilty to second degree murder in 2008. Sanford said he felt desperate and poorly represented by his lawyer, who was not present when he says he was (pressured)  by authorities to confess under interrogation. A Detroit hit man, Vincent “Vito” Smothers, later signed an affidavit saying he had committed the four killings, not Sanford. “I only want to tell the truth in order to prevent an innocent kid from serving time for crimes that I committed,” said Smothers, who is serving 52 years in prison for killing eight other people. In 2016, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said Sanford’s guilty plea was spoiled after state police found misconduct by Detroit police. Sanford’s conviction was thrown out, and he was released from prison in June of that year. Under a 2016 law, someone who is wrongly convicted can qualify for $50,000 for every year spent in prison. Separately, Sanford has a lawsuit pending in federal court against Detroit police.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/young-man-cleared-of-4-murders-gets-408000-from-michigan/

Read National  Register of Exonerations entry by Maurice Possley  at the link below:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4913

"On September 17, 2007, two gunmen forced their way into a home at 19741 Runyon Street in Detroit, Michigan and fatally shot three men and a woman. Another woman was shot five times, but survived. A seven-year-old boy sleeping in bed survived unscathed. Killed were reputed drug dealer Michael Robinson, 33; Deangelo McNoriell, 31; Nicole Chapman, 29; and Brian Dixon, 31. Valerie Glover, 30, survived by managing to escape to a rear bedroom where she hid under a bed.

 Jesse King, a Detroit Police chaplain who lived nearby, heard the gunshots and came outside to see two men running down the street. He fired his own gun at them and the gunmen fired back, but no one was struck. King and Glover gave descriptions of the gunmen to police. King said one man carried a rifle and was 5’11” or 6 feet tall and the second man, who carried a handgun, was slightly shorter. Glover described only one gunman and said he was 30 to 35 years old, slim and about 6 feet tall. A police dog was brought to the location of shell casings left from the shots fired at Jesse King. The dog followed a scent, police said, for about two blocks, through a vacant lot and finally stopping after losing the scent on Beland Street. Police concluded the men had escaped by car from there. At about that same time, 14-year-old Davontae Sanford, clad in his pajamas, left his nearby home on Beland Street to find out what was going on. Sanford was blind in one eye, 5’5” tall and weighed 150 pounds. Sgt. Michael Russell would later testify that he tried to talk to Sanford, but the youth refused to answer questions. At that point, another officer approached and Sanford said his “uncle” was Detroit police homicide commander William Rice. The other officer would later testify that he told Sanford he knew Rice and that Sanford should help them out in solving the case. Russell then went to Sanford’s home where the boy’s grandmother, Taminka, signed a hand-written conveyance form allowing the police to take the boy to the police station. They took him back to the scene of the crime where evidence technicians swabbed him for gunshot residue, which turned out to be negative. After 3 a.m., they took Sanford to the station and began questioning him without the grandmother’s consent. This was in violation of Michigan state law, which requires the presence of a parent or guardian during questioning of a juvenile or a signed waiver of their presence. At 4 a.m., Sanford signed statement saying he and four other youths had met at a Coney Island restaurant and planned to rob “Milk Dud.” He said they had four guns, but that he changed his mind about participating and went home before the gunshots occurred. He said one of the guns was a .38 caliber pistol. Sanford was taken home some time later. During the day, police determined that the Coney Island was closed and there was no evidence that any .38 caliber weapon was used. Later that night, police picked up Sanford again and brought him back to the police station. Sanford would later say that when he asked for a lawyer, he was told he was a “dumb ass” and that no lawyer was around at that time of night. The detectives said they knew he was involved because he had blood on his shoes, which was not true. Sanford said the questioning became confrontational and when he was told he could go home if he gave the officers “something,” he began making up details or picking up details based on questions and statements the officers made. Sgt. Russell began typing up a second statement that was far more incriminating than his first. After doing so, he gave Sanford a set of Miranda warnings for the first time. In this statement, Sanford said that he and three others fired weapons into the house and then went inside and stole drugs and money. He said that the guns used were a .45-caliber pistol, an AK-47 assault rifle and a “mini-14,” which was similar to, but smaller than, an AK-47.  However, all the bullets and casings recovered at the shooting were from a .45 caliber weapon or an AK-47. And this statement included the same accomplices mentioned in the first statement, even though they had solid alibis. The detectives reported that Sanford drew a map of the house that accurately depicted the interior and the location of the bodies. Sanford was arrested and charged with four counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted murder, and one count of illegal use of a firearm. Almost immediately, during an interview with a psychologist, Sanford, who had been classified in school as learning disabled, recanted the confession and said it was false. On March 17, 2008, Sanford went to trial in Wayne County Circuit Court. His defense attorney, Robert Slameka—who had amassed more than a dozen reprimands and admonishments for substandard defense work—did not challenge the confession even though Sanford was not given Miranda warnings until late in the second interrogation session. Sgt. Russell testified about the confession and described how Sanford had drawn a sketch that accurately depicted the interior of the house and the location of the bodies. The prosecution also called Glover, the woman who survived the shooting, as a witness. She testified that the gunman had a high-pitched voice similar to Sanford’s—testimony that was inadmissible under Michigan law, but also went unchallenged by Slameka as did the fact that Glover’s initial description of a slim, 6 foot tall man was far different from Sanford, who was 5’5” tall and weighed 150 pounds. After that evidence was presented, Slameka—who did not even cross-examine Russell—told Sanford and his family that the case was hopeless and that Sanford’s only choice, if he ever wanted to be free, was to plead guilty. So, on March 18, 2008, the second day of the trial, Sanford pled guilty to four counts of second-degree murder and one count of illegal use of a weapon. He was sentenced to 37 to 90 years in prison on the murder charges, as well as a consecutive two-year term for the gun charge. About one month later, in April 2008, Detroit police arrested Vincent Smothers and began interrogating him about the murder of the wife of a Detroit police officer in the summer of 2007. To the surprise of detectives, Smothers not only confessed that he had been hired by the police officer to kill his wife, but he admitted that he had committed 11 other murders—all for hire—including the four murders that Sanford had pled guilty to committing. Smothers said that he and Ernest “Nemo” Davis committed the Runyon Street shootings and that Sanford was not involved. Smothers said that his wife had hidden an AK-47 rifle and a 45-caliber pistol in a house where Davis’s cousin lived. Police recovered a .45-caliber handgun at the house and ballistics tests linked it to the Runyon Street shooting. Detectives refused to believe Smothers was responsible for the murders on Runyon Street because they already had Sanford’s confession and guilty plea, even though Smothers led police to one of the guns used in the shooting. Smothers would later say—and his attorney would confirm—that he was presented with a deal to plead guilty to eight counts of second-degree murder—instead of first-degree murder—if he would remain silent about the murders on Runyon Street. Smothers rejected that deal. He ultimately pled guilty to eight counts of second-degree murder without that condition and was sentenced to 50 to 100 years in prison. Sanford’s appellate lawyer, Kim McGinniss, of the Michigan State Appellate Defender Officer, did not learn of Smothers’ confession to the Runyon Street shootings until nearly a year later, in early 2009. McGinnis filed a motion seeking to withdraw Sanford’s guilty plea based on a claim of actual innocence, citing Smothers’ admission that he and Davis—and not Sanford—were responsible for the Runyon Street shootings. That motion was denied, but the Michigan Court of Appeals ordered that an evidentiary hearing be held. At that hearing, the trial court judge denied defense motions to present testimony from an expert on false confessions and also denied a defense motion to produce Smothers as a witness or to admit his hearsay admissions to a defense investigator that he and Davis committed the shooting. Among witnesses at the hearing was William Rice, former Detroit Police homicide commander, who testified that Sanford was with him at the time of the murders. Also testifying was James Tolbert, deputy police chief, who said that Sanford had drawn the map of the interior of the house. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge again denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. In 2014, Rice and Sanford’s great-aunt, Cheryl Sanford, pled guilty to mortgage fraud charges. Rice also pled guilty to perjury charges after his testimony about Sanford’s alibi was proven false by cell phone records. The defense appealed the denial of the motion, supported by an amicus brief prepared by a team led by Megan Crane, co-director of Northwestern University Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, and filed by attorney David Moran, co-founder of the Michigan Innocence Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School. In September 2013, the Michigan Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court to allow the defense to present expert testimony on false confessions as well as testimony from Smothers’ attorney about his confession to the Runyon Street shooting. The appeals court said that the defense should be allowed to call Smothers as a witness if he chose to testify. Before that occurred, however, the prosecution appealed and in April 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the trial court ruling that denied Sanford’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court held that actual innocence was not a legal basis to withdraw a guilty plea—that a plea could be withdrawn “only if the trial court determines that there was an error in the plea proceeding that would entitle the defendant to have the plea set aside.” At that point, the Michigan State Appellate Defender Office stepped aside as Sanford’s attorney and the Michigan Innocence Clinic and Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth took over his case. The legal team contacted former Washington, D.C. police detective James Trainum, an expert on false confessions. Trainum analyzed Sanford’s confession and determined that the correct facts in it were based on information police knew at the time of the crime and the incorrect facts were information that police did not know at the time—suggesting that Sanford was fed information by the detectives. Trainum also analyzed Smothers’ confession and concluded Smothers was truthful. A motion for relief from judgment was filed on Sanford’s behalf and the Michigan State Police became interested in the case. On May 4, 2015, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy formally requested a reinvestigation by the state police. A year later, in May 2016, the state police concluded their investigation and reported to Worthy that the evidence indicated that Smothers and Davis committed the Runyon Street shooting—not Sanford. The state police reported that during their investigation, deputy police chief Tolbert, who had testified that Sanford drew the diagram of the interior of the house, said for the first time that he—not Sanford—drew the diagram. On June 7, 2016, Worthy and lawyers for Sanford presented a motion to Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Brian Sullivan requesting that Sanford’s convictions and sentences be vacated. The motion said, “Tolbert’s recorded statement directly contradicts his prior sworn testimony about the drawing of the diagram and seriously undermines (a) the confession obtained from Davontae Sanford and (b) his subsequent guilty plea.” The motion also stated, “The interests of justice require the setting aside of Davontae Sanford’s convictions and sentences.” Judge Sullivan vacated Sanford’s convictions and ordered him released from prison. Sanford was released on June 8, 2016 and on July 19, 2016, the charges were dismissed. In September 2017, Sanford's lawyers filed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking damages from Russell, Tolbert, and the city of Detroit. Sanford's lawyers filed a claim with the state of Michigan seeking compensation. In November, the Michigan Attorney General's Office agreed that Sanford qualified for compensation, noting at the same time that Worthy opposed granting Sanford compensation. In December 2017, Sanford was awarded $400,000 in compensation from the state of Michigan."

 PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.