"After realizing her case was built on nothing more than a thoroughly debunked dog scent lineup and the testimony of a medical examiner who mishandled evidence while on the stand, former Harris County assistant district attorney and special prosecutor Kelly Siegler announced on October 27, 2010 that Anthony Graves was "an innocent man.""
THE INNOCENCE PROJECT;
THE ENTIRE 48 HOURS DOCUMENTARY CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE FOLLOWING LINK;
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7363660n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (THE INNOCENCE PROJECT): "DNA testing didn’t free Texas exoneree Anthony Graves, but the case against him was frighteningly similar to many of those who were cleared by DNA. A prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence from the Graves’ defense team, and the state’s leading witness was Graves’ alleged co-defendant. After a district court reversed his original conviction, the state pushed for retrial.
After realizing her case was built on nothing more than a thoroughly debunked dog scent lineup and the testimony of a medical examiner who mishandled evidence while on the stand, former Harris County assistant district attorney and special prosecutor Kelly Siegler announced on October 27, 2010 that Anthony Graves was "an innocent man."
The Innocence Blog has previously covered the Anthony Graves case and has linked to the extensively researched Texas Monthly article by Pamela Colloff. CBS’s 48 Hours: Mystery was on the scene for Anthony’s reunion with his family, and will air their special, “Grave Injustice” this Saturday, April 23, at 9 p.m. (CST).
Correspondent Richard Schlesinger talks to both Siegler and Colloff, as well as Houston journalism professor Nicole Casarez and some of the students who originally reinvestigated Graves’ case."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire 48 Hours video can be found at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7363660n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
Monday, April 25, 2011
GEORGE DENKOWSKI; (7); ALL EYES ARE ONCE AGAIN WATCHING TEXAS. FROM CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM TO HANK SKINNER AND NOW ON TO 14 INMATES ON DEATH ROW;
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: All eyes are once again on Texas. We were looking to see if Texas would finally acknowledge that it had executed Cameron Todd Willingham - an innocent man - and we're still looking. We were looking to see if Texas would snuff out the life of Hank Skinner without giving him the opportunity to demonstrate that he may be innocent through DNA analysis - and we're still looking. Now we are looking at the cases of fourteen inmates who are currently on Death Row because the recently discredited George Denkowski had determined through faulty tests were not mentally handicapped. (It is already too late to keep alive the two inmates who have already been executed after Denkowski found them mentally capable.) I echo the words of Genvieve Hearon in her powerful commentary recently published in the Statesman. "Texas is now in grave danger of inadvertently executing men with mental retardation. Although Denkowski was recently no longer permitted to testify as to Atkins evaluations, he provided testimony in at least 14 cases of men currently on Texas death row, including two who are in line to receive execution dates. Texas is now in grave danger of inadvertently executing individuals with intellectual disabilities. There are a few areas in life and law where mistakes cannot be tolerated. One of those areas is the death penalty. Since there are now questions as to whether some men have mental retardation, my view is that the courts need to hear their claims anew. At least provide for a demonstration of their records, IQ scores and the testimony of a disinterested expert who addresses the Atkins positions. Death by lethal injection because of flawed evaluation would be a mockery of "justice for all". If the Legislature needs to pass legislation to clear the way for these men's claims, it has an urgent moral duty to act." All eyes are watching;
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
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;
Sunday, April 24, 2011
GEORGE DENKOWSKI; (6) GENEVIEVE HEARON'S POWERFUL COMMENTARY; DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION BECAUSE OF FLAWED "EVALUATION" WOULD MOCK "JUSTICE FOR ALL";
"Texas is now in grave danger of inadvertently executing men with mental retardation. Although Denkowski was recently no longer permitted to testify as to Atkins evaluations, he provided testimony in at least 14 cases of men currently on Texas death row, including two who are in line to receive execution dates.
Texas is now in grave danger of inadvertently executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
There are a few areas in life and law where mistakes cannot be tolerated. One of those areas is the death penalty.
Since there are now questions as to whether some men have mental retardation, my view is that the courts need to hear their claims anew. At least provide for a demonstration of their records, IQ scores and the testimony of a disinterested expert who addresses the Atkins positions. Death by lethal injection because of flawed evaluation would be a mockery of "justice for all". If the Legislature needs to pass legislation to clear the way for these men's claims, it has an urgent moral duty to act."
GENEVIEVE HEARON: THE STATESMAN; (Genevieve Hearon was a trustee of the Austin/Travis County Integral Care, formerly Mental Health and Mental Retardation Community Center, for 15 years and was board chair in 2009-10. She was the founder of Capacity for Justice, an organization that works to address court evaluation requirements in judicial determinations for defendants with intellectual disabilities, mental illnesses and co-occurring issues in the criminal justice system.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As the mother of four beautiful children, one of whom had "mental retardation" (the current preferred term is "intellectual disabilities") and another who was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 15, I know how difficult it can be for some people with intellectual disabilities to take care of themselves and navigate the challenges of daily life. The criminal law treats people with "mental retardation" differently, and it should," the commentary by Genevieve Hearon published earlier today in the Statesman under the heading, "Hearon: Texas must not execute the mentally retarded," begins.
"Although Atkins is settled in law, Texas allowed a testifying expert, George Denkowski, to supplant Atkins' methodology with his own added requirement of upping IQ scores based on the defendant's ethnic environment. In my view, this addition invited inaccuracies, errors in subjectivity, discrimination and denied equal treatment under the law," the commentary continues.
"Texas is now in grave danger of inadvertently executing men with mental retardation. Although Denkowski was recently no longer permitted to testify as to Atkins evaluations, he provided testimony in at least 14 cases of men currently on Texas death row, including two who are in line to receive execution dates.
Texas is now in grave danger of inadvertently executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
There are a few areas in life and law where mistakes cannot be tolerated. One of those areas is the death penalty.
Since there are now questions as to whether some men have mental retardation, my view is that the courts need to hear their claims anew. At least provide for a demonstration of their records, IQ scores and the testimony of a disinterested expert who addresses the Atkins positions. Death by lethal injection because of flawed evaluation would be a mockery of "justice for all". If the Legislature needs to pass legislation to clear the way for these men's claims, it has an urgent moral duty to act.
Denkowski's methodology has been under scrutiny before. The 2010 edition of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities' manual "strongly caution(s) against practices such as those recommended by Denkowski." A colleague complained that Denkowski adjusted IQ and other test scores upward, making men with mental retardation eligible for the death penalty when legally they were not. His method supplanted Atkins' position.
Sometimes courts caught these errors, and sometimes they did not. In 2005, Denkowski found that a defendant named Daniel Plata did not have mental retardation, despite three IQ tests showing that he did. The trial court disagreed with Denkowski's opinion and sharply rebuked him for his improper methods. In 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the trial court and removed Plata from death row. Several cases have been on hold in Texas pending the outcome of Denkowski's hearing.
No one argues that these men should not be accountable for their crimes. But they should not be executed, because their "mental retardation" makes them less culpable under the law. If there are any doubts about whether these men are eligible for the death penalty, those doubts must be resolved before a single execution takes place.
Based on my personal experience and decades of service and policy participation in the behavioral health care field advocating on behalf of people with intellectual disabilities and mental health issues, I am hard-pressed to imagine a more disturbing and regressive action than executing a person who is mentally retarded under Atkins. In the eyes of the law, to do so would be unconstitutional. In our hearts, it would be inhumane and immoral.
The courts must take a second look at the cases where Denkowski conducted the evaluations for mental retardation. This is the only way to avoid unconscionable, irreversible mistakes."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commentary can be found at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/hearon-texas-must-not-execute-the-mentally-retarded-1426875.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 is now in grave danger of inadvertently executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
There are a few areas in life and law where mistakes cannot be tolerated. One of those areas is the death penalty.
Since there are now questions as to whether some men have mental retardation, my view is that the courts need to hear their claims anew. At least provide for a demonstration of their records, IQ scores and the testimony of a disinterested expert who addresses the Atkins positions. Death by lethal injection because of flawed evaluation would be a mockery of "justice for all". If the Legislature needs to pass legislation to clear the way for these men's claims, it has an urgent moral duty to act."
GENEVIEVE HEARON: THE STATESMAN; (Genevieve Hearon was a trustee of the Austin/Travis County Integral Care, formerly Mental Health and Mental Retardation Community Center, for 15 years and was board chair in 2009-10. She was the founder of Capacity for Justice, an organization that works to address court evaluation requirements in judicial determinations for defendants with intellectual disabilities, mental illnesses and co-occurring issues in the criminal justice system.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As the mother of four beautiful children, one of whom had "mental retardation" (the current preferred term is "intellectual disabilities") and another who was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 15, I know how difficult it can be for some people with intellectual disabilities to take care of themselves and navigate the challenges of daily life. The criminal law treats people with "mental retardation" differently, and it should," the commentary by Genevieve Hearon published earlier today in the Statesman under the heading, "Hearon: Texas must not execute the mentally retarded," begins.
"Although Atkins is settled in law, Texas allowed a testifying expert, George Denkowski, to supplant Atkins' methodology with his own added requirement of upping IQ scores based on the defendant's ethnic environment. In my view, this addition invited inaccuracies, errors in subjectivity, discrimination and denied equal treatment under the law," the commentary continues.
"Texas is now in grave danger of inadvertently executing men with mental retardation. Although Denkowski was recently no longer permitted to testify as to Atkins evaluations, he provided testimony in at least 14 cases of men currently on Texas death row, including two who are in line to receive execution dates.
Texas is now in grave danger of inadvertently executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
There are a few areas in life and law where mistakes cannot be tolerated. One of those areas is the death penalty.
Since there are now questions as to whether some men have mental retardation, my view is that the courts need to hear their claims anew. At least provide for a demonstration of their records, IQ scores and the testimony of a disinterested expert who addresses the Atkins positions. Death by lethal injection because of flawed evaluation would be a mockery of "justice for all". If the Legislature needs to pass legislation to clear the way for these men's claims, it has an urgent moral duty to act.
Denkowski's methodology has been under scrutiny before. The 2010 edition of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities' manual "strongly caution(s) against practices such as those recommended by Denkowski." A colleague complained that Denkowski adjusted IQ and other test scores upward, making men with mental retardation eligible for the death penalty when legally they were not. His method supplanted Atkins' position.
Sometimes courts caught these errors, and sometimes they did not. In 2005, Denkowski found that a defendant named Daniel Plata did not have mental retardation, despite three IQ tests showing that he did. The trial court disagreed with Denkowski's opinion and sharply rebuked him for his improper methods. In 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the trial court and removed Plata from death row. Several cases have been on hold in Texas pending the outcome of Denkowski's hearing.
No one argues that these men should not be accountable for their crimes. But they should not be executed, because their "mental retardation" makes them less culpable under the law. If there are any doubts about whether these men are eligible for the death penalty, those doubts must be resolved before a single execution takes place.
Based on my personal experience and decades of service and policy participation in the behavioral health care field advocating on behalf of people with intellectual disabilities and mental health issues, I am hard-pressed to imagine a more disturbing and regressive action than executing a person who is mentally retarded under Atkins. In the eyes of the law, to do so would be unconstitutional. In our hearts, it would be inhumane and immoral.
The courts must take a second look at the cases where Denkowski conducted the evaluations for mental retardation. This is the only way to avoid unconscionable, irreversible mistakes."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commentary can be found at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/hearon-texas-must-not-execute-the-mentally-retarded-1426875.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;
Saturday, April 23, 2011
FALSE GODS: CAN ONE HAVE FAITH IN JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS TARNISHED BY FRAUDULENT EXPERT WITNESSES? JOSHUA ROZENBURG; LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE;
"In Britain, there may be an unjustifiably high level of confidence in the experts who give evidence in criminal trials. Bruce Houlder QC, the UK’s senior military prosecutor, told the Law Commission that there were still some charlatans around who held themselves out as experts in the fields of science or forensic accountancy — as well as others who were merely biased or incompetent.
And the government’s law reform advisers drew attention to notorious examples of fraudulent expert witnesses who had been found guilty by the courts.
They include Godwin Onubogu, a bogus medical doctor convicted in 1998; Barian Baluchi, a bogus psychiatrist convicted in 2005; and Gene Morrison, a bogus psychologist, convicted in 2007.
In a report published this week, the commission recommended a new admissibility test under which expert witnesses would not be allowed to give their opinions in court unless those opinions were warranted and ‘soundly based’.........
The commission offers examples of people who would not have been wrongly convicted if its recommendations had been in force.
They include Mark Dallagher, who was found guilty of murder in 1998 after an ‘expert’ had identified his ear-print on a window at the scene of the crime.
A retrial was ordered by the Court of Appeal because of doubts about the expert’s reliability and the case was dropped after DNA evidence had effectively established Dallagher’s innocence.
Other examples are Sally Clark and Angela Cannings, two mothers wrongly convicted of murdering their baby sons on the strength of questionable expert evidence."
JOSHUA ROZENBURG; THE LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE; (Wikipedia informs us that, "The Law Society Gazette (also known as the Gazette or the Law Gazette) is a British weekly trade magazine for solicitors in England and Wales published by the Law Society of England and Wales."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why do we have such faith in judicial institutions that sometimes get things wrong?," Joshua Rozenburg's commentary published on March 24, 2011 in the Law Society Gazette begins," under the heading, "Having faith in judicial institutions."
"The question was posed last week by Stephen Breyer, a justice of the US Supreme Court, speaking in London at an event arranged by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law," the commentary continues.
"Breyer and three other judges dissented when Bush v Gore was decided a decade ago.
Although the question for the court was whether Florida had violated the federal constitution by ordering a state-wide recount following disputed ballots, the case effectively decided the 2000 presidential election in favour of Bush.
The majority had all been nominated by Republican presidents. What if one had voted the other way? That must be one of the great ‘what ifs’ of history: the Iraq war might never have happened and Tony Blair might still be prime minister with Lord Goldsmith as his attorney general.
But whether the court’s decision was right or wrong is not the issue that interests Breyer.
In his latest book, America’s Supreme Court: Making Democracy Work (OUP, £19.99), he writes: ‘Gore, the losing candidate, told his followers not to attack the legitimacy of the court’s decision.
And despite the great importance of the decision, the strong disagreement about its merits and the strong feelings about the court’s intervention, the public... followed the decision.’
It was not ever thus. In 1957, President Eisenhower needed to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce a Supreme Court order allowing black students to attend a school that had been reserved for whites under the city’s segregated education system.
Breyer is shrewd enough to realise that the public’s trust cannot be taken for granted.
The high level of popular confidence in the US Supreme Court is all the more remarkable when you consider the court’s sweeping powers of judicial review – which, in US terms, means the ability of its unelected judges to strike down legislation that the court finds unconstitutional.
The UK Supreme Court does not have similar powers, whatever David Cameron may think.
On the other hand, one of his ministers does have the power to block appointments to the court. The delay in announcing the names of those selected to fill current vacancies has prompted observers to conclude that Ken Clarke, the lord chancellor, has asked the Supreme Court’s selection commission to reconsider its choice – either because he has not seen enough evidence that one of those selected is suitable or because there is evidence that the chosen candidate is not the best person ‘on merit’.
In Britain, there may be an unjustifiably high level of confidence in the experts who give evidence in criminal trials. Bruce Houlder QC, the UK’s senior military prosecutor, told the Law Commission that there were still some charlatans around who held themselves out as experts in the fields of science or forensic accountancy — as well as others who were merely biased or incompetent.
And the government’s law reform advisers drew attention to notorious examples of fraudulent expert witnesses who had been found guilty by the courts.
They include Godwin Onubogu, a bogus medical doctor convicted in 1998; Barian Baluchi, a bogus psychiatrist convicted in 2005; and Gene Morrison, a bogus psychologist, convicted in 2007.
In a report published this week, the commission recommended a new admissibility test under which expert witnesses would not be allowed to give their opinions in court unless those opinions were warranted and ‘soundly based’.
Expert opinion evidence could be excluded if it was based on a hypothesis that had failed to stand up to scrutiny; if it was based on an unjustifiable assumption; if it was based on flawed data; if it relied on tests that were not properly carried out or were inappropriate; or if it relied on an inference that had not been properly reached.
Although these tests are contained in a draft bill, there seems no reason why courts should not apply them on a discretionary basis without waiting to see whether the law is changed.
Legislation would, however, be needed for the most interesting of the Law Commission’s recommendations – that a court should be allowed to appoint its own expert if it has to decide whether the evidence of another expert is sufficiently reliable to be admitted.
This would apply only to the Crown Court, and elaborate procedures are envisaged to ensure that the court appoints a person who has at least as much expertise as the expert whose know-how is to be examined.
The commission offers examples of people who would not have been wrongly convicted if its recommendations had been in force.
They include Mark Dallagher, who was found guilty of murder in 1998 after an ‘expert’ had identified his ear-print on a window at the scene of the crime.
A retrial was ordered by the Court of Appeal because of doubts about the expert’s reliability and the case was dropped after DNA evidence had effectively established Dallagher’s innocence.
Other examples are Sally Clark and Angela Cannings, two mothers wrongly convicted of murdering their baby sons on the strength of questionable expert evidence.
To return to my original question: why do we still have faith in judicial institutions? It is because the alternative is too dreadful.
Americans don’t want to believe that their system put the ‘wrong’ president in the White House just as British juries don’t want to see trials collapsing for lack of evidence.
We shall certainly see fewer convictions if the Law Commission’s recommendations are accepted. But at least we can hope that fewer of those convicted will be innocent."
The article can be found at:
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/joshua-rozenberg/havinf-faith-judicial-institutions
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;
And the government’s law reform advisers drew attention to notorious examples of fraudulent expert witnesses who had been found guilty by the courts.
They include Godwin Onubogu, a bogus medical doctor convicted in 1998; Barian Baluchi, a bogus psychiatrist convicted in 2005; and Gene Morrison, a bogus psychologist, convicted in 2007.
In a report published this week, the commission recommended a new admissibility test under which expert witnesses would not be allowed to give their opinions in court unless those opinions were warranted and ‘soundly based’.........
The commission offers examples of people who would not have been wrongly convicted if its recommendations had been in force.
They include Mark Dallagher, who was found guilty of murder in 1998 after an ‘expert’ had identified his ear-print on a window at the scene of the crime.
A retrial was ordered by the Court of Appeal because of doubts about the expert’s reliability and the case was dropped after DNA evidence had effectively established Dallagher’s innocence.
Other examples are Sally Clark and Angela Cannings, two mothers wrongly convicted of murdering their baby sons on the strength of questionable expert evidence."
JOSHUA ROZENBURG; THE LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE; (Wikipedia informs us that, "The Law Society Gazette (also known as the Gazette or the Law Gazette) is a British weekly trade magazine for solicitors in England and Wales published by the Law Society of England and Wales."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why do we have such faith in judicial institutions that sometimes get things wrong?," Joshua Rozenburg's commentary published on March 24, 2011 in the Law Society Gazette begins," under the heading, "Having faith in judicial institutions."
"The question was posed last week by Stephen Breyer, a justice of the US Supreme Court, speaking in London at an event arranged by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law," the commentary continues.
"Breyer and three other judges dissented when Bush v Gore was decided a decade ago.
Although the question for the court was whether Florida had violated the federal constitution by ordering a state-wide recount following disputed ballots, the case effectively decided the 2000 presidential election in favour of Bush.
The majority had all been nominated by Republican presidents. What if one had voted the other way? That must be one of the great ‘what ifs’ of history: the Iraq war might never have happened and Tony Blair might still be prime minister with Lord Goldsmith as his attorney general.
But whether the court’s decision was right or wrong is not the issue that interests Breyer.
In his latest book, America’s Supreme Court: Making Democracy Work (OUP, £19.99), he writes: ‘Gore, the losing candidate, told his followers not to attack the legitimacy of the court’s decision.
And despite the great importance of the decision, the strong disagreement about its merits and the strong feelings about the court’s intervention, the public... followed the decision.’
It was not ever thus. In 1957, President Eisenhower needed to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce a Supreme Court order allowing black students to attend a school that had been reserved for whites under the city’s segregated education system.
Breyer is shrewd enough to realise that the public’s trust cannot be taken for granted.
The high level of popular confidence in the US Supreme Court is all the more remarkable when you consider the court’s sweeping powers of judicial review – which, in US terms, means the ability of its unelected judges to strike down legislation that the court finds unconstitutional.
The UK Supreme Court does not have similar powers, whatever David Cameron may think.
On the other hand, one of his ministers does have the power to block appointments to the court. The delay in announcing the names of those selected to fill current vacancies has prompted observers to conclude that Ken Clarke, the lord chancellor, has asked the Supreme Court’s selection commission to reconsider its choice – either because he has not seen enough evidence that one of those selected is suitable or because there is evidence that the chosen candidate is not the best person ‘on merit’.
In Britain, there may be an unjustifiably high level of confidence in the experts who give evidence in criminal trials. Bruce Houlder QC, the UK’s senior military prosecutor, told the Law Commission that there were still some charlatans around who held themselves out as experts in the fields of science or forensic accountancy — as well as others who were merely biased or incompetent.
And the government’s law reform advisers drew attention to notorious examples of fraudulent expert witnesses who had been found guilty by the courts.
They include Godwin Onubogu, a bogus medical doctor convicted in 1998; Barian Baluchi, a bogus psychiatrist convicted in 2005; and Gene Morrison, a bogus psychologist, convicted in 2007.
In a report published this week, the commission recommended a new admissibility test under which expert witnesses would not be allowed to give their opinions in court unless those opinions were warranted and ‘soundly based’.
Expert opinion evidence could be excluded if it was based on a hypothesis that had failed to stand up to scrutiny; if it was based on an unjustifiable assumption; if it was based on flawed data; if it relied on tests that were not properly carried out or were inappropriate; or if it relied on an inference that had not been properly reached.
Although these tests are contained in a draft bill, there seems no reason why courts should not apply them on a discretionary basis without waiting to see whether the law is changed.
Legislation would, however, be needed for the most interesting of the Law Commission’s recommendations – that a court should be allowed to appoint its own expert if it has to decide whether the evidence of another expert is sufficiently reliable to be admitted.
This would apply only to the Crown Court, and elaborate procedures are envisaged to ensure that the court appoints a person who has at least as much expertise as the expert whose know-how is to be examined.
The commission offers examples of people who would not have been wrongly convicted if its recommendations had been in force.
They include Mark Dallagher, who was found guilty of murder in 1998 after an ‘expert’ had identified his ear-print on a window at the scene of the crime.
A retrial was ordered by the Court of Appeal because of doubts about the expert’s reliability and the case was dropped after DNA evidence had effectively established Dallagher’s innocence.
Other examples are Sally Clark and Angela Cannings, two mothers wrongly convicted of murdering their baby sons on the strength of questionable expert evidence.
To return to my original question: why do we still have faith in judicial institutions? It is because the alternative is too dreadful.
Americans don’t want to believe that their system put the ‘wrong’ president in the White House just as British juries don’t want to see trials collapsing for lack of evidence.
We shall certainly see fewer convictions if the Law Commission’s recommendations are accepted. But at least we can hope that fewer of those convicted will be innocent."
The article can be found at:
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/joshua-rozenberg/havinf-faith-judicial-institutions
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;
Friday, April 22, 2011
TOMMY ZEIGLER; ALLEGEDLY SUPPRESSED BLOOD REPORT COMES UNDER ATTACK; DEATH PENALTY FOCUS;
"Numerous injustices occurred over the course of Zeigler's trial and subsequent incarceration, including the misplacing and knowing destruction of evidence; reports offering exculpatory evidence were turned over to the defense team with very little time to prepare, or were not disclosed at all; a number of jurors in his original trial (half of whom first voted to acquit Zeigler, but were persuaded to convict) have come out in his support, and a couple have admitted to being prescribed Valium so they would be more amenable to convict a man whose guilt was in doubt. Prosecutors used witnesses that identified Zeigler as the killer while ignoring those eyewitnesses whose stories did not mesh with the state's fictionalized account.
Christine Cooper is the daughter of Robert Thompson, the former Central Florida police chief who was the first police officer at the crime scene. Cooper said she believes "the justice system failed" Zeigler. Thompson was involved as a mercenary in the arms trade in Central America in the 1980s, and his daughter says he died in 1999 "taking a lot of secrets with him." Thompson suppressed a report after the crime that did not surface until 1987 in which he wrote that the blood on Zeigler was dry when he found him, yet in its case against him, the state claimed Zeigler had just shot himself minutes earlier."
ZAC STONE; DEATH PENALTY FOCUS;
DEATH PENALTY FOCUS: (Death Penalty Focus: Mission Statement: "Founded in 1988, Death Penalty Focus is one of the largest nonprofit advocacy organizations in the nation dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment through public education; grassroots and political organizing; original research; media outreach; local, state and nationwide coalition building; and the education of religious, legislative and civic leaders about the death penalty and its alternatives.")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (COMMISSION ON CAPITAL CASES); On July 2, 1976, William Thomas Zeigler Jr. was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. The following account of the circumstances of the offense is that which is found in the Florida Supreme Court Opinion, published June 11, 1981: On Christmas Eve, December 24, 1975, Eunice Zeigler, wife of the defendant, and Perry and Virginia Edwards, parents-in-law of the defendant, were shot to death in the W.T. Zeigler Furniture Store in Winter Garden, Florida. In addition, Charles Mays, Jr. was shot and subsequently beaten to death at the same location. The medical examiner estimated times of death as within one hour of 8:00 p.m. that evening. The defendant was also found shot through the abdomen. The state theorized that Zeigler murdered the four people in an apparent insurance fraud scheme. Just months before the murders, Zeigler had purchased a large amount of life insurance on his wife and had purchased two RG revolvers indirectly through Edward Williams, a long time family acquaintance. Williams testified that Zeigler had inquired of him about obtaining a “hot gun.” Williams then arranged for another man, Frank Smith, to purchase the guns and deliver them to Zeigler. On the day of the murders, Zeigler had made arrangements to meet Mays and Williams, at separate times, at the furniture store. Mays left his home around 6:30 p.m. and went to an Oakland beer joint where he encountered his friend, Felton Thomas. Thomas then accompanied Mays to meet Zeigler at the furniture store. Upon meeting, Zeigler took the two men to an orange grove to shoot a set of guns he had with him in his vehicle. The state theorized that the purpose of this trip was to get the two men to handle and fire the weapons Zeigler had procured. When they returned to the store, Zeigler could not persuade Thomas to enter the store. Thomas became uncomfortable and left the premises. This was the last time Mays was seen alive by Thomas. Around 8:00 p.m., Zeigler returned to his home to keep an earlier appointment he had made with Edward Williams. Williams was to meet him at Zeigler’s home in order to help Zeigler move Christmas presents from the furniture store. The two men used Williams’ truck to return to the store. When they arrived, Zeigler entered through the front door and instructed Williams to pull his truck around to the back and then enter from the rear entrance. When Williams entered the back hallway, Zeigler put a gun to Williams’ chest and pulled the trigger three times. However, the gun did not fire and Williams fled the store. At some point after this, Zeigler himself was shot in the stomach. The state theorized that Zeigler became desperate and conceived the idea that he would appear uninvolved if he were also injured. Zeigler telephoned a judge’s residence, where he knew police officers would be gathering for a Christmas party, and reported a robbery. At trial, Zeigler maintained that his wife and parents-in-law were killed during the course of a robbery and that Mays was involved but was killed by his confederates.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On Monday Tommy Zeigler won an important battle for further DNA testing in his death penalty appeal," the post by Zac Stone published on April 13, 2011, on Death Penalty Focus begins, under the heading, "DNA Evidence Offers Longtime Death Row Inmate a Chance at Justice."
"Zeigler was convicted of murdering his wife, in-laws, and a customer at his furniture store in Winter Garden, Florida on Christmas Eve 1975," the post continues.
"Having sat on Florida's death row for decades, a judge has now ordered new tests to be performed on blood from the crime scene that Zeigler claims will exonerate him.
Zeigler was arrested and tried on the theory that he killed his wife to collect half a million dollars in life insurance, and that he shot himself to cover up his crime and frame it as an invasion. Zeigler has never wavered in his account of what happened, and passed polygraph tests asserting that he and his family were victims of a robbery that may have been motivated by Zeigler's involvement in uncovering a loan-sharking ring victimizing migrant workers.
Numerous injustices occurred over the course of Zeigler's trial and subsequent incarceration, including the misplacing and knowing destruction of evidence; reports offering exculpatory evidence were turned over to the defense team with very little time to prepare, or were not disclosed at all; a number of jurors in his original trial (half of whom first voted to acquit Zeigler, but were persuaded to convict) have come out in his support, and a couple have admitted to being prescribed Valium so they would be more amenable to convict a man whose guilt was in doubt. Prosecutors used witnesses that identified Zeigler as the killer while ignoring those eyewitnesses whose stories did not mesh with the state's fictionalized account.
Christine Cooper is the daughter of Robert Thompson, the former Central Florida police chief who was the first police officer at the crime scene. Cooper said she believes "the justice system failed" Zeigler. Thompson was involved as a mercenary in the arms trade in Central America in the 1980s, and his daughter says he died in 1999 "taking a lot of secrets with him." Thompson suppressed a report after the crime that did not surface until 1987 in which he wrote that the blood on Zeigler was dry when he found him, yet in its case against him, the state claimed Zeigler had just shot himself minutes earlier.
While the suspicions of the daughter of a deceased police chief are certainly not enough to overturn a murder conviction, Cooper's doubt and that of a number of witnesses and jurors lend credence to Zeigler's claim of innocence. It is clear that the case was mishandled, and justice was not properly served. Failed by the justice system on more than one occasion, Tommy Zeigler has been afforded his best chance in decades of receiving true justice with this admission of new DNA evidence. Should his sentence ultimately be reversed, Zeigler will join the nearly two dozen former Florida inmates who have been exonerated from death row since the 1970s. Please visit our Florida Action page to add your voice to those in favor of abolishing the state's failed death penalty system."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post can be found at:
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=595
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
Christine Cooper is the daughter of Robert Thompson, the former Central Florida police chief who was the first police officer at the crime scene. Cooper said she believes "the justice system failed" Zeigler. Thompson was involved as a mercenary in the arms trade in Central America in the 1980s, and his daughter says he died in 1999 "taking a lot of secrets with him." Thompson suppressed a report after the crime that did not surface until 1987 in which he wrote that the blood on Zeigler was dry when he found him, yet in its case against him, the state claimed Zeigler had just shot himself minutes earlier."
ZAC STONE; DEATH PENALTY FOCUS;
DEATH PENALTY FOCUS: (Death Penalty Focus: Mission Statement: "Founded in 1988, Death Penalty Focus is one of the largest nonprofit advocacy organizations in the nation dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment through public education; grassroots and political organizing; original research; media outreach; local, state and nationwide coalition building; and the education of religious, legislative and civic leaders about the death penalty and its alternatives.")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (COMMISSION ON CAPITAL CASES); On July 2, 1976, William Thomas Zeigler Jr. was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. The following account of the circumstances of the offense is that which is found in the Florida Supreme Court Opinion, published June 11, 1981: On Christmas Eve, December 24, 1975, Eunice Zeigler, wife of the defendant, and Perry and Virginia Edwards, parents-in-law of the defendant, were shot to death in the W.T. Zeigler Furniture Store in Winter Garden, Florida. In addition, Charles Mays, Jr. was shot and subsequently beaten to death at the same location. The medical examiner estimated times of death as within one hour of 8:00 p.m. that evening. The defendant was also found shot through the abdomen. The state theorized that Zeigler murdered the four people in an apparent insurance fraud scheme. Just months before the murders, Zeigler had purchased a large amount of life insurance on his wife and had purchased two RG revolvers indirectly through Edward Williams, a long time family acquaintance. Williams testified that Zeigler had inquired of him about obtaining a “hot gun.” Williams then arranged for another man, Frank Smith, to purchase the guns and deliver them to Zeigler. On the day of the murders, Zeigler had made arrangements to meet Mays and Williams, at separate times, at the furniture store. Mays left his home around 6:30 p.m. and went to an Oakland beer joint where he encountered his friend, Felton Thomas. Thomas then accompanied Mays to meet Zeigler at the furniture store. Upon meeting, Zeigler took the two men to an orange grove to shoot a set of guns he had with him in his vehicle. The state theorized that the purpose of this trip was to get the two men to handle and fire the weapons Zeigler had procured. When they returned to the store, Zeigler could not persuade Thomas to enter the store. Thomas became uncomfortable and left the premises. This was the last time Mays was seen alive by Thomas. Around 8:00 p.m., Zeigler returned to his home to keep an earlier appointment he had made with Edward Williams. Williams was to meet him at Zeigler’s home in order to help Zeigler move Christmas presents from the furniture store. The two men used Williams’ truck to return to the store. When they arrived, Zeigler entered through the front door and instructed Williams to pull his truck around to the back and then enter from the rear entrance. When Williams entered the back hallway, Zeigler put a gun to Williams’ chest and pulled the trigger three times. However, the gun did not fire and Williams fled the store. At some point after this, Zeigler himself was shot in the stomach. The state theorized that Zeigler became desperate and conceived the idea that he would appear uninvolved if he were also injured. Zeigler telephoned a judge’s residence, where he knew police officers would be gathering for a Christmas party, and reported a robbery. At trial, Zeigler maintained that his wife and parents-in-law were killed during the course of a robbery and that Mays was involved but was killed by his confederates.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On Monday Tommy Zeigler won an important battle for further DNA testing in his death penalty appeal," the post by Zac Stone published on April 13, 2011, on Death Penalty Focus begins, under the heading, "DNA Evidence Offers Longtime Death Row Inmate a Chance at Justice."
"Zeigler was convicted of murdering his wife, in-laws, and a customer at his furniture store in Winter Garden, Florida on Christmas Eve 1975," the post continues.
"Having sat on Florida's death row for decades, a judge has now ordered new tests to be performed on blood from the crime scene that Zeigler claims will exonerate him.
Zeigler was arrested and tried on the theory that he killed his wife to collect half a million dollars in life insurance, and that he shot himself to cover up his crime and frame it as an invasion. Zeigler has never wavered in his account of what happened, and passed polygraph tests asserting that he and his family were victims of a robbery that may have been motivated by Zeigler's involvement in uncovering a loan-sharking ring victimizing migrant workers.
Numerous injustices occurred over the course of Zeigler's trial and subsequent incarceration, including the misplacing and knowing destruction of evidence; reports offering exculpatory evidence were turned over to the defense team with very little time to prepare, or were not disclosed at all; a number of jurors in his original trial (half of whom first voted to acquit Zeigler, but were persuaded to convict) have come out in his support, and a couple have admitted to being prescribed Valium so they would be more amenable to convict a man whose guilt was in doubt. Prosecutors used witnesses that identified Zeigler as the killer while ignoring those eyewitnesses whose stories did not mesh with the state's fictionalized account.
Christine Cooper is the daughter of Robert Thompson, the former Central Florida police chief who was the first police officer at the crime scene. Cooper said she believes "the justice system failed" Zeigler. Thompson was involved as a mercenary in the arms trade in Central America in the 1980s, and his daughter says he died in 1999 "taking a lot of secrets with him." Thompson suppressed a report after the crime that did not surface until 1987 in which he wrote that the blood on Zeigler was dry when he found him, yet in its case against him, the state claimed Zeigler had just shot himself minutes earlier.
While the suspicions of the daughter of a deceased police chief are certainly not enough to overturn a murder conviction, Cooper's doubt and that of a number of witnesses and jurors lend credence to Zeigler's claim of innocence. It is clear that the case was mishandled, and justice was not properly served. Failed by the justice system on more than one occasion, Tommy Zeigler has been afforded his best chance in decades of receiving true justice with this admission of new DNA evidence. Should his sentence ultimately be reversed, Zeigler will join the nearly two dozen former Florida inmates who have been exonerated from death row since the 1970s. Please visit our Florida Action page to add your voice to those in favor of abolishing the state's failed death penalty system."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post can be found at:
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=595
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21, 2011
IAN TOMLINSON INQUEST; (21 APRIL, 2011); LINK TO THE GUARDIAN'S LIVE UP-DATE COVERAGE: AUTOMATICALLY UP-DATED EVERY MINUTE;
LINK TO THE GUARDIAN'S LIVE UP-DATE COVERAGE OF THE TOMLINSON INQUEST:
http://www.in.com/news/science-technology-news/fullstory-ian-tomlinson-inquest-thursday-21-april-2011-18613877-2844309d1cfb5d7656ae8230452561e709f16581-rhp.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A thorough account of "The death of Ian Tomlinson" can be found on Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: If Dr. Freddy Patel had the last word, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor named Ian Tomlinson's death after he collapsed on the pavement on the fringes of protests at the G20 on April 1, 2009 would have been written off as "natural causes." However amateur video footage emerged showing him being pushed to the ground by a police officer who faces misconduct proceedings after an inquest beginning in March 2011 is completed. As noted on Wikipedia: "Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. A first postmortem examination indicated that he had suffered a heart attack brought on by coronary artery disease, and had died of natural causes. His death became controversial a week later when The Guardian obtained footage of his last moments, filmed by an American investment fund manager who was visiting London. The video showed Tomlinson being struck on the leg from behind by a police officer wielding an extendable baton, then pushed to the ground by the same officer. It appeared to show no provocation on Tomlinson's part—he was not a protester, and at the time he was struck, the footage showed him walking along with his hands in his pockets. He walked away after the incident, but collapsed and died moments later. After The Guardian published the video, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began a criminal inquiry. A second postmortem indicated that Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding caused by a blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with cirrhosis of the liver. A third postmortem was arranged by the defence team of the accused officer, PC Simon Harwood; the third pathologist agreed that the cause of death was internal bleeding. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced in July 2010 that no charges would be brought, because medical disagreement about the cause of the death meant prosecutors could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between the death and the alleged assault. The first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, was suspended for three months in August 2010 for "deficient professional performance" in several unrelated cases." As the Guardian reported on March 19, 2011, Patel, who had been previously suspended for incompetence in a series of high profile autopsies, was found guilty of professional misconduct after failing to spot that a murder victim had been suffocated. He now faces being struck off the medical register.
A disciplinary panel of the General Medical Council ruled that his "fitness to practise was impaired" because of his reluctance to consider asphyxiation in the murder case, the falsification of his professional CV, and his failure to redress previous professional shortcomings. The UK Press Association says that the inquest, "is likely to examine the actions of police, the pathologist, the coroner and independent investigators in the aftermath of Mr Tomlinson's death." The Goudge Inquiry into many of former Dr. Charles Smith's cases also examined relationships between pathologists and police - particularly a case in which Smith agreed to interview a woman, suspected of murdering her baby, at her home while fully aware that the home had been secretly bugged by the authorities. The inquest is expected to last six weeks. This Blog will follow it closely.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAN TOMLINSON INQUEST; LINK TO THE GUARDIAN'S LIVE UP-DATE COVERAGE: AUTOMATICALLY UP-DATED EVERY MINUTE;
http://www.in.com/news/science-technology-news/fullstory-ian-tomlinson-inquest-thursday-21-april-2011-18613877-2844309d1cfb5d7656ae8230452561e709f16581-rhp.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;
GEORGE DENKOWSKI (4): DR. KAREN FRANKLIN'S EXCELLENT BACKGROUNDER (WRITTEN BEFORE BAN IMPOSED); CONTAINS VIDEO OF HIS INTERVIEW OF DANIEL PLATA;
"At the center of these ongoing skirmishes are forensic psychologists, whose expert opinions about a condemned prisoner's IQ and real-world functioning can literally make the difference between life and death.
With so much at stake, the pull toward partisanship is especially strong. In Texas, one psychologist who has testified in a whopping 29 cases -- nearly two-thirds of all Atkins appeals in that state -- now faces the loss of his license for alleged errors that systematically favored prosecutors.
George Denkowski skewed the administration and interpretation of test data to rule out mental retardation.........
Plata's lawyer, Kathryn Kase, told the Observer that all 17 appeals in which Denkowski opined against mental retardation should be re-heard:
"When you have junk science in a case, it’s like pouring poison into a punch bowl. You aren’t going to get the poison out. So you have to pour out the punch, clean the bowl, and start all over again.""
KAREN FRANKLIN PH.D; IN THE NEWS; DR. Karen Franklyin publishes a fascinating web-site called "In the News; Forensic Pyschology, Criminology and Psychology Law; Dr. Franklin is, "a licensed clinical psychologist, an instructor at the San Francisco Bay Area campus of Alliant International University, and a member of the Ethics Committee of the California Psychological Association. She specializes in the evaluation and treatment of criminal defendants. Her research on the motivations of hate crime offenders was awarded a Monette/Horwitz Trust Award and a Harry Frank Guggenheim Fellowship. Her peer-reviewed articles have appeared in Behavioral Sciences & the Law, American Behavioral Scientist, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, the Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, and other academic journals. A former criminal investigator and legal affairs news reporter, she received her postdoctoral training in forensic psychology through the University of Washington."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The U.S. Supreme Court's Atkins decision triggered a wave of ferocious legal battles in the 35 death penalty states," her January 19, 2010 post begins, under the heading "Atkins claims: Did Texas psychologist skew data for death? Denkowski faces loss of license for role in capital appeals."
"Since 2002, an estimated 7 percent of condemned prisoners have filed Atkins claims on the basis of mental retardation, with about 40 percent succeeding. As of mid-2008, by one tally, at least 82 death sentences had been overturned on Atkins grounds," the post continues.
"At the center of these ongoing skirmishes are forensic psychologists, whose expert opinions about a condemned prisoner's IQ and real-world functioning can literally make the difference between life and death.
With so much at stake, the pull toward partisanship is especially strong. In Texas, one psychologist who has testified in a whopping 29 cases -- nearly two-thirds of all Atkins appeals in that state -- now faces the loss of his license for alleged errors that systematically favored prosecutors.
George Denkowski skewed the administration and interpretation of test data to rule out mental retardation, according to an expose by investigative reporter Renée Feltz in the current issue of the Texas Observer. The state Board of Examiners of Psychologists has upheld a complaint against him, finding that he made "administration, scoring and mathematical errors" in three death penalty evaluations. The State Office of Administrative Hearings will hear his case Feb. 16.
The complaint was initiated by Jerome Brown, a forensic psychologist who had worked on opposite sides from Denkowski in five capital cases and was appalled by his technique of inflating obtained IQ and adaptive functioning scores through "estimation."
As Denkowski explained his method in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology, he uses a "composite methodology" to inflate the scores of "persons from the criminal socioculture," on the grounds that formal testing assesses "mainstream skills" that criminal offenders never learn.
In the case of Daniel Plata, a Mexican immigrant featured in the Observer expose, Denkowski used this clinical judgment technique to raise Plata's adaptive-behavior score from 61 to 71, and his IQ score from 70 to 77. (Antonin Llorente, a neuropsychologist who evaluated Plata in his native Spanish, reported Plata's IQ score as 65.)
Click on above image to see excerpt of
Denkowski's videotaped evaluation of Daniel Plata.
This subtly racist argument of cultural deficit seems to be becoming increasingly popular as a way to explain away the deficits of low-functioning Mexican immigrants in particular. I have encountered it in recent cases I have been involved in. Kevin McGrew, director of the Institute for Applied Psychometrics, offers a psychometric critique over at his Intellectual Competence and the Death Penalty blog, focusing on another Texas death case involving a Mexican immigrant.
After hearing all of the evidence in the Plata case, Federal District Court Judge Brock Kent Ellis issued a scathing critique of Denkowski's method, writing that all of his testimony "must be disregarded due to fatal errors." Plata’s sentence was commuted to life in prison.
Plata's lawyer, Kathryn Kase, told the Observer that all 17 appeals in which Denkowski opined against mental retardation should be re-heard:
"When you have junk science in a case, it’s like pouring poison into a punch bowl. You aren’t going to get the poison out. So you have to pour out the punch, clean the bowl, and start all over again."
In the case of one convict, Michael Richard, that suggestion comes too late. Richard has already been executed.
According to the Observer article, Denkowski originally opined that Richard was mentally retarded, with an IQ of 64 and an adaptive-behavior score of 57, well below the 70 cutoff. But he adjusted his scores after prosecutors showed him a list of books found in Richard's cell, concluding that Richard’s reading level suggested he was not retarded.
The defense psychologist, Jerome Brown, said when he asked Richard about these books -- one of which was written in German -- the prisoner said he used the books to sit on, since his death row cell lacked a chair.
Denkowski's unorthodox method has sparked outrage in the psychological community, including two rebuttals in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology (see resources below) and a pointed caution in the 2010 edition of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities’ diagnostic manual against use of his method.
Further resources:
Denkowski, George C. & Denkowski, Kathryn M. (2008). Adaptive behavior assessment of criminal defendants with a mental retardation claim, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp. 43-61.
Widaman, Keith F. & Siperstein, Gary N. (2009). Assessing adaptive behavior of criminal defendants in capital cases: A reconsideration, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp. 5-32 (response to Denkowski and Denkowski 2008)
Denkowski, George C. & Denkowski, Kathryn M. (2009). Adaptive behavior misconceptions about criminal defendants with a mental retardation claim: A response to Widaman and Siperstein, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp. 33-61
Olley, J. Gregory (2009) Challenges in implementing the Atkins decision, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp. 63-73 (response to Denkowski and Denkowski 2009)
Blume, John H., Johnson, Sheri Lynn, and Seeds, Christopher (2009), An Empirical Look at Atkins v. Virginia and Its Application in Capital Cases, Tennessee Law Review, Volume 76, p. 625;"
The post - with "further resources" - can be found at:
http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2010/01/atkins-claims-did-texas-psychologist.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;
With so much at stake, the pull toward partisanship is especially strong. In Texas, one psychologist who has testified in a whopping 29 cases -- nearly two-thirds of all Atkins appeals in that state -- now faces the loss of his license for alleged errors that systematically favored prosecutors.
George Denkowski skewed the administration and interpretation of test data to rule out mental retardation.........
Plata's lawyer, Kathryn Kase, told the Observer that all 17 appeals in which Denkowski opined against mental retardation should be re-heard:
"When you have junk science in a case, it’s like pouring poison into a punch bowl. You aren’t going to get the poison out. So you have to pour out the punch, clean the bowl, and start all over again.""
KAREN FRANKLIN PH.D; IN THE NEWS; DR. Karen Franklyin publishes a fascinating web-site called "In the News; Forensic Pyschology, Criminology and Psychology Law; Dr. Franklin is, "a licensed clinical psychologist, an instructor at the San Francisco Bay Area campus of Alliant International University, and a member of the Ethics Committee of the California Psychological Association. She specializes in the evaluation and treatment of criminal defendants. Her research on the motivations of hate crime offenders was awarded a Monette/Horwitz Trust Award and a Harry Frank Guggenheim Fellowship. Her peer-reviewed articles have appeared in Behavioral Sciences & the Law, American Behavioral Scientist, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, the Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, and other academic journals. A former criminal investigator and legal affairs news reporter, she received her postdoctoral training in forensic psychology through the University of Washington."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The U.S. Supreme Court's Atkins decision triggered a wave of ferocious legal battles in the 35 death penalty states," her January 19, 2010 post begins, under the heading "Atkins claims: Did Texas psychologist skew data for death? Denkowski faces loss of license for role in capital appeals."
"Since 2002, an estimated 7 percent of condemned prisoners have filed Atkins claims on the basis of mental retardation, with about 40 percent succeeding. As of mid-2008, by one tally, at least 82 death sentences had been overturned on Atkins grounds," the post continues.
"At the center of these ongoing skirmishes are forensic psychologists, whose expert opinions about a condemned prisoner's IQ and real-world functioning can literally make the difference between life and death.
With so much at stake, the pull toward partisanship is especially strong. In Texas, one psychologist who has testified in a whopping 29 cases -- nearly two-thirds of all Atkins appeals in that state -- now faces the loss of his license for alleged errors that systematically favored prosecutors.
George Denkowski skewed the administration and interpretation of test data to rule out mental retardation, according to an expose by investigative reporter Renée Feltz in the current issue of the Texas Observer. The state Board of Examiners of Psychologists has upheld a complaint against him, finding that he made "administration, scoring and mathematical errors" in three death penalty evaluations. The State Office of Administrative Hearings will hear his case Feb. 16.
The complaint was initiated by Jerome Brown, a forensic psychologist who had worked on opposite sides from Denkowski in five capital cases and was appalled by his technique of inflating obtained IQ and adaptive functioning scores through "estimation."
As Denkowski explained his method in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology, he uses a "composite methodology" to inflate the scores of "persons from the criminal socioculture," on the grounds that formal testing assesses "mainstream skills" that criminal offenders never learn.
In the case of Daniel Plata, a Mexican immigrant featured in the Observer expose, Denkowski used this clinical judgment technique to raise Plata's adaptive-behavior score from 61 to 71, and his IQ score from 70 to 77. (Antonin Llorente, a neuropsychologist who evaluated Plata in his native Spanish, reported Plata's IQ score as 65.)
Click on above image to see excerpt of
Denkowski's videotaped evaluation of Daniel Plata.
This subtly racist argument of cultural deficit seems to be becoming increasingly popular as a way to explain away the deficits of low-functioning Mexican immigrants in particular. I have encountered it in recent cases I have been involved in. Kevin McGrew, director of the Institute for Applied Psychometrics, offers a psychometric critique over at his Intellectual Competence and the Death Penalty blog, focusing on another Texas death case involving a Mexican immigrant.
After hearing all of the evidence in the Plata case, Federal District Court Judge Brock Kent Ellis issued a scathing critique of Denkowski's method, writing that all of his testimony "must be disregarded due to fatal errors." Plata’s sentence was commuted to life in prison.
Plata's lawyer, Kathryn Kase, told the Observer that all 17 appeals in which Denkowski opined against mental retardation should be re-heard:
"When you have junk science in a case, it’s like pouring poison into a punch bowl. You aren’t going to get the poison out. So you have to pour out the punch, clean the bowl, and start all over again."
In the case of one convict, Michael Richard, that suggestion comes too late. Richard has already been executed.
According to the Observer article, Denkowski originally opined that Richard was mentally retarded, with an IQ of 64 and an adaptive-behavior score of 57, well below the 70 cutoff. But he adjusted his scores after prosecutors showed him a list of books found in Richard's cell, concluding that Richard’s reading level suggested he was not retarded.
The defense psychologist, Jerome Brown, said when he asked Richard about these books -- one of which was written in German -- the prisoner said he used the books to sit on, since his death row cell lacked a chair.
Denkowski's unorthodox method has sparked outrage in the psychological community, including two rebuttals in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology (see resources below) and a pointed caution in the 2010 edition of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities’ diagnostic manual against use of his method.
Further resources:
Denkowski, George C. & Denkowski, Kathryn M. (2008). Adaptive behavior assessment of criminal defendants with a mental retardation claim, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp. 43-61.
Widaman, Keith F. & Siperstein, Gary N. (2009). Assessing adaptive behavior of criminal defendants in capital cases: A reconsideration, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp. 5-32 (response to Denkowski and Denkowski 2008)
Denkowski, George C. & Denkowski, Kathryn M. (2009). Adaptive behavior misconceptions about criminal defendants with a mental retardation claim: A response to Widaman and Siperstein, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp. 33-61
Olley, J. Gregory (2009) Challenges in implementing the Atkins decision, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp. 63-73 (response to Denkowski and Denkowski 2009)
Blume, John H., Johnson, Sheri Lynn, and Seeds, Christopher (2009), An Empirical Look at Atkins v. Virginia and Its Application in Capital Cases, Tennessee Law Review, Volume 76, p. 625;"
The post - with "further resources" - can be found at:
http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2010/01/atkins-claims-did-texas-psychologist.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)
