Author Archives: Phil Locke

A Cogent Comment About the Wrongfully Convicted Sex Offender and Sex Offender Registries

A reader recently posted a comment about our article The Wrongfully Convicted Sex Offender that struck me as being representative of the hideous situation faced by the wrongfully convicted sex offender. So I thought it deserved “front page” status.

This from “Deborah:”

“Make sure if you are on the registry you cross your tees and dot your i’s. My husband recently was arrested after the swat team surrounded our home and took him away. Reason was he neglected to register his Facebook account. Class 3 felony. 4 days in jail, five thousand dollars bail. Now waiting for court hearing. $4500 for an attorney. Happened twenty years ago and was falsely accused by step daughter who has admitted that he never touched her. What a society we live in.”


Let’s Be Clear About DNA

The National Academy of Science’s landmark report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States, A Path Forward, states on page 7 that (nuclear) DNA is the only forensic method “rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.”

This is, in fact, a true statement, with some important caveats. Nuclear DNA evidence is unequivocal, provided:

1)  There is a single DNA profile present in the sample.

2)  A sufficient quantity of genetic material is present in the sample

3)  The genetic material in the sample is not too degraded.

4)  It’s clear how the evidence arrived at the crime scene.

5)  The testing lab makes no errors in its analysis.

6) The sample of genetic material is from a primary transfer, not secondary or tertiary. (Deposited directly by the person indicated by the DNA profile.)

I won’t belabor you with the details of electropherograms, relative fluorescence units, molecular weights, loci, alleles, detection thresholds, or stochastic thresholds. I’m guessing your eyes would just glaze over.

But be aware. For cases in which the biological sample is a mixture of DNA profiles, or if the sample doesn’t contain sufficient genetic material, or if the sample is degraded, you get into the area in which the analyst has to start making judgement calls. And this puts things right back in the same boat with all the other forensic pattern matching evidence – fingerprints, hair and fiber analysis, ballistics & toolmarks, shoe prints, tire tracks, and bite marks – that rely solely upon the individual analyst’s training, knowledge, experience, judgement, … and cognitive biases. A good example of this would be the Amanda Knox case in Italy. You can see our earlier post about this case here, which goes into more of the detail of DNA analysis (including secondary and tertiary transfer).

Please maintain awareness – DNA is trickier than you might think. Just because someone says they have “DNA evidence,” doesn’t mean it’s a ‘slam dunk.’ You really have to dig into the details; and as always, “the devil’s in the details.” The DNA testing lab should provide a “probability of occurrence” statistic which reflects consideration of all of the above provisions. And keep in mind that the lab won’t be able to tell you if they made any errors in their analysis.

Courtney Bisbee Case – Redux (Sentencing)

This post is in regards to our recent post A Broken Justice System – Cases in Point – Part 2 – The Case of Courtney Bisbee.

Courtney, who is demonstrably innocent, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for “touching” a 13-year-old. This was clearly the result of a false accusation, and was a “crime” that never happened.

Let’s put this outrageous sentence into perspective.

Mary Kay Letourneau was a school teacher in Washington who not only had sexual relations with a 12-year-old, but also actually bore his child, which she delivered during her trial. She wound up spending a total of 6 years in prison.

Debra Lafave was a school teacher in Florida who had multiple sexual encounters with a 14-year-old boy. She wound up with no prison time and three years of house arrest.

In all these cases, you have to question whether these weren’t actually victimless crimes. Regardless, Courtney’s sentence should appear to the logical, rational person to be excessively draconian and punitive. PLUS, she will have to be on the sex offender registry for the rest of her life – for “touching” – which actually didn’t happen. What’s wrong with this picture??

Is it any wonder that the US has only 5% of the world’s population, but has 25% of the world’s prisoners?

ADDENDUM, October 5, 2015:

Yet another case, Jennifer Mally, and this time in Arizona. Jennifer Mally was a high school teacher and cheer coach who was charged with 17 counts of sex with a minor. This was just two years after Courtney’s conviction. She wound up spending six months in prison – NOT 11 years!

A Broken Justice System – Cases in Point – Part 2 – The Case of Courtney Bisbee


From time to time, I become aware of cases that are particularly good examples of the flaws, the problems, the shortcomings, the failures, and the actual injustices of our so-called justice system (that I have been writing about here for the last 3 1/2 years). This is Part 2 of what is intended to be a continuing series highlighting these cases. These cases have been selected as representative and demonstrative examples, but be aware they are just the “tip of the iceberg.” This kind of stuff is happening every day in every state. You can see Part 1 here.

[Note: To the best of my knowledge, everything in this article is a matter of public record. If it can be shown that there are any misstatements, I will immediately post a retraction and an apology. This article has been reviewed and approved for posting by both Courtney Bisbee and her family.]


“Part 2” is the case of Courtney Bisbee in Arizona. Courtney Bisbee is a clearly innocent woman who was wrongfully convicted of improperly “touching” a male adolescent. There is compelling, documented evidence of Courtney’s innocence, but she continues to be incarcerated in Perryville prison in Arizona, where she has been for the last ten years. I’ve been studying this case for two years, and it is a “perfect storm” of what is broken and wrong with the justice system. At the end of the article, I’ll enumerate at least some reasons for this, and the list is long. Let me also comment that this is an overview of the case. The more deeply one digs into the details of this case, the murkier, the dirtier, and the more putrid it gets. We just don’t have the time or the space to cover all of that here., but I can say that, in general, it relates to the state of the justice system in both Arizona and Maricopa County. This is the kind of horror story that the average citizen would say “can’t happen here,” but it does.

Stephen Lemons, writing for the Phoenix New Times in 2008, wrote a comprehensive and detailed summary of Courtney’s case. See that story by Stephen Lemons here. If you have even a casual interest in the case, I suggest you read the article. Here’s an “abbreviated” version of the case:

Courtney Bisbee was raised in Michigan in a traditional family that worked hard, played by the rules, and was living the American dream; and had never had any exposure to the justice system. In 2004, she was a successful single mom of a 4 1/2 year old daughter, living and working in Scottsdale, AZ, and life was grand. She had begun a new job as a high school nurse, while completing the final weeks of her master’s degree. A compassionate and caring person, she was even tutoring some troubled teens, and therein begin the problems, because two of these troubled teens had an even more troubled non-custodial mother, with a prior criminal record.

To understand the details of the alleged incident, I refer you to the Lemons article. But basically what happened was that the non-custodial mother of two of the teens Courtney had been mentoring learned, by accident, that the boys were secretly living with another family while their custodial father was completing work-furlough for DUI. She was irate about this, and after learning that Courtney had been at this family’s house with her two sons and several other teens, cooked up a plot to sue for money based upon Courtney’s allegedly “touching” her 13-year-old son inappropriately. She even consulted several attorneys prior to ever taking her son to talk to the police.

After the accusation was made, Courtney was arrested at her home by a SWAT team, without a warrant, and in front of her 4 1/2-year-old daughter. This was after the detective on the case, just prior to her warrantless arrest, had illegally searched Courtney’s home, also without a warrant, confiscating her computer and her camcorder. And because that same detective later lied to the Grand Jury about the case, Courtney was held non-bondable for 66 days, until a second Grand Jury could be convened, which was forced by her initial attorney. Only then was she able to be released on $100,000 bond in this “he said – she said” case.

The only detective on Courtney’s case clearly went into it with the presumption that she was guilty, failing to thoroughly investigate, and concocting his own information to support his preconceived belief. This included not following established rules and protocols for interviewing children (Multidisciplinary Protocol.2003), badgering and coercing Courtney during her lengthy interrogation, lying to the Grand Jury, and lying in court. He also did not investigate one critical, verifiable fact that would have disproved the “victim’s” story (see the Lemons article), and would have, most likely, resulted in Courtney’s acquittal.

From the onset, the prosecution employed a “win at all cost” strategy to obtain a a conviction in Courtney’s “high profile” case. At that time, the Maricopa County Attorney had been conducting a five year “witch hunt” reign of terror, even investigating and charging sitting judges and county supervisors who he believed had “crossed him.” Please see the very revealing American Bar Association Journal article about this prosecutor here. He openly boasted about his 200,000 felony convictions. Also at that time, there was a nationwide moral panic going on about the safety of children in schools, and this was a hot-button political issue for the prosecutor; resulting in a rush to judgement based upon false allegations with no presumption of innocence. Courtney was clearly a victim of all this, and her family has documented multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the course of the investigation and trial in the prosecution’s drive to rack up another politically advantageous conviction.

At trial, Courtney was represented by an expensive but inadequate attorney from a well known Phoenix law firm who presented a lackluster defense. This attorney had coerced Courtney into opting for a bench trial. He even failed to call a key defense witness who was there waiting in the court house to testify during the trial, and who had exculpatory testimony to give.  This witness had been present when two of the state’s key witnesses had discussed the fact that the accuser was lying, and that nothing ever happened between Courtney and the alleged victim. In my opinion, this very well could have changed the outcome of the trial. Also in my opinion, this was just boneheaded legal incompetence. (Either that, or it was intentional. I’m sure we’ll never know. Why would he not call this witness?)

In 2006, the bench trial judge, who had been under investigation by the Maricopa County Attorney, ultimately found Courtney guilty, and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence plus one year – 11 years.

In 2007, the state’s key trial witness, the “victim’s” older brother, who was present at the time of the alleged incident, came forward with a sworn affidavit stating that he had lied in court during Courtney’s trial, that his brother had lied in court, and that the whole case was a scam for money perpetrated by their mother. Additionally, the “victim’s” (accuser’s) best friend was deposed by Courtney’s civil attorney, and stated under oath that the victim had confessed to her several times that nothing ever happened between Courtney and him, and that his mother was making him do it for the money. I have read the transcript of the deposition, and it is unequivocal; and what’s particularly striking about this is that the prosecutor was present for the deposition, and has failed to take any action as a result of it. This just makes my brain explode. This affidavit and the deposition have yet to be acknowledged or considered by a court. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has steadfastly ignored all this new evidence. Phoenix Fox News 10 did a story about the older brother’s affidavit recanting his testimony, saying that nothing ever happened, that his brother (the alleged victim) was also lying, and that their mother made them do it so she could sue for money. See that video here. In the video you’ll see Courtney sobbing as she declares her innocence and begs the judge not to separate her from her daughter; and maybe it’s my imagination, but I could swear the judge is actually smirking.

When Courtney was tried, convicted, and sent to prison in 2006, her parents lived in Atlanta. They moved to Phoenix with the idea that it would take them a year or two to get Courtney out of prison. They would ultimately have to sell Courtney’s and their homes, close their successful businesses, and cash in many of their assets to pay for Courtney’s failed defense. Ten years later, they are still in Phoenix, and Courtney is still in prison. Over this time period, they have dealt with a veritable parade of attorneys, none of whom have actually accomplished anything – except for collecting their fees. This was up until the point that her New York City attorneys were retained and filed her Writ of Habeas. Courtney has had an absolutely compelling habeas petition pending before the court for the last 2 1/2 years, but it is yet to be heard. I’ve read the petition, and it’s very well done, and anybody who reads it has to say, “Wait a minute. There’s something very wrong with this conviction.”

And here’s the real kicker. The people in this case who actually committed crimes – false accusation, perjury – get off scot-free. And the prosecutors, the judge, and the lawyers all suffer no consequences whatsoever. And they were all, all, complicit in sending an innocent mother to prison. And on top of all that, Courtney has been separated and alienated from her daughter by an antagonistic ex-husband, and has neither seen nor heard from her daughter in over 10 years.

What I believe this case exemplifies and demonstrates is ….

Continue reading

Ohio Moving to Curtail Civil Asset Forfeiture

In many states, including Ohio, the police may seize and keep a person’s assets merely with evidence that “wrongdoing” has occurred. This includes cars, houses, boats, and cash. A person does not have to be convicted of a crime to suffer civil asset forfeiture, and in many instances “evidence of wrongdoing” is very subjectively interpreted by the police.

There is currently a bill moving through the Ohio legislature that would curtail this practice, and if passed, would require a conviction before the police could keep seized assets.

See the WCPO Cincinnati story here.

“CSI” FINALLY Going Off the Air

See the CNN story here.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

CSI – I hate the show. A pile of fictitious forensic junk that has been a burden to innocence work since its inception.

Prosecutors complain about it because they think it instills in the minds of jurors that there needs to be fancy, technical forensic evidence in order to convict a defendant. Maybe so, and if so, this might possibly result in a jury finding a defendant innocent who is actually guilty.

But there is a much more pernicious “other edge” to that sword. My view has always been that it instills in the minds of jurors that fancy, technical, forensic evidence is infallible, even though it may be scientific garbage. And this can, and does, result in a jury finding a defendant guilty who is actually innocent.

CSI, RIP. (No, not really.)

Prosecutor Can be Sued for Presenting False Information to Grand Jury

The US Second Circuit has ruled that a prosecutor can be held to a standard above “qualified immunity,” and thus can be sued, for knowingly presenting false information to a Grand Jury.

This quote from the court: “It ought not to be difficult, even for the most single‐minded of prosecutors, to avoid misconduct of the scope and seriousness of that in which the defendants engaged:

Creat[ing] false or fraudulently altered documents in the course of their performance of “investigatory functions,” knowing that such information was false or fraudulent; where “false” is defined as “untrue when made and . . . known to be untrue when made by the person making it or causing it to be made” and “fraudulent” as “falsely made with intent to deceive“.

It does not seem to us to be a danger to effective law enforcement to require prosecutors and their aides to abide by these rules even when pursuing the most complicated of cases with the utmost determination.”

See the story on the “Above the Law” website here.


Glossip Execution Stayed in Oklahoma

Please see our earlier post on this subject:  Oklahoma May Be About to Execute an Innocent Man.

An Oklahoma appellate court has granted a two week stay of execution for Richard Glossip while it considers motions filed by his attorneys. See the CNN story here.


Oklahoma May Be About to Execute an Innocent Man

Richard Glossip is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection in Oklahoma next Wednesday, 9/16.

He was convicted of a murder-for-hire plot based solely upon the testimony of the actual murderer, who implicated Glossip after coercion by the police, and to save his own skin.

See the CNN story by Helen Prejean here.

Amanda Knox – The Period at the End of the Sentence.

Italy’s Court of Cassation has issued a final, formal opinion on the resolution of the Amanda Knox case.

It is a resounding exoneration of Knox and Sollecito, and a scathing indictment of a sloppy, inadequate, hastily contrived prosecution case.

See the ABC News story here.

Perspectives of a Public Defender

Tina Peng is a public defender in New Orleans, and has authored an opinion piece that recently appeared in the Washington Post.

Her insight and commentary on the job of public defender are eye opening.

See her article, “I’m a public defender. It’s impossible for me to do a good job representing my clients.”,  here.


New York Considers Independent Prosecutorial Conduct Review Boards

“Plagued by misconduct, New York is considering the establishment of independent review boards for prosecutors, just like the ones for judges.”

See the article by Bennett Gershman, Pace Law School professor and expert on prosecutorial misconduct, here.

From the article:

“Legislation has been proposed to establish a state Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct—the first in the nation—to investigate and discipline prosecutors for misconduct.

The Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct is modeled after state commissions on judicial conduct, which exist in every state to review complaints of misconduct by judges and impose discipline. New York’s judicial commission was created in 1975 and has made a significant contribution to enforcing standards of judicial integrity. Indeed, for the previous 100 years, only 23 judges in New York State were disciplined. Since 1975, 826 judges have been disciplined, and 166 removed from office.

The Commission bill is supported by numerous organizations—United Teachers Association, Catholic Archdiocese, Legal Aid Society, New York Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others. Committees in the state Senate and Assembly approved the bill late last term, but it did not reach the floor in time for a vote.”


Parole of the Wrongfully Convicted Requires Admission of Guilt



We’ve written here before about the quandary faced by actually innocent, wrongfully convicted prisoners seeking parole.  Please see The Catch 22 of Parole for the Wrongfully Convicted.

The issue here is that it’s uniformly standard practice for parole boards to refuse parole for defendants who will not admit guilt. So, what’s a wrongfully convicted, actually innocent prisoner to do?

However, a California appeals court has recently ruled that the parole board cannot keep refusing parole to a prisoner simply because he will not admit guilt. See the article By Maintaining Innocence, Convicted Murderer is Denied Parole by Seth Augenstein here.

This is a big deal. Could this be precedential?

Criminal Law 2.0, by The Hon. Alex Kozinski (Why the US Justice System Really Isn’t Just)

Alex Kozinski is a judge on the U.S. Ninth Circuit. He has recently authored an article for the Georgetown Law Journal, which he simply titles “Criminal Law 2.0.” It is a comprehensive review and critique of the flaws and shortcomings of the current US justice system. My opinion is that this article is a masterpiece, a classic. Here is an experienced, seasoned, knowledgable justice system “insider” who has “figured it out.” And not only has he figured it out, but he also has some very good ideas about fixing the problems, or at least some of them. You can see the full text here: Kozinski, Criminal Law 2. I strongly encourage reading the full article.

Here is a topical summary: (Please see the full article for Judge Kozinski’s discussion of each point.)

A. The myths that cause us to think that the justice system is fair and just, when it’s really not.

  1. Eyewitnesses are highly reliable.
  2. Fingerprint evidence is foolproof.
  3. Other types of forensic evidence are scientifically proven and therefore infallible.
  4. DNA evidence is infallible.
  5. Human memories are reliable.
  6. Confessions are infallible because innocent people never confess.
  7. Juries follow instructions.
  8. Prosecutors play fair.
  9. The prosecution is at a substantial disadvantage because it must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  10. Police are objective in their investigations.
  11. Guilty pleas are conclusive proof of guilt.
  12. Long sentences deter crime.

B. Recommendations for reform – Juries

  1. Give jurors a written copy of the jury instructions.
  2. Allow jurors to take notes during trial and provide them with a full trial transcript.
  3. Allow jurors to discuss the case while the trial is ongoing.
  4. Allow jurors to ask questions during the trial.
  5. Tell jurors up-front what’s at stake in the case.
  6. Give jurors a say in sentencing.

C. Recommendations for reform – Prosecutors

  1. Require open file discovery.
  2. Adopt standardized, rigorous procedures for dealing with the government’s disclosure obligations.
  3. Adopt standardized, rigorous procedures for eyewitness identification.
  4. Video record all suspect interrogations.
  5. Impose strict limits on the use of jailhouse informants.
  6. Adopt rigorous, uniform procedures for certifying expert witnesses and preserving the integrity of the testing process.
  7. Keep adding conviction integrity units.
  8. Establish independent Prosecutorial Integrity Units.

D. Recommendations for reform – Judges

  1. Enter Brady compliance orders in every criminal case.
  2. Engage in a Brady colloquy.
  3. Adopt local rules that require the government to comply with its discovery obligations without the need for motions by the defense.
  4. Condition the admission of expert evidence in criminal cases on the presentation of a proper Daubert showing.
  5. When prosecutors misbehave, don’t keep it a secret.

E. Recommendations for reform – General

  1. Abandon judicial elections.
  2. Abrogate absolute prosecutorial immunity.
  3. Repeal AEDPA § 2254(d). (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act)
  4. Treat prosecutorial misconduct as a civil rights violation.
  5. Give criminal defendants the choice of a jury or bench trial.
  6. Conduct in depth studies of exonerations.
  7. Repeal three felonies a day for three years. (Refers to the fact that there are too many vague, overlapping laws on the books.)

I would add two more to the General category:

•  Have all trial counsel, prosecution and defense, sworn in at the beginning of every trial.

•  Abandon political election of prosecutors.

Documentary on Scientifically Flawed FBI Hair Comparison Evidence

We’ve reported here before about the fact that FBI agents have been giving scientifically unsupportable testimony regarding hair comparison evidence for decades. Please see  Hair Analysis Evidence About to Join CBLA as “Junk Science.”

This Monday, August 17th at 10pm ET/7p PT, Al Jazeera’s Emmy Award-winning “Fault Lines” investigates how the FBI used the flawed science of microscopic hair analysis to help convict thousands of criminal defendants.

In this new episode, “Under the Microscope: The FBI Hair Cases,” Fault Lines correspondent Josh Rushing and team travel to Savannah, Georgia to meet Joseph Sledge. In 1978, Sledge was convicted of murder, partly based on FBI testimony that his hair was “microscopically alike in all respects” to hairs found at the crime scene. He was released this January, after serving 37 years in prison, when DNA testing proved the hairs used at trial were not his.

As “Fault Lines” reveals, Sledge is among at least 74 Americans who were exonerated after being convicted of a crime involving the forensic science of microscopic hair analysis. “There was no physical evidence tying Joseph to the crime, and the microscopic hair comparison was the closest they could come,” attorney Christine Mumma of the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence said of Sledge’s case.

Before the advent of DNA testing, the FBI used the technique of hair analysis for decades. Al Jazeera America interviewed former FBI hair examiner Morris Samuel Clark, who said he testified hundreds of times in court about hair evidence, and that FBI microscopic hair comparisons were based on “16 different characteristics.”  However, with no database with which to compare hairs, Clark conceded that the FBI could not account for how hair characteristics are distributed in the general population.

“The hairs on your head are quite different depending on where they’re selected,” said Dr. Terry Melton, founder of Mitotyping Technologies, a Pennsylvania-based DNA lab. “Microscopy is a very subjective science, and DNA is exactly the opposite.”

In 2012, Dr. Melton’s DNA lab helped overturn convictions for two Washington, D.C.-area men: Kirk Odom, arrested for rape when he was 18 years old, and Santae Tribble, arrested for murder when he was 17.  Sandra Levick, the public defender who represented both Odom and Tribble in their appeals, said, “We had all 13 of the hairs that the FBI had examined [in Tribble’s case] sent off [for DNA testing.]” DNA-testing revealed that one of the hairs used at trial belonged to a dog.

In 2012, these high-profile exonerations finally compelled the Department of Justice to conduct a thorough review. In cases reviewed thus far, they have found that 26 out of 28 FBI examiners made false claims at trial. “We can now say, based on a statistically sizable sample of cases they have reviewed, [the FBI] were wrong 95% of the time,” said David Colapinto, an attorney at the National Whistleblower’s Center.

As of April 2015, the Department of Justice says it has reviewed about 1,800 cases – but in 40% of them, it closed the review due to lack of documentation. Officials from Justice and FBI declined to speak on camera for “Fault Lines” but publicly, they say they will notify defense counsel in cases they have reviewed, while declining to release the names of the defendants to the public. But with at least 14 defendants in question already executed or deceased of old age, is justice working too slowly?

Fault Lines’ “Under the Microscope: the FBI Hair Cases” premieres on Al Jazeera America on Monday, August 17th at 10 p.m. Eastern time/7 p.m. Pacific.

Al Jazeera America can be seen around the U.S. on Comcast Channel 107, Time Warner Cable, Dish Channel 216, DirecTV Channel 347, Verizon Fios Channel 614 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 1219.

When Innocence Is No Defense

The ancient Greek playwright, Euripides, once wrote, “Ours is a world in which justice is accidental, and innocence no protection.”

Interestingly, there is an op-ed piece in the NY Times today with the title “When Innocence Is No Defense.”

This quote from the article: “What is most troubling (about the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision) is that the issue of innocence becomes irrelevant if there has been a failure of due diligence. In effect, the ruling elevates finality over justice to the point that an innocent person can be imprisoned, even executed, because of errors made by his lawyer. Absent a constitutional safety net, an innocent person convicted after a procedurally adequate trial is out of luck.” (Highlighting is mine.)

See the NY Times op-ed piece by Julie Seaman here.

The Sex Offender Registry Strikes Again

We’ve posted  here before about the insanity and injustice of the sex offender registries. Please see Sex Offender Registries – TIME-FOR-A-CHANGE.

A recent CNN article captures the situation very well. This quote from the article by a judge familiar with the case: “If we caught every teenager that violated our current law,” says former Judge William Buhl, “we’d lock up 30 or 40 percent of the high school. We’re kidding ourselves.”

See the CNN story – “How a dating app hookup landed a teen on the sex offender registry” – here.


“Toe Tag Parole” – a Documentary About Extreme Prison Sentences in the US



More Than 50,000 Americans, Consisting of Men, Women And Juveniles, Are Currently Sentenced To Life Without The Possibility Of Parole – America is the most punitive nation in the world, handing out historically harsh sentences that largely dispense with the concept of rehabilitation.

Alan and Susan Raymond (Oscar® and Emmy® winners for HBO’s “I Am a Promise:The Children of Stanton Elementary School”) explore the reality of “the other death penalty” in TOE TAG PAROLE: TO LIVE AND DIE ON YARD A, debuting MONDAY, AUG. 3 (9:00-10:30 p.m. ET/PT), exclusively on HBO.

Other HBO playdates: Aug. 3 (5:05 a.m.), 6 (4:15 p.m., 12:30 a.m.), 7 (8:00 a.m.), 9 (3:00 p.m.) 11 (3:00 p.m.) and 15 (10:00 a.m.)

            HBO2 playdates: Aug. 12 (8:00 p.m.), 20 (12:30 a.m.), 23 (9:05 a.m.) and 25 (12:45 p.m.)

Featuring exclusive, unprecedented access, TOE TAG PAROLE: TO LIVE AND DIE ON YARD A was shot entirely at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, a maximum-security facility in the Mojave Desert.

Continue reading

A Broken Justice System – Cases in Point – Part 1 – The Case of Ryan Madden

From time to time, I become aware of cases that are particularly good examples of the flaws, problems, shortcomings, and actual injustices of our so-called justice system that I have been writing about here for the last 3 1/2 years. I thought it would be good to highlight some of them for the blog.

As a backdrop to this series, I’d like to refer you to The Blaze article The American Nightmare: The Tyranny of the Criminal Justice System by John Whitehead. Please also see our previous post Why I Think the US Justice System is Broken – and Why It’s Not Getting Fixed.

Part 1” is the case of Ryan Madden in California.  Here is what I think this case exemplifies:

1) Bad defense lawyering leading to a wrongful conviction and exclusion from the appeals process.

2) The fact that you can pay huge sums of money to a lawyer who screws up your case, and you still get wrongfully convicted, and …. the lawyer keeps the money.

3) The existence of arbitrary “time bars” in the law that serve only to value legal process and finality of judgement over true justice.

4) The fact that so-called “conviction integrity units” are, in my opinion, still under the complete and arbitrary control of the prosecutor, and are not a reliable remedy for wrongful convictions. (Please see our previous post, Conviction Integrity Units – A Skeptic’s Perspective.)

Ryan’s father, Michael Madden, posted a comment regarding his son’s case to the WCB article Equal Justice Under Law … Well … Just How Much Justice Can You Afford?  His comment follows (with his permission), and is self-explanatory.


My son is currently serving 15 years for two armed robberies he did not commit. Shoddy and lazy lawyering led to his conviction through a myriad of miscalculations and mistakes, including failing to have ATM pictures of the actual suspect photographically enhanced.

During the appellate process, his once highly regarded attorney submitted his appeal 35 days too late, leading to the mounds of exculpatory evidence gleaned postconviction to be ADEPA time barred. He stands a very good chance under this system of NEVER having ANY of the exculpatory evidence considered by the courts… Including an actual confession letter written by the real perpetrator.

Even though his attorney miscalculated the allowable time frame in which to submit his appeal, my son is paying the price for his mistake, while the attorney suffers no consequences AND keeps the $85,000 fee.

In a last-ditch effort to have someone – ANYONE – examine the evidence, his fate now rests in the hands of the Ventura County Convictions Integrity Unit. Even though they are playing with taxpayers money, it’s amazing how frugal they become when it comes to spending it on possibly overturning a conviction they received nine years ago.

How did this “justice” system ever arrive at a place in which the timeliness of an appeal involving actual innocence trumps actual innocence?


Michael maintains a website about his son’s case:

“Part 2,” and more, to come in future.

The Junk Science of Bite Marks Needs to Go Away

We’ve posted about bite mark junk science here before. See About Bite Mark Evidence – Forensic Odontology.

Now, a leading White House science advisor has exhorted the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to eliminate bite mark evidence, because there is, in fact, no science to it at all. See Radley Balko’s recent article in the Washington Post here.

Balko also correctly advocates in his article that we MUST get trial court judges out of the business of being the decision makers about what is, or is not, valid science. “If not a single court in the country to date has been able to rule against a self-evidently absurd field like bite mark matching, why should we continue to entrust the courts to arbitrate the scientific validity of other evidence?