Author Archives: Phil Locke

A Profile in Courage – Ricky Jackson’s 39 Years in Prison

This past Wednesday, I was privileged to be present when Ricky Jackson addressed a group of people at the University of Cincinnati. In November, 2014, Ricky, along with two of his boyhood friends, the Bridgeman brothers, was exonerated of a murder he did not commit, and for which he spent 39 years in prison, including 2 1/2 years on death row.  See the previous WCB coverage of this here. I was so moved, that I felt compelled to write about my impressions.

Ricky spoke at some length about his experiences, his feelings about it all, and his perspectives and future plans.  I must say he is eloquent, articulate, intelligent, compassionate, humorous, and possessed of humility. He is the kind of person I would be honored to call a friend.

I won’t try to relate the details of his case or his experiences. For that, please check the link cited above, and the links within that article.  But know that I sat there in wonder as he spoke about all this without the slightest trace of anger, resentment, or bitterness. How a person can endure what he did, and come out of it with his attitude and perspective is just about incomprehensible to me.

I have to wonder also what this man might have accomplished during those 39 years had he not been in prison. Those 39 years were stolen not just from Ricky Jackson, but from us – all of us – because this is a man who clearly has the ability to have a positive influence on other people and on society as a whole. I’m sure Ricky has very definite knowledge of what this has cost him, but we’ll never know what this has cost us. And on top of that . . . the real murderers are still out there.

And of course, this begs the question – how many more Ricky Jackson’s are there still in prison in this country?

 

These Are the Wrongful Conviction Cases That Haunt Me

I’ve been doing “innocence work” for seven years now.  So …. just what is it that I do? I am Science & Technology Advisor to the Ohio Innocence Project at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and to the Duke Law Wrongful Convictions Clinic at Duke University. This means I advise on cases that include factors involving science and/or technology – usually forensics. I will also advise any innocence organization or agent that requests my input, and I do this pro bono. I do some other stuff too, like write for this blog, but those are the roles in which I get involved in case work.

During this seven year period, I’ve had personal involvement – meaning I’ve actually done work – in 63 cases in eight states and two foreign countries; and have had exposure to the details of probably 100 more cases on top of that. I’ve been privileged to be a small piece of the puzzle in five exonerations; and, in four cases, my work has contributed to confirming that the defendant was actually guilty. We consider confirming guilt to be a good outcome, because it means that justice has been properly served. We’re not trying to get everybody out of prison – only the people who are actually innocent.

We relish talking about the successes, the exonerations, but nobody ever hears about the failures. I count a failed case as one in which, based upon careful and intensive study of all the facts, testimony and evidence, we (I) are absolutely confident that the defendant is actually innocent; but our efforts to exonerate have not succeeded, and there’s really nothing more we can do. Sadly, the failures occur much, much more frequently than the successes. There are no good data for this, but in my experience, an exoneration takes years of time (average about 7), thousands of hours of total effort by a great many people, and, in some cases, thousands of dollars. And the failures can take just as much as the successes, if not more.

Most of the cases I’ve worked remain “open,” at least technically, but there are some for which we have seemingly come to the end of the legal road, and there’s little, if anything, that can still be done. There are five of these cases, in particular, that keep me awake at night, because I get so outraged and frustrated by the injustice. I thought I would share them with you, so you might get some idea of what the people doing innocence work have to deal with on a daily basis. Since these cases are unresolved, I will not reveal any names, dates, or places, and will provide only sketchy details of the incidents involved, but you’ll get the idea.

Continue reading

Exonerees Earn Law Degrees; Become Innocence Attorneys

Many exonerees, upon release from prison, undertake some form of innocence work. After all, being wrongfully convicted and incarcerated has to qualify as one of the most profoundly life-altering events a person can endure. So it’s not surprising that many dedicate the rest of their lives to trying to fix the broken system that wronged them so terribly.

There are even some who go on to earn a law degree, so they can confront the system in a personal and “head-on” way. Several of these “JD-carrying” exonerees were featured in the recent edition of the American Bar Association Journal.  See the article from the ABA Journal here.

 

Will They EVER Fix Forensics ?

We (I) haven’t posted here about forensics for some time, and the pot is long overdue for a stir. This post was triggered by a recent piece in the NY Times – Fix the Flaws in Forensic Science – see that NY Times story here. The Times story was in turn triggered by the recent “announcement”  (admission) by the FBI that FBI agents had been giving scientifically unsupportable testimony regarding microscopic hair comparison in thousands of cases for decades.

Because of a belief and fear that much of forensics was flawed, the NAS Report (National Academy of Sciences), Forensic Science in the United States, A Path Forward, was commissioned by Congress in Fall of 2005. The report was published in 2009. The report issued a scathing condemnation of the current state of forensic “science.” It was, of course met, with a firestorm of resistance from the forensic and prosecutorial communities. Regardless, the US Department of Justice and the National Institute of Standards and Technology announced the joint creation of a National Commission of Forensic Science (NCFS) in 2013 – see previous WCB posts here, and here.

The NCFS did not hold its first meeting until February, 2014. The Commission released its first nine drafts of policy statements for public comment in October, 2014. In January, 2015, it officially adopted three of those statements. The adopted policies are highlighted in the list below:

ncfs recs

While this has been going on, the sole federal judge on the commission, Jed Rakoff, resigned just last January in protest over the Justice Department’s position on an issue that would continue to favor prosecutors at the expense of full pretrial evidence exchange. There has since been an accommodation reached, but I suspect this is indicative of the Justice Department’s opposition to truly changing anything. This also causes me to wonder greatly about the objectivity of all the commission members.

Keep in mind also, that the commission is only empowered to make policy recommendations. It has no powers of oversight or enforcement, and no way to administer the adoption of its recommendations. My reading of the “tea leaves” here is that the advocates for the Justice Department and the existing forensic community have successfully kept the commission mired in politics and committees. So … there you have it. Six years after the publication of the NAS Report, a federal commission with no powers has adopted three policy recommendations.

In the meantime, the traditional forensic science community has been motoring along as if the NAS Report never happened. At the most recent American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting, there was an active session on forensic odontology (bite mark analysis); a discipline for which the NAS Report states there is absolutely no scientific basis.

Do you wonder why I ask, “Will they EVER fix forensics?”

The Innocent Citizen’s Justice System Survival Guide

“Ours is a world in which justice is accidental, and innocence no protection.”     Euripedes, 400 B.C.

———————————————————————————————–

I come from a legal family, so even though I did not go into law, I’ve had a closeup view of the justice system my entire life, which is, I think, one of the reasons I decided to devote my post-corporate life to innocence work. I saw too many things happening that were not congruent with my view of what a fair and just system should, and must, be. For the past seven years, I’ve been deeply involved in innocence work, and have become knowledgeable about the details of many, many cases (100’s) of wrongful conviction and wrongful imprisonment. Consequently, I’ve seen many ways in which actually innocent people become tragic victims of what we call “justice.” There are just so many ways the justice system can get it wrong. This has caused me to think about what it is that an innocent person can (and should) do when accusatorially confronted by this thing we call the justice system. [You might want to also read my previous post Why I Think the US Justice System is Broken, and Why It’s Not Getting Fixed.]

If you think being wrongfully charged, indicted, convicted, and imprisoned can’t happen to you, think again. It can happen to anybody. Just ask Debra Milke. The ways this can happen are countless, and despite the system’s best efforts, there are just too many ways the system can possibly get it wrong. I could give you lots of examples, but we won’t try to detail them here – just take a look at the National Registry of Exonerations, and keep in mind these are only the ones that have been so far successfully overturned within the system – there are magnitudes more. This article will try to give you some “suggestions” for what you might do if you find you’re being wrongfully suspected or charged with a crime. For those of you who have had no close interaction with the justice system, you might well think that I’m being radical and that I must come from somewhere in outer space … and you can think that right up until you get scooped into the meat grinder. Let me me just say, “Forewarned is forearmed.”

This article will be in six sections:

I.  Have a Lawyer You Can Call

II. Don’t Talk to the Police

III. The Plea Bargain

IV. Be Ready for Trial

V. Shaken Baby/Child Abuse (Abusive Head Trauma)  [This requires special attention and treatment.]

VI. If You Are Wrongfully Convicted

DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney, and so cannot give you legal advice. These suggestions are only my personal opinion, and are solely the result of my exposure to the justice system and wrongful convictions over a period of years. They come with no guarantee. Every situation is unique, and you must always exercise your own judgment given the circumstances. They are just intended to get you thinking about how you would handle the situation of being wrongfully accused, and to give you some information about how the system works. I am certain that they cannot cover every possible situation, but hopefully, they will provide an overall, general guide for how you might deal with this. 

Continue reading

Center for Prosecutor Integrity – Innocence Summit – June 12, 13

This from Ed Bartlett, Director of the Center for Prosecutor Integrity:

I’m pleased to report that we have now finalized the program for the 2015 Innocence Summit, to be held June 12-13 at the National Airport — Crowne Plaza in Arlington, Virginia. The Summit will feature an All-Star line-up of forward-thinking prosecutors, Innocence Network leaders, civil rights advocates, researchers, journalists, and others. These are some of the highlights:

  • On June 12, the Summit will lead off with a panel of four prosecutors who have challenged conventional wisdom and forged new models of prosecutorial practice.
  • The Friday evening banquet speaker will be former United States Attorney Joseph diGenova, a man who never hesitates to speak his mind!

On Saturday, I’m personally looking forward to Mara Leveritt’s presentation, “Death Threats and More: A Reporter Shares True-Life Experiences Investigating Criminal Justice Abuses.”

And I haven’t said anything about the impressive range of workshops…and networking opportunities….and more.

Check it out: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/summit/  Looking forward to seeing you June 12-13!

See the Summit schedule here.

Is Shaken Baby Syndrome the New Satanic Panic?

LA Weekly has just published an article titled ‘Is Shaken Baby Syndrome the New Satanic Panic?‘ The article highlights many frightening parallels between today’s SBS prosecutions and those of so-called satanic ritual child abusers in the 1980’s.

The article also features information from the recent documentary film by Susan Goldsmith ‘The Syndrome.’

Having closely followed the satanic ritual abuse panic of the 80’s, I found reading this story to be downright creepy. If you follow the SBS situation at all, this is a must read.

See the LA Weekly story here.

Hannah Overton Capital Murder Case Dismissed

See our previous post on the Hannah Overton case here.

Hannah Overton was convicted for murdering her 4-year-old stepson by salt poisoning. Given the evidence that the prosecutor had early on, and did not disclose to the defense, Overton never should have been charged in the first place. This was a “crime” that never happened.

See the KRIS TV (Corpus Christi, TX) story here.

Thanks to Camille Tilley for passing this story along.

Interview With Debra Milke’s Attorney

Here is a 25 minute interview with Debra Milke’s attorney.

It is fascinating and riveting.

And keep in mind, while you watch this, that our justice system did this.

See our previous post on the Milke case here.

And thank you to Camille Tilley for posting this in the comments. I felt it deserved ‘headline’ status.

 

Higher Courts Let Prosecutors Get Away With Murder

Mara Leveritt is an Arkansas journalist and author with whom you may already be familiar. She wrote the book Devil’s Knot that chronicles the story of the West Memphis Three, and which was subsequently made into a critically acclaimed movie.

She has recently written an article for the Daily Beast outlining her personal attempts to get the Arkansas Supreme Court to take some kind of action against a prosecutor who convicted, and sentenced to death, an innocent person by withholding evidence from the defense. Her efforts have so far been in vain.

See Mara Leveritt’s article here.

Amanda Knox Devotes Herself to the Cause of Wrongful Convictions

After her 7 1/2 year nightmare of being wrongfully convicted, and finally being declared innocent, Amanda Knox has announced she will dedicate her efforts to giving a voice to those who have been wrongfully convicted.

See the Seattle Times story here.

 

Waiting is a Beast

Below is a link to a 17 minute video. This is Prof. Theresa Newman giving a recent TED Talk. She is co-director of the Duke Law Wrongful Convictions Clinic.

I have had the distinct honor and privilege of working with this lady on a number of wrongful conviction cases in North Carolina. She is one of those people who we should have many, many more of in this world.

Interestingly, I was deeply involved in both the cases she talks about. And I can say that, for all of us, the decision in Derrick’s case was truly a gut punch, as you will see. Unfortunately, this came at the same time that we lost “Al’s” case here in Ohio. Al had documentation and witnesses to prove he was in NY City at the time the murder was committed in Lorain, OH; but because of false eyewitness testimony, he was convicted – and the conviction was upheld.

We relish being able to talk about the successes, the exonerations, but they are truly rare compared to the number of wrongful convictions that exist. This is a heartwrenching business.

Prof. Newman talks about establishing a new paradigm for resolving wrongful conviction cases; but the wait will be long, and . . . . . . .

Waiting is a Beast

 

Debra Milke Speaks

Today, Debra Milke, exonerated after 22 years on Arizona’s death row for the murder of her 4 year old son, appeared and spoke at a press event.

See her very eloquent press conference statements here. And see the remarks from her attorney, Lori Voepel, here.

PBS’s Recent Segment on SBS (Shaken Baby Syndrome)

A Disputed Diagnosis that Sends Parents to Prison for Abuse.

Last evening (3/23/15), PBS aired a segment that takes a critical look at the diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome. The story features Kate Judson, who is the Innocence Network SBS Litigation Fellow, and who has been doing phenomenal work in not only helping those wrongfully convicted of SBS, but also in trying to bring the medical and legal communities together to achieve a true scientific understanding of the causes and symptoms.

See the 10 minute video here.

Washington Post Article on SBS (Shaken Baby Syndrome)

A disputed diagnosis imprisons parents

Debbie Cenziper of the Washington Post, after a year-long investigation in conjunction with the Medill Justice Project, has written an article addressing the controversy surrounding the diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS).

This is the most comprehensive general publication article on the subject I have seen, and she interviewed people on both sides of the issue. I have extracted some selected quotes:

Dr. Patrick Lantz: “If doctors see retinal hemorrhages, they say it’s abuse, but it’s as scientific as a fortuneteller reading tea leaves.”

Dr. George Nichols: “Shaken Baby Syndrome is a belief system rather than an exercise in ­modern-day science.”  “My greatest worry is that I have deprived someone of justice because I have been overtly biased or just mistaken.”

Dr. Jonathon Arden: “A lot of people in this field, especially many of the pediatricians, make statements that are absolute and dogmatic and do not allow for the exceptions that we know exist. Do you want to be involved in somebody’s wrongful conviction because you had this dogmatic approach that it must be trauma, it must be shaking?”

Dr. Patrick Barnes: “All of the treating physicians simply assumed trauma and stopped looking for alternative explanations. That is not sound science and cannot be the basis of a reliable prosecution.”

Dr. Jan Leestma:  “The original papers that espoused Shaken Baby were basically opinion papers with essentially no science applied to them.”

Dr. Norman Guthkelch: “I am doing what I can so long as I have a breath to correct a grossly unjust situation. I think they’ve gone much too far.”

See the Washington Post article here.

The Debra Milke Lawsuit – A Perspective

Camille Tilley, whose daughter Courtney was wrongfully convicted in Maricopa County, was kind enough to post a link to the lawsuit recently brought by Debra Milke against a number of Phoenex and Maricopa County, AZ officials regarding her wrongful conviction for the murder of her 4 1/2 year-old son. This post was contained in a comment to our recent story about the Debra Milke case.

If you haven’t had a chance to read the lawsuit, I think it deserves some special comment. You can access it directly here:  Debra Milke-lawsuit. It’s very interesting to note that Milke is represented in her suit by the firm of Neufeld Scheck & Brustin. You probably know that Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck are the founders of the original Innocence Project.

I’ve read the suit, and if you think this kind of thing can’t happen to you, you need to read it too. It reads like a bad crime novel, but the really scary part is that it actually happened, and the people who are supposed to be the “good guys” are actually the criminals. Joe or Jane citizen has absolutely no defense against this.

The official misconduct in this case is sordid, stomach turning. Could it possibly be that this case, and this suit, will be the crowbar that finally pries the lid off the slimy justice system snake pit called Maricopa County?

Debra Milke Case — She Remains Free — and IT’S DONE !!

Today, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to grant the prosecution a retrial for Debra Milke. Milke’s conviction had been overturned by the US 9th Circuit for prosecutorial misconduct, and sent back to the Arizona courts.  See the AZ Central story here.

We’ve covered this case extensively. See here, here, here, and here.

And …….. Debra Milke has filed suit against Maricopa County, AZ, the prosecutor (Bill Montgomery), the detective (Armando Saldate), and twelve other officials. See the Courthouse News Service article here.

All I can say is …. YOU GO, GIRL!

EVERYBODY Is Supposed to Tell the Truth in Court ……. Right??

The genesis of this post was the recent action by the US 9th Circuit in California, in which the court recommended perjury charges against a prosecutor who had lied to the court. Please see our previous post on this case here.

When I first saw this, my initial reaction was “holy smoke!” This is precedent shattering. But when you read the details, the potential perjury charges were recommended because the prosecutor in question had lied while testifying. This situation does not cover a prosecutor’s lying in court when not officially sworn in and under oath, which is basically all the time.

That’s when I had the epiphany. Here’s my idea. Let’s have all trial counsel, prosecutors and defense attorneys, sworn in at the beginning of each trial. It’s so SIMPLE, and would COST NOTHING. At most, this would take 60 seconds of the bailiff’s time at the beginning of a trial, and then it’s done.

EVERYBODY is supposed to tell the truth in court, right? Any citizen who testifies swears an oath to tell the truth, and if they lie, they’re subject to perjury. Why should prosecutors be any different than the citizen? Of course, they will say they have a “code of ethics” that governs their behavior, but apparently this code of ethics has no legal teeth to it, because prosecutors lie in court routinely without consequence. Why should they not be exposed to the same legal rules as anyone else? What’s the big deal about just promising to tell the truth? Any truly honest, ethical person should gladly agree.

Here’s an example of how that could work. The judge asks the prosecutor, “Have you turned all relevant and germane evidence over to the defense?” The prosecutor will answer, “Yes, your honor, to the best of my knowledge.” THEN, if it is later determined that the prosecutor knowingly withheld evidence, it’s not just a Brady violation (which seems to have no penalty for the prosecutor), it’s perjury. The same situation would apply if the judge’s question is “Have you offered any incentives to this witness for his testimony?”

The LOGIC and FAIRNESS of this is undeniable and inescapable. How can anyone argue against it? It takes no time and it costs no money, and it levels the playing field.

Now, I’ve bounced this idea off a number of colleagues, and the uniform response has been, “Great idea, but it will never happen.” Of course the reason for this response is because of the politics involved. I seriously question whether you could ever get a state legislator to even sponsor such a bill, unless maybe they had a death wish. So I looked into what it would take to get such an issue on the ballot for a general election. Here in Ohio, this is called an Initiated Statute, and there is a constitutional process by which to undertake it. This process is positively daunting, and well beyond my meager capabilities. There has been only one such Ohio statute enacted within the last 10 years that I could find – the statewide smoking ban.

There must be a way. If you like the idea, I encourage you to run with it. Take it as your own. There must be a way. This is only fair.

 

 

Conviction Integrity Units – A Skeptic’s Perspective

Anyone who has followed me at all on this blog must know that, as a group, prosecutors are not my favorite people. But it’s almost, kind-of not their fault. It’s just that the position has been institutionalized with so much power, and with no accountability, and with no consequences for misdeeds; any mortal human would succumb to the seductive temptations of such power. As I’ve noted several times before on this blog, Lord Acton’s words fit exactly – “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I am sure there must be prosecutors out there who are dedicated to the mission of being a “minister of justice,” and who will work tirelessly to see true justice done, no matter the consequences or impact to their personal career.  I just haven’t come across any yet (with one, single, notable, extraordinary exception). With that being said, there has been much favorable press lately about the establishment – by prosecutors – of “conviction integrity units.” CIU’s are resource (people and funds) within a prosecutor’s office who are tasked with seeking out and rectifying wrongful convictions. The CIU’s of which I am aware at this point in time are:

CIU's

We can do nothing but applaud these efforts. After all, a wrongful conviction corrected is a wrongful conviction corrected. If nothing else, the CIU’s are an admission by prosecutors that the justice system does fail. But there are aspects of these units that trouble me.  They are all totally contained within the prosecutor’s office. They are not subject to any kind of independent, objective oversight. The prosecutors have total control over which cases they choose to review and which they don’t. Case in point: Lake County, IL State’s Attorney Michael Nerheim’s decision not to have his conviction integrity unit review the case of Melissa Calusinski, that was recently featured on CBS “48 Hours.” If the prosecutor decides whom to indict and the prosecutor decides whose case the CIU will review, what’s the difference? The prosecutor decides in either case. There’s still no independent review, no accountability, and no consequences. Wouldn’t it be much, much better just to get justice right in the first place?

My strong suspicion is that, because of increasing publicity about wrongful convictions, prosecutors are establishing these things to politically bolster their public image. Call me cynical – and we should welcome every step toward true justice – but I tend to see a fox guarding the hen house and a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Over the past decade, people and organizations within the “innocence movement” have made noticeable and laudable progress.  As of this writing, the National Registry of Exonerations has logged 1,555 exonerations of people who were wrongfully convicted – and anyone who does this work can tell you that this is just a drop in the bucket. The media have done a pretty decent job of making these exonerations known to the public. After all, it makes for a good “story.” And one of the interesting facts that often comes out in many of these stories is that 46% of those 1,555 wrongful convictions had “official misconduct” as a contributing factor. Official misconduct includes both police misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct. The data in the registry does not distinguish between the two, but clearly, prosecutorial misconduct is a significant contributing factor to wrongful convictions. The Center for Prosecutor Integrity has begun building a data base of such misconduct – the Registry of Prosecutorial Misconduct.  I look forward to the day when this registry will provide the kind of hard data that can be used to drive justice system and legislative reform.

This negative publicity over the last several years has put political pressure on prosecutors; particularly in jurisdictions that have a demonstrated history of wrongful convictions. Prosecutors are political animals. They hold elected political office, and they will do just about anything to maintain their credibility with the electorate in order to be re-elected, or to be elected to higher office. Prosecutors are pointing to these things, and saying, “See. We’re being proactive about wrongful conviction.” My expectation is that they are cherry picking the easy, obvious cases, and reaping the good publicity. It remains to be seen how many wrongful convictions they will overturn that involved egregious prosecutorial misconduct, particularly if the subject prosecutor is still with the prosecutor’s office.

CIU’s have yet to stand the test of time. Can they last? Can they actually be apolitically dedicated to true justice, no matter the circumstances?  Perhaps time will tell, but my current view is that CIU’s are the prosecutors’ public relations gimmick du jour, and that they are transparently political.

Just watch. When the CIU’s eventually start being dismantled, I predict we’ll hear one or both of the following justifications:

1) We’ve fixed everything there was to fix, and we promise to behave ourselves in the future, so the CIU is no longer needed.

2) Budget constraints and the requirements of ongoing prosecutions force us to apply the resource devoted to the CIU to more urgent business.

It would be nice if the CIU’s keep motoring along, overturning wrongful convictions, even if they’re very politically and self-protectively selective in which cases they review. How could anyone object to that?  Again, a wrongful conviction overturned is a wrongful conviction overturned. But to achieve true objectivity, fairness, and impartiality, this function must be separated from the prosecutor’s office. To think anything else is farcical – they have a vested interest in their own convictions. I hold up as a model for how this should be done – the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission. Of course, the problem here is one of throughput. A single commission in a state with many, many counties just cannot possibly deal with all the potentially wrongful convictions that the justice system produces. Maybe there’s a way to solve this throughput problem, but I don’t think anyone knows what it is right now, or should I say “yet.”

I am not advocating that the CIU’s go away, but there must be a better, more objective way to do this. I fear that many cases that deserve review will not be reviewed, because the prosecutor decides it would not be in his/her best interest. And let’s be careful about how much “credit” we give the prosecutors, because these things are clearly politically self serving. In the meantime … prosecutors will continue doing what they do – which is whatever they want, with no fear of sanction.

Let me end, however, with the note that there is a very interesting experiment unfolding in New Orleans. The New Orleans Parish District Attorney and the Innocence Project-New Orleans have agreed to jointly establish a “conviction integrity unit,” although I’m not sure what they’re going to call it yet.  Details of how this will operate are yet to come clear, but it bears very careful watching.

Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) – A CBS Report: Blaming Melissa

Melissa Calusinski was convicted in 2012 of murdering 16-month-old Benjamin Kingan at a day care center in Lincolnshire, IL by throwing him to the floor.

She “confessed” after a 10-hour interrogation, but has always maintained her innocence.

CBS “48 Hours” will air a report on the case Saturday, Feb. 28 at 10:00 PM EST.  See a preview here.

See the Chicago Tribune story from March, 2012 here.