Category Archives: Legislation

California Governor Vetoes Bill to Protect the Innocent

Jerry Brown, the same California Governor who recently signed an ‘anti-junk science forensics bill‘ into law, has vetoed a bill that would provide protection for the innocent, and hold prosecutors “mildly” more accountable.

The vetoed bill would have allowed judges to inform juries when prosecutors had been caught intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence, which is already a breach of ethics and arguably illegal.  Note that the bill did not even include sanctions for ethics-breaching prosecutors.

See the San Francisco Examiner story here.

See the Washington Post story here.

 

California Anti-Junk Science Forensics Bill Signed Into Law

Mike Bowers, on his blog Forensics in Focus, has posted the news that a new “anti-junk science forensics” bill has been signed into law in California.

The law permits post conviction defendants the ability to contest expert testimony that was presented against them at trial. In other words, convictions in which experts have either repudiated their past testimony, or used forensic “science” that is later deemed faulty by legitimate research, are subject to later proceedings reversing that conviction.

This is a huge deal, because it prevents prosecutors and judges from just using old case law as an excuse for ignoring habeas corpus appeals expressing new forensic research and attitudes.

Sex Offender Registries (SOR’s): TIME-FOR-A-CHANGE

registry swamp

Editor’s Note:  Although this article is clearly editorial in nature, it contains a substantial amount of fact and data that have direct bearing on the subject.  It’s also a long article, and I hope you’ll have the patience to read it through to the end.

The article is in five sections:

The History of Sex Offender Registries in the US

Sex Offender Registries are Manifestly Unjust

Sex Offender Registries Don’t Work

Sex Offender Registries Cost a Lot of Money

Conclusion

Continue reading

Justice System Reform – Why We Can’t Get it Right. It’s All About Root Cause.

“Chicago police call for tougher penalties for firearm offenses after dozens of people were shot over holiday.”

You may have heard that dozens of people were shot in Chicago over this recent 4th of July weekend.  I just saw the headline above, which is the response from the Chicago police to the tragic weekend.  What struck me immediately is that this reaction is so stupidly human.  But sadly, it’s human nature.  To most, it would appear to be a quick-response, expedient solution to a terrible problem; and it’s the expediency of this “solution” that makes it attractive to both the politicians who make the laws and the constituency that elects them to office. The belief is that we can pass a law, make the penalties harsher, and then say, “There, we solved THAT problem.”  But guess what?  This will NOT solve the problem, and it NEVER will.  The US justice system has a culture of “punishment” and “revenge”.  We always seem to believe that the threat of more severe punishment will serve as a deterrent to future evil-doers.  The standard political response to the problem of “crime” has always been more cops, more prisons, and tougher sentences.  Well … the US already has the most draconian sentencing laws in the world, and yet, even though we have only 5% of the world’s population, we have 25% of the world’s prisoners (see Convictions  by the Numbers).

Doesn’t seem like super-tough sentences have done much to stem the US crime problem, does it?  And we know this.  Yet we, as an electorate, keep insisting from our legislators that there be more cops, more prisons, and ever tougher sentences.  It’s gotten to the point of being downright silly – tragic but silly.

So what should we do?  To fix any problem, you have to understand, and deal with, the root cause.  Unless you eliminate the root cause, the problem will not go away.  You can try to treat the symptoms of the problem (e.g. gun deaths in Chicago), but the problem will persist.  And I don’t believe we even know and understand what the root cause(s) of most crime are. I would expect that they’d have something to do with things like poverty, education, discrimination, culture, mental health issues, and more.

[Editorial observation:  I suspect that so-called "crimes of passion" are something that will always be part of the human condition, and we're just stuck with them.]

Unfortunately, dealing with root cause is much, much more difficult than dealing with the obvious symptoms of a problem, and I believe this is largely why it doesn’t get done.  It takes lots of time, lots of money, and lots of effort – and who wants to do that when you can just pass a law making sentences harsher, and then tell yourself you’ve just addressed the problem?  It is absolutely human nature to jump to what seems to be the quickest, easiest solution, despite the fact that the “solution” may not cure the problem at all.

There ARE systematic ways to uncover root cause.  They involve structure, process, and data.  Please see our previous post on Six Sigma.  Root cause is at the very core of what Six Sigma is all about.  Unfortunately, given our justice system and our processes for enacting laws, I see no feasible way root cause analysis and corrective action could be applied to the US justice system – at least certainly not within my lifetime.  I expect that we’re just going to have to continue stumbling along with our electoral and legislative processes, and hope that some day enough voters and enough legislators eventually “get it.”

Court Reexamines Arson Murder Conviction In Fort Stockton, Texas

A so-called “Junk Science” law passed in 2013 in Texas has helped enable review of the case of Sonia Cacy, 66, of Fort Stockton. Cacy was convicted of the 1991 murder by arson of her uncle, William Richardson. She has claimed innocence in the fire that swept through the small home they shared. The Innocence Project of Texas has been fighting for several years for her exoneration.

Cacy was sentenced to 99 years in prison but was paroled in 1998 after serving six years. According to the Innocence Project, post-conviction review of the case that included testimony from several experts was successful in securing her release. She’s had difficulty finding employment and housing and has been working for more than 20 years for exoneration to clear her name and her record of the conviction.

Cacy’s lawyers this week presented evidence supporting her innocence in two hearings, Monday and Tuesday, in Fort Stockton. Judge Bert Richardson expects to take several months to release his ruling.

According to several media reports, at trial a Bexar County toxicologist testified to jurors that gasoline was found on Richardson’s clothes, but several fire experts Continue reading

Thursday’s Quick Clicks…

UK Supreme Court Rule on Access to Evidence Post-Appeal

400px-uk_supreme_court_badgeThe Supreme Court of England and Wales has today ruled in the case of Kevin Nunn, an important ruling concerning the right of a convicted prisoner to access evidence in his case after he has been tried, and lost an appeal. Nunn had applied to the CCRC, claiming to be innocent of the murder of his girlfriend in 2005. Nunn is serving a life sentence for the murder. The CCRC denied a request to DNA test fluids found on the victim’s body. Nunn then applied through the Courts to gain access to the evidence in his case to have it re-tested (at his own expense). The Supreme Court this morning were ruling on whether he had the right to demand this evidence from the police and Crown. The full ruling (of just over 9 minutes) can be watched on YouTube here…. There has been some reporting of this morning’s judgement here…

Supreme Court rejects Kevin Nunn’s evidence release plea

Kevin Nunn: Lifer loses forensic tests fight eight years after murder conviction

There has also been a blog post, expressing unease – particularly as it lays a heavy burden upon the CCRC, who have not been known in the past to always make the right decision with regard to the re-testing of evidence. see here….

Kevin Nunn Case – Supreme Court application dismissed

I have jotted down a very quick summary of the main points of the unanimous judgement (which was mercifully short).

This appeal concerns the extent of disclosure duty AFTER the close of the case and any appeal. Police declined to keep going back to the evidence. Were they allowed to take this stance? Were they under the same duty of disclosure?

Unanimous decision that duty of disclosure does NOT continue unaltered after the trial. Up until end of trial he is presumed innocent. Once convicted he is no longer presumed innocent, but rather is proven guilty.

There remains a public interest in any flaw in his conviction being exposed. No-one ought to remain convicted if the conviction is unsafe. BUT also an important public interest in the finality of the process, for the family, witnesses etc. but also because of resources. There should not be indefinite re-investigations take resources away from new investigations.

There is a duty of disclosure but it is now more limited after trial. Guidelines issued by AG set out rules. Police and prosecutors must provide defendant with anything new if it casts doubt on the safety of the conviction. They must cooperate in further inquiry if the new inquiry has a real prospect of casting doubt. Not speculative reinvestigation simply because the defendant does not accept the decision of the jury.

In England and Wales, and Scotland, there is a specialist body charged with investigating suspected miscarriages of justice (CCRC). The existence of this body is another reason why there is no occasion for the Crown’s duty of disclosure to continue unaltered after conviction. If there is a proper inquiry on a topic where these is a real prospect that the conviction might be shown to be unsafe, the police and prosecution ought not to wait for an approach from the CCRC, but should cooperate in the inquiry.

If DNA retesting had a real prospect of showing that someone else committed the crime, then the continuing duty of disclosure would apply to it. on the facts of this case, it would not. It was known at the trial that the fluid could not have come from the defendant. Retesting in this case would not eliminate the defendant. A request for DNA testing should be dealt with according to the principles set out under the AG Guidelines.