Category Archives: False confessions

From the Pennsylvania Innocence Project Blog:

After being universally drubbed for her comments during a recent 60 Minutes segment on false confessions in Chicago, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez wrote to the head of CBS to complain of what she viewed as one-sided and unfair coverage on the broadcast. You can read her letter here. Among the points she raised,

• There were 5 men convicted in the murder of Cataresa Matthews, not 3. Two men pled guilty to the charges in court where they were represented by counsel and testified against the other three.
• Bob Milan, the trial prosecutor featured in the piece, took the confession in the Dixmoor case and was the best person to see whether “mistreatment and coercion” took place.

While these are interesting points, they just indicate that, for all the progress Ms. Alvarez has made in her office to investigate wrongful convictions, she just doesn’t get it when it comes to false confessions. We know beyond a doubt that people plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit, and they often testify against other “co-defendants” as part of the deal they receive.

Moreover, the fact that some of the statements were secured with a prosecutor present who saw no “coercion” misses the point. The techniques used to obtain a false confession do not always involve overt coercion; furthermore, police generally have already been talking to suspects long before the prosecutors arrive. Mr. Milan was quite clear in his statement to 60 Minutes: he’s haunted at having played a role in these tragedies.

The Chicago police had a more productive response to the segment. Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy pointed out that the department has undertaken major reforms since those cases were prosecuted. For instance, he noted the state has required videotaping of all homicide interrogations and confessions for years, to document whether proper procedures were followed.

“You know, there’s been so many other things; upgrading supervision in the department, better training for our detectives, and looking at the methods that we’re doing lineups, for instance,” he said.

McCarthy said all police procedures are under review, even now.

“We’ve got nine separate committees that are working on revamping everything that we do,” McCarthy said.

We learn more daily about how to prevent wrongful convictions. As we do, police departments nationwide are working to improve their investigation techniques; a development we applaud and support.

From Wboy.com:

They’re just four words. But those four words have become synonymous with the American justice system: “innocent until proven guilty.”

A man in Harrison County (West Virginia) is challenging that, years after he was sent to prison.

Joseph Buffey was accused of the rape and robbery of an elderly woman in Harrison County back in 2001.

“A break-in robbery rape of an elderly woman who was the mother of a police officer here in Clarksburg,” said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project.

Buffey pleaded guilty to those charges, but later recanted his plea.

“Before DNA test results came back, he was strongly recommended by his lawyers. His lawyers, on the record, said to take a guilty plea. So he did take a guilty plea,” Scheck said.

Buffey was sentenced to 40 years in prison for those charges.

A status conference for Buffey’s challenge was held on Thursday in front of Harrison County Circuit Judge Thomas Bedell.

The Innocence Project said DNA sperm results indicate Buffey is not guilty and argued Buffey should be allowed to recant his plea and be released from prison.

But Assistant Harrison County Prosecuting Attorney David Romano said it will take much more than DNA results to get Buffey out of prison.

Romano said Buffey will need “a compelling reason for why he pleaded guilty.”

Romano added it is extremely difficult for a person to retract sworn statements in a guilty plea and said the burden is now on Buffey and his lawyers. He said for Buffey’s plea to be overturned, Buffey and his lawyers would have to show “innocence without a doubt.”

Romano added in court that Buffey waived his right to challenge “error, if there was any, when he plead guilty.”

Buffey’s team said there’s “scientific evidence” and “irrefutable facts” that now exclude Buffey from those crimes.  It said the state could re-prosecute Buffey if it felt it had enough evidence to do so.

“Then the Innocence Project got involved. We got another set of tests done that we thought definitively excluded him,” Scheck said.

Scheck said DNA sperm results show Buffey’s innocence and another man’s guilt.

“The reason we are here in court is it can now be said in public that, just the other day, there was a hit to a young man,” Scheck said.

The name was brought up in court but it’s against 12 News’ policy to identify suspects until they’ve been formally charged.

The Innocence Project called out the prosecuting attorney’s office for not making those charges, and said the state should be doing more to “prosecute the man who really did this, so the person responsible doesn’t get back on the streets.”

As of Thursday, that man was not charged, but Romano said he is being investigated, and the investigation is ongoing.

Judge Bedell stated in court that he would not make a decision to release Buffey without evidence in front of him.

Another status conference is scheduled for Jan. 16 at 1:15 p.m. in Harrison County Circuit Court. The court also scheduled a status conference for Feb. 15 at 10 a.m.

A hearing for Buffey’s request to be released from prison is set to start on March 27.

From the Pennsylvania Innocence Project Blog:

Stories about people confessing to crimes they know nothing about seem to be all over the news. This Sunday, 60 minutes ran a segment on a group of men from Chicago, one of whom provided a “confession” to a horrific crime, yet all of whom were completely innocent. What struck us was the intransigence of the current State’s Attorney to accept that the 4 men had been imprisoned for a crime committed by another; even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Which led us to wonder: why do prosecutors fail to acknowledge innocence when it is in front of them?

Terrill Swift, Michael Saunders, Vincent Thames, and Harold Richardson were convicted in one rape and murder of a 30 year old woman. Terrill Swift, then 17, was implicated by another in the crime. After an interrogation lasting over 12 hours, Terrill ‘confessed’ to the crime. Told he could leave if he confessed, Terrill did as he was told. He signed a 21-page confession giving specific details to how he and his co-defendants committed the crime. He was sentenced to over 30 years, as were his co-defendants.

But last year, the Innocence Project retested the one DNA sample recovered inside the victim. It not only excluded the boys, it showed a match: to Johnny Continue reading →