The death penalty in the state of California continues to be a major focus, due in part to the burden it places on taxpayers. The California Innocence Project‘s goal with this infographic was to examine the facts, and the facts alone. Even though California’s Proposition 34 did not pass in the most recent election, this issue will continue to be argued and remain a pressing issue, especially during difficult economic times.
Embedded from the California Innocence Project
Last week Virginia’s Governor and the state’s Attorney General scrambled to find a legal way to release Jonathan Montogmery from prison after his accuser admitted the sexual assault—for which he had served four years—never happened. The Washington Post railed against “balky officials in Richmond who will not move off the dime to free him” in a published opinion (here). However, the editorial also properly identified the “root problem”: Virginia’s 21-day rule.
In states across the country existing laws indicate an unacceptable lack of awareness or concern over the lessons of wrongful conviction. Continue reading
Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who meticulously planned and carried out an attack that killed 77 people, has been found sane, and sentenced to 21 years. See the NY Times article here.
Meanwhile, this past May, Marissa Alexander, a Florida woman, who was in a fight with her abusive husband, fired a warning shot into a wall without injuring anyone, and was sentenced to 20 years. See GlobalPost article here.
Does anybody else see a problem here?
And then there are the “three strikes” laws. Under these laws people who have committed three felonies, albeit non-violent and minor, can be sentenced to life in prison. 24 states currently have some form of “three strikes” law. The intention was to reduce crime from repeat offenders, but no statistically valid causal correlation with reduced crime has been shown. However, it has been observed that offenders in jeopardy of a “third strike” are more likely to violently attack police.
Something is seriously out of kilter here.
Animated film about wrongful convictions features contributing editor Justin BrooksBill here. From TheHill.com:
House and Senate Democrats proposed legislation on Thursday that would establish federal grants to help create forensic-science standards, in an effort to help reduce wrongful convictions based on flawed forensic results. The Forensic Science and Standards Act, from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), would provide $200 million over the next five years in grants that boost forensic science research, and nearly $100 million in that same period that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would use to develop standards in the field.
Rockefeller said on Thursday that the bill is partly a reaction to a 2009 report that said many forensic science disciplines have not established “either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions.” He also cited a series of articles in The Washington Post about this issue, as well as an April editorial calling for a Justice Department review of convictions based on forensic evidence.
“[A] July 11 story reports that the Justice Department and the FBI have now launched such a review,” Rockefeller said. “The National Academy of Sciences, The Washington Post, the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, among others, have all called for strengthened forensic science and standards.”
The bill, S. 3378 in the Senate and H.R. 6106 in the House, would set up the grant program, and would require the National Science Foundation to direct these grants to two forensic science research centers. It would also create a system of challenges and allow the awarding of prizes “to stimulate innovative and creative solutions to satisfy the research needs and priorities” identified in the bill.
It would also task NIST with developing forensic science standards, in coordination with the two research centers.
Rockefeller’s bill has no co-sponsors, but Johnson’s bill in the House is sponsored by Reps. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.). The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on July 18 on the bill.
Posted in Forensic controls, Junk science, Legislation
Jeffrey Deskovic is not your archetypal exoneree. He holds strong views about the subject of wrongful conviction, and even stronger views on the sufficiency of state compensation for victims of wrongful convictions. In his article entitled – A Critique of Innocence Project Report on Exoneree Compensation ‘Making Up for Lost Time’ – he critiqued some of the recommendations made by the Innocent Project.
His views were in direct response to the Project’s report on the question of legislating compensation and the reasonableness thereof. See pdf report – http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Innocence_Project_Compensation_Report.pdf
Jeffrey goes on in his article to make the point that, compensating the innocent must be sue generis. It must take account of each individual’s circumstances; station in life, pain and suffering, education, present and future earnings et al. Read his article herehttp://www.examiner.com/article/a-critique-of-innocence-project-report-on-exoneree-compensation-making-up-for-lost-time
While his criticism does weigh up the issues, and on balance, seem to tilt towards a case by case consideration of each application, it is submitted that, the courts still remain the best fora to determine what is best, or what represents adequate compensation for each victim. No legislation can set the amount of compensation in stone for every given situation. What a Statute does, and can do, is to set a benchmark, albeit a guide for the courts to be guided by in coming to a decision on compensation. The ultimate decision will always boil down to each individual circumstances.
A Police Jail in Tokyo.
One of the major causes of wrongful conviction in Japan is definitely false confessions.
Why? Obviously, since a confession is still the “King of evidence” in Japan. And since the law permits a long period of detention (23 days!) before the formal charge (indictment) of a suspect, and since during this pre-charge detention period, there are lengthy interrogations by the police and prosecutors.
In Japan, a suspect can be detained when there is a “reasonable cause” that he/she committed the crime, and there is a risk of flight or he/she might tamper with the evidence in the case. When a judge issues an arrest warrant and once the suspect is arrested (“Taiho“), the police has 48 hours to transfer the suspect and the case to prosecutors.
When prosecutors receive the suspect and if they think he/she should be detained further, they must ask a judge within 24 hours of receiving the case to issue a warrant for up to 10 days of additional detention (“Koryu“). This is when the suspect appears before a judge for the first time. Additional 10-day extension of Koryu is possible after the initial 10days. Judges almost always issue the arrest/ detention warrant. Less than 1 % of the warrant claim is denied. For violent crimes, it’s almost 0%.
To sum up, police and prosecutors can detain a suspect for up to 72 hours before the suspect has to appear before a judge, and then for additional 20 days before the formal charge (23 days in total!).
During this 23-day period, police and prosecutors usually interrogate the suspect for a long period of time. Conducting the interrogation is critical, even for prosecutors. Continue reading
Clarence Elkins spent six and a half years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, but the worst of it was the last three months leading up to the day he was exonerated and released. Because the true perpetrator of the crime that had stolen Elkins’s freedom was in the same prison, Elkins was placed in solitary confinement for his own protection. Solitary is sometimes used as a means of separating inmates. Even though Elkins had done nothing to deserve it, he was treated like any other person in solitary. It was a nightmare. Last week Elkins and five other exonerees reported their solitary confinement experiences in a written report to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights.
I feel certain that the short but powerful report, here, would appall the vast majority of Americans.
Samplings from the report: “No blanket, no underwear, or pillow…no bed mat. Continue reading
North Carolina has added a new restriction to its compensation law for those wrongfully convicted: Those who plead guilty are no longer eligible. Denying compensation to those who “contributed” to their conviction by entering a guilty plea has been a common argument from those who seek to minimize the state’s responsibility in miscarriages of justice or deny compensation to those who have had years of their lives stolen through wrongful conviction. But, it’s an argument that should no longer have credibility. Continue reading
Winston Strawn associate in Chicago volunteered time to free James Kluppelberg, who was exonerated last week after wrongfully convicted of arson
Florida Governor puts innocence commission to deathHenry James, 50, was released from a Louisiana prison last year after serving 30 years for a rape DNA proved he didn’t commit. If he successfully navigates the state’s compensation process, he’ll receive $8,333 compensation for each year of wrongful incarceration. As reported here, State Representative Herbert Dixon (D) had sought to increase the state’s compensation from the current cap of $250,000 to $500,000, but the effort has failed for a second time.
Exonerees in the state are paid in installments of up to $25,000 per year but first must file petitions for a judge’s eligibility order, then present the order to the Continue reading
Posted in Editorials/Opinion, Legislation, Reforming/Improving the system
Tagged exoneree compensation
Courtesy of Professor Jacqueline McMurtrie of the Innocence Project Northwest.
Here is a recently published article in the ABA Journal on eyewitness ID.
Excerpt:
Gary Wells, an Iowa State University psychology professor who’s been studying problems with police lineup procedures for 35 years, says the progress made in the past few years “seems like a runaway train” compared with what he witnessed during the first 30.
In the past year:
• Texas became the 10th state to pass a law requiring police departments to adopt written lineup procedures designed to reduce the risk of faulty identifications.
• The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the use of eyewitness identification evidence at trial.
• A new field study of police lineup procedures confirms what scientists like Wells have long been saying.
• And the U.S. Supreme Court heard its first case on eyewitness identification evidence in 34 years.
“We still have a long way to go,” Wells says, “but we’re definitely making headway.”
Posted in Eyewitness identification, Legislation, Reforming/Improving the system
Tagged texas
The Amanda Knox case and the the Norfolk Four case show damage done by wrongful conviction
Ohio Governor Kasich has submitted a bill to the Ohio General Assembly that would raise the standard of standard of proof for the wrongfully convicted to obtain compensation. Under this new scheme, an exoneree would have to prove in a civil suit that she is innocent not by the current standard, which is “a preponderance of the evidence,” but rather, by the standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”
The Ohio Innocence Project will work hard to keep this provision from becoming law.
First, I cannot understand why the wrongful convicted are being singled out for special treatment. It is a fundamental principle of law going back for centuries that in civil cases for monetary damages, the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence (51% or “more likely than not”). If the State of Ohio harms someone by breaching a contract, or causes them physical injury in an accident with a State Continue reading
From the Times-Picayune:
Louisiana, and New Orleans in particular, has a shameful record of so-called Brady violations: cases in which prosecutors failed to disclose favorable evidence in violation of defendants’ right to due process. In Orleans Parish alone, there have been at least eight murder cases in recent decades in which wrongful convictions were overturned or mistrials declared because of disclosure violations.
In some of these cases, the reversals came after years of wasteful and futile legal battles in which prosecutors tried to justify misconduct.
Yet New Orleans prosecutors have apparently not learned their lesson. Courts have ruled that District AttorneyLeon Cannizzaro‘s office didn’t disclose pertinent evidence in three separate murder cases — the most recent ruling coming earlier this month. This conduct can lead to grave injustices and erodes the public’s faith in the criminal justice system.
That’s why lawmakers should support House Bill 1070, which would make Continue reading
Full story here. Excerpt:
In Hollywood, the moment the good guys trace a hair, a bullet fragment or a fingerprint, it’s game over. The bad guy is locked up.
But the glamorized portrait is not so simple in real life.
Far from infallible, expert comparisons of hair, handwriting, marks made by firearms on bullets, and patterns such as bite marks and shoe and tire prints are in some ways unscientific and subject to human bias, a National Academy of Sciences panel chartered by Congress found. Other techniques, such as in bullet-lead analysis and arson investigation, survived for decades despite poorly regulated practices and a lack of scientific method.
Even fingerprint identification is partly a subjective exercise that lacks research into the role of unconscious bias or even its error rate, the panel’s 328-page report said.
“The forensic science system, encompassing both research and practice, has Continue reading
Order Here
Wrongful Convictions Blog 