House passed the Senate’s bill yesterday. The governor says he will sign the bill.
Details here…
House passed the Senate’s bill yesterday. The governor says he will sign the bill.
Details here…
Posted in Capital punishment, Legislation
There is no doubting the original intendment of plea bargaining, as part of the mechanism for the administration of justice. In addition to a range of other factors, it helps prosecutors in a variety of ways to get at the root of crime. It helps to identify those ‘most responsible’ for heinous crimes, by inducing lesser accused persons to ‘snitch’ at the ‘big fish’; or, for the big fishes to break ranks and come clean with the level of their involvement in a crime. This way, large criminal rings, gangsters, the leading light of organised crime; and crimes of an endemic nature can be bursted, and those accused and successfully prosecuted are put behind bars for good. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, with organised crime like corruption – whether state and/or private sector led, or a combination of both like the Halliburton case – which is very secretive and goes right to the very top of organisations and government.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to shift when that balance is struck between when to accept plea bargaining by an accused person, and when to ensure that justice is done on behalf of society regardless. Prosecutorial powers in Nigeria lies in a number of agencies and statutory bodies, unlike in the United Kingdom where they rest squarely with the Crown Prosecution Service. This multiplicity and layers of bodies with prosecutorial powers, in a sense impacts the quality of evidence gathering; the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute; the quality, reach and extant powers of these bodies to deal with specific cases. However, only the Attorney General of the Federation have sole discretionary powers to enter a nolle prosequi. This is rarely ever exercised. And to be fair, when he does, the decision is more political than legal.
The level of corruption in Nigeria is alarming and way beyond tolerable limits, even by Transparency International standards. The recent initiative by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) – the ‘apex’ corruption body – to give legal muscle to its powers to prosecute, decline to and accept plea bargaining, and on what terms should be commended. The National Assembly must make this an urgent national matter and deal with the legislation timeously. Nigerians are unanimous that corruption is one single enemy of Nigeria. Getting this legislation to pass through parliament is one sure way of combating it, to avoid the sort of miscarriage of justice where accused persons put on the dock for the theft of tens of millions of dollars, end up plea bargaining and making paltry sums of money in exchange, whilst getting away with their loot. For prosecutors to continue to allow this is to happen, is clearly prosecutorial misconduct. Read report about this here http://www.tribune.com.ng/sat/index.php/politics-today/7036-plea-bargain-and-corruption.html
Full story here. Excerpt:
Alaskans from both sides of the aisle are coming together to demand justice for the late Senator Ted Stevens after what they’re calling the Department of Justice’s corrupt handling of the investigation.
The group Alaskans For Justice held a rally asking for reform and accountability, and says justice should be blind, no matter who you are. Continue reading
From news source:
Updated at 8:45 a.m. ET: With the Connecticut Senate voting early Thursday to repeal the death penalty, the state is poised to become the fifth in five years to end the practice.
Full story here.
Posted in Capital punishment, Legislation
This entry was written and submitted by Sarah Chu, Forensic Policy Advocate at the Innocence Project:
On March 28, 2012, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on “The Science and Standards of Forensics.” This Committee of Congress has jurisdiction over the science agencies of Congress – the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our hope is that these science agencies will have a new or more significant role in the future of forensic science. An articulation of their roles will further demonstrate to the American public that forensic science should be grounded as a scientific endeavor. Dr. Eric Lander (Innocence Project Board Member, President and Founding Director of the Broad Institute of Harvard & MIT, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology), Dr. Patrick Gallagher (Director of NIST), and Dr. Subra Suresh (Director of NSF) were the invited panelists.
In his opening statement, Senator Rockefeller stated, “I don’t often get the chance to say that a Commerce Committee hearing is about truth and justice. But that’s exactly what this hearing is about today. It’s about using more science in our criminal justice system. And it’s about creating standards that judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and juries all can trust.” He called attention to the need to create a culture of science because “Too often, their conclusions are subjective and lack scientific validation and standards. Without properly analyzed evidence, it’s harder for law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute criminals. And it’s more likely that our system will wrongfully convict innocent Continue reading
Posted in Editorials/Opinion, Forensic controls, Junk science, Legislation
To Jamie Fellner, her answer to the question is a resounding YES. Jamie is Senior Advisor to the U.S. Program at Human Rights Watch. Jamie’s position is well articulated in her piece entitled – The Human Rights Paradigm: The Foundation for Criminal Justice System We Can Be Proud Of.
To drive home her point, she delved into the manifold issues of race discrimination, excessive sentences, the wretched prison conditions and disenfranchisement. She opines that human rights have not been fully integrated in the American criminal justice system. ‘Strangely’ though, she asserts international human rights treaties do not create judicially enforceable rights in America. This, for me, is an oxymoron and a telling indictment on America. Read her full article herehttp://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/21/human-rights-paradigm-foundation-criminal-justice-system-we-can-be-proud
Story by Emily Horowitz, Director, National Center for Reason and Justice (www.ncrj.org)
On Thursday, March 29, 2012, New York’s highest court made a landmark ruling, saying that expert testimony about false confessions should be allowed at trial. Shamefully, the 5-2 decision upheld the conviction of Khemwatie Bedessie, the defendant represented by Ron Kuby, who was not allowed to have an expert witness on false confessions at her 2007 trial, saying that in her particular case a false confession expert was not needed. The Bedessie case, fiscally sponsored for 5 years by the National Organization for Reason and Justice (http://ncrj.org/Bedessie/), is reminiscent of the classic daycare panic case of the 1980s/1990s, where daycare centers were centers epicenters of false allegations of sexual abuses – and some of those notorious cases included false confessions.
In the New York Time article about the ruling, it says that Bedessie confessed “twice” to sexually abusing a young boy at the daycare center where she worked Continue reading
Recent Virginia exoneree Michael Hash enjoying his taste of freedom
If David Linsky (Massachesetts State Rep) gets his way with his proposed new legislation, legal aid might be considerably withered down for certain types of offenses. The time tested basis for grant of legal aid – ‘means and merits test’ – will no longer, in themselves, suffice. Not even the ‘sufficient benefit test’ will be available to a sizeable chunk of cases, which will not fall within the proposed new basis for grant of legal aid. The legislation as it is being proposed, intends to make the basis of provision of legal aid, not solely upon the economic condition of the defendant, but whether the defendant is facing jail time or not. This effectively becomes the new and overriding test for granting financial assistance.
The arguments, for and against, continue to swirl; but one thing appears almost certain, this is one way of depriving thousands their right to legal representation. The right to legal representation is one of the canons for a fair trial. Read a report of the pros and cons herehttp://www.lawcrossing.com/lcviewblog.php?id=20075&utm_source=WNW&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=t_15327–dt_20120327-cid_34015-Did_121-ad_attorney&ces=12705727&draft=121&cid=34015#
Death row exoneree Juan Melendez to speak tomorrow at Penn State
Critic says things British justice system has done well to prevent wrongful convictions now disappearingPosted in Australia/New Zealand, Events, Legislation, United Kingdom
Details here. Summary: New York becomes the first “all crimes” state, where DNA will be collected for felonies and misdemeanors. Cuomo unfortunately got his way in keeping innocence reforms–such as recorded interrogations and eyewitness identification–OUT of the bill. The bill does have, however, a couple of bells and whistles helpful to innocent defendants:
• Expanded Access for Certain Criminal Defendants to DNA Testing: This legislation will allow defendants in certain criminal cases to obtain DNA testing prior to trial to demonstrate their innocence. Further, under appropriate circumstances defendants convicted after a guilty plea will be allowed access to such testing. Together, these reforms will help to ensure that innocent defendants are not convicted or, if convicted after a plea, are able to demonstrate their actual innocence.
• Expanded Access to Discovery for Certain Criminal Defendants After Trial: In limited circumstances, defendants will be able to seek discovery of property and other materials to demonstrate their actual innocence after their conviction. Such discovery will provide the court with the evidence necessary to reach a proper decision on a defendant’s motion for such relief.
With the backing of the American Bar Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Civil Liberties Union, among others, legislation introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowsk (R-Alaska) seeks to create a new national standard for prosecutorial disclosure of evidence in federal cases. This comes in the wake of the scathing 524-page report recently unsealed that concluded prosecutors in the Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) case “intentionally withheld and concealed significant exculpatory information.”
In an article in Roll Call, the longstanding newspaper of Capital Hill, Peter Awindenbert, a partner at DLA Piper, said this issue goes well beyond this case: Continue reading
From the Connecticut News Junkie:
As lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee consider a bill to change how criminal lineups are conducted Friday, they may also want to consider the case of Hubert Thompson, who may be the latest Connecticut inmate to be exonerated by DNA evidence.
A judge allowed Thompson to walk out of prison Monday after serving five years for a rape that DNA evidence now suggests he didn’t commit.
Thompson was arrested after a victim picked his face out of a photo lineup, according to his lawyer William Koch, Jr.
According to a petition for a new trial filed in Continue reading
Texas exoneree Christopher Scott says that when the true perpetrator pleaded guilty and was sentenced for the murder for which Scott spent 12 years in prison, he was relieved. However, when Scott went to witness the plea and sentencing, he was told by the prosecutor that he had to leave. “I went to the court thinking I was going to see justice, but what I seen is injustice for the second time in my life,” says Scott.
This has prompted the Innocence Project of Texas to begin working with Texas lawmakers to pass legislation that would not only allow exonerees to attend the plea and sentencing of the true perpetrators, but would allow them to make victim impact statements at the sentencings….
Article here.
Posted in Legislation
The newly formed Oklahoma Innocence Project, headed by well-known innocence attorney Tiffany Murphy, is working with legislators to pass the Oklahoma Innocence Collaboration Act. A House subcommittee passed the bill 9-0 last month, and it now is heading to Appropriations and Budgets Committee. The bill appears to set up a mandated structure where the Oklahoma Innocence Project could send cases it felt involved problematic scientific analysis for review to the forensic labs at University of Central Oklahoma. The university department would analyze the case and write a report, and then the case would be sent to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations, which would review the findings and take action if necessary.
I wonder how this system will work in practice. The structure seems to take the case out of the adversarial system. Instead of relying on their own experts to evaluate the case, and then present those findings in court, the case will be reviewed by state officials (at the Oklahoma Innocence Project’s referral), who, as anyone in this field knows, often suffer from tunnel vision or are loathe to admit a mistake. The attacks by prosecutors last week against the North Carolina Innocence Commission are just one recent example of this problem.
But the following quote from the bill’s sponsor caught my attention:
“We’re the only state that doesn’t allow people that are incarcerated when new evidence comes along to use that evidence to prove their innocence.”
Can this actually be true? Oklahoma doesn’t have a “motion for new trial” rule or Continue reading
New York’s pending bill to expand collection of DNA samples for the database to some misdemeanor and all felony arrestees is causing quite a stir. As previously reported, those supporting innocence reforms have asserted that the collection of DNA should not be expanded without including reforms to protect the innocent, such as eyewitness identification reforms and requirements to record interrogations. But NY Governor Cuomo is fighting back, saying:
“I don’t want to play the normal Albany game with this bill…which is (to say), ‘Well, let’s use this bill to accomplish unrelated things that we want to get done,’ right? This bill is about DNA and the use of DNA, and the use of DNA to prove guilt or prove innocence. And this is the bill that we want to pass. … Let’s not make this bill a vehicle to debate other issues.”
Innocence reforms are “unrelated” to DNA testing? If DNA has taught us anything over the past 20 years, it’s that the system has flaws, and that those Continue reading
Jennifer Thompson to speak March 7th in Bristol, England, sponsored by the Innocence Network UK.The statistics are grim. 65 percent of inmates in Nigerian prisons have never been convicted of any crime. Waiting trial period has increased dramatically from 5years to upwards of 10years or more. The police and prison authorities continue to trade blames. Only one in seven inmates awaiting trial have access to private legal representation. Most prisoners are too poor to engage the services of a lawyer. To read more click here www.pmnewsnigeria.com
This situation exactly was the objective of setting up the Nigerian Legal Aid Council in the mid 70s: to provide free legal representation, assistance and advice, together with alternative dispute resolution services to indigent prisoners. Read more of the Council’s stautory responsibilities here www.legalaidcouncil.org.ng The Council has been struggling to make its impact. Admittedly, the Council’s constraints are primarily funding and capacity.
The recent passage and Assent by the President to the new Legal Aid Amendment Act 2011, has been hailed as one way of providing the needed impetus for the Council to act pro-actively, and take their responsibilities more seriously. The Act contains a lot of innovative provisions and strategies for tackling not only the knotty question of legal representation, but addressing the quality of justice delivered. It is still early days to make a definitive impact assessment. One thing is certain though, the Council will need to sit up and justify the tortuous process of ensuring that the 2011 Act was passed into law. No more excuses. Tens of thousands of prisoners are languishing in jail houses, in utter violation of their constitutional rights.