A civil case in Iowa may change things for many people involved in the oxymoronic criminal "justice" system in this country.
The L.A. Times reports today that a lawsuit accusing local prosecutors of conspiring with police to frame two murder suspects was settled on the eve of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Prevailing case law holds that police can be sued for such conduct, but prosecutors can't. This is based on a historically based tradition of immunity for government officials in exercise of their duties. The idea of the tradition is based on the notion that officials shouldn't be fearful being sued for doing their jobs. Certainly, if a D.A. could be sued for every judgment that affected someone's life, it would result in chaos.
However, this recent case threatened to overturn the tradition. In 1977, a retired police officer working as a security guard was shot and killed during an attempted robbery of cars at a dealership. A witness identified a "white suspect," who was arrested and failed a lie box test.
But police arrested a 16 year old car thief who fingered the two African Americans as the killers. The snitch's facts at first didn't fit the known facts. Defendants were convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to prison.
In the words of the article, "Decades later. [defendants] were able to obtain official files showing that police and prosecutors ... coaxed the witness to implicate them, while ignoring evidence that pointed to the white suspect. The sole witness recanted his testimony."
While the prosecutors maintain that they still believe in the defendants' guilt, the county settled the case for $12 million dollars, fearing an adverse Supreme Court opinion. During oral argument, Justices Kennedy and Stevens, two of the centrist "swing votes" on the Court, both indicated doubts about the tradition against suing prosecutors when intentional use of false testimony is alleged.
In addition to the central issues: the continuing reality of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the continuing evil of racist elements in the system, another point is illustrated by the case.
The errors were not discovered until "decades" after the wrong. It was revealed by persistent lawyering by use of habeas corpus to discover the documents and to investigate and re-interview the witness that helped to expose the misconduct.
Proponents of laws limiting habeas corpus, asserting a need for "certainty" and "finality" and "speedy justice" must confront this case as well as the hundreds of other examples contradicting their arguments.
Showing posts with label speedy justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speedy justice. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Death Row Inmate Freed ... ho hum ...
This is not a particularly busy news day. On page 1, Bernanke testified before Congress about the mortgage crisis and the Iraqi army's readiness to fight is questioned. Below the fold, home schooling is featured.
Not many people will read all the way to page A16 to read the story beneath the headline "Death row inmate is set free." Glen Edward Chapman spent 14 years on death row in North Carolina before being released after it was discovered that police detectives had failed to disclose evidence that might have proved someone else committed the murders he was condemned for. His own lawyer was also ruled "ineffective" for failing to investigate enough.
This is such a common tale that it is barely news at all. It is not even the lead article on Page A16. That honor belongs to the jarring headline: "FEMA liquidates its free ice policy," which occupies columns one and two.
By the way, the "Death row" article notes that the conviction was actually reversed 4 years ago. It took the local prosecutor 4 years to decide to dismiss the case.
Speedy justice? Of course, all of this would have been moot if Mr. Chapman had been executed in a "speedy" manner, thus providing closure for the system. What a pity.
Not many people will read all the way to page A16 to read the story beneath the headline "Death row inmate is set free." Glen Edward Chapman spent 14 years on death row in North Carolina before being released after it was discovered that police detectives had failed to disclose evidence that might have proved someone else committed the murders he was condemned for. His own lawyer was also ruled "ineffective" for failing to investigate enough.
This is such a common tale that it is barely news at all. It is not even the lead article on Page A16. That honor belongs to the jarring headline: "FEMA liquidates its free ice policy," which occupies columns one and two.
By the way, the "Death row" article notes that the conviction was actually reversed 4 years ago. It took the local prosecutor 4 years to decide to dismiss the case.
Speedy justice? Of course, all of this would have been moot if Mr. Chapman had been executed in a "speedy" manner, thus providing closure for the system. What a pity.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Did Texas Execute An Innocent Man?
The L.A. Times today reported that a panel of arson experts has found that a man executed in 1994 for the arson murder of his 3 children was convicted on faulty expert testimony. (Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2006, Page A-16, "Panel Says Faulty Arson Evidence Led To Execution").
The most important issue this development should impact is the rush to speedy executions. The crime in this case occurred in 1991. Cameron Willingham was executed in February, 1994. Texas is proud of its efficiency. The state far surpasses any other in rapid executions.
This case may answer the often shouted demand for "speedy justice." Complaints about lengthy delays and multiple appeals deny the need for thorough review of every aspect of these cases BEFORE the terminal event, not afterward.
Willingham had continued to proclaim his innocence up to the moment he was lethally injected. He had claimed that the fire was accidental, but prosecution expert testimony opined that the fire was of human origin based on interpretation of patterns of burn marks.
I suspect that Texas will defend their actions by denigrating the panel as biased, citing the fact that Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project commissioned the report, although no member of the panel was connected with Willingham's case, and none were paid for their work.
All are apparently independent, well-respected in their field. Their stated concern is that arson investigators are too often field educated firemen who have insufficient training and education in the scientific foundations of thei field.
Previous revelations (including conclusive DNA examination) have proved the unreliability of testimony by eyewitnesses, informants, police officers' versions of defendants' confessions, psychiatric experts, and fingerprint experts.
The unreliability of expert testimony is troubling because it strikes at the judicial system's reliance on scientific evidence as "the best" form of proof. Recent studies have cast doubt on work done by police lab experts in Texas and California, including incompetent analysis of blood, fingerprints, ballistics.
One bad expert employed by a police lab can screw up hundreds of cases.
Another obvious point this case speaks to is whether innocent people have been in fact been executed in recent years.
Although many cases have been documented, prosecutors, judges, elected executives and legislators, and many in the public continue to believe that claims are exaggerated, unproved, involve antiquated practices, or are motivated by soft headed opposition to capital punishment.
The fact that this article was "buried" on Page 16 of the newspaper is also troubling. If these findings are upheld, it should persuade more people that the implementation of the death penalty is fatally flawed.
The most important issue this development should impact is the rush to speedy executions. The crime in this case occurred in 1991. Cameron Willingham was executed in February, 1994. Texas is proud of its efficiency. The state far surpasses any other in rapid executions.
This case may answer the often shouted demand for "speedy justice." Complaints about lengthy delays and multiple appeals deny the need for thorough review of every aspect of these cases BEFORE the terminal event, not afterward.
Willingham had continued to proclaim his innocence up to the moment he was lethally injected. He had claimed that the fire was accidental, but prosecution expert testimony opined that the fire was of human origin based on interpretation of patterns of burn marks.
I suspect that Texas will defend their actions by denigrating the panel as biased, citing the fact that Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project commissioned the report, although no member of the panel was connected with Willingham's case, and none were paid for their work.
All are apparently independent, well-respected in their field. Their stated concern is that arson investigators are too often field educated firemen who have insufficient training and education in the scientific foundations of thei field.
Previous revelations (including conclusive DNA examination) have proved the unreliability of testimony by eyewitnesses, informants, police officers' versions of defendants' confessions, psychiatric experts, and fingerprint experts.
The unreliability of expert testimony is troubling because it strikes at the judicial system's reliance on scientific evidence as "the best" form of proof. Recent studies have cast doubt on work done by police lab experts in Texas and California, including incompetent analysis of blood, fingerprints, ballistics.
One bad expert employed by a police lab can screw up hundreds of cases.
Another obvious point this case speaks to is whether innocent people have been in fact been executed in recent years.
Although many cases have been documented, prosecutors, judges, elected executives and legislators, and many in the public continue to believe that claims are exaggerated, unproved, involve antiquated practices, or are motivated by soft headed opposition to capital punishment.
The fact that this article was "buried" on Page 16 of the newspaper is also troubling. If these findings are upheld, it should persuade more people that the implementation of the death penalty is fatally flawed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
