Two apparently unrelated news stories about the death penalty should raise new doubts about its viability. But probably won’t.
The LA Times reminded us that one of the reasons for the lengthy delays between trial and execution is the lack of available and competent appellate lawyers willing to commit to pressure packed habeas corpus representation.
Paranoid prosecutors whine about a conspiracy of defense lawyers who raise multiple issues merely to cause delays. Noting that other states don’t seem to have problems finding defense lawyers, outgoing California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George explains that California’s standards of legal ethics and competence are just a bit higher than those of Texas, Florida and the several other states that rush to executions.
The fact that DNA as well as otter revelations (such as the defects in arson expertise) have proven (yes proven beyond any doubt) that many (not some, many) innocent people have been executed because of the insistence on speedy results rather than correct justice.
The New York Times previews a coming article in the New York Review of Books written by retired US Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, who expresses his regret about his votes to uphold the death penalty and his revised opinion that the punishment is unconstitutional. He had voted to uphold it because he thought procedures could be devised which would insure its fair application. He no longer believes that. He cites later opinions by the shifting majorities on The Court that undermined he faith in the law’s ability to devise fair procedures.
From the prosecutoria decision to seek death to jury selection to victim impact testimony to sentencing and appellate review, he concludes that the entire system of capital justice to be fatally flawed.
Justice Stevens was interviewed for CBS's "60 Minutes" to be aired tonight (Sunday, November 28, 2010).
If there is to be an educated and informed electorate to decide things like capital punishment, these are the facts that need to be exposed.
Showing posts with label habeas corpus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label habeas corpus. Show all posts
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
"Sue me, sue me ... what can you do me"
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.
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.
Friday, August 07, 2009
When does it stop going around?
In a post entitled "What Goes Around ..."I reported on the bizarre events surrounding our purchase of a house that was haunted by the murder that had occurred there, a mother killed by a person the authorities believed to be her adopted son.
I reported the later -- almost as wierd -- events which involved me in the habeas corpus proceedings many years after the murder, in which the convicted son tried to prove his innocence and I was enlisted to give my testimony.
Now, 26 years after the conviction, a Los Angeles federal district court judge finally ordered a retrial or dismissal in the case, according to today's L.A. Times.
It may not, however, be the end of the story. The L.A. D.A. has the option of re-trying the matter and a spokesperson has indicated a willingness to do so. If I had to bet, my money would be on a re-trial, if for no other reason than that the reversal was partly based on police misconduct and that implies besmirching the L.A.P.D. and exposes the city to possible restitution to the wrongfully convicted "victim", to compensate him for his life spent in hell.
I reported the later -- almost as wierd -- events which involved me in the habeas corpus proceedings many years after the murder, in which the convicted son tried to prove his innocence and I was enlisted to give my testimony.
Now, 26 years after the conviction, a Los Angeles federal district court judge finally ordered a retrial or dismissal in the case, according to today's L.A. Times.
It may not, however, be the end of the story. The L.A. D.A. has the option of re-trying the matter and a spokesperson has indicated a willingness to do so. If I had to bet, my money would be on a re-trial, if for no other reason than that the reversal was partly based on police misconduct and that implies besmirching the L.A.P.D. and exposes the city to possible restitution to the wrongfully convicted "victim", to compensate him for his life spent in hell.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Midnight Sun
Once upon a time in the land of the midnight sun, a nearsighted woman was raped by two men. She identified a man as one of them and he was sentenced to prison. Now, with the aid of the Innocence Project, he wants his DNA compared with fluids donated by the rapist to prove his innocence, asserting his willingness to pay for the tests himself so the state will have no financial excuse.
Many states have fashioned procedures for such post conviction testing. Alaska is not one of them. Their high court denied his request in 2001. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a 5-4 opinion upholding the denial. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority. He could find no provision in the Constitution that mentioned the right to a DNA test. As an example of the philosophy of judicial restraint, he suggested that this was an issue that state legislatures are better able to address. He was joined by Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy (the so-called swing vote).
Justice Stevens dissented, finding it outrageous that a man must serve a life sentence when there is a means of proving or disproving his guilt which is available, cheap, and certain. And, oh yeah, isn’t there a provision called the 14th Amendment which guarantees "due process"? He was joined by Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter, who filed as separate dissenting opinion - differing from the other dissenters in the issue of how broad a "right" should be.
The case presents a fairly clear example of what is at stake in the selection of Supreme Court justices. The trenches are deep and apparent: judicial restraint vs. judicial activism. The issue: is there a court of last resort when an injustice is ignored by legislatures and state courts?
To be clear, before trial, an accused has a recognized right to access of the evidence to test it. That right was recognized long ago by the same Supreme Court (in Brady v. Maryland). Also, during post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding, most states and federal courts authorize appointment of experts for DNA testing. State rules about these processes vary greatly - most impose nearly insurmountable obstacles to overturn convictions.
The fact is that the legal system is psychologically defensive about admitting its possible errors. The tradition and bias is to favor closure over certainty. Conservative jurists wax eloquently about the need for finality in the system. Public opinion generally concurs - how many times have you heard the media decry the "endless appeals" by prisoners alleging "technicalities" and using "legal tricks" to overturn convictions?
In the 90's, Congress passed legislation (with President Clinton’s support) limiting access to habeas corpus post-convictions appeals. We are now living with the effects of that misguided law. To date, more than 200 guilty verdicts have been proven by DNA evidence to have been wrong. Many of those innocent people had been condemned to death or life sentences.
Many states have fashioned procedures for such post conviction testing. Alaska is not one of them. Their high court denied his request in 2001. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a 5-4 opinion upholding the denial. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority. He could find no provision in the Constitution that mentioned the right to a DNA test. As an example of the philosophy of judicial restraint, he suggested that this was an issue that state legislatures are better able to address. He was joined by Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy (the so-called swing vote).
Justice Stevens dissented, finding it outrageous that a man must serve a life sentence when there is a means of proving or disproving his guilt which is available, cheap, and certain. And, oh yeah, isn’t there a provision called the 14th Amendment which guarantees "due process"? He was joined by Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter, who filed as separate dissenting opinion - differing from the other dissenters in the issue of how broad a "right" should be.
The case presents a fairly clear example of what is at stake in the selection of Supreme Court justices. The trenches are deep and apparent: judicial restraint vs. judicial activism. The issue: is there a court of last resort when an injustice is ignored by legislatures and state courts?
To be clear, before trial, an accused has a recognized right to access of the evidence to test it. That right was recognized long ago by the same Supreme Court (in Brady v. Maryland). Also, during post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding, most states and federal courts authorize appointment of experts for DNA testing. State rules about these processes vary greatly - most impose nearly insurmountable obstacles to overturn convictions.
The fact is that the legal system is psychologically defensive about admitting its possible errors. The tradition and bias is to favor closure over certainty. Conservative jurists wax eloquently about the need for finality in the system. Public opinion generally concurs - how many times have you heard the media decry the "endless appeals" by prisoners alleging "technicalities" and using "legal tricks" to overturn convictions?
In the 90's, Congress passed legislation (with President Clinton’s support) limiting access to habeas corpus post-convictions appeals. We are now living with the effects of that misguided law. To date, more than 200 guilty verdicts have been proven by DNA evidence to have been wrong. Many of those innocent people had been condemned to death or life sentences.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Another Death Row Inmate Proved Innocent
Is the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice important?
Have innocent people been executed?
Is speedy justice in death penalty cases desireable?
L.A. Times of May 13, 2009 cites another in a long line of convictions which have been proved to be wrong by D.N.A. evidence which showed the condemned prisoner to have been innocent.
This one was from Tennessee. The inmate, Paul House, had been convicted of rape murder in 1985. He was a paroled rapist, who had been walking on a road near where the body was found. He "had no good" alibi - in other words couldn't prove his innocence.
Now, Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project obtained tests of hairs, semen and material from under the victim's fingernails. The semen proved to be her husband's, and DNA of someone other than House was found in the other material.
Nonetheless, the Tennessee appeals courts and Federal appeals courts all denied a new trial, finding that the new evidence still didn't conclusively prove House's innocence, which is the standard a habeas corpus claim must satisfy to overturn a conviction.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 vote authored by J. Kennedy ordered the reversal. Chief Justice Roberts dissented. The Times article notes that a 4-4 vote would have resulted in House's execution.
The local prosecutor has now declined to retry House, saying "the new evidence 'raises doubts about his culpability...'" He noted that DNA science was not available 24 years ago when House was convicted. However, he still believes "House knew something about the slaying, even if he was not the killer."
The Federal Public Defender commented: "He is conclusively innocent... If the state ... had its way in this case, he would have been dead 10 years ago."
Have innocent people been executed?
Is speedy justice in death penalty cases desireable?
L.A. Times of May 13, 2009 cites another in a long line of convictions which have been proved to be wrong by D.N.A. evidence which showed the condemned prisoner to have been innocent.
This one was from Tennessee. The inmate, Paul House, had been convicted of rape murder in 1985. He was a paroled rapist, who had been walking on a road near where the body was found. He "had no good" alibi - in other words couldn't prove his innocence.
Now, Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project obtained tests of hairs, semen and material from under the victim's fingernails. The semen proved to be her husband's, and DNA of someone other than House was found in the other material.
Nonetheless, the Tennessee appeals courts and Federal appeals courts all denied a new trial, finding that the new evidence still didn't conclusively prove House's innocence, which is the standard a habeas corpus claim must satisfy to overturn a conviction.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 vote authored by J. Kennedy ordered the reversal. Chief Justice Roberts dissented. The Times article notes that a 4-4 vote would have resulted in House's execution.
The local prosecutor has now declined to retry House, saying "the new evidence 'raises doubts about his culpability...'" He noted that DNA science was not available 24 years ago when House was convicted. However, he still believes "House knew something about the slaying, even if he was not the killer."
The Federal Public Defender commented: "He is conclusively innocent... If the state ... had its way in this case, he would have been dead 10 years ago."
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Justice Delayed Is ...
"Justice delayed is justice denied."
Who says?
In my own experience, the exact opposite is more often true:
justice delayed is ... justice perfected, or at last ... finally attained.
The cliché is usually attributed to 19th Century English politician, William Gladstone, who also said,
"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear."
Gladstone it seems was something of an enigma:
he opposed the abolition of slavery and proposed recognition of the Confederate States Of America.
On the other hand, he favored universal suffrage, at least for men, and opposed British imperialism.
His supporters called him the "Grand Old Man." His rival, Disraeli, preferred "God’s Only Mistake."
The "justice delayed" phrase is widely quoted these days by proponents of speedy justice for criminals. Prosecutors, victims rights advocates, politicians calling themselves "Conservatives," (don’t know what old Gladstone would call them) all bemoan delays built into the justice system.
Some years ago, Californians voted overwhelmingly for something called "The Speedy Trial Initiative" which was meant to streamline the trial process. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George has been lobbying for a reform of the appellate process to relieve his court from the obligation to hear every capital appeal. He wants to transfer the onus to intermediate appellate courts (which are more numerous), just like other cases. The Supremes could then simply review the lower court’s opinons without the need to spend the time of independent judgment.
Those in power are annoyed by the fact that there are more than 600 people on the state’s death row, many of whom have been waiting for years to have cases heard. Many have no lawyers appointed to represent them. Others have been slogging through complicated and seemingly endless habeas corpus proceedings, bouncing back and forth from state and federal courts.
The only fly in the speedy justice ointment is that every day or two a "criminal's" conviction or death sentence is reversed after years and years of languishing, when new evidence uncovers the IN- justice that actually happened all those years ago. DNA tests (or other technological marvels) or reneging snitches and / or eyewitnesses or dishonest jurors are unwrapped, proving that the initial verdicts, which had been affirmed by all the courts along the way were dead wrong.
Miscarriages of justice are not limited to capital cases.
The L.A. Times today reported that the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University Law School (guided by Prof. Gerald Uelman) and the California Innocence Project at Cal Western Law School in San Diego "have succeeded in helping to exonerate 11 people, two based on DNA evidence, nine on other grounds... The two Innocence Projects are now actively investigating 288 cases and have a backlog of 700 cases." (L.A. Times, California, Saturday, February 24, 2008, p.B-3).
The facts were part of a Times article devoted to reporting the findings of a "blue ribbon commission" chaired by former L.A. D.A. John Van De Kamp, which found that exonerated prisoners, many who have served decades in prisons before being released, were inadequately compensated by the state for the loss of their freedom.
Advocates of speedy justice would have denied such prisoners any of the processes that had reviewed and eventually overturned their wrongful convictions and sentences by terminating their rights to appeal and habeas corpus to federal courts or to re-file dismissed appeals when new evidence is exposed.
The conservative strain of The Law favors certainty and cost efficiency in its justice system and closure for victims and their families over the nuisance of interminable appeals.
After all, as old GOM observed: "Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear."
Who says?
In my own experience, the exact opposite is more often true:
justice delayed is ... justice perfected, or at last ... finally attained.
The cliché is usually attributed to 19th Century English politician, William Gladstone, who also said,
"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear."
Gladstone it seems was something of an enigma:
he opposed the abolition of slavery and proposed recognition of the Confederate States Of America.
On the other hand, he favored universal suffrage, at least for men, and opposed British imperialism.
His supporters called him the "Grand Old Man." His rival, Disraeli, preferred "God’s Only Mistake."
The "justice delayed" phrase is widely quoted these days by proponents of speedy justice for criminals. Prosecutors, victims rights advocates, politicians calling themselves "Conservatives," (don’t know what old Gladstone would call them) all bemoan delays built into the justice system.
Some years ago, Californians voted overwhelmingly for something called "The Speedy Trial Initiative" which was meant to streamline the trial process. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George has been lobbying for a reform of the appellate process to relieve his court from the obligation to hear every capital appeal. He wants to transfer the onus to intermediate appellate courts (which are more numerous), just like other cases. The Supremes could then simply review the lower court’s opinons without the need to spend the time of independent judgment.
Those in power are annoyed by the fact that there are more than 600 people on the state’s death row, many of whom have been waiting for years to have cases heard. Many have no lawyers appointed to represent them. Others have been slogging through complicated and seemingly endless habeas corpus proceedings, bouncing back and forth from state and federal courts.
The only fly in the speedy justice ointment is that every day or two a "criminal's" conviction or death sentence is reversed after years and years of languishing, when new evidence uncovers the IN- justice that actually happened all those years ago. DNA tests (or other technological marvels) or reneging snitches and / or eyewitnesses or dishonest jurors are unwrapped, proving that the initial verdicts, which had been affirmed by all the courts along the way were dead wrong.
Miscarriages of justice are not limited to capital cases.
The L.A. Times today reported that the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University Law School (guided by Prof. Gerald Uelman) and the California Innocence Project at Cal Western Law School in San Diego "have succeeded in helping to exonerate 11 people, two based on DNA evidence, nine on other grounds... The two Innocence Projects are now actively investigating 288 cases and have a backlog of 700 cases." (L.A. Times, California, Saturday, February 24, 2008, p.B-3).
The facts were part of a Times article devoted to reporting the findings of a "blue ribbon commission" chaired by former L.A. D.A. John Van De Kamp, which found that exonerated prisoners, many who have served decades in prisons before being released, were inadequately compensated by the state for the loss of their freedom.
Advocates of speedy justice would have denied such prisoners any of the processes that had reviewed and eventually overturned their wrongful convictions and sentences by terminating their rights to appeal and habeas corpus to federal courts or to re-file dismissed appeals when new evidence is exposed.
The conservative strain of The Law favors certainty and cost efficiency in its justice system and closure for victims and their families over the nuisance of interminable appeals.
After all, as old GOM observed: "Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
