Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Defense Blog : Wrongful Conviction Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Andrew M. Hale Law Firm

The  Los Angeles Times is reporting:

A Virginia man who spent 22 years in prison for two rapes he did not commit will get more than $632,000 in restitution, following a unanimous decision Wednesday by state lawmakers.

Arthur Whitfield, 54, of Norfolk was convicted in 1982 and sentenced to 63 years in prison. A 2004 DNA test proved his innocence and he was freed. Whitfield needed paperwork stating his innocence in order to receive state restitution, but the Virginia Supreme Court could not issue such a finding — called a "writ of actual innocence" — because the law at that time allowed that only for those who were incarcerated. Whitfield's only hope was a pardon from Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, but because one of the rape victims opposed the pardon it took until April for Kaine to grant it.

"When we have a victim who continues to assert that the individual is guilty, we obviously had to take some time and make sure we had that right," Kaine said Wednesday. Whitfield recently was diagnosed with liver cancer and did not attend Wednesday's special legislative session because he was getting chemotherapy, said his lawyer, Michael Fasanaro Jr.

Whitfield has been working in a produce factory but struggles financially, Fasanaro said. "I'm delighted that we've finally gotten some commitment from the state to pay him some money," Fasanaro said. Whitfield will receive $632,867, according to a formula outlined in state law that compensates the wrongfully convicted based on 90 percent of the state per capital income for up to 20 years.

He will get a lump sum of $126,573 within a month, then the remaining $506,294 will be placed into an annuity that he will receive beginning next year. Whitfield also will receive $10,000 in community college assistance. He would lose any unpaid amount if he is convicted of a felony. Instead of the usual 25-year annuity prescribed by state law for such cases, legislators set it up so that Whitfield would consult with the attorney general's office and other state agencies to determine the best way for him to receive the money. Fasanaro said Whitfield had hoped to get all the money at once so he could buy a house. He currently lives in an apartment, and his father drives him to work. "He's afraid that he's still going to have to work, and he's not going to be able to much longer" because of his health, Fasanaro said. Legislators said they wanted Whitfield to get the money quickly to help pay for medical and other expenses.

Sen. Kenneth Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, pushed for restitution after learning this summer that Whitfield had not been compensated for his time behind bars. "I was extremely amazed at the fact that this guy holds no grudges against the community or the victims," Stolle said. "He probably regrets what happened, but he is completely happy with being out of prison and is not asking for anything."

See also the article in the PioltOnline

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Barry Scheck and Jerry Miller speak at the Gel 2009 conference about Miller's wrongful conviction case.  Barry Scheck of Neufeld, Scheck & Brustin, represent Jerry Miller in his lawsuit.  

This speaking engagement came just days before United States District Court Judge Suzzane Conlon ruled in favor of the police officers in the lawsuit.  As previously report, Judge Conlon found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Miller.  The court further found that the lineup - where Miller was identified - was fair. 

Although Miller was exonerated on DNA evidence, the police did their jobs and did not commit any misconduct.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Journal Star of Lincoln Nebraska is reporting:

When six convictions in the 1985 murder of a Beatrice widow unraveled late last year, the investigators in charge said they just did their jobs and let the jury decide.

Now five of the six people exonerated of killing Helen Wilson have filed federal lawsuits against the former prosecutor, sheriff’s investigators and others. If the cases go to trial, juries will decide whether authorities engaged in lies, conspiracy and professional negligence to get convictions they knew were unjust.“This is just a very unique and tragic case in terms of how it affected six lives,” said attorney Robert Bartle of Lincoln.Joseph White, JoAnn Taylor, Thomas Winslow and Kathy Gonzalez have filed a federal lawsuit  in U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Nebraska. Although they filed their lawsuits separately, all four are represented by Bartle and Doug Stratton of Norfolk James Dean, who filed a similar lawsuit Tuesday, is represented by Lincoln lawyer Herb Friedman. Debra Shelden, the sixth former defendant, is not involved in any of the claims.

The six served a combined 70 years in prison and were the first in Nebraska to have their convictions wiped out by DNA testing. No other wrongful conviction nationally has involved so many defendants. The federal lawsuits claim the defendants suffered from multiple violations of their civil rights.  Named in the lawsuits are former Gage County Attorney Richard Smith and former Sheriff Jerry DeWitt. Also named are five deputies, including Burdette Searcey, the lead investigator, and Wayne Price, a psychologist who did not remove himself from the investigation, despite the fact that three of the defendants had sought treatment at the clinic he oversaw.

The federal complaints accuse authorities of seeking convictions in the Wilson case with a reckless disregard for the truth. “Defendants, individually and acting in concert … solicited, fabricated, manufactured and coerced evidence they knew was false, fraudulent and profoundly lacking in reliability,” White alleged in his complaint. “Defendants filed false affidavits with the courts, prepared false investigative reports, repeatedly lied about the evidence during the course of all interrogations, and threatened everyone with life imprisonment or execution in the electric chair if they did not cooperate and recite defendants’ false narrative of the Wilson homicide.”

Hearing the above statement Wednesday left the former prosecutor momentarily speechless. “The record doesn’t go along with those accusations,” Smith said before withholding additional comment until he has read the lawsuits.

In prior interviews, Searcey has stood firmly behind an investigation that ended with six convictions. When reached Wednesday, Searcey would only say he had not yet been served with the lawsuits.

The civil complaints also name Gage County, including the current county attorney’s and sheriff’s offices. Gage County Attorney Randy Ritnour said Wednesday it was unclear who will defend whom or what role he will have. The question is even more complicated by Ritnour’s service on a law enforcement task force last year that used DNA tests to identify the true killer.

Back in the dawn of forensic DNA, the six were convicted of the murder of Wilson, a 68-year-old woman who was suffocated in her downtown apartment after having been severely beaten and raped. The case remained unsolved for four years until authorities arrested the six in 1989. White was the only defendant to maintain his innocence. The others pleaded guilty to lesser charges after agreeing to cooperate with the prosecution. Testimony from Taylor, Dean and Shelden played a major role in the conviction of White, who was later sentenced to a life term.

In 2007, White finally won the right to have DNA tests run on fluids preserved from Wilson’s apartment. Last year, the tests identified Bruce Allan Smith as the lone killer. Smith died in Oklahoma City in 1992.

White, Taylor and Winslow were released from prison late last year, after serving nearly 19 years each. Dean, Shelden and Gonzalez completed their prison terms in 1994. After the DNA tests, the five who took plea bargains said they admitted to a crime they didn’t commit to avoid the death penalty. All five received pardons from the State of Nebraska earlier this year. The assertions in White’s federal lawsuit showed his legal team believes the errors in the Wilson investigation were not random or the result of overzealousness. In particular, they emphasized how virtually none of the story produced by the prosecution witnesses could be verified with physical evidence from the apartment — now or then.

One example:

Investigators found only two blood types in Wilson’s apartment — type O and type B. The investigation remained open until the arrest of someone with type B blood, who was Kathy Gonzalez. Yet investigators deliberately ignored the fact that Gonzalez’s blood and the crime scene blood had a differing enzyme, White’s lawsuit stated. White’s complaint also criticized the investigators for exploiting suspects who had low intelligence, mental health histories or drug habits. “Defendants used their knowledge of such mental conditions to overbear their will and coerce false testimony,” the complaint stated. Prompted by the Beatrice case, the Nebraska Legislature this year passed a law to compensate wrongfully convicted people for each year they spend in prison. Bartle said his four clients intend to pursue compensation through the state law when it takes effect in September.

Here is a copy of one of the Federal Complaints

More to follow on this case.....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Houston Chronicle's website, chron.com is reporting:

 A federal jury on Thursday awarded $5 million to a Houston man who spent 17 years in prison for a kidnapping and rape he did not commit, finding the city should pay for its “deliberate indifference” to problems at the crime lab whose false evidence secured the conviction.

Ain’t no amount of money is going to even my scale,” Rodriguez said after hearing the verdict. “I lost my dad and my girls have been through hell. I am grateful, but no money could replace what I lost.” “This verdict says what I think we all know to be true about the Houston Police Department crime lab,” said Barry Scheck, one of Rodriguez’s lawyers and a co-founder of the Innocence Project, which helped secure his release from prison. “They convicted innocent men and the city was indifferent.”

City Attorney Arturo Michel, whose office defended the city, said officials would take a close look at the trial transcript to review questions of evidence and evaluate how the city would assess the case if it were retried before deciding whether to appeal. “The jury was deadlocked on the issue of whether Lee Brown was deliberately indifferent,” he said. “That meant that they had difficulty coming to a conclusion on the evidence.”

A jury of five women and three men deliberated for about two days after hearing testimony from former Mayor Lee P. Brown, who was police chief in 1987, James Bolding, a crime lab manager who testified at Rodriguez’s trial and from Rodriguez himself.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Houston Chronicle is reporting:

"A federal judge ordered jurors to resume deliberating today after the jury indicated Wednesday that it was at an impasse in the case of George Rodriguez, who sued the city of Houston for $35 million for its role in his wrongful conviction. A Houston Police Department crime lab analyst gave false testimony in Rodriguez’s 1987 trial, and Rodriguez was imprisoned for more than 17 years before DNA evidence exonerated him. The jury of five women and three men sent U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore a note Wednesday afternoon, after about six hours of deliberations. The panel said it is at an impasse on the question of whether, as police chief, Lee. P. Brown was deliberately indifferent to the lack of training and supervision in the crime lab and the chance a violation of someone’s constitutional right to a fair trial would result. To get to this point, the jury had to already find that the crime lab employee’s testimony played a substantial role in Rodriguez’s conviction and that the city had an official policy or custom of allowing the crime lab personnel to be inadequately trained and supervised. If the jury can agree that Brown was indifferent to the constitutional risks, it has two more questions to address. It has to decide if the problems with the lab were “the moving force” behind the violation of Rodriguez’s rights and, if so, how much the city should pay Rodriguez." 

Refreshing to see the jury take their time and work through each claim.  Sympathy for Mr. Rodriguez should not be the reason to tag the City of Houston for millions. Plaintiffs must be held to their burden. Stay tuned for jury verdict....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Associated Press is reporting: that today the United States Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime. The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence. Testing has led to the exoneration of at least 232 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes. The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority, against an Alaska man who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago. William Osborne won a federal appeals-court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Mr. Osborne argued that testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt. Separately, in parole proceedings, Mr. Osborne has admitted his guilt in a bid for release from prison. The high court reversed the appellate ruling. States already are dealing with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion. "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response," Mr. Roberts said.But Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that a simple test would settle the matter. "The court today blesses the state's arbitrary denial of the evidence Osborne seeks," Mr. Stevens said.

In the opinion, in concurrence, Judge Samuel Alito explained:

I see no reason for such intervention in the present case. When a criminal defendant, for tactical purposes, passes up the opportunity for DNA testing at trial, that defendant, in my judgment, has no constitutional right to demand to perform DNA testing after conviction. Recognition of such a right would allow defendants to play games with the criminal justice system. A guilty defendant could forgo DNA testing at trial for fear that the results would confirm his guilt, and in the hope that the other evidence would be insufficient to persuade the jury to find him guilty. Then, after conviction, with nothing to lose, the defendant could demand DNA testing in the hope that some happy accident—for example, degradation or con- tamination of the evidence—would provide the basis for seeking postconviction relief. Denying the opportunity for such an attempt to game the criminal justice system should not shock the conscience of the Court.

Further noting "There is ample evidence in this case that [Osborne] attemtped to game the system."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Houston Chronicle reports: 

George Rodriguez’s lawyer asked a federal jury Monday to make the city pay “tens of millions of dollars” for the disgraced Houston Police Department’s crime lab’s pivotal role in the wrongful conviction that put his client behind bars for 17 years.

“What was taken away from him was his youth,” said attorney , whose Innocence Project works on behalf of convicts in similar circumstances. Rodriguez went to prison wrongly at age 26 and walked out at 43 to find his three daughters grown and his father dead, the lawyer said.

In opening statements Tuesday afternoon, Scheck told jurors about the loneliness, fear and depression his client suffered in prison after being wrongly convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl.

This happened, he said, because policy makers at the city of Houston were deliberately indifferent to rampant under funding, under staffing and a lack of supervision at the crime lab that created a high risk an innocent person could be convicted or the guilty one could go free.

“We will prove that a false and misleading serology report violated (Rodriguez’s) constitutional right to a fair trial,” Scheck told jurors in U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore’s court. A key piece of evidence in the criminal case was a pubic hair found in the girl’s underwear. A Houston police crime lab specialist testified falsely that the serology report on that hair eliminated another suspect, Isidro Yanez, but not Rodriguez. The case was tried before DNA evidence was used in court. DNA tests done 17 years later showed the hair belonged to Yanez.
Brown, Holmes blamed Scheck said evidence will show the lab specialist had a pattern of changing findings to match what the police and prosecutors wanted.

One of the policy makers Scheck blames is Lee P. Brown, the former Houston mayor who was police chief in 1987 when Rodriguez was convicted. Brown is scheduled to testify in the case, as is former Harris District Attorney John B. Holmes Jr., who was top prosecutor at the time of the trial. Rodriguez originally sued Harris County and others but dismissed all parties except for the city of Houston, who his lawyers say is most clearly culpable.

But Robert Cambrice, a lawyer for the city, told jurors that it was bad lawyering by the prosecutor and Rodriguez’s late defense attorney that led to the false conviction, not an unquestioned lie by a city employee. He said there was no city policy that led to the error in this case and under funding didn’t cause the employee to lie. “No city policy makers approved of unconstitutional fabrication of evidence,” Cambrice said. Cambrice asked the jury not to be overcome by the emotion surrounding Rodriguez’s ordeal.

The trail is likely to last two weeks. The five-woman, three-man jury heard from an assistant police chief late Tuesday about how the city didn’t closely investigate crime lab problems until after a 2002 local television report. That finally led to a $5 million independent investigation that highlighted Rodriguez’s case and others, she said.

It wasn’t until 2004 that a local court ruled Rodriguez should be freed because of the inaccurate trial testimony. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later vacated Rodriguez’s conviction. He has never received an official pardon and thus has received no compensation from the state.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Both Newsweek and The New York Daily News have reviewed Discovery Channel's new show on DNA and wrongful convictions. The show is about the Dallas County DA's and the newly elected DA Watkins. The office and its newly created CIU (Conviction Integrity Unit) investigates cases in which prisoners claim to have been wrongfully convicted.

In the first episode, one convict was freed after he was exonerated by DNA evidence. The other was confirmed gulilty through DNA evidence.

Newsweek says:

Dallas DNA" is compelling viewing, but not easy viewing. Like the best scripted crime dramas, it demonstrates that when it comes to crime and punishment, even the happiest endings are marbled with sadness and despair.

The New York Daily News said:

Dallas DNA" tells an important and sobering story about our justice system, and how one office is patching up a bad crack. As television, it's a curious paradox, at some points leaving big questions unasked and at other points padding footage that essentially marks time while we wait for a resolution. But by the standards of shows in this genre, "Dallas DNA" is the rare real deal."

 

The show recently had its season finale, but will be playing a marathon of all six episodes on 4pm to 10pm on Tuesday, June 23.

Dallas DNA is only the beginning. What happens after someone is "exonerated" ? Does that mean the police committed misconduct? Could it just be eyewitness error? Could the individual have been an accomplice and DNA was only left at the scene by another person?  These are all questions that must be asked.  YOU must ask them.  Do not let every "exoneration" become an automatic case of police misconduct.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Discovery Channel to air new six-part series DALLAS DNA, which premieres Tuesday, April 28 at 10 PM ET.  According to their website:

Dallas DNA chronicles a pioneering unit within the Dallas County District Attorney's office where post-conviction DNA testing is being used to clear the innocent, as well as confirm the guilty. When Craig Watkins ran for district attorney in Dallas County, he promised to fight for justice and through an innovative and unconventional new division he founded; he's been true to his word. In July 2007, Watkins created the nation's first Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU) run by a DA's office and tasked it with re-examining hundreds of petitions submitted by inmates seeking post-conviction DNA testing and reinvestigating the cases that could be possible examples of injustice. Dallas County has more exonerations than any other jurisdiction in the nation since state law began allowing post-conviction testing in 2001. In that time, more than 40 cases have received post-conviction DNA evidence analysis and the results have stunned the nation—to date, 19 cases were found to have wrongful convictions, and under DA Watkins' leadership ten innocent men have walked free.

 Here is the full schedule.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks

This is the second, in just the last week, where a man professing his innocence had his guilt re-affirmed through DNA testing.  Charles Hunter got his wish after years in prison. However, things did not go according to the plan he had when writing 46 letters to a Lawrence, Kansas newspaper. Hunter's DNA instead confirmed that he in fact did commit a series of rapes in Kansas in 1978.

According to the Lawrence Journal World & News, Douglas County District Attorney Charles Branson announced that DNA testing results failed to exonerate Charles Hunter.

The Innocence Project commented on the Hunter case:

Eric Ferrero, communications director at the Innocence Project, said the results “confirms the prosecution’s theory at the trial.” Ferrero said Hunter’s case with the Innocence Project is now closed.That might seem like a loss for the Innocence Project and the cause of wrongful convictions, but Ferrero said his organization’s goal is not based on which person the DNA evidence incriminates or exonerates.“ DNA evidence can prove innocence or guilt,” said Ferrero, whose agency has documented 233 cases in the United State where DNA evidence has led to exoneration. “Our cause is to get to the truth in these cases.”

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Click here to see the full 60 minutes 

CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl provided an in-depth analysis on the flaws of eyewitness identification. Stahl tells the compelling story of a rape victim named Jennifer Thompson. She picked Ronald Cotton out of a photo array and Cotton was arrested. After she picked him out of a lineup, Cotton was put on trial and convicted. While in prison, Cotton ran into a man named Bobby Poole and they looked a lot alike. In fact, the prisoners and guards would even mistakenly call each other by the other name. Eventually, Cotton was exonerated by DNA evidence, and it was shown that Poole committed the crime.

The story goes on analyze some issues involved with the identification. First, Stahl reports that it is often the case that the real perpetrator is not in the photo array.

"When you're sittin' in front of a photo lineup, you just assume one of these guys is the suspect. It's my job to find it," Thompson explained.
"Bobby Poole's photograph was not in the photo lineup," Thompson told Stahl. "He was not in the physical lineup."

"When the real perpetrator is not in the set, is none of them, witnesses have a very difficult time being able to recognize that," explained Gary Wells, a professor of psychology at Iowa State University.

Wells goes on to state that eyewitness ID's are very persuasive because the victim has no reason to lie. However he says, that if a person sees someone that did the crime, it would trigger recognition memory.

"Recognition memory is actually quite rapid. So we find in our studies, for example, that if somebody's taking longer than ten, 15 seconds, it's quite likely that they're doing something other than just using reliable recognition memory."

Wells continues and states that the biggest issue is the reinforcement factor after an identification. After the choice, the detective or officer familiar with the case and the victim often say good job or you made the right choice. This makes the victim feel they did it right, and become more positive about their choice.

[Wells] says the solution is to have someone independent administer the lineup, someone who doesn't even know who the suspect is. And certainly not the detective on the case.

Don't be quick to discount eyewitness identification - it has been the most prominent and valuable tool in putting away criminals. While there are cases such as this one, which are heart-wrenching, the police officer was doing his job by the book. Yet, in many cases such as this, the wrongly convicted still goes after the officer and the police department for civil liability. In a case like this, that lawsuit would be inappropriate and frivolous (but it still happens everyday). It is important to note that Cotton did not sue the police department and received 10,000/year for each of the 11 years from the state of North Carolina.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

CBS in Dallas is reporting:  

North Texans and people around the world have become accustomed to seeing inmates, wrongly convicted of a crime in Dallas County, released because of DNA evidence. Now the table has been turned on one man who claimed to be innocent of his crimes. Charles Williams is a rapist and a liar. His DNA proves it. For the past two years, Dallas County men, with decades of prison time served, have been cleared of crimes they didn't commit. The science of DNA proved it. Williams told The Innocence Project he too was wrongly convicted of raping a woman in 1988. "In talking to Charles, I mean he even today will tell you that he did not commit this crime," said public defender Michelle Moore. "But you have to be careful what you ask for here." Williams had the Dallas District Attorney's Office investigate his innocence claim. In the beginning, his case looked like so many of the others. Williams was convicted based on eyewitness testimony and even pled guilty to two other sexual assaults, but maintained his innocence.

Here is the kicker:

District Attorney Craig Watkins wants Williams to spend more time in prison. The convicted rapists' DNA points to Williams as the attacker and only him. "When we believe there's a valid claim of innocence, we have a responsibility to investigate that," explained Watkins. "We did in this case, and unfortunately in this case, the defendant was less than truthful and he will stay in jail as long as we have a say so over it." Williams' victim said the man should have time added to his sentence for wasting taxpayers' money... and that's the plan.

 Watch the DA's comments here

This is not a surprise .  We have seen cases where even when DNA does not match - the person was still involved in the crime.   In one case we saw that just because the man did not rape a little girl (i.e. semen inside the girl was a negative match), did not mean he was not involved in the initial kidnap of the girl.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 A Wisconsin man, convicted in 1984 of the murder of a 63 year old woman, has been freed from prison after 23 years. A judge vacated the sentence after the Wisconsin Innocence Project convinced the judge that the DNA and bite-mark analysis did not match the evidence at the crime scene. However, the Milwaukee County District Attorney has not yet given up.

According to the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter:

Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Norman Gahn didn't oppose his release, although he said Friday he has six months to decide whether to retry him. Gahn wouldn't elaborate. District Attorney  said in a statement that Stinson's conviction was not wrongful, and that he was convicted based on "state-of-the-art scientific evidence available at the time of his trial."

"The question today is whether there is newly discovered evidence in this case to warrant a new trial, and we agree that such evidence exists," Chisholm said. The statement did not describe the nature of the evidence. Stinson was convicted in 1985 in the murder of a 63-year-old Milwaukee woman the previous year. Ione F. Cyshosz was last seen by a friend who dropped her at her home after playing bingo. Her near-naked body was found the next morning, her head bloody and beaten and a number of bite marks on her torso. A police officer arrested Stinson in the area after saying the teeth of the then-21-year-old matched the bite marks.

At the trial, two forensic odontologists testified that Stinson's teeth were a match, even though Stinson was apparently missing a tooth in a place where the bite marks indicated a tooth, Lichstein, said. He said he didn't know why that didn't cast doubt on the case against Stinson at the beginning, but newer technology indicated there was no match."Every piece of evidence in the case points away from him," Byron Lichstein (Attorney for the Wisconsin Innocence Project) said. "He has a very powerful claim of innocence."

Bite mark identification is becoming an increasingly interesting phenomenon in wrongful conviction law. The Innocence Project reports that eight people in five states have had convictions overturned from faulty bite-mark analysis. Still, many odontologists insist that, if applied properly, bite-mark analyisis is reliable scientific evidence.

It is clear how a criminal conviction can be attacked through the means of faulty bite-mark analysis. However, any subsequent lawsuit against police or a municipality for this type of wrongful conviction should be hard to prove. Bite-mark analysis was deemed wholly reliable at the time, and many experts still deem it as reliable. Therefore, it surely should give police and prosecutors probable cause to arrest and prosecute which would bar any civil claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, we shared the story of a man who has yet to receive his compensation for his wrongful conviction.  As discussed, not all states have compensation systems in place. Nebraska is one such place.  The Innocence Project of Nebraska is trying to change that.  Omaha's WOWT-DT Channel 6 is reporting: 

The Nebraska Innocence Project is calling on state lawmakers to compensate those wrongfully convicted. Their request comes in advance of the anticipated pardoning of five of the "Beatrice 6," January 26th. Nebraska is one of 25 states without a statute providing compensation to those who are wrongly convicted. The Nebraska Innocence Project is lobbying for the passage of legislation. The group says it's needed not only as compensation for a past wrong, but to help those affected transition back into society with mental and vocational counseling, as well as job training.  Six individuals in total were accused of taking part in the 1985 rape and murder of Helen Wilson of Beatrice. However, they were cleared of wrongdoing through DNA evidence on November 7th. Joseph White did not seek a pardon because the charges against him were dropped.“The releases and pardons, acknowledging that a horrendous wrong has been done these people, are to Nebraska's credit," said Rebecca Murray, president of the Nebraska Innocence Project. "Many individuals who are exonerated in this country do not receive such a message.” She added, “Pardoning is not enough. These individuals deserve more than a pardon, more than an apology. They deserve resources to begin to put their lives back together.” Last week Senator Kent Rogert introduced LB 260, “Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act.” It would provide monetary and in-kind compensation to the Beatrice 6 and any future wrongly convicted claimants, and would expunge the conviction from their records. 

According to the The New York Times Sunday edition: 

Last month, the Nebraska attorney general, Jon Bruning, said DNA evidence conclusively linked another man, Bruce A. Smith of Oklahoma, to the rape and murder of Ms. Wilson, 68, who was killed on Feb. 6, 1985. Mr. Smith died of AIDS in 1992.  In a pre-session survey by The Associated Press, 14 Nebraska senators or senators-elect said they would support a measure providing compensation to exonerated inmates. Five said they would not, and 20 said they were not sure. One did not answer the question, and nine did not participate in the survey.

Any compensation package that is established in Nebraska should include a no-sue clause.  If a wrongfully convicted individual receives compensation he or she should be prohibited from seeking more money in a lawsuit.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Fox News in Memphis TN is reporting that Clark McMillan, who spent over 20 years behind bars for rape, has not received his settlement from the State.  McMilan was set free in 2002 and was awarded nearly one million dollars for the life he lost, but he says he has yet to receive a penny.

In 2004, the Tennessee General Assembly voted to award McMillan $832,000 as compensation for his wrongful imprisonment. But, except for an original lump sum payment of $250,000, McMillan, whoclaims most of that money's been eaten away by continuing medical bills for he and his wife, alleges he hasn't been able to get his hands on the rest of the money he needs. McMillan alleges he was pressured into taking a financial arrangement he really didn't understand at the time.

Under the Tennessee Code: Any exonerated or pardoned person is entitled to a total of $1,000,000 for the entirety of a wrongful incarceration. The board of claims, in determining the amount of compensation, shall consider the person's physical and mental suffering and loss of earnings. The claim must be filed within one year of exoneration. (Source: Innocence Project).  

It does not appear under the code that McMillan would be prohibited from pursuing a law suit against the police who arrested him.  That, as we have said before, would not be surprising. However, if McMillan has yet to file suit, his chances from seeking redress at this time may very well be bared under the law given the statute of limitations.  As for state sponsored case settlements, some states prohibit an exonerated individual from filing a civil lawsuit against a municipality, if a person takes a state sponsored cash settlement. A list of states offering such programs can be fore here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 The Chicago Tribune is reporting: 

Clyde Charles, the first inmate to use a federal civil rights law to sue for DNA testing that not only cleared him of a Louisiana rape conviction but also sent his brother to prison for the same crime, has died. He was 55.

Mr. Charles died Jan. 7 of natural causes at his home, relatives told The Courier newspaper. His health problems included diabetes that required dialysis, they said.

He was the first inmate to sue under the federal Civil Rights Act to get his DNA compared to DNA samples held as evidence, said Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, a legal center specializing in wrongful conviction cases

After Mr. Charles was sentenced to life in prison for the 1981 rape of a nurse who identified him as her attacker, he pleaded with authorities to conduct DNA testing against evidence collected in the case.

Although investigators had semen samples from the victim, the technology to compare DNA samples didn't exist during Mr. Charles' trial.

Clyde Charles had a tough life after his release from prison, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares and terrible pain from his diabetes, Scheck said Tuesday.

In early 2003, Mr. Charles was arrested on a charge that he had stabbed one of his other brothers, but was released on $100,000 bail for intensive drug rehabilitation. That case was continued indefinitely in a deal brokered with state prosecutors.

"I wish I could tell you they lived happily ever after. But they didn't," Scheck said.

(Photo Above: Kirk Bloodsworth (left) spent 9 years in prison and Clyde Charles (right) was on Death Row 18 years before Scheck (center) used DNA testing to prove their innocence).  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(Photo from Center on Wrongful Convictions Pendleton Profile) 

This man was released from prison based on new DNA testing and is now back in jail, charged with murder.  

 According to the Associated Press:

A man exonerated by DNA evidence in a rape case after serving several years in an Illinois prison now faces a murder charge in Indiana.  Jail records show 51-year-old Marlon Pendleton is in custody at Lake County Jail where he's been since Dec. 19. Pendleton was arrested earlier this month for allegedly killing his 45-year-old girlfriend. Her body was found at a Hammond, Ind., home where Pendleton was living.
Pendleton made headlines in 2006 when DNA evidence cleared him of a 1992 rape conviction. He had served eight years of a 10-year prison sentence.
Since then, he's been pardoned by Gov. Rod Blagojevich and filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago for suffering he endured during his time in jail

Mr. Pendelton's attorneys, Jon Loevy and Locke Bowman allege that Chicago Crime Lab analyst prepared incomplete and misleading lab reports.  In addition, he contends detectives fabricated a case against him.  

Northwestern's Center on Wrongful Convictions was responsible for securing Mr. Pendleton's release through DNA testing.  According to their website,  they contend that the eyewitness identification is to blame.  They contend that in 1994, the Chicago Crime Lab did not do enough to test a rape kit taken from the victim.  

Could someone be innocent of one crime and guilty of another - of course.  But it is ironic.  If Pendleton did in fact commit this murder, justice should prevail and he should be sent back to jail.  This is not first case we have seen of "exonerated" individuals returning back to prison for new crimes they commit.  As with those cases, if they in fact committed those crime, they should be brought to justice and should not be able to recover millions of dollars in civil suits.  

Critics will say that the two cases are separate, and even if the person commits a new crime, he is still entitled to compensation for a wrongful incarceration, where he in fact was innocent.  It is not that simple.  Nevertheless,  any money recovered from the civil suit should be sent directly to the victims of the new crimes.  Here, If Pendleton is found guilty of murder - but somehow still recovers millions - the murder victim and her family deserve the money and should file suit against Pendleton to secure a lien on that money.  They should file that lawsuit - now.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jerry Miller has filed a federal court civil rights lawsuit against the City of Chicago and several former Chicago police officers. Miller was arrested and charged with the rape of a 44 year old woman in 1981. Miller was identified as the attacker by two attendants at a parking garage at 506 N. Rush street where the rape took place. Miller served 26 years in prison before being paroled in 2006.

The State's Attorney's Office agreed to post-conviction DNA testing in 2006 that showed that Miller was not the contributor of the DNA profile found on the victim's slip. In his lawsuit, Miller claims that the Chicago police officers told the parking lot employees to pick him out of a lineup. The basis for that allegation, however, is unclear, as those employees are deceased. ANDREW M. HALE and AVI T. KAMIONSKI have been retained to represent the police officer defendants in that case, which has been assigned to United States District Court Judge Suzanne Conlon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks