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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

Andrew Hale & Associates has released the following press release which has been picked up by the Chicago Tribune , ABC7 News Chicago , WBBM780 , and the Newswire

Chicago, IL - August 17, 2009 -- A federal district court judge has ruled in favor of three retired Chicago police officers who were sued by Jerry Miller in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Miller was convicted in 1982 of raping a woman at a parking garage in the Gold Coast section of Chicago.

Miller was identified by two employees who worked at the parking garage and stopped a man - later identified as Miller - as he was attempting to drive his rape victim's car out of the parking garage, with the victim locked in the trunk.

After spending 26 years in prison, Miller was released after DNA testing from the crime scene proved that Miller was not the rapist. Shortly thereafter, Miller filed a civil lawsuit, alleging that several now retired Chicago police officers had framed him for the crime by conducting a suggestive lineup and failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence.

Judge Suzanne B. Conlon rejected all of Miller's claims against the officers and granted their motion for summary judgment in its entirety finding as a matter of law that the officers did not engage in any misconduct.

The retired police officers were represented by attorneys Andrew Hale, Avi Kamionski, Ebone Liggins, and Christina Liu from the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates, LLC.

About Andrew M. Hale & Associates

Andrew M. Hale & Associates specializes in the defense of civil rights lawsuits brought against municipalities and police officers. The firm's principal attorneys are Andrew M. Hale and Avi T. Kamionski. The firm maintains a blog dedicated to the defense of police officers in wrongful conviction cases: www.wrongfulconvictionlawsuitdefense.com or www.dontblamethecops.com.

For more information contact: Andrew M. Hale, 312-341-9646, ahale@ahalelaw.com, www.ahalelaw.com

*Source Andrew M. Hale & Associates - Federal Court Case no. 08 C 773

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

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
• Share Link

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 (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 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
• Share Link