Former Death Row Inmate Awarded $2.2 Million Wrongful Conviction Settlement

The Chicago City Council finance com­mit­tee quick­ly approved a $2.2 mil­lion wrong­ful con­vic­tion set­tle­ment for for­mer death row inmate Ronald Jones. ​“I think it is a good deal for the city,” said Chicago Alderman William Beavers, indi­cat­ing that he and oth­er alder­men breathed a sigh of relief that the city will get off so cheap­ly in its set­tle­ment with Jones, who was coerced into a con­fes­sion to a 1985 rape and mur­der that he did not com­mit. Jones spent 14 years on Illinois’s death row before DNA tests exclud­ed him as the per­pe­tra­tor. Former Illinois Governor George Ryan par­doned Jones in 2000. (Chicago Tribune, December 16, 2003) See Costs.

DNA Test Casts Doubt on Death Sentence of Indiana Man

After 16 years on death row, Darnell Williams was 3 days from exe­cu­tion when then Governor Frank O’Bannon issued a reprieve to allow the genet­ic test­ing of droplets of blood found on Williams’ shorts after the shoot­ing. Recently released test results sup­port Williams’ claim that he was­n’t present when a Gary, Indiana cou­ple was fatal­ly shot 17 years ago. Thomas Vanes, the pros­e­cu­tor at Williams’ 1986 tri­al, now says that Williams should not be exe­cut­ed. He said, ​“I agree now that this is not a death penal­ty case.” (Indianapolis Star, December 13, 2003).

PA Man Cleared by DNA Evidence – 2003 Is Record-Tying Year for Exonerations

On December 9, 2003, Nicholas James Yarris of Pennsylvania became the 10th per­son to be exon­er­at­ed from death row in 2003, equalling the most exon­er­a­tions in a sin­gle year since the death penal­ty was rein­stat­ed. He is the nation’s 112th death row exoneree. Yarris’s con­vic­tion was ini­tial­ly over­turned when three DNA tests of the foren­sic tri­al evi­dence exclud­ed him. His exon­er­a­tion became final when Delaware County pros­e­cu­tors announced that they were drop­ping all charges against him. In July, attor­neys for Yarris announced that DNA tests exclud­ed him from the rape and mur­der for which he was con­vict­ed. Yarris, 41, has spent 21 years on Pennsylvania’s death row, and has always main­tained his inno­cence. Yarris is Pennsylvania’s fifth death row exoneree since 1986, and he is the first per­son in the state to be freed based on DNA evi­dence. The state has exe­cut­ed three peo­ple since it reen­act­ed the death penal­ty in 1974. The 10 death row exon­er­a­tions in the U.S. in 2003 equals the high­est num­ber since 1973, when states began enact­ing new death penal­ty laws. Ten inmates were also freed in 1987. Of the 112 exon­er­a­tions, 13 have been as a result of DNA evi­dence. Read DPIC’s Press Release.

North Carolina Poll Reveals Support for Moratorium on Executions

An Elon University Institute for Politics and Public Affairs poll of North Carolinians found that 41% sup­port a pro­posed 2‑year mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions to allow time to exam­ine prob­lems that could result in the exe­cu­tion of an inno­cent per­son. Although 62% of those sur­veyed said they sup­port the death penal­ty, only 38% opposed a mora­to­ri­um and the remain­ing 21% of respon­dents were unde­cid­ed. The North Carolina Senate passed a mora­to­ri­um mea­sure in 2003, and the House is expect­ed to take up the same leg­is­la­tion when it recon­venes in 2004. (WRAL news, November 23, 2003) See Public Opinion.

Report Reveals F.B.I. Allowed Death Sentences for Innocent Men

According to a report by the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, an F.B.I. pol­i­cy to pro­tect Boston infor­mants who were known mur­der­ers result­ed in the Bureau allow­ing at least two inno­cent men to be sent to death row. Investigators not­ed that the pol­i­cy ​“must be con­sid­ered one of the great­est fail­ures in the his­to­ry of fed­er­al law enforce­ment” and had ​“dis­as­trous con­se­quences.” According to the report, the F.B.I. was so intent on pro­tect­ing guilty infor­mants that it passed up oppor­tu­ni­ties to try them for mur­der. On at least one occa­sion, this pol­i­cy result­ed in the Bureau know­ing­ly allow­ing four men who had noth­ing to do with a killing to be tried and con­vict­ed of the crime. Two of the men were sen­tenced to life in prison and two were sen­tenced to death. Two of the four men died in jail, and the remain­ing two had their sen­tences com­mut­ed and were freed after serv­ing 30 years behind bars. (New York Times, November 21, 2003) See Federal Death Penalty.

ACLU Report Finds Virginia’s Death Penalty Riddled With Flaws, Recommends Reforms

In a report exam­in­ing Virginia’s death penal­ty sys­tem, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has urged the state to enact a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions until its flawed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem is reformed. The report, ​“Broken Justice: The Death Penalty in Virginia,” reviews issues such as the qual­i­ty of defense coun­sel, pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct, racial bias, inno­cence, and the exe­cu­tion of those with men­tal retar­da­tion and juve­nile offend­ers. The find­ings, which were endorsed by a coali­tion of civic orga­ni­za­tions in Virginia, led the ACLU to pro­pose nine key reforms to improve sys­temic fair­ness. Among the rec­om­men­da­tions were elim­i­na­tion of Virginia’s 21-day rule, keep­ing detailed sta­tis­tics on all poten­tial cap­i­tal crimes, and hav­ing the Virginia Supreme Court record and pub­lish all exam­ples of pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct. (Associated Press, November 13, 2003). Read the report. See Virginia.

Pardons Could Result From Destruction of Houston Lab DNA Evidence

Evidence from a cap­i­tal mur­der case and sev­en oth­er cas­es test­ed for DNA by the Houston Police Department’s crime lab have been destroyed. The District Attorney’s office said that it may have to ask for par­dons in these cas­es if the defen­dants were con­vict­ed large­ly on the weight of DNA evi­dence. ​“We’re going to have to alert the judges and the defense attor­neys and eval­u­ate each case to see what we have got to sup­port the con­vic­tion with­out the DNA. If DNA played a large role, I may be writ­ing the gov­er­nor about more par­dons,” said District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal. The eight cas­es in ques­tion are among 21 feared miss­ing by pros­e­cu­tors and police who are attempt­ing to retest near­ly 400 cas­es orig­i­nal­ly ana­lyzed by the HPD crime lab’s DNA divi­sion. The depart­men­t’s poor lab­o­ra­to­ry con­di­tions and care­less prac­tices have been the focus of wide­spread crit­i­cism and led the Houston Police Department to shut down its DNA divi­sion in December 2002. (Houston Chronicle, November 5, 2003)

House Overwhelmingly Passes DNA Bill That Includes The Innocence Protection Act

By a vote of 357 – 67, the U.S. House of Representatives passed leg­is­la­tion des­ig­nat­ing $25 mil­lion in fund­ing over five years for DNA test­ing that could help prove the inno­cence of some death row inmates. The bill also pro­vides fund­ing for states to improve the qual­i­ty of legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for those fac­ing cap­i­tal charges. The bipar­ti­san-sup­port­ed bill, enti­tled The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003 (H.R. 3214), includes a com­pre­hen­sive pack­age of pro­grams that pro­vides over $1 bil­lion over the next five years to assist Federal and State author­i­ties in solv­ing crimes and pro­tect­ing the inno­cent. The U.S. Senate is con­sid­er­ing a sim­i­lar mea­sure. (Associated Press, November 5, 2003)

North Carolina Newspaper Series Reveals Prosecutorial Misconduct in Death Penalty Cases

A Charlotte (North Carolina) News & Observer inves­tiga­tive series about the death penal­ty found that pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct led to a num­ber of North Carolina cap­i­tal con­vic­tions being over­turned, and that more cas­es are cur­rent­ly under review due to ques­tions of improp­er behav­ior by the state. The series not­ed that pros­e­cu­tors who have with­held evi­dence often receive no sig­nif­i­cant pun­ish­ment. Among the cas­es high­light­ed in the report were the following:

Alan Gell was sen­tenced to death in 1998. Four years lat­er, a Superior Court judge ruled that the state Attorney General’s Office with­held wit­ness state­ments indi­cat­ing that Gell could not have com­mit­ted the mur­der because he was in jail. They also failed to reveal a tape record­ing of the state’s star wit­ness say­ing she had ​“to make up a sto­ry” to tell police.

Jerry Lee Hamilton was sen­tenced to death in 1997. He won a new tri­al in April 2003 because pros­e­cu­tors and police with­held a doc­u­ment under­min­ing the cred­i­bil­i­ty of the state’s sole wit­ness, Hamilton’s nephew, who had ini­tial­ly con­fessed to com­mit­ting the murder alone.

Jonathan Hoffman’s lawyers have filed an appeal main­tain­ing that pros­e­cu­tors in Union County hid deals with the state’s star wit­ness. The wit­ness’s tes­ti­mo­ny result­ed in a cut in his prison time by at least 15 years and put sev­er­al thou­sand dol­lars into his pocket.

Charles Munsey won a new tri­al in 1999 after his attor­neys dis­cov­ered that the Wilkes County District Attorney with­held evi­dence that the state’s star wit­ness, a jail­house infor­mant, was nev­er in the prison where Munsey sup­pos­ed­ly con­fessed to him. Munsey died in prison before he received a new trial.

These cas­es and oth­ers like them have led many North Carolinians, includ­ing for­mer Superior Court Judge Tom Ross, who reversed Munsey’s con­vic­tion, to ques­tion the fair­ness of the state’s death penal­ty sys­tem. Ross notes, ​“From my per­spec­tive as a lawyer and judge, the adver­sar­i­al sys­tem has got­ten to the point where win­ning is more impor­tant than jus­tice.” (News & Observer, November 2, 2003)

House Overwhelmingly Passes DNA Bill That Includes The Innocence Protection Act

By a vote of 357 – 67, the U.S. House of Representatives passed leg­is­la­tion des­ig­nat­ing $25 mil­lion in fund­ing over five years for DNA test­ing that could help prove the inno­cence of some death row inmates. The bill also pro­vides fund­ing for states to improve the qual­i­ty of legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for those fac­ing cap­i­tal charges. The bipar­ti­san-sup­port­ed bill, enti­tled The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003 (H.R. 3214), includes a com­pre­hen­sive pack­age of pro­grams that pro­vides over $1 bil­lion over the next five years to assist Federal and State author­i­ties in solv­ing crimes and pro­tect­ing the inno­cent. The U.S. Senate is con­sid­er­ing a sim­i­lar mea­sure. (Associated Press, November 5, 2003)

Report Reveals Police Rarely Reopen Cases After Death Row Exonerations

A report in the Chicago Tribune reveals that police and pros­e­cu­tors rarely pur­sue new leads and sus­pects after a wrong­ly con­vict­ed defen­dant has been exon­er­at­ed of the crime and released from death row. As a result, few sus­pects are brought to jus­tice for crimes once con­sid­ered so heinous that they were wor­thy of the death penal­ty, and the actu­al per­pe­tra­tors remain in soci­ety to poten­tial­ly com­mit addi­tion­al crimes. The Tribune report not­ed that court records indi­cate that an alter­nate sus­pect was iden­ti­fied in dozens of cas­es that result­ed in wrong­ful con­vic­tions, but police charged a new sus­pect in just 10 cas­es, a reflec­tion of the dif­fi­cul­ty of pur­su­ing an old case and the reluc­tance of author­i­ties to admit error and seek new sus­pects. In three of those 10 cas­es, the cru­cial work to solve the crime was not done by law enforce­ment, but was com­plet­ed by defense attor­neys, pri­vate inves­ti­ga­tors, or stu­dents. The paper’s inves­ti­ga­tion also found that law enforce­ment even fails to rein­ves­ti­gate cas­es involv­ing DNA evi­dence. The arti­cle states, ​“In some of those cas­es, police did not take even the sim­plest inves­ti­ga­tion step — enter­ing genet­ic pro­file evi­dence into a data­base to iden­ti­fy the real attack­er.” Many death row exonerees remain under a cloud of pub­lic sus­pi­cion because law enforce­ment fail to find the true per­pe­tra­tor of the crime. (Chicago Tribune, October 27, 2003)

Judge Throws Out Last Piece of Evidence Against Tennessee Man

Michael Lee McCormick has been on Tennessee’s death row for 17 years, but a recent court deci­sion throw­ing out the remain­ing evi­dence against him could result in his free­dom. Judge Doug Meyer ruled that tapes con­tain­ing con­ver­sa­tions between McCormick and an under­cov­er police offi­cer who had befriend­ed him were inad­mis­si­ble due to ​“police mis­con­duct.” Meyer not­ed that McCormick, who is an alco­holic, had con­tin­u­al­ly denied his involve­ment in the crime ​“until the author­i­ties made him depen­dent upon them for his alco­hol. Under all these cir­cum­stances, it is clear that the cru­cial moti­vat­ing fac­tor behind the defen­dan­t’s state­ments were the police mis­con­duct in ques­tion.” The rul­ing went on to state that Chattanooga Police ​“con­spired with the Georgia parole offi­cer to place the known alco­holic defen­dant in a manip­u­la­tive liv­ing sit­u­a­tion.” The state had main­ly con­vict­ed McCormick based on a hair found on the vic­tim that was linked to him and on the record­ed state­ments thrown out by Meyer’s rul­ing. The DNA evi­dence was pre­vi­ous­ly dis­cred­it­ed because more sophis­ti­cat­ed test­ing found that the hair did not come from McCormick. McCormick remains in prison await­ing a court rul­ing on the pros­e­cu­tion’s appeal involv­ing the loss of the last key piece of evi­dence in the case. (The Chattanoogan, October 13, 2003).

Congressional Leaders Reach Consensus on DNA Legislation

A broad bi-par­ti­san coali­tion of House and Senate law­mak­ers has intro­duced leg­is­la­tion to estab­lish a five-year, $1 bil­lion ini­tia­tive to ensure DNA test­ing for death row inmates who claim inno­cence. The ​“Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Bill,” sup­port­ed by House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner and Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, includes an Innocence Protection Act (IPA) pro­vi­sion aimed at reduc­ing the risk of wrong­ful con­vic­tions. Under this por­tion of the bill, all states apply­ing for IPA grant fund­ing must pro­vide death row inmates with access to DNA test­ing. (Associated Press, September 30, 2003) Additional fund­ing is avail­able to estab­lish train­ing ser­vices for lawyers assigned to cap­i­tal cas­es, to increase the max­i­mum amount of com­pen­sa­tion for fed­er­al inmates who were wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed, and to estab­lish in-state DNA Testing Programs, which are named in hon­or of Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate exon­er­at­ed by DNA evi­dence. Learn more about this bill.

Florida Supreme Court Suspends DNA Deadline

By a vote of 4 – 3, the Florida Supreme Court has set aside an October 1st dead­line for inmates to request DNA test­ing of evi­dence that could prove their inno­cence. The jus­tices sus­pend­ed the dead­line while they con­sid­er the inmates’ chal­lenge to the rule’s con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty. Arguments in the case are slat­ed for November 7, 2003. According to the law that estab­lished the dead­line, if inmates con­vict­ed pri­or to 2001 fail to file for test­ing before October 1, 2003, DNA evi­dence in their cas­es may be destroyed. (Associated Press, September 30, 2003) Read the Court Order.

Extraordinary Representation Needed to Free Death Row Inmate

The Philadelphia law firm of Morgan Lewis recent­ly cel­e­brat­ed the exon­er­a­tion of John Thompson, who spent 18 years on Louisiana’s death row before two of the fir­m’s part­ners helped to win his free­dom. Firm part­ners J. Gordon Cooney Jr. and Michael L. Banks pro­vid­ed Thompson with pro bono ser­vices that cost the firm $1.7 mil­lion in legal work and expens­es over a 15-year peri­od and involved 90 lawyers and sup­port staff. According to the city’s bar asso­ci­a­tion, there is a mas­sive need for addi­tion­al lawyers to do more. Sharon Browning, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the bar asso­ci­a­tion’s Volunteers for Indigent Defense, said, ​“I can’t even begin to tell you how vast the need is. It’s huge. The over­whelm­ing major­i­ty of peo­ple who are poor have no access to the legal sys­tem — none.” Even with the extra­or­di­nary rep­re­sen­ta­tion by Morgan Lewis, Thompson came close to exe­cu­tion in 1999 until a piece of evi­dence was dis­cov­ered that had been with­held from the defense in 1985. (Philadelphia Inquirer) See DPIC’s report With Justice for Few: The Growing Crisis in Death Penalty Representation.

Former FBI Director Calls For Broader Access to DNA Testing

Former FBI Director William Sessions recent­ly called on pros­e­cu­tors and law enforce­ment offi­cials to sup­port broad­er access to DNA test­ing to address grow­ing con­cerns about inno­cence. Sessions’ com­ments in an op-ed in The Washington Post came just weeks after Kirk Bloodsworth, the nation’s first death row inmate to be freed based on DNA test­ing, was informed that Baltimore County author­i­ties had genet­i­cal­ly linked anoth­er sus­pect to the crime using DNA evi­dence. Sessions stated:

[W]ith 137 post-con­vic­tion DNA exon­er­a­tions now on the books in the United States, I am increas­ing­ly con­cerned about recent news sto­ries that sug­gest a grow­ing resis­tance on the part of pros­e­cu­tors across the coun­try to allow post-con­vic­tion DNA test­ing, even in cas­es where there is strong evi­dence of innocence.

The Bloodsworth case vivid­ly demon­strates the need for law enforce­ment offi­cials to join advo­cates for the inno­cent in seek­ing DNA test­ing where it pre­vi­ous­ly was unavail­able. The phe­nom­e­nal sci­en­tif­ic poten­tial of this evi­dence should be cham­pi­oned by law enforce­ment offi­cials, whose prin­ci­pal inter­est has always been to pro­tect the inno­cent as they try to appre­hend the guilty.

(Washington Post, September 21, 2003)

North Carolina Panel Urges Improved Lineup Procedures to Protect Innocent

In an effort to pre­vent wrong­ful con­vic­tions and ensure accu­rate eye­wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission has rec­om­mend­ed new pro­ce­dures for state law enforce­ment agen­cies. The com­mis­sion was formed by state Supreme Court Justice Beverly Lake and is com­prised of judges, police, pros­e­cu­tors, defense attor­neys and oth­ers. Among the rec­om­men­da­tions were pol­i­cy changes requir­ing police to show eye­wit­ness­es line­up par­tic­i­pants one at a time in live line­ups or pho­tos, instead of reveal­ing them as a group, to ensure that the wit­ness­es eval­u­ate each per­son indi­vid­u­al­ly, instead of com­par­ing them. In addi­tion, the com­mis­sion rec­om­mend­ed that police offi­cers in charge of the line­up not know which par­tic­i­pant is the sus­pect to avoid the poten­tial of pres­sur­ing the wit­ness or pro­vid­ing help­ful hints. (Associated Press, September 13, 2003).

Tennessee Governor Issues Reprieve to Philip Workman

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen has issued a tem­po­rary reprieve for death row inmate Philip Workman, who was sched­uled for exe­cu­tion on September 24th. Noting that there is an ongo­ing fed­er­al crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion that may shed light on Workman’s case, Bredesen stat­ed, ​“So long as there are out­stand­ing issues that may be relat­ed to this case, the only prop­er thing to do is to wait until those ques­tions have been answered. I am a sup­port­er of the death penal­ty, but com­mit­ted that it be car­ried out in a judi­cious man­ner.” The reprieve was made at the request of Attorney General Paul Summers and post­pones Workman’s exe­cu­tion until after January 15th, 2004. (Press Release from the Governor’s Communications Office, September 15, 2003) Five jurors from Workman’s orig­i­nal tri­al signed affi­davits stat­ing they would not have sup­port­ed a death sen­tence in light of evi­dence that his tri­al was taint­ed by false eye­wit­ness tes­ti­mo­ny and inad­e­quate coun­sel. See DPIC’s Press Release.

NEW VOICES: Broward County Prosecutors to Continue DNA Testing After Florida Deadline

As the October 1st dead­line for Florida inmates to request DNA test­ing of evi­dence that could prove their inno­cence looms, Broward County pros­e­cu­tors have announced that they will allow inmates access to the cru­cial test­ing after the dead­line pass­es. Two of Florida’s high­est-pro­file DNA exon­er­a­tions, Frank Lee Smith, who died of can­cer on death row 11 months before he was exon­er­at­ed by DNA evi­dence, and Jerry Frank Townsend were both Broward County cas­es. Carolyn McCann, head of the Broward State Attorney’s appeals unit, stat­ed, ​“Since that’s hap­pened, you can’t look at these cas­es with your head in the sand or your head in the rule book. We’re going to do the right thing.” According to the law that estab­lished the dead­line, if inmates con­vict­ed pri­or to 2001 fail to file for test­ing before October 1, 2003, DNA evi­dence in their cas­es may be destroyed. The Florida Bar plans to file an emer­gency peti­tion with the Florida Supreme Court to request a one-year exten­sion of the dead­line. (Sun-Sentinel, September 12, 2003) See New Voices.

Prior Experience for Texas DNA Lab: Cleaning Elephant Cages and Work With Insects

According to a report in the Houston Chronicle, none of the ana­lysts who worked in the Houston Police Department’s dis­cred­it­ed DNA lab (which pre­sent­ed evi­dence in death penal­ty cas­es) were qual­i­fied by edu­ca­tion and train­ing to do their jobs. The Chronicle’s exam­i­na­tion of per­son­nel records found that not one of the lab’s employ­ees met nation­al stan­dards and only one of the employ­ees had com­plet­ed all required col­lege cours­es man­dat­ed by the DNA Advisory Board Quality Assurance Standards. Texas law
requires all crime labs to meet these stan­dards by 2004. Among the reporters’ find­ings were the following:

The founder and for­mer head of the DNA lab, James Bolding, did not meet the stan­dards for the job. Among oth­er things, he failed both alge­bra and geom­e­try in col­lege, though he lat­er passed both, and he nev­er took sta­tis­tics. Bolding held bach­e­lor’s and mas­ter’s degrees from Texas Southern University, but was aca­d­e­m­i­cal­ly dis­missed from the University of Texas Ph.D. Program. Bolding resigned from the lab after Houston’s police chief rec­om­mend­ed he be fired. Jobs were often giv­en to grad­u­ates with­out the required degrees, such as those who had majored in chem­istry or zool­o­gy. Among those hired to do DNA tests or pre­pare sam­ples for test­ing were two work­ers from the city zoo. One had most recent­ly been clean­ing ele­phant cages. The oth­er had done DNA research, but only on insects.

The lab hired Joseph Chu despite a for­mer employ­er’s com­ment that he ​“has dif­fi­cul­ty in speak­ing English.” In his appli­ca­tion, he wrote, ​“I have skilled sev­er­al equip­ments” and ​“I have expe­ri­ence in test­ing ani­mal and sac­ri­fic­ing them.” His super­vi­sors rat­ed him poor­ly in com­mu­ni­ca­tion, a seri­ous hand­i­cap when tes­ti­fy­ing. Chu was sus­pend­ed for 14 days after sev­er­al errors were found in four cas­es, includ­ing a cap­i­tal mur­der case. He also mis­rep­re­sent­ed his degree in a court document.

These find­ings were among the wide­spread prob­lems that prompt­ed the clo­sure of the DNA lab in December and the review of hun­dreds of cas­es processed there, includ­ing some death penal­ty cas­es (Houston Chronicle, September 8, 2003).

After Innocent Man’s Release, DNA Links Maryland Suspect to 1984 Murder

Nearly 20 years after the mur­der of 9‑year-old Dawn Hamilton, Maryland pros­e­cu­tors have charged the man they believe is respon­si­ble for the crime by using the same DNA evi­dence used to exon­er­ate Kirk Bloodsworth who spent nine years in prison — includ­ing time on Maryland’s death row — for the crime. Bloodsworth was freed in 1993 after DNA tests con­clu­sive­ly deter­mined he was not the source of phys­i­cal evi­dence found at the scene of the crime. Prosecutors now believe the evi­dence has con­clu­sive­ly linked the per­pe­tra­tor’s DNA to Kimberly Ruffner, who has been jailed on sep­a­rate sex­u­al assault charges since soon after the 1984 mur­der of Hamilton. Ruffner has been charged with first-degree mur­der. (Associated Press, September 5, 2003).

NEW VOICES: Prosecutor, Juror Call for DNA Testing in Case of Man They Sent to Death Row

Doubts about the appro­pri­ate­ness of a death sen­tence have prompt­ed for­mer pros­e­cu­tor Thomas Vanes to call for new DNA test­ing in the case of Darnell Williams, a man he sent to death row as a Lake County, Indiana state’s attor­ney. Williams is sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed on Friday, August 1. Vanes and John Gnajek, a mem­ber of the jury that sent Williams to death row, have filed a suit in fed­er­al court ask­ing for a stay of Williams’ exe­cu­tion until new DNA test­ing is com­plet­ed on blood evi­dence that played a cru­cial role in the case. Jurors in the case have stat­ed that if it had not been for the blood found on Williams’ cloth­ing, which sug­gest­ed that he was present dur­ing the shoot­ings, they would not have sent him to death row. Testing would deter­mine whether the blood was from the vic­tims or anoth­er source. ​“People were try­ing to deter­mine whether he was the actu­al shoot­er,” said Gnajek. ​“The blood on his shorts seemed to indi­cate that. Without it, I could­n’t have vot­ed for the death penal­ty.” Williams could use the new DNA evi­dence to seek exec­u­tive clemen­cy from Governor Frank O’Bannon. The state attor­ney gen­er­al has stat­ed that he does not oppose the new tests if the gov­er­nor requests them for the clemen­cy review. (New York Times, July 24, 2003) See New Voices.

Two Former Death Row Inmates Exonerated and Freed in Ohio

After spend­ing a quar­ter cen­tu­ry in prison, includ­ing time on Ohio’s death row, Timothy Howard and Gary Lemar James have been freed from prison and all charges against the men will be dropped. The men, who have main­tained their inno­cence since their arrest in 1976, were freed, accord­ing to Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien, ​“in the inter­est of jus­tice.” O’Brien stat­ed, ​“The les­son to be learned is what I said in the let­ter I sent a year and a half ago. We don’t want any­body in prison serv­ing time for some­thing they did­n’t do.” The sev­en-year effort to exon­er­ate Howard and James was led by their attor­neys in con­junc­tion with Centurion Ministries, a non-prof­it orga­ni­za­tion that has assist­ed in free­ing more than 30 wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed pris­on­ers since 1983. Attorneys for Howard and James pre­sent­ed pros­e­cu­tors with new evi­dence in the cas­es, includ­ing fin­ger­prints, wit­ness state­ments, and poly­graph results that were not avail­able dur­ing the orig­i­nal tri­al that result­ed in the pair being sen­tenced to death. O’Brien acknowl­edged that dis­miss­ing the charges means that the city of Columbus has a 26-year-old unsolved bank rob­bery and mur­der. (Columbus Dispatch, July 16th & 18th, 2003).

New DNA Evidence Could Result in Pennsylvania Man’s Freedom from Death Row

Pennsylvania death row inmate Nicholas James Yarris may become the next per­son to be freed from death row. In light of new DNA evi­dence that excludes Yarris as the per­son respon­si­ble for the 1981 rape and mur­der for which he was con­vict­ed, U.S. District Court Judge James Giles said that Yarris must be freed or grant­ed a new tri­al in Delaware County with­in two weeks. Giles gave the Delaware County dis­trict attor­ney’s office and defense attor­neys 10 days to con­firm that the new DNA tests are accu­rate. The Judge said that with­in 48 after that dead­line, he will rule on whether to release or retry Yarris. Yarris, 41, has spent 21 years on Pennsylvania’s death row, and has always main­tained his inno­cence. (Philadelphia Inquirer, August 20, 2003). See DPIC’s Press Release.

Federal Judge Cites Risk of Innocence

In a deci­sion reluc­tant­ly allow­ing a fed­er­al cap­i­tal mur­der case against Gary Lee Sampson to pro­ceed, Judge Mark L. Wolf of the Federal District Court in Boston expressed reser­va­tions about the accu­ra­cy of the death penal­ty and appeared to crit­i­cize the Justice Department’s zeal­ous approach to seek­ing the cap­i­tal con­vic­tions. He noted:

[I]n the past decade, sub­stan­tial evi­dence has emerged to demon­strate that inno­cent indi­vid­u­als are sen­tenced to death, and undoubt­ed­ly exe­cut­ed, much more often than pre­vi­ous­ly under­stood… [T]he day may come when a court prop­er­ly can and should declare the ulti­mate sanc­tion to be uncon­sti­tu­tion­al in all cases.

Wolf, a for­mer fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tor who was appoint­ed to the fed­er­al bench by President Ronald Reagan, also not­ed that in 16 of the last 17 fed­er­al cap­i­tal cas­es, juries reject­ed the death penal­ty. Wolf ques­tioned the Justice Department’s more aggres­sive seek­ing of the death penalty:

[J]uries have recent­ly been reg­u­lar­ly dis­agree­ing with the attor­ney gen­er­al’s con­tention that the death penal­ty is jus­ti­fied in the most egre­gious fed­er­al cas­es involving murder.

[I]f juries con­tin­ue to reject the death penal­ty in the most egre­gious fed­er­al cas­es, the courts will have sig­nif­i­cant objec­tive evi­dence that the ulti­mate sanc­tion is not com­pat­i­ble with con­tem­po­rary stan­dards of decency.

(New York Times, August 12, 2003). See Federal Death Penalty.

NEW VOICES: Time Magazine Spotlights Texas District Attorney

A recent arti­cle in Time looks at the career of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle. The arti­cle traces Earle’s evolv­ing opin­ion on the death penal­ty since he was first elect­ed D.A. in Texas in 1976, the year the U.S. Supreme Court rein­stat­ed the death penal­ty. Among oth­er con­cerns, ques­tions of inno­cence have caused Earle to grow increas­ing­ly skep­ti­cal about the death penal­ty. The article notes:

But like the rest of us, Earle has now watched bro­ken souls walk free after years of wrong­ful incar­cer­a­tion; 56 have been released from death row in the past decade, either because they were deemed inno­cent or because of pro­ce­dur­al mis­takes, accord­ing to the Death Penalty Information Center. Unlike the rest of us, Earle still has to enforce the death penal­ty. He is often plagued by doubts when he must decide whether to seek death. ​“I ago­nize over it,” he says. ​“There was a time when I thought the death penal­ty ought to have wider appli­ca­tion, but my views have evolved.” Today decid­ing whether to seek the death penal­ty is eas­i­ly the hard­est part of his job.

(Time, July 14, 2003). See New Voices.

NYC Mayor Restates Concerns About Innocence, Opposition to the Death Penalty

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, reit­er­at­ed his oppo­si­tion to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. Bloomberg not­ed, ​“The death penal­ty I’ve always had a prob­lem with, because too many times in the past you’ve seen inno­cent peo­ple incar­cer­at­ed and, trag­i­cal­ly, every once in a while they’ve been exe­cut­ed. And until you can show me that the process nev­er would ever con­vict some­body that lat­er on we find out was inno­cent of a crime, mur­der is mur­der no mat­ter who does it, and I think we as a soci­ety can afford to incar­cer­ate peo­ple.” (New York Times, July 31, 2003). See New Voices.

Houston DNA Lab Investigation Prompts Calls for Recusal

As inves­ti­ga­tors con­tin­ue to scru­ti­nize the Houston Crime Lab’s his­to­ry of shod­dy prac­tices and inac­cu­rate test results, includ­ing evi­dence in cap­i­tal cas­es, an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle called for District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal and Houston Police Chief Clarence Bradford to recuse them­selves from the inves­ti­ga­tion to ensure a fair review:

To date, District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal has refused to recuse him­self from the inves­ti­ga­tion, instead insist­ing that his office can impar­tial­ly inves­ti­gate the wrong­do­ing, even though it is pos­si­ble that his office may have known about the wrongdoing.

Like Rosenthal, Chief Bradford has also obsti­nate­ly refused to acknowl­edge that an out­side, inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tor is called for. However, there is a spe­cif­ic rea­son that Rosenthal should recuse him­self regard­less of the fate that befalls Bradford. The DA’s office has a sig­nif­i­cant and unmis­tak­able con­flict of inter­est in the mat­ter because that office defends the reli­a­bil­i­ty of the con­vic­tions and death sen­tences of death row inmates from Harris County. As a result of what we have learned about the crime lab, many of those inmates now have new and viable legal claims that are pred­i­cat­ed on the fail­ures of that lab. The DA’s office sim­ply can­not per­form an impar­tial inves­ti­ga­tion while simul­ta­ne­ous­ly oppos­ing the legal efforts of those death row inmates.

(Op-ed, Houston Chronicle, June 20, 2003). See DPIC’s report on Texas death penal­ty.

Mario Cuomo Asks New Yorkers to Rethink the Death Penalty

In a recent Letter to the Editor that appeared in The New York Times, for­mer Governor Mario Cuomo urged New Yorkers to rethink the death penal­ty in light of recent inno­cence cas­es in the state:

“Trapped in the System,” by Bob Herbert (col­umn, July 14), tells the har­row­ing sto­ry of the inno­cent Louisiana death row inmate Ryan Matthews and is a chill­ing reminder of the fal­li­bil­i­ty of America’s crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem, but New Yorkers should not delude them­selves that inno­cent peo­ple sit on death row only in the Deep South.
Just last month, the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law, along with a coali­tion of vol­un­teer attor­neys from the tris­tate area, helped free three Nassau County men wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed of the 1984 rape-mur­der of a Long Island teenage girl, after two rounds of DNA test­ing proved that a still uniden­ti­fied man was the real assailant. These three men had spent 18 years in our state’s prison sys­tem for a crime they did not commit.
If New York had the death penal­ty in the 1980’s, John Kogut, Dennis Halstead and John Restivo would most like­ly have been exe­cut­ed years before DNA evi­dence in their case proved their inno­cence. In light of the ever-grow­ing num­ber of exon­er­a­tions of the wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed, New Yorkers should once again ask them­selves if the death penal­ty is worth the enor­mous risk it pos­es of exe­cut­ing the innocent.

(New York Times, July 16, 2003).

DNA Evidence Frees Three in New York

For near­ly two decades, Dennis Halstead, John Kogut, and John Restivo main­tained their inno­cence in the 1985 mur­der of 16-year-old Theresa Fusco. Although DNA test­ing in the 1990’s cast doubt on their guilt, the men remained in jail in New York because a judge deemed the tests not reli­able enough to over­turn the con­vic­tions. Now the men have been freed from prison after pros­e­cu­tors joined defense attor­neys in ask­ing a sec­ond judge to vacate the con­vic­tions based on more sophis­ti­cat­ed DNA evi­dence show­ing that semen found on the vic­tim’s body was from anoth­er man. The new tests were con­duct­ed on behalf of The Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City, which uses DNA tech­nol­o­gy to help free the wrong­ly con­vict­ed, and Centurion Ministries of New Jersey. Following the release of Halstead, Kogut, and Restivo, dis­trict attor­ney Denis Dillon not­ed that the men did­n’t get a fair tri­al, but he said that the state is still con­sid­er­ing whether it will retry the men for the mur­der. (New York Times, June 12, 2003).

Executed Man’s Conviction Is Overturned by British Court

The British Court of Appeal has over­turned George Kelly’s 1950 mur­der con­vic­tion more than half a cen­tu­ry after Kelly was exe­cut­ed for the mur­der of a Liverpool movie the­ater man­ag­er. In his rul­ing, Judge Bernard Rix called the con­vic­tion ​“a mis­car­riage of jus­tice which must be deeply regret­ted” and not­ed that the case against Kelly was entire­ly cir­cum­stan­tial and lacked any foren­sic evi­dence. The case was reex­am­ined after new evi­dence of Kelly’s inno­cence emerged in 1991. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, an inde­pen­dent orga­ni­za­tion that con­sid­ers pos­si­ble mis­car­riages of jus­tice, raised Kelly’s appeal after inves­ti­ga­tors found a 1949 state­ment to Liverpool police iden­ti­fy­ing anoth­er man as admit­ting to the crime. The state­ment had not been pre­sent­ed dur­ing Kelly’s orig­i­nal tri­al, at which he main­tained his inno­cence. Britain abol­ished the death penal­ty in 1969, five years after their last hang­ing. (Associated Press, June 10, 2003).

North Carolina to Retry Former Death Row Inmate on Non-Capital Murder Charge

North Carolina’s Attorney General has announced that the state will retry Alan Gell, whose death sen­tence was vacat­ed last year when a North Carolina judge ruled that pros­e­cu­tors with­held impor­tant evi­dence that might have exon­er­at­ed Gell at his 1998 tri­al. After acknowl­edg­ing that pros­e­cu­tors from his office vio­lat­ed court orders and the U.S. Constitution by not hand­ing over the evi­dence, Attorney General Ray Copper announced that the state will not seek the death penal­ty at Gell’s sec­ond tri­al. The accu­sa­tions that pros­e­cu­tors with­held evi­dence and cre­at­ed false tes­ti­mo­ny could lead to an inves­ti­ga­tion by the North Carolina Bar, which can sus­pend or revoke law licens­es for mis­con­duct. Among the evi­dence not revealed was a secret­ly taped 1995 tele­phone con­ver­sa­tion in which the pros­e­cu­tion’s star wit­ness said she ​“had to make up a sto­ry” about the mur­der. The state also with­held numer­ous state­ments of eye­wit­ness­es who said they saw the vic­tim alive after the only time Gell could have com­mit­ted the mur­der. (News & Observer, June 4, 2003).

Governor Bush Closing Office That Freed Death Row Inmates

Despite con­cerns that errors made by poor­ly paid pri­vate attor­neys who are unfa­mil­iar with death penal­ty lit­i­ga­tion could risk inno­cent lives in Florida, Governor Jeb Bush will soon close one of the state’s three Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (CCRC) offices. The offices are designed to defend death row inmates in their post-con­vic­tion appeals. Bush is clos­ing the Tallahassee office, where attor­neys have suc­cess­ful­ly freed wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed death row inmates. Bush claims that the appeals process will move faster and death row inmates will be bet­ter served by Florida’s state-run reg­istry pro­gram for pri­vate attor­neys who vol­un­teer to defend death row inmates, but attor­neys work­ing with the CCRC fear that these vol­un­teers lack the time and expe­ri­ence nec­es­sary to ensure ade­quate rep­re­sen­ta­tion. Attorneys asso­ci­at­ed with CCRC believe that the clos­ing of remain­ing offices in Fort Lauderdale and Tampa could be next. (Palm Beach Post, June 2, 2003).

Texas Senate Passes Bill to Create Innocence Commission

The Texas Senate passed leg­is­la­tion (S.B. 1045) to cre­ate a joint inter­im com­mit­tee on post-con­vic­tion exon­er­a­tions. The com­mit­tee will study wrong­ful con­vic­tions in the state and iden­ti­fy appro­pri­ate improve­ments in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem to pre­vent such errors in the future. The nine mem­bers of the com­mit­tee will include a state’s attor­ney, two mem­bers cho­sen from the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, two mem­bers of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, a judge, and two law pro­fes­sors. (May 20, 2003). William Sessions, a for­mer direc­tor of the FBI, recent­ly endorsed the cre­ation of the pan­el, which still must be approved by the Texas House. See Recent Legislative Activity.

NEW VOICES: Former FBI Chief Sessions Calls for Innocence Commission in Texas

In a recent op-ed, William Sessions called on state leg­is­la­tors in Texas to pass a mea­sure to cre­ate an Innocence Commission. The Commission would exam­ine the Texas crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem in an effort to pro­tect against wrong­ful con­vic­tions. Sessions, a for­mer direc­tor of the FBI and fed­er­al judge, not­ed that numer­ous exon­er­a­tions, recent crime lab scan­dals in the state, and oth­er trou­bling events should prompt state lead­ers to take immediate action:

“When we study our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem in Texas and make it bet­ter, we not only reduce the chances of con­vict­ing the inno­cent, we increase the chances of con­vict­ing the guilty. We also show that our sys­tem is strong enough to rec­og­nize and repair its own mistakes.”

A bill to cre­ate such a com­mis­sion was intro­duced by Senator Rodney Ellis of Houston. (Houston Chronicle, May 13, 2003) See New Voices.

Missouri Court Overturns Death Row Conviction

The Missouri Supreme Court recent­ly over­turned the cap­i­tal con­vic­tion of Joseph Amrine, a death row inmate accused of killing a fel­low pris­on­er 17 years ago. The Court found ​“clear and con­vinc­ing evi­dence of actu­al inno­cence that under­mines con­fi­dence” in Amrine’s con­vic­tion. The deci­sion ordered that he be released from prison with­in 30 days. Amrine has main­tained his inno­cence since the 1985 mur­der. At that time, he was in jail serv­ing a less­er sen­tence for rob­bery, bur­glary and forgery. Investigators nev­er found phys­i­cal evi­dence link­ing Amrine to the mur­der, and the three inmates who tes­ti­fied against Amrine dur­ing his tri­al lat­er recant­ed their tes­ti­mo­ny and said that they had lied to win spe­cial pro­tec­tion for them­selves. Amrine would have been freed in 1992 with­out the wrong­ful mur­der con­vic­tion. During the argu­ment at the Supreme Court, the state had argued that new evi­dence of Amrine’s inno­cence should have no bear­ing on his con­vic­tion. (Herald Sun, April 29, 2003) Read the opin­ion.

Iowa Governor Frees Prisoner After Murder Conviction is Overturned

Terry Harrington, an Iowa man who spent 26 years in prison on a recent­ly over­turned mur­der con­vic­tion, has been freed as the result of a reprieve from Governor Tom Vilsack. Vilsack said that Harrington had been caught in a ​“bureau­crat­ic lim­bo” since the Iowa Supreme Court over­turned his con­vic­tion based on new evi­dence that pros­e­cu­tors had with­held police reports point­ing to anoth­er sus­pect, and that the state’s key wit­ness had recant­ed his tes­ti­mo­ny. Harrington remained in jail because the attor­ney gen­er­al’s office had chal­lenged lan­guage in the rul­ing that did not direct­ly affect Harrington’s case, but could affect oth­ers. The pros­e­cu­tors may seek to retry Harrington. (Associated Press, April 18, 2003) Iowa does not have the death penal­ty; oth­er­wise, Harrington might have been sen­tenced to death and even exe­cut­ed before the new evidence emerged.

Ohio Parole Board Urges Clemency for Death Row Inmate Who Maintains Innocence

By a vote of 8 – 2, the Ohio Parole Board has rec­om­mend­ed that Governor Bob Taft grant clemen­cy to Jerome Campbell, a death row inmate whom the Board believes was con­vict­ed by a jury that was unable to con­sid­er all of the evi­dence in his case. The Parole Board not­ed that Campbell’s attor­neys ​“pre­sent­ed cred­i­ble evi­dence for the major­i­ty mem­bers of this board to ques­tion any sus­tained con­fi­dence or reli­a­bil­i­ty in the jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion.” Campbell is sched­uled for exe­cu­tion on May 14. He main­tains his inno­cence and states that DNA test­ing on his bloody ten­nis shoes sup­ports his claim. The Board rec­om­mend­ed that Campbell be sen­tenced to life in prison with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole. This is the Board’s first rec­om­men­da­tion of clemen­cy since Ohio resumed exe­cu­tions in 1999. (Associated Press, May 2, 2003) See Clemency.

“FRONTLINE” to Explore Death Row Exonerations 

On Thursday, May 1st, the PBS pro­gram ​“Frontline” aired an inves­ti­ga­tion into what hap­pens to wrong­ly con­vict­ed inmates on death row after they’ve been exon­er­at­ed and re-enter soci­ety. The pro­gram explores the many social, psy­cho­log­i­cal, and eco­nom­ic chal­lenges fac­ing death row exonerees, many of whom are released with no finan­cial or tran­si­tion­al assis­tance what­so­ev­er. Watch a pre­view of this pro­gram.

Jury Acquits Man on Alabama’s Death Row

An Alabama jury has acquit­ted death row inmate Wesley Quick of the 1995 dou­ble mur­der for which he was sen­tenced to death in 1997. The jury acquit­ted Quick at the con­clu­sion of his third tri­al for this crime. Quick’s first tri­al end­ed in a mis­tri­al because of juror mis­con­duct, but he was con­vict­ed in 1997 by a sec­ond jury. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals over­turned that ver­dict in 2001, stat­ing that the judge in Quick’s sec­ond tri­al was wrong to deny him a free copy of the tran­script from the pre­vi­ous mis­tri­al in light of his indi­gent sta­tus. During Quick’s third tri­al for the dou­ble mur­der, at which he received expe­ri­enced rep­re­sen­ta­tion, he tes­ti­fied that he did not com­mit the mur­ders, but admit­ted he was at the scene and saw the state’s star wit­ness against him, Jason Beninati, kill the men. Quick remains in jail and faces bur­glary charges. (The Birmingham News, April 22, 2003)

Attorneys Maintain DNA Evidence Exonerates Juvenile Offender on Louisiana’s Death Row

Attorneys for Ryan Matthews, a juve­nile offend­er on Louisiana’s death row, main­tain that new DNA evi­dence shows that their client did not kill Tommy Vanhoose in 1997 and his cap­i­tal con­vic­tion should there­fore be over­turned. Matthews’ lawyers assert that DNA test­ing of skin cells and sali­va tak­en from the ski mask worn by Vanhoose’s assailant exon­er­ates their client and con­clu­sive­ly shifts blame to Rondell Love, who was also con­vict­ed of mur­der in 1997 and is serv­ing a 20-year sen­tence at the same prison where Matthews awaits exe­cu­tion. There was no phys­i­cal evi­dence link­ing Matthews to the Vanhoose mur­der and defense attor­neys ques­tion the reli­a­bil­i­ty of the eye­wit­ness tes­ti­mo­ny pre­sent­ed at tri­al. Matthews has main­tained his inno­cence since his arrest. (New York Times, April 22, 2003)

Second North Carolina Capital Conviction Thrown Out By Courts

For the sec­ond time in four months (see Alan Gell, below), a North Carolina judge has thrown out the mur­der con­vic­tion of a death row inmate because pros­e­cu­tors or police with­held evi­dence that might have freed him. Superior Court Judge Michael Beale ordered a new tri­al for Jerry Lee Hamilton, who has been on North Carolina’s death row since 1997, because ​“the with­hold­ing of this evi­dence is suf­fi­cient to under­mine the con­fi­dence in the out­come of this tri­al.” No phys­i­cal evi­dence linked Hamilton to the 1994 mur­der of Joy Jones Goebel, and the pros­e­cu­tion’s case was large­ly based on the tes­ti­mo­ny of Hamilton’s nephew, Johnny Ray Knight. At first, Knight con­fessed to the crime in an attempt to strike a deal with pros­e­cu­tors, and he led police to Goebel’s body. When pros­e­cu­tors charged him with mur­der, he recant­ed his con­fes­sion and said that Hamilton had com­mit­ted the crime. The state failed to turn over to the defense a let­ter writ­ten by Knight offer­ing police infor­ma­tion in exchange for a deal. Attorneys for Hamilton assert that new DNA evi­dence casts doubt on their clien­t’s guilt and impli­cates Knight, who is jailed on a sec­ond-degree mur­der con­vic­tion for Goebel’s death. The State must now decide whether it will retry Hamilton for the crime. (News & Observer, April 25, 2003).

Death Row Exoneree Dies Suddenly at Age 46 

Dennis Williams, who spent 17 years on Illinois’s death row before being freed, died in his Cook County home. Williams, who Chicago Tribune colum­nist Eric Zorn notes was ​“a man who sowed more kind­ness than he received,” was 46 years old. Williams was a mem­ber of the ​“Ford Heights Four,” a group of four black men who were wrong­ly con­vict­ed for a 1978 rape and dou­ble mur­der. The four men were exon­er­at­ed in 1996 after inves­ti­ga­tions by jour­nal­ists and stu­dents exposed the flim­si­ness of the state’s case against them. Not only did these efforts help to exon­er­ate the Ford Heights Four, but the research also iden­ti­fied those who had actu­al­ly com­mit­ted the crime. (Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, March 22, 2003)

DNA Evidence Casts Doubt on Another Florida Capital Conviction

New DNA analy­sis of cru­cial evi­dence in the case against Michael Rivera has cast doubt on his con­vic­tion and could lead to a new tri­al for the Florida death row pris­on­er. In 1987, Rivera was sen­tenced to death for the mur­der of an 11-year-old Broward County girl. Prosecutors relied on two strands of sandy blond hair to link Rivera to the crime, but new tests have con­clud­ed that the hair could not have come from the vic­tim, a find­ing that voids the pros­e­cu­tion’s only sig­nif­i­cant sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence in the case. This was the sec­ond time in as many days that DNA test­ing of evi­dence in Broward County cas­es has cast doubt on mur­der con­vic­tions. (Miami Herald, March 21, 2003)

Possible Innocence on Alabama’s Death Row

Nearly two decades ago, four bul­lets were the only evi­dence in the Alabama cap­i­tal case against Anthony Ray Hinton, who was con­vict­ed of two mur­ders and sent to death row. During the tri­al, Hinton’s defense coun­sel’s sole rebut­tal to the pros­e­cu­tion’s case was the tes­ti­mo­ny of a legal­ly blind civ­il engi­neer who was not able to oper­ate a com­par­i­son micro­scope, machin­ery that might have pro­vid­ed vital infor­ma­tion about their clien­t’s inno­cence. Jurors laughed at the defense expert as he tes­ti­fied. Today, Hinton main­tains his inno­cence, but has near­ly exhaust­ed his appeals. He now awaits the deci­sion of an appel­late judge who must decide whether he deserves a new tri­al based on, among oth­er evi­dence, the tes­ti­mo­ny of three firearms experts who chal­lenge the bal­lis­tic evi­dence used to con­vict Hinton. The state has argued that the new evi­dence is not grounds for a new tri­al. (New York Times, February 24, 2003).

Missouri Attorney General Representative Says Conclusive Evidence of Innocence Is Not Enough

Frank Jung, an assis­tant to Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, recent­ly told the Missouri Supreme Court that it should not con­cern itself with mount­ing evi­dence that death row inmate Joseph Amrine might be inno­cent. Jung said the Court’s sole con­sid­er­a­tion must be whether Amrine’s con­sti­tu­tion­al rights had been vio­lat­ed, and he not­ed that even if DNA evi­dence con­clu­sive­ly exon­er­at­ed an inmate, the court would need a con­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tion to stop an exe­cu­tion. One judge asked Jung, ​“Is it not cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment to exe­cute an inno­cent per­son?” Jung respond­ed, ​“If there is no under­ly­ing con­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tion, there is not a right to relief.” (Kansas City Star, February 8, 2003) Listen to the exchange about whether a judge can know­ing­ly order the exe­cu­tion of an innocent person.