Convictions Overturned In Pennsylvania and New Jersery through DNA
Testing
Thomas Doswell of Pennsylvania and Larry Peterson of
New Jersey recently had their convictions overturned as a direct result
of DNA testing. Each defendant had serverd 18 years in
prison. In
Peterson's case, the prosecution had sought the death penalty but the
jury could not agree and he was sentenced to life. His case
marked the
first time a New Jersey court has overturned a conviction because of
DNA evidence. Both reversals stemmed from the work of attorneys
at the
Innocence Project of the Benjamin Cardoza School of Law in New York
City.
Though he has consistently maintained his innocence,
Doswell was convicted of the 1986 rape of a nursing home employee.
After a request for DNA testing filed by the Innocence Project, a
Common Pleas court judge ordered evidence from the crime scene tested
and the results cleared Doswell of any involvement in the crime. He was
released from prison following the state's withdrawal of charges. In
1999, Doswell had filed a motion with the court to allow DNA testing,
but a judge ruled in favor of prosecutors who challenged the motion
because it was filed three weeks too late. "Really, this could have
been taken care of in 1999. . . . I don't see it as a victory. It's a
major loss of 18 years that nobody can compensate; nobody can give
back. This is a guy who got railroaded," said one of Doswell's
attorneys, James DePasquale. (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 30, 2005;
Associated Press, Aug. 2, 2005).
In New Jersey, the reviewing
judge has ordered a new trial for Peterson based on the results of DNA
testing on 30 hairs found at the crime scene and mircroscopic
examinations of 130 additional hairs that were not DNA tested.
Prosecutors stated that they will retry the case based on the testimony
of five witnesses who claim Peterson told them about the killing.
Peterson remains incarcerated. "The bottom line is, witnesses lie. DNA
doesn't," said defense attorney Vanessa Potkin of the Innocence
Project. (Associated Press, July 30, 2005).
PUBLIC OPINION: Majority in Alabama Supports a Temporary Halt to
Executions
A recent Alabama opinion poll found that less than half of those
surveyed believe Alabama's death penalty is applied fairly and 57% of
respondents support a temporary halt to executions in the state until
questions about fairness and reliability are studied. In other
findings, 96% of those surveyed support the use of DNA in cases where
it might prove guilt or innocence and 62% said they would be more
likely to vote for a candidate who supported suspension of the death
penalty until questions about the use of DNA testing have been answered.
"The
evidence of unfairness surrounding the administration of the death
penalty is so overwhelming that it's not surprising that more folks are
acknowledging it," said Bryan Stevenson, Director of the Equal Justice
Initiative in Montgomery.
The statewide poll was conducted in
July 2005 by Capital Survey Research Center, the polling arm of the
Alabama Education Association. (Associated Press, July 29, 2005)
NEW RESOURCE: Dedication Scheduled for National Death Penalty Archive
The dedication of the National Death Penalty Archive at the State
University of New York at Albany will take place on August 9,
2005.
Hugo Bedau of Tufts University will keynote the program, which will
also feature William J. Bowers, Scott Christianson, David Kaczynski,
and Michael Radelet. The Archive is a partnership between the Capital
Punishment Research Initiative at the School of Criminal Justice and
the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and Archives at
the University of Albany Libraries. This collection of historical
materials is an excellent resource for scholars, students, and members
of the public who are interested in the history of capital punishment
in America and in the legal and political battles related to the death
penalty. Among other resources, the collection includes The Hugo Adam
Bedau Papers, The William J. Bowers/Capital Jury Project Collection,
The Alvin Ford Collection, and The Joe Ingle/Southern Coalition on
Jails and Prisons Papers. It also includes a program of oral history
interviews featuring prominent activists and professionals involved in
death penalty work.
View more
information about the National Death Penalty Archive. Protecting
Human Life Should be at Least as Important as Protecting Property
Rights
In a recent Washington Post column,
Richard Cohen compared the deep objections voiced by many Americans
after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that communities can condemn
property in distressed areas to make way for economic development to
the tepid reaction to strong evidence that a Missouri man may have been
wrongly executed for a crime he did not commit. Cohen, noting that it
seems "far easier for the government to wrongfully take a life than a
parcel of run-down real estate," wrote:
The city of New London, Conn., narrowly (5 to 4) won the right last
month from the Supreme Court to condemn a parcel of land in a
distressed part of the town to make way for economic development. The
ruling has generated a tsunami of objection and an effort in many
states and localities to have its effects undone . . . .
At the same time, in a far different area of the
law, authorities are wondering if two men long ago convicted of murder
might be innocent. This has generated almost no interest, no nationwide
protest movement, suggesting that in this country it is far easier for
the government to wrongfully take a life than a parcel of run-down real
estate. Is this a great country or what?
. . .
Since 1973, 119 people have
walked off death row, exonerated by DNA or evidence, according to the
Death Penalty Information Center. Had the wheels of justice turned as
swiftly as the hang 'em high crowd would have liked, some of those
people would exist in memory only and we would console ourselves that
they were probably guilty of something -- or why else would the cops
have been on to them. The logic is fiercely circular.
Now,
though, we have two such cases and they are worth pondering for a
number of reasons. The first involves Olmado Hidalgo, a New York City
man who was convicted 13 years ago of murder -- on what the district
attorney's office now concedes was weak evidence. The authorities are
not saying that Hidalgo is innocent. But to their credit, they are now
saying that some new evidence has surfaced that gives everyone pause.
Lucky for Hidalgo that he was not convicted in another state where
justice is swifter -- if somewhat less certain.
The other case
involves the late Larry Griffin, who was executed by Missouri in 1995
for a drive-by shooting. The main witness against him, now dead, turns
out to have had a pliable memory and an ugly résumé. He
was a career
criminal and drug addict who happened to be facing serious felony
charges at the time. After he usefully turned witness to the murder, he
got to walk. Lucky man.
. . .
Both
the Griffin and Hidalgo cases are important for what they lack -- DNA
evidence. In this, they are typical. The victims were both shot at a
distance: no DNA evidence. This is often the case. In the average
crime, there is no exchange of body fluids (as in rape) and no tissue
under the victim's fingernails or anything like that. DNA testing has
done wonders -- both in getting convictions and in exonerating the
innocent. But it cannot be used where it is not a factor. For that
reason, capital punishment remains fraught with the possibility of
injustice.
(Washington Post, July 26, 2005).
NEW VOICES: Victim's Family Opposes Federal Death Sentence
The parents and three children of Louisiana murder victim Kim Groves
have asked the federal government to forgo seeking the death penalty
for co-defendants Paul Hardy and Len Davis. In a letter to
prosecutors, the Groves family urged U.S attorneys to halt proceedings
that might lead to death sentences in rehearings for both
defendants.
"Executing
these two men will not bring Kim Groves back to life. It will not ease
the deep sorrow and loss that her family has and will continue to
experience as a result of her death...Perversely, it appears that he
(Davis) has enjoyed the attention and notoriety which his vulnerability
to the death penalty has provided. The family believes the death
penalty would in fact be the lesser of the punishments and that the
finality and duration of a life sentence would be much more difficult
and severe to Mr. Davis, in particular, than death," the letter stated.
The letter, which was also addressed to U.S. Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales, was entered into the court record last
week. The
presiding judge ruled that if prosecutors have family members
testifying about the facts of the crime, the letter may be used on
Davis' behalf. (Times-Picayune, July 27, 2005). See
Victims
and
Federal
Death Penalty.
Attempt to Strip the Federal Courts' Review Power in Death Penalty
Cases Meets Conservative Opposition
The following article by Henry Weinstein appeared in the Los Angeles
Times, July 28, 2005:
(DPIC Note: The Senate Judiciary Committee put off markup of the
Streamlined Procedures Act, probably until September. Also, see
Letter
from former Attorneys General and prosecutors opposing this
legislation.)
THE NATION
Bid to Speed Death Penalty Appeals Under Fire
Conservatives and former prosecutors are among foes of a bill, before a
Senate panel today, to curtail 'endless' delays in cases.
By Henry Weinstein
Times Staff Writer
The Senate Judiciary Committee will take up legislation today meant to
streamline the death penalty appeals process — something critics fear
could
lead to the execution of the wrongly convicted.
Opposition is mounting to the Streamlined Procedures Act introduced in
the
Senate by Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and in the House by Dan Lungren (R-Gold
River).
Concerns come not only from death-penalty opponents but from
individuals and
groups not often thought of as vocal supporters of the rights of
criminal
defendants.
Among the critics are the Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal
group
that specializes in religious freedom and antiabortion issues; Bob
Barr, the
conservative Republican former congressman from Georgia; more than 50
former
prosecutors; and more than a dozen former federal judges.
The legislation, opponents say, would dramatically restrict federal
courts'
ability to consider habeas corpus petitions from state prisoners who
claim
that their constitutional rights have been violated or that they have
evidence they are innocent.
Habeas corpus is the centuries-old method of challenging allegedly
illegal
imprisonments by giving inmates a day in court to assert that a serious
error has been made in their case.
Kyl and Lungren introduced virtually identical bills in the Senate and
House
to remedy "endless delays" between convictions in capital cases and
executions.
They say that restrictions Congress imposed in the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 are not enough.
Kyl said the number of habeas corpus petitions pending in federal
district
courts had increased to 23,218 in fiscal year 2003, from 13,359 in
fiscal
year 1994, citing Administrative Office of the Courts data.
The bill would impose a host of restrictions on an inmate's ability to
get a
federal court to hear a habeas corpus petition.
A group of former federal judges, in a letter of opposition, told the
Senate
Judiciary Committee that "there are now too many instances to ignore in
which innocent people were sentenced to prison, or even to death, and it
took years for the evidence of their innocence to come to light."
Kyl said the bill had an exception that would enable innocent people to
obtain relief from a wrongful conviction.
But the former judges — including William H. Webster and William S.
Sessions, both of whom served as directors of the FBI in Republican
administrations — countered that "the language of the exception is so
narrow
that it will cover virtually no one."
The former jurists also said the bill would overturn several recent
Supreme
Court decisions interpreting the 1996 death penalty act "as well as
several
other decisions of the Rehnquist court, many of which have helped to
further
streamline the system and eliminate delays. It serves no one's
interests to
engender the kind of delays that this bill will create" by precipitating
more litigation.
Moreover, the judges said, the impact of the bill would be "far more
sweeping" than death penalty cases. The restrictions it would impose
would
cover "every state criminal conviction," including cases involving
businesses, firearms and the environment.
The sweep of the measure is troubling and unwarranted, Barr said in a
letter
sent Wednesday to Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).
"I stand second to no one in believing in swift and certain justice,"
wrote
Barr, a former prosecutor and one of the authors of the 1996 law. He
said he
thought the law was "working well to restrict [habeas corpus]
petitions" and
had seen "no evidence to the contrary."
"As a former member of Congress, I know that unfortunately there are
times
when political pressures lead to imprudent decisions that can be
destructive
to basic constitutional liberties…. [This] is an example of legislation
that
is being pressed without sufficient deliberation, and without any real
evidence that it is needed.''
Among the former prosecutors against the bill are Ira Reiner, who
served as
Los Angeles County district attorney from 1984 to 1992, and Gil
Garcetti,
who held the position for eight years after that.
Reiner, who is a proponent of the death penalty and sought it dozens of
times while running the district attorney's office, said he strongly
opposed
"this ill-conceived bill … whose transparent purpose is to strip the
federal
courts of their jurisdiction to review state criminal court
proceedings."
He said it would "eviscerate the role of the federal courts in ensuring
that
innocent persons are not mistakenly convicted of crimes and that state
courts do not send people to prison in violation of their constitutional
rights."
At the first Senate hearing on the bill, Kent Cattani of the Arizona
attorney general's office testified in support of the measure. Specter
asked
him whether Congress had "the authority to strip the courts of
jurisdiction
on constitutional issues." Cattani replied, "Yes, I think Congress has
the
authority to do so."
At the same hearing, Seth P. Waxman, who was U.S. solicitor general in
the
Clinton administration, described four death penalty cases in the last
four
years in which the Supreme Court found major constitutional violations
overlooked by state courts. In one instance, prosecutors hid critical
information from the defense. In another, the Supreme Court found that
prosecutors had improperly kept blacks off a jury. If the Kyl-Lungren
bill
had been in effect, none of those cases would ever have been reviewed
by a
federal court, Waxman said.
"The title of this bill suggests that it would streamline the
processing of
habeas corpus cases," Waxman said. But Waxman said he found "something
else
entirely: Section after section of the bill would eliminate federal
court
jurisdiction to decide federal questions" in such cases.
Attorney Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, which had
played
a key role in freeing more than 100 wrongly convicted people — eight of
whom
had been on death row — said a number of those people would be in
prison or
dead if the proposed legislation had been in effect.
Scheck told the Judiciary Committee that the proposed law turned the
lesson
of those cases "on its head. It threatens to make what is already a
torturous, difficult mountain for the wrongfully convicted to climb
into a
wholly impenetrable steel wall."
"Finding innocence is a fits-and-starts kind of process," said New York
attorney George Kendall, who has litigated death penalty cases for more
than
two decades. "Habeas corpus was never supposed to be about innocence
alone.
It was always about whether the state courts faithfully applied federal
constitutional law.
"This bill turns that on its head," insulating state courts from any
meaningful review, he said.
Six people exonerated as a result of federal habeas corpus proceedings
attended the first Senate hearing, including Thomas Goldstein, who was
freed
last year after 24 years in prison for a wrongful conviction in a Long
Beach
murder.
Goldstein's challenges to his conviction fell on deaf ears in state
court.
But five federal judges in California who reviewed the case found that
his
constitutional rights had been violated by prosecutors who used an
unreliable jailhouse informant and by police who steered an eyewitness
into
incorrectly identifying Goldstein.
- - - - -
Virginia Insists on Execution Even in "Close Case" of Mental Retardation
Even though the state of Virginia admits that the question of Daryl
Atkins' mental retardation is a "close case," it is still pursuing a
lengthy jury trial to ensure his execution. The U.S. Supreme
Court
ruled in Atkins v. Virginia in
2002 that those with mental retardation must be excluded from the death
penalty, but they issued no opinion with regard to Mr. Atkins' mental
status. As the trial in Virginia began this week, Atkins' mother
and
former teachers testified about his long-term struggles in dealing with
his disability, noting that he did not finish high school, could not
get a driver's license, and was cut from the football team because he
could not grasp the rules.
Atkins scored 59 on an IQ test in
1998, but recorded scores of 67 and 74 on more recent tests.
Psychologist Evan Nelson, who administered the tests, believes that one
explanation for the higher scores may be how many times Atkins has
taken the exam, how long the test has been around, and the eight years
Atkins has spent in jail. Nelson stated, "Oddly enough, because of his
constant contact with the many lawyers that worked on his case. . . Mr.
Atkins received more intellectual stimulation in prison that he did
during his late adolescence and early adulthood."
The trial is
expected to include testimony from nearly 100 witnesses, including
teachers, relatives, acquaintances, and crime victims. Possibly
interfering with a simple objective determination of Atkins' mental
ability, the jury has been informed that this was a death penalty
case. Knowledge of the crime could influence their willingness to
grant him a lesser punishment through a finding of mental
retardation.
A verdict is expected in August. (DPIC analysis, New York Times, July
27, 2005, and Washington Post, July 23, 2005).
New Trial Ordered for Death Row Inmate Following DNA Testing
A North Carolina Superior Court judge orderd a new trial for death row
inmate Rex Penland
following DNA testing that discredited the state's case. Penland
was
convicted of a rape and murder 11 years ago, but DNA testing at the
time of his trial was inconclusive. More recent testing was
favorable
to Penland and did not place him at the scene of the crime.
Penland
was convicted largely on the basis of testimony from his two nephews
who were also involved in the crime. Ken Rose, one of the
Penland's
attorneys, said: "I think there are substantial questions about whether
they got the wrong person. We have other evidence calling into
question the [nephews'] testimony."
(Associated Press, July 25, 2005).
Editorial Criticizes Proposed Bill to Limit Death Penalty Appeals
A recent Philadelphia Inquirer
editorial criticized the proposed "Streamlined Procedures Act," federal
legislation that would deny or sharply restrict the reach of federal
judges in hearing habeas-corpus claims from those on death row. Noting
that the measure would increase the possibility of executing an
innocent person, the editorial stated:
Amid Washington lawmakers' latest drive
to further restrict the appeals of (capital) defendants, they need to
recognize what could be at risk with their tough-on-crime crackdown -
innocent lives.
In both Senate and House versions, the innocently titled Streamlined
Procedures Act amounts to an unconscionable assault on federal court
oversight of the fairness of criminal trials in the state courts.
The Republican-sponsored measure would deny or sharply restrict the
reach of federal judges in hearing habeas-corpus claims from convicts.
These claims range from whether adequate legal counsel was provided to
indigent (and often minority) defendants, on up to whether an innocent
person may have been convicted wrongly.
In death-row cases, the stakes are as high as they come. In other
criminal matters, the federal judiciary's policing of such cases
assures that our criminal justice system is truly just.
Strict limits on such appeals were already imposed in 1996 under a
post-Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton-era antiterrorism law - and there's
no good reason to tighten them further.
At a recent Senate hearing, proponents argued unimpressively that the
appeals delayed "closure" for crime victims, while running up
government legal bills.
Isn't the cost of responding to appeals simply the price of successful
anticrime efforts that have put 2.1 million people behind bars? Lock up
the bad guys, by all means, but don't turn around and scrimp on
fairness.
The impact of lengthy appeals on crime victims cannot be ignored. But
there is a psychological toll, too, on convicts sitting behind bars who
know they are innocent, some of them on death row.
There have been dozens of people exonerated while awaiting execution in
recent years, often after years of painstaking appeals and probing of
their claims of innocence. What if these inmates had not succeeded in
their appeals in time?
Surely advocates of limiting convicts' federal appeals don't mean to
respond to the troubling fact of death-row exonerations by strapping
the possibly innocent to a gurney sooner.
Isn't it odd how some in Congress - mostly Republicans, but some
Democrats, too - regard the federal courts as the best venue for
class-action lawsuits involving consumer-product safety, environmental
pollution and civil rights. Yet they don't want to bother the same
highly regarded federal bench with cases concerning the fundamental
rights of life and liberty?
A system of justice streamlined to the degree proposed under this
measure would not be justice at all.
(Philadelphia Inquirer, July 23, 2005)
Birmingham News, Chicago Tribune, "Deadline" Documentary to Receive
DPIC Journalism Awards
The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) will honor journalists from
The Birmingham News and The Chicago Tribune,
and directors from Big Mouth Productions during its 9th Annual Thurgood
Marshall Journalism Awards at the National Press Club on Monday, July
25. The awards recognize those journalists who have made an exceptional
contribution to the understanding of problems associated with capital
punishment.
This year’s ceremony will feature the first-ever Thurgood Marshall
Journalism Award for Excellence in the Posthumous Exploration of
Innocence. The honor will go to Chicago Tribune reporters Steve Mills
and Maurice Possley
for their article about the capital conviction of Cameron Todd
Willingham, who was executed in Texas last year. Willingham had been
convicted and sentenced to death for the arson murder of his three
daughters, but had maintained his innocence since his arrest. An
investigation of the state’s case against Willingham revealed that his
conviction was based primarily on arson theories that have since been
repudiated by scientific advances.
The Award for Excellence in Print Journalism will be awarded to Carla
Crowder, a reporter with The Birmingham News.
Crowder will receive the honor for her achievements in giving voice to
both sides of the death penalty debate in Alabama. Crowder’s articles
have profiled the individual life histories of the executed, the
economic and personal struggles faced by those who have been exonerated
from death row, and the stories of those who continue to await their
executions. In 2004, Crowder wrote about the life of David Hocker, who
was executed in Alabama late last year. Hocker was convicted of capital
murder after a one-day trial, sentenced to death after his attorney
presented no mitigation evidence, and was executed with no
post-conviction review. In her series on Hocker, Crowder did what no
attorney or social worker had ever done before: tell Kevin Hocker’s
life story.
Directors Katy Chevigny and Kirsten Johnson of the New York-based Big
Mouth Productions will receive the Award for Excellence in Broadcast
Journalism for
their documentary “Deadline.” This film, which was featured last year
by Dateline NBC, gave viewers a first-hand look at the emotional events
surrounding former Illinois Governor George Ryan’s historic decision to
pardon four men and offer clemency to the remaining 167 people on the
state’s death row due to his concerns about the fairness and accuracy
of Illinois’s death penalty. Though he had been a tough-on-crime death
penalty supporter for nearly two decades, Ryan’s opinion about capital
punishment was shaken when he watched a group of journalism students
discover evidence that exonerated a man from death row just before his
scheduled execution. In the film, Chevigny and Johnson give viewers an
insider’s look at Ryan’s courageous actions and America’s death penalty
debate.
New York Assemblyman Joseph Lentol
will deliver the keynote address at the awards luncheon. Earlier this
year, Lentol, who is Chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Codes, played
a pivotal role in the committee’s historic vote not to reinstate
capital punishment in New York. A former death penalty proponent,
Lentol’s position on the issue began to evolve after the state’s
statute was declared unconstitutional in 2004 and the Assembly held a
series of public hearings to determine the best course of action
regarding the future of capital punishment in New York.
The
Thurgood Marshall Journalism Awards are named in honor of the late
Supreme Court Justice who believed that people would see the death
penalty in a new light once they understood how it works in practice.
“The question with which we must deal,” Justice Marshall wrote, “is not
whether a substantial proportion of American citizens would today, if
polled, opine that capital punishment is barbarously cruel, but whether
they would find it to be so in light of all information presently
available.”
The distinguished judges for this year’s Awards
were Loren Ghiglione, Dean of the Medill School of Journalism at
Northwestern University, and Virginia Sloan, Executive Director of The
Constitution Project.
Entries for next year’s awards must be
published or produced in 2005 and should be submitted to the Death
Penalty Information Center by January 31, 2006.
Federal Death Penalty in Non-Death Penalty States
The federal death penalty was reinstated in 1988 with a limited statute
for murders in the course of a drug conspiracy. It was expanded to 60
offenses in 1994 and included crimes such as carjacking and drive-by
shootings if a death results. During the Clinton administration, no one
from a non-death penalty state was sentenced to death. Since 2000,
there have been at least 5 individuals in non-death states who have
received death sentences: 2 in Iowa (Dustin Honken and Angela Johnson),
1 in Massachusetts (Gary Sampson), 1 in Michigan (Marvin Gabrion), and
most recently, 1 in Vermont (Donald Fell). A total of 40 people are now
under a federal death sentence (in some cases, a judge has not formally
imposed the sentence).
Massachusetts Governor's Proposed Death Penalty Law Meets Strong
Opposition at Hearing
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney recently testified that the
proposed
"foolproof" death penalty statute he hopes will bring capital
punishment back to the state does not eliminate the possibility that an
innocent person could be executed. Romney acknowledged to members of
the joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee that the proposed law
cannot protect the state against the potential for human error,
stating, "A 100 percent guarantee? I don't think there's such a thing
in life. Except perhaps death - for all of us."
Representative
Michael A. Costellow, one of the lawmakers who questioned Romney during
the hearing, said that the Governor's admission "does knock out the
initial premise" that the plan is foolproof, adding, "I think they put
the best and the brightest together to try to come up with a foolproof
policy, and it isn't foolproof."
Massachusetts is one of 12
states that does not have the death penalty. The last execution in the
state was in 1947. (Boston Globe, July 14, 2005). Almost all of the
testimony presented at the hearing opposed the governor's bill.
Romney's response to many of the criticisms of the proposed law was
that the threat of execution would at least lead to more plea bargains
to life sentences. Some objected that it might also lead to innocent
people pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty.
Read
testimony given by DPIC's Executive Director, Richard Dieter, during
the Massachusetts hearing.
