I couldn’t pass this up.
Anyone interested in a lengthy but VERY thorough deconstruction of prosecutors’ history of self serving misuse and abuse of their powers and the judiciary’s (specifically the US Supreme Court) demoralizing actions to preserve this imbalance. Quite a read.
This blog on the Milke case from Maricopa County (Sheriff Arpaio’s neighborhood) adds considerable detail to the opposing forces present when a conviction has been remanded for retrial and/or the defendant’s release. Its the same old story. Here’s a partial list:
1. Potential police misconduct surrounding a decades old confession and a cop’s history of lying and malfeasance.
2. Unlimited resistance from the current prosecutor. The old prosecutor is really pissed off. He’s the one saying Brady shouldn’t be used in criminal court.
3. Defense counsel wanting to remove the county prosecutor from the case.
4. The state’s concern about future litigation about Milke’s possible exoneration.
5. A few Brady violations that set the entire prosecution’s 23 year old conviction of Milke on its head.
6. A load of politics.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2013/08/debra_milkes_bond_hearing_dela.php
Mike Bowers writes:
See more conversation from the BBC from yesterday right here. The effects of the UK government’s closure of its FSS (similar to the US’ FBI lab) and privatization for forensic services in the UK have produced poor results and has critics claiming foul. This current flap in the UK is analogous to this country’s current condition of multitudinous local, state, and regional federal government forensic servers where no one is running and overseeing the forensic science industry (as the FFS did until 2012).
The state of the forensic science ‘market’ in the UK has been the subject of much debate (see here… ) March 2012 saw the closure of the main provider of forensic services, the Forensic Science Service, by order of the government. It was deemed that with the service ‘losing’ (note ‘losing’ rather than ‘costing’) 2million pounds a year, it could no longer be sustained. Instead, forensic provision is now provided by private companies, individual consultants, or the police themselves. Now, the highly respected Science and Technology Select Committee of MPs has produced a report on the ‘fiasco’ of forensic science in the UK, roundly criticising the government move to close the FSS and warning of the dangers of miscarriages of justice. The provision of forensic science is now fragmented, dangerously unsupervised and the lack of research funding will only make matters worse in the years to come. The damning report…
View original post 68 more words
In its continuing saga of systemic identification forensic failures, the FBI promises to join forces with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to uncover criminal convictions that used the FBI’s brand of hair analysis which they promoted for decades as another “smoking gun” in identifying criminals. The 2009 NAS Report on “Strengthening Forensic Science….” had admonished the FBI promoted hair comparison “science” as faulty in its untested use, misleading, and over stated by prosecutorial experts.
WASHINGTON — The FBI will review thousands of old cases, including some involving the death penalty, in which hair samples helped secure convictions, under an ambitious plan made public Thursday.
More than 2,000 cases the FBI processed from 1985 to 2000 will be re-examined, including some in which execution dates have been set and others in which the defendants already have died in prison. In a key concession, Justice Department officials will waive usual deadlines and procedural hurdles that often block inmates from challenging their convictions.
“This will be critical to giving wrongly convicted people a fair chance at a fair review,” said Steven D. Benjamin, a Virginia attorney who’s the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
The defense lawyers’ association joined with The Innocence Project, based at New York City’s Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, as well as pro bono attorneys to press for the review.
Let’s just say that the bromance between prosecutors who lie and the justice system rendering oversight to their misdeeds is as strong as ever. A Oklahoma man convicted of murder and placed on death row was later released based on the the prosecutor using forged warrants and various Brady failures regarding special treatment of a prosecution eye witness. After reading this article, all the players seem to be well described. the current DA says the defendant is still guilty (but has lost use all his ill gotten evidence from the original trial). The state supreme court majority thinks suspension is appropriate regardless of the state bar demanding tougher punishment. The court’s minority, (it was a 5-2 vote for the lesser punishments) is the source of this post’s quotation in the title.
The passage of time has dealt the remaining believers in bite mark identification a serious blow. When the Innocence Project (IP) published this wrongful list posted here, the numbers were rather few, considering the popularity of the method of using dentists to testify regarding the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants in cases of child abuse, homicide and assault. A recent re-assessment of case histories by the IP involving the members of the premier and elite US group of 100 dentists (ABFO) problems with making the wrong people guilty of crimes they did not commit has blossomed to 24. This reassessment the ABFO error rates in their court appearances was thoroughly described in the Associate Press article from June and posted here.
What has not been published are the names of the ABFO members involved in these cases. This will be the subject of upcoming posts here on CSIDDS.
One more thought: Might there be more bite mark convictions soon to be overturned and defendants exonerated?
Use this as a counter-point to the recent Associated Press investigation on the failure of bite mark comparisons as a reliable forensic science. Over at the Bite Marks Evidence blog, David Averill posts this incredible video used in a 2011 CNN report and commented by Radley Balko at the Agitator in which bite mark specialist Lowell Levine defends bite mark testimony as “important and viable.” But when asked if there’s a way it can be validated with the scientific method, he responds, “I sure can’t think of it.” .
More recent comments from the small cadre of “elite” bite mark experts of the American Board of Forensic Odontology will be the focus of future articles here at CSIDDS.com
Radley writes:
It’s telling that Levine would be considered one of the country’s most respected bite mark witnesses. He too nearly helped convict an innocent man. From a 2004 article on bite mark testimony in the Chicago Tribune:
. . . a team of Massachusetts State Police officers turned to Levine in hopes of solving the gruesome murder of Irene Kennedy.
The 75-year-old grandmother had been beaten and stabbed two dozen times while on a morning stroll with her husband in a park outside Boston. The killer, who attacked Kennedy when she and her husband briefly took separate paths, left a bite mark on her breast.
The investigators drove from Boston to Levine’s office. Explaining the circumstances of the murder, they asked him to compare photos of the bite mark on Kennedy’s body with a copy of a mold made from the teeth of a suspect, Edmund Burke . . .
. . . in a sworn deposition taken in the lawsuit, Levine testified that after studying the materials in his office, he told the waiting officers he could not exclude Burke but would need additional information for a more definite opinion.
Three days later, Levine went to Boston to examine more evidence, asking police to provide him with enhanced photos of the bite wound. They did, and that, Levine said, was enough.
In his deposition, Levine said he concluded “to a reasonable scientific certainty” that Burke had left the bite on Kennedy’s breast.
Police searched Burke’s home, and arrested and jailed him. The county prosecutors called the bite mark the “most compelling evidence” in the case.
Less than six weeks later, though, officials had to admit they were wrong. DNA taken from saliva recovered on the bite mark was analyzed. A genetic profile was obtained, and prosecutors said it was not Burke’s. He was set free.
Levine insisted in the January 2003 deposition that he had been correct when he linked the bite mark to Burke, although he also hedged a bit, saying he had never made a definitive “match.”
Under questioning by a lawyer for Burke, who sued the police and Levine after he was cleared, Levine stood by his bite-mark analysis.
“Do you think he bit her breasts?” attorney Robert Sinsheimer, who represents Burke, asked Levine in the deposition.
“I think with a high degree of probability he did,” Levine said. He offered possible explanations for why the DNA did not match Burke, including that police who had handled the crime scene contaminated the DNA.
He also noted that another prominent forensic odontologist, Dr. Ira Titunik of New York, had examined the evidence and concurred in his opinion. Titunik confirmed that he had informally examined the evidence and agreed with Levine.
But then Levine’s analysis took another hit. In June 2003, some five months after Levine testified under oath and held fast to his bite-mark analysis, police announced they had made another arrest in Irene Kennedy’s murder.
The genetic profile derived from the bite mark, the police said, had been entered into a database. It hit on a convicted murderer.
This is the first information regarding the comments from Uriah Courtney regarding his years in jail and attitude regarding his wrongful conviction. Another notable story is the CIP co-director Justin Brooks and a San Diego DA, Brent Neck’s comments about justice being more important than prosecutors’ winning cases.
==========================================================
Yesterday, Uriah Courtney was a registered sex offender. Today, his name has been cleared.
Courtney was convicted of kidnapping and raping a 16-year-old girl in Lemon Grove in 2004. In 2010, his case caught the attention of attorneys with the California Innocence Project. The organization works to exonerate people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes.
“I knew I was innocent, and it was great to have somebody come along who thought that, too, and could actually do something about it,” Courtney said.
At a news conference Tuesday, Justin Brooks with the California Innocence Project told Courtney’s story: After the rape, the victim couldn’t give enough information to make a composite sketch of the suspect. However, she did remember a truck that was at the scene, which happened to belong to Courtney’s stepfather.
This linked Courtney to the crime, and he was sentenced to life in prison.
The California Innocence Project eventually convinced the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office to retest evidence from Courtney’s case. They discovered DNA that belonged to another man in their database.
Courtney said the day he found out about the DNA match was “one of the best days of my life.”
Courtney was released from prison in May. A judge formally dismissed the charges against him Monday.
Brooks called it a team effort with the San Diego DA’s office.
“I work all over the state, and I don’t believe this result would have happened in other areas of the state, and it certainly wouldn’t have happened with the speed and efficiency of this office,” Brooks said.
“It’s a common misconception that, as a prosecutor, our job is just to get convictions,” said Brent Neck with the DA’s office. “Our duty is to do justice.”
Despite everything, Courtney said he isn’t bitter toward the victim.
“I’m not going to sit here and dwell on the past and be angry and bitter over what I’ve experienced,” Courtney said. “I’ve learned from it. I’ve grown stronger.”
Above is a picture of Uriah Courtney walking out of prison into the arms of his parents.
The California Innocence Project at Cal Western Law School is holding a press conference today on the outcome of their efforts to exonerate this man. The following is the press release from last night which is written by Justin Brooks, the CIP co-director.
Uriah Courtney FREED!
Dear CIP Supporters,
I am extremely pleased to announce that this morning on motion by the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, San Diego Superior Court Judge Walsh dismissed kidnapping and sexual assault charges against Uriah Courtney ending an eight year nightmare for him and his family.
On November 24, 2004, a man grabbed a young woman off the street in Lemon Grove, threw her down in some bushes near a stoplight, and sexually assaulted her. The woman managed to escape. Shortly before the attack, she saw a man staring at her from an old, light-colored truck. The victim and one eyewitness were unable to provide enough information to create a composite sketch of the suspect, however, a truck matching the description was reported to the police. The truck was owned by the stepfather of a local man named Uriah Courtney, a North Park resident who closely matched the physical description of the suspect. Despite her stated uncertainty, the victim testified at trial that she was sure of her identification of both the truck and of Courtney. A jury rendered a guilty verdict and the court sentenced Courtney to life in prison for kidnapping and sexual assault.
At the time of Courtney’s conviction, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department performed DNA testing but did not obtain any meaningful results. In 2010, when newer and more discriminating testing was available than was available at the time of trial, the California Innocence Project determined further DNA testing would be appropriate and opened an investigation of the case.
With the cooperation of the District Attorney’s Office, the victim’s clothing was re-submitted for DNA testing and a male profile was obtained. The profile was run through the Combined DNA Index System-a national databank containing convicted offender profiles-and matched a white male who bore a striking physical resemblance to Courtney and lived three miles from the crime scene. The real offender was identified and Uriah Courtney was exonerated.
As always it takes a village to obtain an exoneration. I would like to thank CIP staff attorney Alissa Bjerkhoel who served as lead counsel on the case, as well as CIP attorneys Alex Simpson, Raquel Cohen, and Sarah Bear. I would also like to thank former CIP students Alex McDonald, Paul Spencer, Sonia Salazar, and Amber Moody. As always, I thank my partner in crime Jan Stiglitz and our program manager Kim Hernandez.
Sincerely,
Justin Brooks
Director
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 