The StandDown Texas Project

4th Circuit Allows Justin Wolfe Retrial - Updated

"Fed. appeals court allows capital murder retrial of Wolfe; lower court had ordered him freed," is the AP report, via the Washington Post.

A federal appeals court will allow Virginia to pursue a capital murder case against an alleged drug kingpin from northern Virginia.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond overturned a federal judge in Norfolk who had ordered a halt to the prosecution of Justin Wolfe and his immediate release. The judge said misconduct by prosecutors in Prince William County made it impossible for Wolfe to get a fair trial.

But a majority on the appellate court disagreed. They ruled that a new trial can be done fairly. A dissenting judge said the misconduct was so bad that freeing Wolfe was the only proper outcome.

Wolfe was sent to death row in 2002 for a drug-related murder, but his original conviction and sentence were overturned.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling in Wolfe v. Clarke is available in Adobe .pdf format.

AP has expanded its original coverage.  It's available as, "4th Circuit allows capital retrial of alleged drug kingpin," via the Daily Record.

U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson said misconduct by prosecutors in Prince William County made it impossible for Wolfe to get a fair trial.

But a majority on the appellate court disagreed. Judges Robert Bruce King and Allyson Kay Duncan ruled that a new trial can be done fairly. They wrote that Jackson “fashioned an overbroad remedy and thereby abused (his) discretion by precluding the Commonwealth from retrying Wolfe.”

A dissenting judge, Stephanie Thacker, said the misconduct was so bad that freeing Wolfe was the only proper outcome. She reeled off a long list of examples of misconduct, including failures by Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul Ebert to disclose evidence that would have undermined the credibility of the state’s star witness — Owen Barber, the triggerman in Petrole’s death who initially testified that Wolfe hired him to do the killing.

Barber subsequently changed his story several times, and Thacker said prosecutors compounded their misconducting by visiting Barber in jail last year and pressuring him to go back to his original story implicating Wolfe.

“The Commonwealth’s misconduct has continued far too long, and the cumulative misconduct permeating this case has tainted it in such a way that it is doubtful Wolfe will receive a fair and just trial. Enough is enough,” Thacker wrote.

And:

While Wednesday’s ruling allows the state to prosecute Wolfe, the majority judges said Wolfe’s allegations of prosecutorial misconduct may be grounds for an appeal if he is convicted in a retrial.

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.

Thoughts on the the Texas Legislature

Today is the 133rd day of the 140-day legisltive session.  Sine Die - aka, adjournment - is Monday, May 27.  You can view the various deadlines that limit legislative activity as the days peel off the calendar.

Andrew Cohen writes about the passage of a major criminal discovery law, "In Texas, a Bold Step Toward Justice," for the Brennan Center.  He recently joined the Center as a Fellow.

It is altogether fitting that Texas, a state where some of the worst of these transgressions have taken place, is confronting part of its unconstitutional past the same week America commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Brady ruling, which came down unanimously from the high court on May 13, 1963. The Morton Act, which now awaits Gov. Rick Perry’s signature after passage in both houses of the Texas legislature, is a bold, progressive step that creates an “open-file” discovery rule requiring prosecutors to share more information more quickly with defense attorneys.

The new law means prosecutors now have an affirmative duty under state law to comply with Brady by making sure defendants and their lawyers can see and copy all police reports and witness statements. Prosecutors will be able to protect the identity of witnesses — which always has been a sticking point in these measures — but will have to provide defense counsel with a list of the disclosed evidence. In other words, Texas now has taken a significant step toward giving its criminal defendants, whose life or liberty are on the line, many of the same discovery protections routinely afforded litigants in state court civil cases, where neither life nor liberty are at stake.

It’s about time. Morton spent 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife before a DNA test exonerated him just a few years ago. The behavior of his prosecutor, Ken Anderson, was so egregious that Anderson himself now faces criminal charges of tampering with evidence. Michael Toney also spent nearly 25 years in a Texas prison because his prosecutors suppressed evidence about the credibility of the only witnesses to testify directly against him. Anthony Graves was relatively lucky — he spent just 18 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit.

The Morton Act will require prosecutors to play more fairly in criminal trials. And a related measure, Senate Bill 825, also passed by the Texas House this week, addresses what will happen when they don’t. This measure will give aggrieved criminal defendants more time to challenge prosecutorial errors once they are discovered. And, critically, it will publicly reprimand prosecutors who cheat. I’d like to see harsher sanctions in these cases — more teeth to the measure — but if the new law is faithfully observed by state court judges no longer will the legal community in a particular jurisdiction be able to close ranks around district attorneys who violate the law.

Cohen's essay was written before Governor Perry signed the measure into law.

The Austin Chronicle posts, "Junking Junk Science?"  It's by Jordan Smith.

It appears the third time filed is the charm for a bill that allows defendants to challenge their criminal convictions based on the state's use at trial of junk or outdated science – but will it actually cure the problem it seeks to address?

The Texas House Thursday morning unanimously passed Senate Bill 344, by Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, queueing up the bill for Gov. Rick Perry's signature, but whether it will have any bite to it is unclear.

As passed, the measure tells the Court of Criminal Appeals how to consider scientific evidence challenged in writs of habeas corpus – an issue that, aside from those cases involving DNA, remains a source of some uncertainty and tension – including in cases that involve pure junk, like dog scent-lineups, or cases that involve more evolved scientific understanding, as with the now discredited trifecta of "symptoms" once considered the hallmark of so-called "shaken baby syndrome."

As the law had to be changed in order to allow the CCA to consider appeals specifically citing DNA evidence, so too SB 344 amends habeas law to allow the court to grant relief where sufficient facts demonstrate that relevant, and admissible, scientific evidence contradicts that which the state used to convict, or that was unavailable at the time the defendant was convicted. The bill also prohibits the court from denying relief based on the fact that a defendant either confessed to the crime or took a plea deal.

Earlier coverage of the 83rd Regular Session of the Texas Legislature begins at the link.

Texas Editorials Applaud Legislature's Criminal Justice Reforms

"Morton Act a victory for justice," is the Austin American-Statesman editorial.  It's a must-read on the state of major criminal justice reforms in the Texas Legislature.

All that remains to be done to make the Michael Morton Act state law is for Gov. Rick Perry to do the expected and sign it. This necessary legislation, which once appeared doomed in the Texas Senate before winning unanimous approval there and, on Tuesday, in the Texas House, brings statewide consistency to criminal cases by requiring prosecutors to share information with defense lawyers.

When the governor puts his signature on this important act, a statewide “open file” policy will be created. Such a policy should help prevent the kind of wrongful conviction that sent Morton to prison for almost 25 years for the murder of his wife, Christine.

And:

The Michael Morton Act, which was co-authored by Democratic state Sen. Rodney Ellis of Houston and Republican state Sen. Robert Duncan of Lubbock, almost didn’t make it out of the Senate. District attorneys had expressed concern that the bill put at risk the safety of witnesses and victims, prompting Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to push a reasonable compromise that allows prosecutors to delete identifying information from their files before turning them over to defense lawyers.

A related bill giving exonerated Texans four years from the date of their release from prison to pursue allegations that a prosecutor hid evidence also has been sent to the governor for him to sign. Under current law, the four-year statute of limitations begins at the time a violation occurs, a preposterous provision that makes it all but impossible to hold prosecutors accountable.

Today's Dallas Morning News publishes the editorial, "Legislative progress report."

Haven’t we done enough?

The implied question hung like a stink bomb over what should have been a satisfying day of landmark reform of criminal justice in Texas.

Just a few hours earlier on Tuesday, the Texas House gave final legislative OK to breakthrough legislation, the Michael Morton Act, to clarify and broaden a defendant’s access to evidence that could prove innocence. Passage of the bill, SB 1611, comes the week of the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Brady vs. Maryland, which established access to exculpatory evidence as a constitutional right.

It was inspiring to see the Texas House rally to that founding principle and pass SB 1611 unanimously, 146-0, and send it to the governor.

Then came the sour note from Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, as she chaired a Senate hearing on HB 166 to study cases of proven exoneration, like Morton’s. The goal is to apply lessons learned after analyzing cases of government overreach that robbed people of their freedom.

But Huffman lectured the committee — and a group of exonerees waiting to testify — that the state of Texas has done just fine by victims of wrongful conviction and has compiled an impressive list of reforms in recent years. Her recitation was as boneheaded as it was insulting to people who had lost decades of their lives because of slipshod work, backward practices or ethical lapses by cops and prosecutors.

Learning from breakdowns in justice should be an ongoing process. The state has adopted some new safeguards, but there is little track record.

I'll have more of the Huffman episode in the next post.

"Texas Senate must move quickly to pass exoneration bill," is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial.

There is a stain on the Texas criminal justice system that no spot remover can erase.

But Texas’ indelible shame of having sent too many innocent people to prison should not keep lawmakers, law enforcement officials, judges and prosecutors from working to improve the procedures whose flaws have led to serious mistakes.

With 117 exonerations, Texas leads the nation in erroneous convictions. Since 1994, there have been 49 exonerations based on DNA testing; 41 of those occurred in the last 12 years.

To its credit, the Legislature in the last few sessions has passed legislation aimed at reducing the chances of convicting innocent people, including strengthening the reliability of eyewitness identification such as through photo lineups.

This week, the state House passed the Michael Morton Act on a vote of 146-0. Named for a man who was wrongly convicted of murder in Williamson County after a district attorney withheld important evidence, the bill requires prosecutors to have an “open file” policy of sharing information with defense attorneys.

And:

The Morton case and many others in which the system failed make it extremely important that another pending bill is not allowed to die in the Senate.

HB166, which passed the House with strong bipartisan support, would create the Timothy Cole Exoneration Review Commission, a nine-member body that would examine all Texas cases in which a conviction was erased through exoneration.

The panel is named for a Fort Worth man who died in prison before his innocence was proven. Timothy Cole became the first person in the state to be exonerated posthumously.

The commission’s role would be to “identify errors and defects” in the criminal justice process and point out “ethical violations or misconduct by attorneys or judges.”

Earlier coverage of the Michael Morton Act begins at the link.

9th Circuit Revives Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in Goldstein v. County of Los Angeles is available in Adobe .pdf format.

"Appeals panel revives former inmate's suit against L.A. County," is Maura Dolan's Los Angeles Times report.

A man convicted of murder largely on the basis of a jailhouse informant's perjured testimony may attempt to hold Los Angeles County liable for his 24 years in prison, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit by Thomas Goldstein, who was released from prison in 2004 after a district judge found that informant Edward Fink had lied on the stand.

Fink, a heroin addict and felon, frequently received favors from prosecutors for testifying against defendants. His testimony against Goldstein earned him a reduced sentence.

Fink claimed that Goldstein told him in jail that he had a killed a man over money. On cross-examination, Fink lied when he said he had received no benefit for his testimony in that or other cases. The judge overturned Goldstein's conviction, and Los Angeles County prosecutors declined to retry him.

And:

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the 9th Circuit panelists, agreed with Wednesday's decision but wrote separately to point out that California had executed Tommy Thompson in 1998 on a murder and rape conviction "based on Fink's perjured testimony."

"It is unlikely that Thompson was death-eligible for his part in the crime, if he was guilty at all of any offense …," wrote Reinhardt, appointed by former President Carter. "Although Thompson was executed as a result of Fink's perjury (as well as the other unfortunate judicial matters…) the innocent Mr. Goldstein was fortunate enough to avoid that fate."

The San Francisco Chronicle coverage is, "Lawsuit revived in wrongful murder term," by Bob Egelko.

In a separate opinion, one judge said the same informant's perjured testimony in another case led to the 1998 execution of a man who was probably ineligible for the death penalty and may have been innocent.

The ruling Wednesday involved Thomas L. Goldstein, a former Marine who had no criminal record when he was convicted of fatally shooting John McGinest in an alley near Goldstein's Long Beach home in 1979.

And:

Goldstein, who is now in his mid-60s, has sought damages against former District Attorney John Van de Kamp, the city of Long Beach and Los Angeles County, claiming they were responsible for his wrongful prosecution and conviction.

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed his case against Van de Kamp in 2009, ruling unanimously that prosecutors are immune from damages for wrongful convictions. Long Beach settled with Goldstein for nearly $8 million in 2010, and on Wednesday the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated his suit against the county.

The suit alleges that the district attorney's office had failed to train Goldstein's prosecutors to notify defense lawyers that an informant had been promised leniency. In a 3-0 ruling, the appeals court said the county can be held responsible for the misconduct of its prosecutors, reversing a federal judge's ruling that district attorneys are agents of the state.

One member of the panel, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, said Fink's "perjured testimony" had also been crucial to the conviction and execution of Thomas Thompson for a 1981 rape and murder in Orange County.

"L.A. County May Be Liable for Shaky Snitch," by Tim Hull for Courthouse News Service.

A man who spent 24 years in prison based largely on the testimony of a drug-addicted snitch may have a case against Los Angeles County, the 9th Circuit ruled Wednesday.

California district attorneys work for the county, not the state, when "adopting and implementing internal policies and procedures related to the use of jailhouse informants," and therefore are not necessarily immune from civil rights claims, the federal appeals court in Pasadena found.

The ruling breathes new life into the long-running case of Thomas Goldstein, a man tried and convicted for a murder in Long Beach in 1979. With no other evidence against the former Marine save shaky eyewitness testimony that was later recanted, prosecutors relied heavily on the word of jailhouse snitch Edward Fink, whom circuit Judge Sidney Thomas described as "aptronymic." In other words, aptly named.

"Federal appeals court rules wrongly convicted man's lawsuit against LA County can resume," is the AP filing, via the Republic.

While the case was pending the U.S. Supreme Court ruled prosecutors could not be held liable in such cases, so a district court dismissed Goldstein's suit.

But on Wednesday the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it could move forward, saying the issue was not prosecutors' misconduct but an administrative failure by the county, which should have established an index of informants and favors to share with defense attorneys.

Thomas Goldstein's case is noted in this earlier post.

10th Circuit Upholds District Court on Oklahoma Brady Violation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling in Browning v. Trammell is available in Adobe .pdf format.  It overturns the conviction and death sentnence.

The Tulsa World reports, "Death penalty overturned: Man will get new trial in Glenpool killings case," by Bill Braun.

An appeals court has affirmed a Tulsa federal judge’s ruling to grant a new trial to a man who had been sentenced to die for the murders of a Glenpool couple.

In a ruling issued Monday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern to overturn the death verdicts that were imposed at the 2003 trial of Michael Allen Browning, who is now 37.

The 10th Circuit decision “will not be appealed. Our focus now is to start contacting witnesses and prepare for another trial,” said Tulsa County First Assistant District Attorney Doug Drummond.

And:

The 10th Circuit’s opinion says that “what the jury did not know — and the defense attorneys also did not know — was that Tackett, who became the most important witness at trial, had been diagnosed with a severe mental disorder.”

That information “was favorable to Browning and material to his defense, the federal appeals court wrote.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

Hearings at the Texas Legislature

The Texas Tribune posts, "House Panel Hears Testimony on 'Michael Morton Act'," by Brandi Grissom.

Just more than a week after the arrest of Ken Anderson, the former prosecutor who oversaw the wrongful conviction of Michael Morton in 1987, a House committee on Monday considered legislation that would require prosecutors to turn over evidence to defense lawyers in criminal cases.

Senate Bill 1611, dubbed the "Michael Morton Act" by state Sens. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, was approved unanimously April 11 by the Senate. Currently, prosecutors aren't required by state law to provide evidence to defense lawyers unless ordered to by the court. Among the charges Anderson faces is failing to comply with a judge's order regarding turning over evidence.

Morton told members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee on Monday that the bill would prevent wrongful convictions like the one he suffered.

"If it could happen to me, it could happen to you," said Morton, who spent nearly 25 years behind bars. The measure was left pending in the committee.

And:

"We want to improve fairness and consistency,” said state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, who is sponsoring the bill in the House. The measure, she said, is the first major reform to the Texas discovery system since 1965.

Many Texas prosecutors now have some form of open file policy, but the procedures vary by county and sometimes within a district attorney's office. In a February report based on a survey of more than 40 prosecutors' offices, Texas Appleseed and Texas Defender Service, both justice advocacy organizations, found that "lack of uniformity in discovery policies in Texas makes access to justice dependent, in part, on where a defendant is charged."

Under SB 1611, prosecutors would be required to turn over evidence both before trial and after it begins. A record would be kept of the exchange of evidence. 

Legislators have proposed opening the discovery process in previous legislative sessions, but the high-profile Morton case and his promotion of reform to prevent wrongful convictions gave the effort momentum this year.

"Exonerated Man Tells Legislature: Repeal Death Penalty," is Chris Tomlinson's AP filing, via KXAS-TV.

A man who spent 18 years on death row before a court exonerated him begged the Texas Legislature on Monday to repeal the death penalty.

Anthony Graves made his appeal to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, which was considering a bill to stop executions in Texas.

"You tried to execute me twice for a crime that I knew nothing about," Graves told lawmakers. "You not only put me on death row, you put my family on death row, you put my children on death row ... and my children grew up without me."

Graves spent 18 years in prison before he was cleared by DNA evidence. The state gave him two execution dates before he was finally cleared and on Monday he pleaded with the lawmakers to end the death penalty.

"There are innocent men, mentally challenged men, insane men on death row, and you want to execute them," he added. "As long as we continue with this death penalty, as long as we don't get serious about it, you're going to continue to execute innocent people and you are going to call it justice."

Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, authored the bill, but she acknowledged it had little chance of passing.

"Every time we bring this up we get a bit closer to seeing this become a reality in Texas," Farrar said. "In the past six years, six states have done away with the death penalty."

Earlier coverage of the criminal discovery and death penalty repeal bills, at the links.  Related posts are in the Texas Legislature category index.

Federal District Court Overturns Pennsylvania Conviction & Death Sentence

"Judge overturns conviction in slaying of two cousins," is the rerport by Holly Herman for the Reading Eagle.

A federal judge has overturned the first-degree murder conviction of Shawnfatee M. Bridges in the 1996 slayings of two Reading cousins because prosecutors did not provide the defense with police records that could have been used to impeach a key witness during the trial.

U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody on Tuesday also overturned the death sentence because the defense didn't call an expert psychiatric witness during the sentencing hearing.

Brody ordered prosecutors to release Bridges, 36, from the State Correctional Institute at Graterford by Aug. 21 unless he is retried.

And:

In a 114-page opinion, Brody concluded that former District Attorney Mark C. Baldwin did not provide the defense with police records for key prosecution witness George Robles. She said the information linking Robles to four other shootings could have been used to impeach Robles' testimony.

Robles, now 38, of Reading testified that the slayings were in retaliation for the Banks cousins breaking into Bridges' home.

"There is no doubt that the police records relating to Robles are impeaching, and this is favorable to Bridges," Brody wrote. "They present evidence that Robles was involved in some way in at least four shootings in an 18-month period."

The AP filign is, "Pa. man's death sentence nixed," via Philly.com.

A federal judge has thrown out the death penalty given to an Pennsylvania man who's spent 15 years on death row.

District Judge Anita Brody also overturned Shawnfatee Bridges' murder conviction because prosecutors did not provide the defense with police records that could have impeached a key witness

And:

District Attorney John Adams says he'll appeal the ruling. He is also preparing to retry the case.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.

Judge Ken Anderson Charged with Misconduct

"Ken Anderson charged with misconduct during 1987 Michael Morton murder trial," is Chuck Lindell's report posted at the Austin American-Statesman.

Former Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson was arrested and booked into jail, then quickly released, for the “intentionally harmful act” of hiding favorable evidence to secure Michael Morton’s 1987 conviction for murder, the court of inquiry found.

“This court cannot think of a more intentionally harmful act than a prosecutor’s conscious choice to hide mitigating evidence so as to create an uneven playing field for a defendant facing a murder charge and a life sentence,” District Judge Louis Sturns ruled.

Sturns found probable cause to believe that Anderson broke two state laws and committed criminal contempt of court, then ordered Anderson to be arrested.

"Ex-Texas DA Faces Charges for Man's Prosecution," is the AP report by Michael Brick.

A Texas judge on Friday ruled that a former district attorney acted improperly when he prosecuted an innocent man who spent nearly 25 years in prison for his wife's slaying and ordered his arrest on criminal contempt and tampering charges.

Judge Louis Sturns, of Fort Worth, issued an arrest warrant for Ken Anderson for his handling of the case of Michael Morton. Sturns said there was sufficient evidence that Anderson was guilty on all three charges brought against him: criminal contempt of court, tampering with evidence and tampering with government records.

And:

During the weeklong Court of Inquiry, the special prosecutor, Houston defense attorney Rusty Hardin, presented witness testimony and other evidence to show Anderson kept evidence from Morton's attorneys at his trial.

The special court is a rarely used hearing that is held when officials or public servants are accused of wrongdoing. The process is similar to a grand jury proceeding, but people can defend themselves against the evidence presented.

Among the evidence Morton's attorneys claim was kept from them were statements from Morton's then-3-year-old son, who witnessed the murder and said his father wasn't responsible and interviews with neighbors who told authorities they saw a man park a green van close the Morton home and walk into a nearby wooded area before the slaying.

The Texas Tribune posts, "Court of Inquiry Ends With Arrest Warrant for Anderson," by Maurice Chammah.

Judge Louis Sturns concluded his court of inquiry by charging Anderson, who is now a state district judge, with tampering with government records (a misdemeanor), tampering with physical evidence (a felony) and failing to comply with a judge's order to turn over such evidence, for which he could be held in “contempt of court.”

The rare court of inquiry, in which arguments were made in February, was held to determine whether Anderson, a former district attorney, committed criminal misconduct during the trial that led to Morton’s wrongful murder conviction. Morton, who was in attendance for Friday’s decision, spent nearly 25 years behind bars for his wife’s murder before he was exonerated.

Sturns said that Anderson purposefully concealed evidence from Morton's defense attorneys, hiding reports that neighbors had seen a green van outside of the Mortons’ home and a phone transcript in which Morton's son was said to have told his grandmother a "monster" murdered Morton's wife.

Rusty Hardin, the special prosecutor in the court of inquiry, told reporters that Anderson would turn himself in at the Williamson County Jail on Friday afternoon, and that he would have to pay a $2,500 bond for each of three separate counts.

Earlier coverage of the Court of Inquiry begins at the link.  Related posts are in the Michael Morton category index. 

The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

Criminal Discovery Legislation Clears Texas Senate

The Austin American-Statesman has published the editorial, "Texas Senate’s attempts to limit wrongful convictions commendable."

Its passage wasn’t as sure as it should have been, given that it was as much a no-brainer as any piece of legislation could be, but this week the Senate finally and unanimously passed the Michael Morton Act.

Morton was on hand for the occasion Thursday. He stood, as the American-Statesman’s Chuck Lindell reported, in a Capitol corridor while holding the gavel Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst had used minutes earlier to announce approval of the legislation named in his honor. The vote, coming 18 months after Morton’s release from prison, was 31-0.

It’s hard to imagine opposition to a bill designed to prevent wrongful convictions by requiring prosecutors to share crucial information with defense attorneys, but the Michael Morton Act appeared doomed Wednesday until a delicate compromise, prodded along by Dewhurst, appeased concerns by district attorneys that the bill threatened the safety of witnesses and victims in some cases. So lawmakers added a few restrictions to shield some identities.

Point taken on protecting the potentially vulnerable. Now the House should follow the Senate’s lead and pass the Michael Morton Act.

Let's begin news coverage of the vote with the Statesman report, "Senate passes Michael Morton Act," by Chuck Lindell.

Wednesday’s intense negotiations — including not-so-gentle prodding by Dewhurst, who gathered all the parties into a room in the afternoon and told them not to emerge without an agreement — produced a breakthrough on victim and witness information that saved the legislation.

“It feels very, very good of course, but I know we’re not through. We have the other side to go through, the House,” Morton said.

State Rep. Senfronia Thompson, a highly respected 20-term Democrat from Houston, will shepherd the bill through the House.

Morton will be there, too, hoping that the agreement forged by prosecutors, defense lawyers and a half-dozen senators will find relatively easy acceptance.

The Texas Tribune posted, "Senate Unanimously Approves Michael Morton Act," by Brandi Grissom.

A year and a half after he took off his prison whites for the last time, exoneree Michael Morton stood in the Senate beside his wife, Cynthia, on Thursday as lawmakers in that chamber unanimously approved a bill named in his honor that aims to prevent others from being wrongfully convicted. 

"Had this been in place when I was arrested, I probably wouldn't have gone to prison," Morton said shortly before senators passed Senate Bill 1611, by Sens. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock. It would require prosecutors to turn over evidence to defense lawyers in criminal cases.

"Michael's tragic case brought to the forefront something we already knew in Texas," Ellis said. "Our criminal discovery process in Texas needs serious reform."

And:

Today — as in 1987 when Morton was tried — prosecutors aren't required by state law to provide evidence to defense lawyers unless ordered to by the court. Though many Texas prosecutors have some form of open file policy, those procedures vary from county to county and sometimes even within a district attorney's office. In a February report based on a survey of more than 40 prosecutors' offices, Texas Appleseed and Texas Defender Service, both justice advocacy organizations, found that "lack of uniformity in discovery policies in Texas makes access to justice dependent, in part, on where a defendant is charged."

Since his release from prison, Morton has been on a mission to see the implementation of laws that help prevent wrongful convictions like his and that hold prosecutors accountable when their decisions result in innocent people losing years of liberty. The Senate has already approved SB 825, by Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, which would extend the statute of limitations for offenses involving evidence suppression by district attorneys. Under current law, the four-year statute of limitations begins ticking on such offenses when they occur. Whitmire's proposal would begin the clock on the statute of limitations at the time a wrongfully convicted defendant is released from prison. That measure is awaiting a hearing Monday in the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence.

"Senate OKs bill to share DA case files with defense," was the AP filing written by Will Weissert, via the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The Senate unanimously approved the Michael Morton Act, named in honor of a Texan who spent nearly 25 years in prison for a murder he did not commit and designed to prevent future wrongful convictions.

After their vote Thursday, senators stood and applauded and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst banged a specially engraved wooden gavel that was later awarded to a beaming Morton, who watched the proceedings from just off the floor -- a long way from the prison cell he was sitting in two years ago.

The measure now heads to the House for consideration.

Dallas Morning News editorial board member Rodger Jones posted, "Michael Morton Act passes Senate unanimously," on the Views blog.

Ellis, a Houston Democrat, co-author with Sen. Robert Duncan, Republican of Lubbock, credited Morton for using his “life’s tragedy” to lobby strongly for the bill, SB 1611.

The legislation updates, broadens and clarifies the access defense attorneys have to case files compiled by prosecutors. Morton spent nearly 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife, but has maintained in court that the DA kept vital information from him. Morton was freed after DNA tests cleared him in 2011, despite years of efforts by the DA’s office to keep evidence away from him for testing.

Ellis told the Senate that he thought months of work on the bill was lost a few times, especially in the last week, after Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, began lobbying for changes after the bill already emerged from committee. One key to breaking the impasse, I’m told, was Dallas Sen. Royce West, a former prosecutor, who got involved in a come-to-Jesus meeting among negotiators on Monday.

"Ken Anderson court of inquiry resumes April 19," is from the American-Statesman.

A moment of truth for district court judge Ken Anderson is expected to arrive April 19, when the court of inquiry investigating his alleged wrongdoing reconvenes.

At 1 p.m. at the county’s Justice Center in Georgetown, Judge Louis Sturns is to hear closing arguments from attorneys, as he considers whether Anderson – in his prior role as district attorney – withheld evidence during Michael Morton’s 1987 murder trial. The judge has three issues to consider: whether Anderson tampered with physical evidence, if he tampered with a government record and/or he committed contempt of court.

If Sturns rules Anderson did any of these, it’s possible Anderson could face misdemeanor or felony criminal charges, but Sturns would also have to rule statutes of limitations have not passed.

The court of inquiry – which was first in session Feb. 4-8 – is not an actual trial.

“This is like a public grand jury proceeding and the judge is like the sole person on the grand jury,” one lawyer familiar with the case said this week. “He [Sturns] can say, ‘This should go forward [for prosecution].’ The standard for that is, ‘Is there probable cause?’”

Throughout five days of February testimony, special prosecutor Rusty Hardin produced witnesses who testified as to what they did and did not know before and during Morton’s February 1987 trial.

Earlier coverage of the Texas criminal discovery legislation begins at the link; also available, more information from this Texas legislative session, coverage of Michael Morton's exoneration, and the Anderson Court of Inquiry.

Texas Legislative Update

KUT News posts, "Bill Would Change DNA Testing Procedures in Death Penalty Cases."  It's by Veronica Zaragovia and Laura Rice.  There is audio at the link.

A Texas Senate committee passed a bill last night that would require DNA testing of evidence in cases involving the death penalty.

The proposal will now go to the full senate for a vote.

Original Story (April 9, 2013, 5:24 p.m.) Texas lawmakers are weighing a bill that would require DNA testing of evidence in cases involving the death penalty.

In the state, local crime labs handle DNA testing at the discretion of local law enforcement. State Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), wants to change that.

Working with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Sen. Ellis has authored a bill that would require the state to pay for DNA testing before death penalty trials begin.

The Texas Tribune posts, "Huffman Wants 'Michael Morton Act' to Add Restriction," by Brandi Grissom.

A fight over what defense lawyers can do with information about their clients in criminal cases after prosecutors turn it over to them is threatening to stymie the “Michael Morton Act.” 

The measure, Senate Bill 1611 by state Sens. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, would require prosecutors to turn over evidence to defense lawyers in criminal cases. Currently, prosecutors aren't required to provide evidence to defense lawyers unless ordered to by the court, though many Texas prosecutors have some form of open file policy.

The bill is one of several filed in response to the 2011 exoneration of Michael Morton, who spent nearly 25 years in prison after he was wrongly convicted in 1987 of his wife’s murder. His lawyers allege that the prosecutor in the case, Ken Anderson, who is now a Williamson County state judge, withheld critical evidence from Morton’s lawyers. Anderson denies any wrongdoing in the case.

State Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Southside Place, and some prosecutors want a restriction in SB 1611 that would limit whom defense lawyers can share information with once they’ve received it from the state. They said the current bill could jeopardize the safety of victims by allowing public disclosure of private information. Ellis, defense lawyers and at least one victims organization, however, say the current bill would not present danger for crime victims or witnesses. Some worry that Huffman and the prosecutors are working to render the measure meaningless.

Huffman, a former Harris County prosecutor and criminal court judge, said that she supports SB 1611 and that it contains "very necessary reforms." She described the changes she is requesting as “tweaks.”  

She and some district attorneys want to include a requirement in the bill that would force defense attorneys to seek court approval before sharing information they obtain in the discovery process with third parties. Defense lawyers could share information with their staff, the defendant, co-counsel in the case as well as expert witnesses. But they would be prohibited from telling anyone outside that “entrusted circle” without permission of the court.

More information on SB 1292 (DNA testing) and SB 1611 (Criminal Discovery) is at the Texas Legislature Online website.

Earlier coverage of the Texas Legislature current session notes several items:

• Racial justice legislation proposed by Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins
• Creation of a Texas Innocence Commission
• Scientific standards for the evaluation of Intellectual Disability
• Criminal discovery
• Forensics
• Electronic recording of custodial interrogations

Related posts are in the Texas Legislature categoy index.

9th Circuit Overturns Conviction of Arizona Woman on Death Row 22 Years

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in Milke v. Ryan is available in Adobe .pdf format.

"Convictions of woman on Ariz. death row overturned," is the Arizona Republic report written by Michael Kiefer.

Debra Milke was a celebrated villain of 1989, a woman accused and convicted of dressing up her 4-year-old son to see Santa Claus and, instead, sending him off to be shot execution-style in a desert wash.

She is one of three women on Arizona’s death row.

But on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out her death sentence and murder conviction because the trial court refused to let her introduce evidence that might have discredited her supposed confession.

The Phoenix police detective who claimed Milke confessed to him had a history of lying to grand juries and extracting confessions even from unconscious suspects on hospital gurneys, according to the court opinion. There were no witnesses to the confession, and it was not recorded. Milke denied she ever confessed.

The 9th Circuit asked the U.S. District Court to send the case to the Arizona court system for a new trial and ordered that the detective’s personnel files be made available for Milke’s defense.

Assistant Arizona Attorney General Jeffrey Zick said his office will likely ask a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges to rehear the appeal before taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The AP report is, "Woman on death row 22 yrs. sees convictions overturned," via the Arizona Daily Star.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the prosecution failed to disclose information about a history of misconduct by a detective who testified that Milke confessed to plotting her son's murder.

"Some of the misconduct wasn't disclosed until the case came to federal court and, even today, some evidence relevant to (the detective's) credibility hasn't been produced," the ruling said. "In the balance hangs the life of Milke, who has been on Arizona's death row for 22 years."

The ruling reversed a U.S. district judge's ruling and ordered the lower court to require Arizona authorities to turn over all relevant personnel records on the detective.

Once the material is produced and defense lawyers have time to review it, prosecutors will have 30 days to retry her. If they don't, she will be released from prison.

Earlier coverage from Arizona begins at the link.  Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct index.

5th Circuit Overturns Tarrant County Capital Conviction

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in Gongora v. Thaler is available in Adobe .pdf format.

The Texas Tribune posts, "Court Reverses Death Row Inmate's 2003 Conviction."  It's by Maurice Chammah.

A man sentenced to death for the 2001 murder of another man in Fort Worth has had his case overturned by a federal appeals court.

The 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with attorneys for Nelson Gongora that prosecutors in his 2003 murder trial should not have suggested to the jury that Gongora's decision to not testify indicated his guilt.

In their decision Wednesday, the 5th Circuit judges wrote that repeated comments by the Tarrant County prosecutor about Gongora's lack of testimony violated his right to a fair trial. The 5th Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to not testify at trial and in 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this meant a prosecutor could use a decision to not testify as evidence of guilt. The lead prosecutor in Gongora's case, J.D. Granger, did not return a call requesting comment.

Gongora remains on death row while the Tarrant County district attorney's office decides whether to try him again. "It's premature to determine how we're going to proceed," said Melody McDonald, the office's spokeswoman.

And:

The Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas’ highest criminal court, wrote in 2006 that the prosecutors’ comments were “inartful and often confusing,” but did not violate Gongora’s rights. A federal district judge said in 2007 the prosecutor should not have made the comments, but that they did not affect the jury’s decision.

On Wednesday, however, the 5^th Circuit, which reviews appeals from all Texas death penalty cases, wrote that the prosecutor’s comments were “repeated and direct violations” which were “both inexplicable and inexcusable.” In context, the court said, the comments might be read as the prosecutor’s attempt to correct his initial mistake, but over time they served to “reinforce the impression of Gongora’s guilt.”

"Courts Overturn Three Capital Murder Cases," is Jordan Smith's report in the Austin Chronicle.

In that case, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit concluded that the conviction and death sentence handed to Nelson Gongora in 2003 should be vacated, and the case handed back to the district to retry or to dismiss. In its ruling, the court concluded that Tarrant County prosecutors made impermissible comments to the jury about Gongora's failure to take the stand in his own defense, a clear violation of his Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled as a witness. "We find that the extraordinarily extensive comments on Gongora's failure to testify resulted in actual prejudice," the panel ruled.

Gongora was among a handful of men indicted for the 2001 robbery and murder of Delfino Sierra. Gongora was indicted for capital murder in the case, though at trial prosecutors argued that he was either guilty of the robbery and shooting or that he was a participant in the robbery during which Sierra was shot by one of Gongora's cohorts. The result, it seems was confusing: "The jury heard sharply conflicting evidence regarding Gongora's role in the offense, including evidence that the shooter may have been someone other than...Gongora" or a co-defendant, Albert Orosco, reads the Feb. 27 opinion. One witness testified that she didn't see who did the shooting, while others pointed their fingers in several different directions, before ultimately ending up on Gongora – including a witness indicted for the crime but, after agreeing to testify against Gongora, given a plea for 20 years, and a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a second shooting, a fact about which the Fifth Circuit seemed none too amused.

Ultimately, though, prosecutors pointed out that only Gongora did not testify, implying that meant he was the guilty party. Over repeated objection by the defense, prosecutors continued to point out that he failed to take the witness stand. The trial judge declined to grant a mistrial and later rejected Gongora's direct appeal. Texas' Court of Criminal Appeals also ultimately rejected Gongora's argument that the constant comments violated his Fifth Amendment protections. The "complained-of comments appear to be the prosecutors attempt" to comment on the failure of some other witnesses to testify, the CCA concluded. The comments were "not so blatant" that they would have prejudiced the jury, the CCA ruled.

Not only was the CCA wrong, the Fifth Circuit has concluded, but to "conclude otherwise" that the comments did not violate the Fifth Amendment "empties all meaning of this cornerstone of rights upon which our criminal justice system rests," the panel ruled. "Its very centrality renders it a primer rule – etched in the minds of all players in a criminal case. Single episodic violations wil creep in, but repeated and direct violations are both inexplicable and inexcusable. Certainly not excusable by ignorance or inexperience." Not only was the evidence against Gongora fairly weak, the panel noted, but based on notes from the jury during their deliberations, it appears they focused on who and who had not testified – just as prosecutors had suggested they should.

Earlier coverage of Nelson Gongora's case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct index.

Ken Anderson Court of Inquiry Concludes

"Anderson inquiry played to 2 audiences," is Chuck Lindell's report for the Austin American-Statesman.

Theatrics peppered with scornful bickering punctuated former prosecutor Ken Anderson’s court of inquiry last week as each side played to two audiences — the judge who will decide Anderson’s fate, and the public that has watched the Michael Morton saga unfold for the past 18 months.

Attorney pro tem Rusty Hardin set the tone early, much to the annoyance of Anderson and his legal team, by announcing that, before the court convened, he had provided the former district attorney with a copy of everything he planned to introduce as evidence.

And:

Sturns won’t rule on the case until at least April. If he finds reason to believe that Anderson violated state law in his prosecution of Morton, he is required to issue an arrest warrant, the first step toward a potential trial on criminal charges.

"Ken Anderson's Testimony Caps Dramatic Inquiry" is Brandi Grissom's Texas Tribune report.

Friday’s dramatic and at times awkward testimony marked the crescendo of a week of emotional testimony in a case that has gripped national headlines since August 2011, when DNA showed Morton was innocent.

The case has become an example among those who advocate for criminal justice reform of why prosecutors ought to be held accountable for mistakes that cost innocent people years in prison. A finding by the court of inquiry that Anderson committed criminal violations could result in the arrest of the former Williamson County district attorney.

And:

Morton said his impression was that Anderson accepted no responsibility for the injustice he suffered.

"I was hoping for more," he said. "I think we saw someone who is still struggling with denial and anger."

Earlier coverage of the Anderson Court of Inquiry begins at the link.

February 8th coverage includes, "An emotional Anderson has his day in court," in the Statesman; "Drama Erupts as Anderson Court of Inquiry Nears Its End," in the Tribune.

February 7th coverage was, "Anderson court of inquiry hearing peppered with testy exchanges," in the Statesman; "Morton Calls Anderson's Inquiry 'Road to Accountability'," in the Tribune.

February 6th coverage was, "Colleague: Ex-DA worked to keep notes from defense," in the Statesman; "Anderson Inquiry Continues With Former Asst Prosecutor," in the Tribune.

Court of Inquiry in Second Day

The Austin American-Statesman reports, "Lawyers spar over documents in Anderson inquiry," by Chuck Lindell.

Riveting testimony by Michael Morton, and sharply worded battles over evidence, punctuated Monday’s opening of a court of inquiry that is examining whether former prosecutor Ken Anderson improperly hid evidence that could have helped Morton defend himself against a murder charge in 1987.

One of the most intense exchanges was sparked when Rusty Hardin, acting in a role similar to prosecutor, moved late Monday to introduce three documents that were newly discovered in files kept by Anderson when he was Williamson County’s district attorney.

Hardin said the documents, when combined with other records that he had presented earlier, showed a “pattern and practice” of withholding favorable information from defense lawyers, contradicting Anderson’s claims that he always disclosed such evidence as required by law.

“The file is replete with stuff they should have let the defense attorneys have,” Hardin said. “This is three more things in the DA’s files that should have been tendered to the defense. The fox doesn’t get to guard the henhouse.”

"Inquiry Day Two Begins With Judge Questioning," is the Texas Tribune coverage by Brandi Grissom.

On the first day of Williamson County state district Judge Ken Anderson's court of inquiry Monday, Michael Morton spent more than five hours on the witness stand, getting emotional at times as he hashed over the mistakes that led to his wrongful murder conviction and almost 25 years in prison.

“Going through all of that again was difficult, but necessary," Morton said before leaving the court. "I’m glad the process has finally started.”

Anderson, the former prosecutor who secured Morton’s conviction, is the subject of a rare court of inquiry that could lead to criminal charges. Morton and his lawyers allege that Anderson withheld critical information during the 1987 trial that sent him to prison for life for his wife’s murder. Anderson and his lawyers say that the prosecutor committed no wrongdoing in the case, that the judge in the case was ordered to only disclose a limited amount of information and that the statute of limitations on any alleged violations has expired.

Some of the most emotional testimony came early in the day when Hardin asked Morton about the nearly 25 years he spent in prison.

Earlier coverage of the Court of Inquiry begins at the link.

Court of Inquiry Convenes

Brandi Grissom is liveblogging the Court of Inquiry examining Judge Ken Anderson's actions when he was the Williamson County District Attorney and his prosecution of Michael Morton.  She also has an introduction to the liveblog at the Texas Tribune.

A rare court of inquiry begins today in Williamson County and will examine the role of former prosecutor Ken Anderson in the wrongful murder conviction of Michael Morton. Anderson, now a state district judge, faces potential criminal charges for contempt of court and tampering with official documents. Lawyers for Morton, who was released from prison in 2011 after spending nearly 25 years incarcerated for his wife's murder, argue that during the 1987 trial Anderson deliberately withheld evidence in violation of a judge's order.

Rusty Hardin, a former Harris County prosecutor turned high-profile defense lawyer, will act as special prosecutor in the case. He will present evidence to Judge Louis Sturns, who will oversee the unusual court process and eventually decide whether Anderson should face charges. Lawyers for Anderson will also present evidence, which they argue in legal documents will prove that their client did not violate the judge's order. They also contend that the statute of limitations has expired on any alleged violations. 

Anderson has apologized for the criminal justice system's errors in the Morton case, but has maintained that he committed no wrongdoing.

"Morton’s Murder Conviction Comes to Define Anderson," is Grissom's preview published in the Texas Tribune and the Texas edition of the New York Times.

Growing up in the 1960s, Ken Anderson admired the great trial lawyers in movies: Gregory Peck in “To Kill a Mockingbird” and Spencer Tracy in “Inherit the Wind.” The good guys who broke down lying thugs on the stand.

“In reality, I don’t see much brilliance in the courtroom,” Mr. Anderson wrote in his 1997 book, “Crime in Texas: Your Complete Guide to the Criminal Justice System.” “Trials are won and the truth is exposed because of detailed, painstaking preparation done before the first witness is sworn in.”

In 1985, at age 33, Mr. Anderson became the Williamson County district attorney. He held that job until Gov. Rick Perry appointed him a district judge in 2001. Mr. Anderson prosecuted hundreds of criminals, earning a reputation for persuading juries to assess harsh penalties.

One of those cases has come to define Mr. Anderson over the last year and a half as the antithesis of the truth seekers he admired. He will sit at the defense table Monday, facing a rare court of inquiry that will determine whether Mr. Anderson, now 60, should face criminal charges for his role in the wrongful murder conviction of Michael Morton. Mr. Morton, a grocery store manager, served nearly a quarter-century in prison for murdering his wife. DNA testing led to Mr. Morton’s exoneration in 2011.

Mr. Morton’s lawyers say that Mr. Anderson withheld evidence that not only pointed to their client’s innocence but allowed a murderer to remain free.

Today's Los Angeles Times reports, "Texas judge faces 'court of inquiry' into wrongful conviction." It's by Molly Hennessy-Fiske.

A Texas judge who prosecuted a man wrongfully convicted of murder and freed after serving 25 years in prison faces an unprecedented court hearing Monday on whether he should be prosecuted for mishandling the case.

Williamson County District Judge Ken Anderson faces a “court of inquiry” to address allegations that he lied and concealed evidence — in violation of the law and a judge’s order — that could have cleared Michael Morton, who was convicted in the 1986 beating death of his wife, Christine, at their Williamson County home.

Morton was exonerated and released almost a year and a half ago, after DNA tests confirmed his innocence and another man, Mark Alan Norwood, was charged in connection with the killing.

Morton is testifying Monday, his attorney told The Times.

Anderson has denied wrongdoing. His attorney, Eric Nichols, a former prosecutor with the Texas Attorney General's Office, declined to comment to The Times ahead of the hearing.

A “court of inquiry,” part of Texas law since 1965, has usually been used to examine allegations against elected officials, never to address suspected misconduct by a prosecutor. Some hope this week’s hearings lead to a greater examination of alleged prosecutorial misconduct that has led to wrongful convictions not just in Texas, but nationwide.

“There is no doubt that the eyes of Texas are going to be on this proceeding,” said Kathryn Kase, executive directror of Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit that trains and assists lawyers who represent death row inmates. “Bad forensic science is not the only reason people get wrongfully imprisoned, and we have to be dedicated to trying to stop that.”

The Austin American-Statesman is also posting live updates, "Anderson court of inquiry set to begin," by Chuck Lindell, who has been covering the Morton case since 2008.

Michael Morton, who will testify today, is in the audience with his fiancee, Cynthia Chessman. They’ve been together for a year and will be married next month. Morton is sitting with most of his lawyers, including John Raley, Gerry Goldstein and Barry Scheck, the co-founder of the Innocence Project.

The family of Debra Masters Baker is in attendance as well. Baker was beaten to death while lying in bed in her Austin home in 1988, two years after Christine Morton was killed in a similar manner in the Williamson County home she shared with Michael Morton and their 3-year-old son Eric.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, is here as well, but the anticipated crowds have not arrived, though the relatively small courtroom in Georgetown is slowly filling up.

Lindell's preview of the Court of Inquiry is, "Morton prosecutor faces court of inquiry this week."

Exactly 16 months after Michael Morton was freed from prison, an unprecedented hearing will begin Monday in Georgetown to determine if his prosecutor, former Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson, should himself be prosecuted and possibly jailed.

Anderson faces a court of inquiry, a rare and uniquely Texas procedure that will examine allegations that he lied and conspired to conceal evidence — in violation of the law and a judge’s order — that could have spared Morton from serving 25 years in prison in the beating death of his wife.

In the time since DNA tests confirmed his innocence, Morton — who is expected to testify Monday — has worked to rebuild his life, particularly his relationship with son Eric, who was 3 when he was arrested, and a granddaughter born shortly after his release.

Anderson’s fortunes, meanwhile, have fallen.

Earlier coverage of the Anderson Court of Inquiry and Michael Morton's exoneration begins at the link.

Maryland and the Death Penalty

That's the title of an editorial published in the New York Times on Saturday.

Maryland’s governor, Martin O’Malley, chose Jan. 15, the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., to announce his determination to repeal the state’s law allowing capital punishment. “Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence,” he said, quoting Dr. King.

The death penalty does not deter murders, the governor said, since states with the penalty have had higher murder rates than states without it. And prosecuting a capital case in Maryland costs three times as much as pursuing a homicide conviction that carries a sentence of life without parole. In short, the penalty has been a huge waste of taxpayer money on a policy that manifestly does not work. Significantly, he said, the state has gathered sobering proof that its use of the death penalty has been so unfair — so arbitrary and capricious — as to be unjust and immoral.

The Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment reported in 2008 that the “administration of the death penalty clearly shows racial bias” and that the chances of a state prosecutor’s “seeking and imposing a death sentence differs alarmingly across jurisdictions in Maryland, even when the cases are similar.”

In addition, the reversal rate in Maryland death penalty cases has been stunningly high; it was 80 percent for the years 1995 to 2007, the commission reported. Prosecutors have withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. Judges have made decisions that were unfair to defendants. The police have forced involuntary confessions.

And:

As Governor O’Malley said: “We know what does not work. And we know that the way forward is always found through greater respect for the human dignity of all.”

The Baltimore Sun reports, "Death penalty repeal gains 4 co-sponsors over 2012," by Michael Dresser.

The Maryland Senate moved a little closer to a majority willing to vote for full repeal of the death penalty Friday as 21 senators -- four more than last year -- agreed to co-sponsor the legislation in that chamber.

This year the bill also has the full-fledged support of Gov. Martin O'Malley, improving its chances of prevailing and moving over to the House of Delegates.

Twenty-four votes are needed to pass a bill in the Senate. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller has said he believes there is a majority in favor of repeal in his chamber and that he can round up the 29 votes to stop a filibuster. Though he opposes repeal, Miller has said he will bring the bill to the floor this year if the votes are there.

Earlier coverage from Maryland begins at the link.

North Carolina & the Racial Justice Act

"Intentional Bias in North Carolina," was the December 26 editorial in the New York Times.

A North Carolina trial judge recently resentenced three death-row inmates to life without parole under the state’s Racial Justice Act, which allows inmates to have their sentences reduced if it can be shown they were tainted by racial bias. In the trials of two blacks and one Lumbee Indian, the judge found “powerful evidence”of such bias.

The law does not require proof that the bias was deliberate. But, in this case, the judge found “intentional” prosecutorial bias aimed at securing a death sentence for the defendants, bringing grave “harm to African-Americans and to the integrity of the justice system.”

The bias was manifested in the prosecutors’ use of peremptory strikes of prospective jurors during the jury selection process. In one case, the prosecutor struck prospective blacks at two times the rate for whites. In each of the other two cases, the rate was almost four times greater. Even when adjustments were made for other factors, like the criminal record of a prospective juror, race was “a significant factor” in the rigorous ways that the North Carolina statute required the defendants to prove.

The judge found that words and deed of the prosecutors themselves confirmed his conclusions about racial influence in the jury selection process.

And:

The judge observed that the injustice abundantly proven in each case was common throughout North Carolina during the past two decades. Prosecutors excluded blacks from juries for going to church too often or for other reasons that “simply make no sense” and that could be explained only by intentional and ugly bias.

The Wilmington Star News published the editorial, "Racial Justice Act needed to ensure equal treatment under law," also on December 26.

No matter one’s opinion of the death penalty, the Constitution requires fairness in meting out justice. That process cannot be fair if race was a factor in sentencing, as a Superior Court judge determined earlier this month in commuting the death sentences of three convicted killers to life in prison.

It was the second test of the Racial Justice Act and the first argued since the General Assembly restricted the use of certain data and made it harder for death row inmates to prove sentencing bias.

Superior Court Judge Gregory Weeks of Fayetteville was instantly criticized for finding that race played a significant role in imposing the death sentence. But his ruling commuting their sentences to life without parole was clear: “This conclusion is based primarily on the words and deeds of the prosecutors involved in these cases,” he told the courtroom. “Despite protestations to the contrary, their words, their deeds, speak volumes.”

And:

Our justice system contains boundaries that prosecutors and law officers must abide by. They do not get to tweak the system for people they think deserve the ultimate punishment. Doing so sullies the entire justice system.

Also looking at the RJA cases, ChapelBoro posted, "Kinnaird On Recent Racial Justice Act Case: 'It Was A Good Outcome'," by Anne Brenner.

Senator Ellie Kinnaird has been a longtime advocate for fairness in death penalty sentences—and she’s speaking in favor of one particular recent decision that involved the newly-revised racial justice act.

Earlier this month, Superior Court Judge Greg Weeks re-sentenced three death penalty inmates to life in prison, after he concluded that race was a factor in their original sentencing. Kinnaird says this case points out why all death penalty cases must be carefully examined.

“These were heinous crimes, and a lot of people feel that the only penalty that’s fitting for a heinous crime is the death penalty,” she says. “But the death penalty has so many flaws in it, and this case showed one of them, which is that there has been racial bias.”

Earlier coverage of North Carolina's Racial Justice Act begins at the link; also available, other North Carolina coverage.

Latest Developments in the Justin Wolfe Case

The Federal District Court order in Wolfe v. Clarke is available in Adobe .pdf format.

The Washington Examiner posts an editorial, "Capital case exposes prosecutorial misconduct."

Before Prince William County prosecutors made headlines in the Beltway sniper case, they helped send former Chantilly High School football player Justin Wolfe to Virginia's death row for the March 2001 murder of Danny Petrole, a community college student and the son of a retired Secret Service agent. Petrole was also the kingpin of one of the largest drug rings ever uncovered in Northern Virginia.

But now a federal judge in Norfolk has ordered Wolfe's release, raising disturbing questions about prosecutorial misconduct in capital cases.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson overturned Wolfe's conviction, ruling that prosecutors wrongly withheld exonerating evidence. Last August, a three-judge appellate panel agreed.

And:

In Wolfe's case, Prince William fell far short of acceptable prosecutorial standards. Disciplinary action should be taken against all involved in this shocking miscarriage of justice.

"Attorney general’s office to appeal order barring retrial," is by Frank Green for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. 

The Virginia Attorney General’s Office will appeal a federal judge’s order barring the retrial of Justin Wolfe in a 2001 capital murder in Prince William County.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson of Norfolk ordered Wolfe freed from jail within 10 days and barred any retrial in the murder-for-hire of Daniel Petrole Jr., his marijuana supplier.

A spokesman for the attorney general’s office said Thursday that an appeal of Jackson’s retrial order will be filed. Raymond Morrogh, the Fairfax County commonwealth’s attorney and the appointed special prosecutor in the case, said a stay will be sought to halt any release of Wolfe pending a new trial.

Wolfe, 31, is being held at the Prince William County Jail.

Last year Jackson, citing prosecutorial misconduct, threw out Wolfe’s conviction and gave the state 120 days to retry him. On Wednesday, Jackson ruled that the 120-day period had expired and ordered Wolfe released.

Jackson also barred any retrial of Wolfe that would require the testimony of Owen Barber IV, the triggerman and the state’s star witness at Wolfe’s 2002 trial.

Last week, the Times-Dispatch reported, "Judge orders release of former death-row inmate."  It was also written by Frank Green.

A federal judge Wednesday ordered the release within 10 days of former death row inmate Justin Wolfe who was convicted of the 2001 murder-for-hire of Daniel Petrole Jr.

In addition, U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson barred any retrial of Wolfe for Petrole’s death that would require the testimony of Owen Barber IV, the triggerman and key witness in Wolfe’s 2002 Prince William County trial.

A spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General’s office could not be reached for comment Wednesday but Kimberly Irving, one of Wolfe’s lawyers, said she expects the state to appeal Jackson’s ruling.

Last year Jackson tossed out Wolfe’s conviction and death sentence citing prosecutorial misconduct and gave the state 120 days to retry him. On Wednesday, Jackson found the state had exceeded the deadline.

Jackson’s order also held that a Sept. 11 visit to Barber in prison by Prince William County authorities has rendered a new trial involving Barber unfair to Wolfe.

Irving said she believes Jackson’s ruling means that even if authorities decide they could retry Wolfe in Petrole’s slaying without Barber’s testimony, they would still be barred because Wolfe could not use Barber as a defense witness.

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.

Andrew Cohen Looks to 2013

Andrew Cohen posts, "The Law: 10 Days to Watch in 2013," at the the Atlantic.

Here's a list of 10 important legal dates in 2013, days when you'll likely be paying a little more attention than usual to the world of the law. Some of them represent the beginning of new realities we'll have to deal with next year and beyond. Some of them are timely commemorations of important dates in legal history, reminders that many of the same fighting faiths that animate our current national arguments were around in times past.

I'm already on the record as suggesting that 2013 will be as intense or even more intense for the law than the year we've just endured. Here are some reasons why.

And here are two of his 10 dates:

January 8: The Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a capital case that touches upon virtually every failing you ever see in a capital case. There is no physical evidence against Tyrone Noling, convicted of murdering an elderly man and woman in their Ohio home in 1990. All of the primary witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and there are allegations of coercive interrogation tactics on the part of the police. Meanwhile, prosecutors withheld evidence at trial. And yet today they continue to refuse to allow DNA testing of a cigarette butt found at the scene of the crime that might exonerate the defendant. Noling's execution has been stayed. His lawyers say he deserves a new trial.

And:

May 13: The 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's seminal ruling in Brady v. Maryland.  This case stands for the proposition that if prosecutors cheat during criminal trials, defendants may get relief from the court. "We now hold," the Supreme Court unanimously announced, "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." The so-called "Brady Rule" now is a standard most criminal cases -- and has been broadened, in theory anyway, by the justices. Sadly, as the Noling case above demonstrated, it's also frequently ignored by overzealous prosecutors. Here's to John Brady.

You'll want to read the other eight.

News Coverage of Justin Wolfe's Virginia State Court Hearing

"Judge hears accusations of prosecutorial misconduct in Va. death-penalty case," is the AP report, via the Washington Post.

No one was more instrumental in putting then-20-year-old Justin Wolfe on death row than his one-time associate, Owen Barber IV.

And no one was more crucial a decade later in getting Justin Wolfe off death row than Barber, who eventually recanted the testimony against Wolfe that was integral to Wolfe’s capital murder conviction.

Now lawyers on both sides are trying to figure out what story Barber will tell next, and a judge must decide whether prosecutors were improperly trying to sway Barber back to their side during a jailhouse visit in September.

A Prince William County judge heard evidence Tuesday on defense lawyers’ motion to toss out the new murder charges against Wolfe. The lawyers claim prosecutors threatened Barber with the death penalty if he continued to disavow his original testimony. The judge will hear further arguments later this week.

And:

Now, with Wolfe’s retrial scheduled for Jan. 2, attention is focused on a two-hour jailhouse visit to Barber by Prince William County prosecutors Paul Ebert and Richard Conway. The judge heard a nearly two-hour recording of the visit Tuesday.

In the meeting, prosecutors make it clear to Barber that recanting his trial testimony violates the terms of his plea bargain, and they could bring capital charges against Barber. It’s also clear from the recording that Barber had no idea that his recantation could potentially put him on death row.

But prosecutors and the defense interpret the meeting differently. The defense argues the visit is a thinly veiled threat to Barber that he must either testify the way the government wants or face execution.

Inside NoVa (Northern Virginia) posts, "Defense attorneys play jailhouse recording in Wolfe case," by Amanda Stewart.

A meeting Prince William county prosecutors had with Owen Barber, a key witness in the Justin Wolfe capital murder case, at a state prison in September was again at the center of pretrial hearings in the case Tuesday.

Wolfe’s defense attorneys played a recording of that visit during a hearing in Prince William Circuit Court to persuade Judge Mary Grace O’Brien that prosecutors acted improperly.

Defense attorneys argued that Prince William Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul Ebert, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Richard Conway and Prince William police Detective Sam Newsome’s jailhouse interview with Barber in September amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and so the charges against Wolfe should be dismissed.

Days after that meeting, Ebert recused himself and his office, and Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Raymond Morrogh was appointed to serve as special prosecutor in the case.

And:

More hearings in the case will be heard Friday.

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.

RJA Commentary from North Carolina

In the wake of a second judicial finding of racial bias in North Carolina death penalty trials, newspapers are speaking out.  The News & Observer of Raleigh publishes the editorial, "A just ruling."

The anguish of families and colleagues of the victims in three murder cases, reacting to a judge’s ruling that the convicted killers deserved life in prison without parole instead of the death penalties they received, was deep and understandable. The families undoubtedly feel that justice has been denied.

But despite the sympathy all feel for the victims and those they left behind, justice is not about getting revenge. It is about trial and conviction (or acquittal) and punishment arrived at fairly. And that was not the case with the death penalties given to Christina Walters, Tilmon Golphin and Quintel Augustine, said Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Gregory Weeks at a Thursday hearing. Rather, he said, their trials and sentences contained clear evidence of racial discrimination.

And:

Weeks cites in a ruling of over 200 pages examples of how prosecutors used twisted reasoning to strike prospective jurors who might have been sympathetic to minority-race defendants. One example: In Augustine’s case, he wrote that “despite strong evidence” that a juror “was targeted for exclusion from Augustine’s jury because of her residence in a black neighborhood,” the prosecutor “never told the trial judge he was striking her for that reason.”

When race influences jury selection, does that make for fair trials? It does not. And could there be a worst-case scenario than such maneuvers going on with the death penalty in the mix? No. Critics say the Racial Justice Act is a back-door route to abolition of the death penalty. (No juries have delivered death sentences in the state this year, by the way.) That would be positive, frankly, because only a perfect judicial system doesn’t make mistakes. As recent rulings show, North Carolina’s system is far from that.

"Justice, not retribution, is what should be blind," is the Charlotte Observer editorial.

A Cumberland County judge’s decision last week to commute three killers’ death sentences to life in prison is hard for a lot of folks to swallow, and understandably so.

Tilmon Golphin, Christina Walters and Quintel Augustine deserve no pity. Between them, they killed a state trooper, a sheriff’s deputy, a police officer and two women. They deserve the stiffest punishment the law allows.

So we sympathize with people like Al Lowry, who yelled an expletive at Superior Court Judge Gregory Weeks before being removed from the courtroom Thursday. Golphin was convicted of killing Lowry’s brother, state Trooper Ed Lowry, during a traffic stop in 1997. Al Lowry and some family members of other victims were distraught that Weeks had reduced the trio’s sentences to life in prison without parole. How could anyone be soft on such undeniable evil-doers?

The question before Weeks, however – and before all judges that could soon hear appeals under the state’s Racial Justice Act – is not whether to be soft or tough. It’s whether justice is being done. Justice that punishes the guilty – and does so through a fair and unbiased system.

"The true measure," is the Lumberton Robesonian editorial.

The last few days haven’t favored the U.S. Constitution, that venerable 225-year-old document from which all that is great about this country has derived.

On Thursday, a Superior Court judge in Cumberland County commuted the sentences to life in prison of three death row inmates, including two who had killed police officers. The lives of Christina “Queen” Walters, Tilmon Golphin and Quintel Augustine will be spared — barring a successful appeal by the state — not because any had been redeemed in the eyes of the law; they remain cold-blooded murderers who killed without reason or provocation, snuffing out lives of promise and bringing never-ending and untold grief to the families and friends of their victims.

Their lives were spared because Judge Gregory A. Weeks concluded that prosecutors, during jury selection, plotted to dismiss jurors of color, making the jury too white and too hostile to people of color — Walters is a Lumbee Indian, and Golphin and Augustine are black. Weeks determined that these three murderers were consequently denied a fair trial, which is guaranteed under this country’s Constitution.

And:

It is now that we must remember that the Constitution’s greatness is measured by its 225-year record, not by events of late last week — and that the gift of living in the land of liberty is not without a price.

Ted Mohn posts, "NC Racial Justice Act, Jury Selection & Peremptory Challenges," a the Fayetteville Observer - What You Think blog

What would be the impact (pros and cons) if the NC General Assembly eliminated peremptory challenges from our State Statutes?

Proponents of peremptory challenges say this type of challenge helps eliminate potential jurors that may have some type of bias related to the case or potential sentencing.  Do you think this potential bias can be identified with proper questions, and if found, the potential juror could be removed via § 15A-1212. Grounds for challenge for cause versus the use of peremptory challenge?

In today's society is there still a need for the two parties to have peremptory challenges during jury selection?  If so, does either party need to afforded up to 14 peremptory challenges  in capital cases?

Would the removal of peremptory challenges from our State Statutes help ensure future death penalty sentences are not commuted to life in prison without parole under the Racial Justice Act?

Tell me what you think when you get some time.

The Fayetteville Observer also carries a news article, "Disagreement after Racial Justice Act commutations over when murder cases went wrong," by Paul Woolverton.

The trials in three notorious murder cases in Cumberland County suffered from gross miscarriages of justice, critics say.

But where these cases went wrong is a far more complex question.

Was it Thursday, when a judge used the N.C. Racial Justice Act to commute the death sentences of Tilmon Golphin, Christina S. Walters and Quintel Augustine?

Or was it a decade or more ago, when the killers were tried and sentenced by juries that defense lawyers argue were unfairly chosen by race?

Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Greg Weeks' ruling unleashed a torrent of strong emotions from both sides - those who are furious over what they perceive as justice undone, and those who believe a judge is finally acknowledging institutionalized racism in the state's judicial process.

And:

"This conclusion is based primarily on the words and deeds of the prosecutors involved in Defendants' cases," Weeks wrote in his ruling. "In the writings of prosecutors long buried in case files and brought to light for the first time in this hearing, the Court finds powerful evidence of race consciousness and race-based decision making."

His 210-page ruling says a prosecutor kept a "cheat sheet" of legally acceptable excuses for peremptorily striking black jurors to mask bias-based reasons. Statistical evidence "shows that in Defendants' cases, in Cumberland County, and in North Carolina as a whole, prosecutors strike African Americans at double the rate they strike other potential jurors," Weeks said.

And Weeks was troubled that in two other murder trials, where white racist skinheads James Burmeister and Malcolm Wright were tried for killing two blacks, the evidence suggested that prosecutors strove to seat jurors who were black.

"Comparing the prosecution's jury selection in Burmeister and Wright to Defendants' cases, the Court finds compelling empirical evidence that race, not reservations about the death penalty, not connections to the criminal justice system, but race, drives prosecution decisions about which citizens may participate in one of the most important and visible aspects of democratic government," Weeks wrote.

Earlier coverage of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act begins at the link.

Coverage of Hearing in the Justin Wolfe Case

"Va. prosecutors defend actions in capital retrial; defense wants case tossed out," is the AP report, via the Washington Post.

Prosecutors on Tuesday disputed allegations that they threatened a key witness in the death-penalty retrial of an alleged drug dealer whose original capital conviction was overturned on accusations of prosecutorial misconduct.

Defense attorneys for Justin Wolfe want a judge to dismiss the renewed charges against their client. Specifically, they say prosecutors in Prince William County engaged in further misconduct this September when they visited their one-time star witness, Owen Barber, in a Virginia prison.

Barber testified against Wolfe a decade ago, admitting he was the triggerman in a murder-for-hire scheme allegedly orchestrated by Wolfe against another drug dealer, Daniel Petrole. Barber’s testimony was instrumental in convicting Wolfe, who landed on death row.

But Barber eventually recanted his testimony, and a federal judge overturned Wolfe’s conviction and death sentence, sending the case back to Prince William County for a retrial.

And:

The jailhouse interview will be the subject of a full hearing Dec. 18 in Manassas. It was mentioned only briefly during a hearing Tuesday in Prince William Circuit Court that dealt with other pretrial matters.

The federal judge who overturned Wolfe’s conviction, U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson, is also interested in the jailhouse interview. He is holding a hearing Thursday in Norfolk on a defense motion to dismiss the retrial on the grounds that prosecutors failed to retry Wolfe in the 120-day time frame that he allotted them when he remanded the case. But in an order Jackson filed Monday, he indicated that he also wants to explore the circumstances surrounding the jailhouse interview.

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.

New Developments in Justin Wolfe Case in Virginia

"Va. judge hears motions seeking dismissal of death penalty retrial," is the AP report, via the Washington Post.

A judge will again hear arguments seeking to toss out capital murder charges against an alleged northern Virginia drug dealer whose initial death sentence was overturned on accusations of prosecutorial misconduct.

A hearing is scheduled Tuesday in Manassas in the retrial of Justin Wolfe. He was convicted a decade ago of orchestrating a murder for hire of a fellow drug dealer.

But federal courts overturned the conviction and death sentence after ruling that prosecutors failed to turn over key evidence and after the alleged hitman recanted his testimony.

The case is being retired by a special prosecutor, Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Ray Morrogh.

A hearing is also scheduled for Thursday in federal court in Norfolk seeking to dismiss the retrial on different grounds.

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

An Update From Virginia on the Justin Wolfe Case

"Wolfe again seeks end to death-penalty retrial," is the AP report by Matthew Barakat.  It's via the San Francisco Chronicle.

A key witness who recanted his testimony in a death-penalty case was told by prosecutors that he could face the same punishment himself if he does not go back to his original story, according to defense lawyers.

The allegation about witness Owen Barber is contained in a motion that seeks to dismiss the capital retrial of Justin Wolfe, whose original conviction and death sentence were overturned after a decade on death row on accusations of prosecutorial misconduct.

The motion contains details of a jailhouse discussion in September between prosecutors and Barber, their one-time star witness who avoided the death penalty by testifying against Wolfe in 2001. Initially, Barber, the triggerman in the shooting of rival drug dealer Daniel Petrole, said he was acting on behalf of Wolfe. Barber later recanted, leading a federal judge to overturn the conviction.

In court papers, Wolfe's defense lawyers describe parts of the jailhouse conversation. They say that Barber maintained that his original testimony implicating Wolfe was false. Prosecutors then tell Barber that the case is back at "square one" and that Barber himself could face death penalty charges if he failed to uphold his original testimony, according to the motion.

And:

More broadly, the defense argues that the retrial amounts to a vindictive prosecution because the new charges are harsher than those originally filed against Wolfe, including an additional death-penalty count based on an allegation of a "continuing criminal enterprise."

"It is constitutionally impermissible to add new charges against someone who's been declared innocent by a federal court," said defense lawyer Edward MacMahon.

A judge will likely hold a hearing on the motion in coming weeks.

Lawyers are also seeking to have the case tossed out in federal court, arguing that state prosecutors failed to follow a federal judge's order to either retry Wolfe in 120 days or grant his unconditional release.

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

The Jermaine Wright Case in Delaware

"Death penalty case still stirring," is the Wilmington News Journal report written by Sean O’Sullivan.

The state’s effort to reinstate the death penalty against a man whose conviction was overturned 11 months ago is headed back to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Superior Court Judge John A. Parkins Jr. ruled Wednesday in a 15-page opinion that police and prosecutors did not provide critical information to attorneys who represented Jermaine Wright 20 years ago, as they were required to do.

Wright was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 slaying of liquor store clerk Phillip Seifert.

The ruling by Parkins essentially affirms his decision in January 2012 to overturn Wright’s conviction and death sentence.

Prosecutors appealed that decision, saying that Wright’s attorneys were aware of the evidence – relating to a similar robbery at a different liquor store on the night of the homicide – and the Delaware Supreme Court sent the matter back to Parkins for additional investigation.

And:

It is not clear if the Delaware Supreme Court will now rule on the appeal or ask for additional briefs or argument from attorneys.

Earlier coverage of Jermaine Wright's case begins at the link. 

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

Court of Inquiry in Michael Morton Case Delayed

That's the title of Brandi Grissom's Texas Tribune post on the latest developments in the Michael Morton exoneration.

The court of inquiry that will determine whether the former prosecutor who oversaw the wrongful conviction of Michael Morton could face criminal charges will be delayed until Feb. 4, a prosecutor with the Texas attorney general’s office said Monday.

News of the delay in the inquiry involving now-Williamson County State District Judge Ken Anderson — previously scheduled for Dec. 10 — came during a hearing in the case of Mark Norwood. Norwood is charged with murdering Michael Morton’s wife, Christine, at their North Austin home in 1986, a crime for which Morton spent nearly 25 years in prison. Lawyers for Norwood are seeking to delay his trial, which is scheduled for Jan. 7 in San Angelo.

Anderson is accused of deliberately hiding evidence during Morton’s 1987 trial that indicated Morton was innocent and that another person may have killed his wife. Anderson has strenuously denied allegations of wrongdoing in the Morton case.

At Monday’s hearing, Russell Hunt Jr., Norwood’s lawyer, told Williamson County State District Judge Burt Carnes that he needed additional time to hire a DNA expert to review the state expert’s work.

Earlier coverage of Michael Morton's exoneration begins at the link.

A Texas Prosecutor Faces Justice

That's the title of Joe Nocera's OpEd column in today's New York Times.

In just about a month from now, Texas will witness a rare event: a former prosecutor is going to be held to account for alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

He is Ken Anderson, who for nearly 17 years was the district attorney in Williamson County, a fast-growing suburb of Austin. (In 2002, Gov. Rick Perry made him a district judge.) As Pamela Colloff writes, in a brilliant two-part series in Texas Monthly, Anderson was the kind of prosecutor who “routinely asked for, and won, harsh sentences and fought to keep offenders in prison long after they became eligible for parole.”

One of Anderson’s most high-profile prosecutions was of a man named Michael Morton. In 1987, Anderson prosecuted him for a heinous crime: His wife, Christine, was bludgeoned to death. Morton was then in his early 30s, with a 3-year-old son and a job at Safeway. He had never been in trouble. Yet the Williamson County sheriff, Jim Boutwell, from whom Anderson took his cues, was convinced that Morton had committed the crime.

Evidence that could be used against him — such as a plaintive note Morton wrote to his wife after she fell asleep when he was hoping to have sex — was highlighted. Evidence that suggested his innocence — most importantly, a blood-stained bandana discovered near Morton’s house — was ignored. Worst of all, Anderson’s office hid from the defense some crucial evidence that would undoubtedly have caused the jury to find Morton not guilty. By the time Morton was sentenced — to life — only his parents and a single co-worker believed he was innocent.

But he was. 

And:

What makes the Morton case unusual is that, thanks to the Innocence Project’s re-investigation, Ken Anderson will soon go before a Texas Court of Inquiry. If the court believes that Anderson’s alleged misconduct rises to the level of a crime, it could refer the matter to a grand jury. But the Court of Inquiry exists only in Texas, and is almost never used even there.

In truth, Anderson isn’t the only Williamson County prosecutor who faced consequences as a result of the Morton case. His successor, John Bradley, was the one who had fought for years against the DNA testing of the bandana. Seven months after Morton was set free, Bradley, who had always been a shoo-in for re-election as district attorney, was resoundingly defeated.

Pamela Colloff's, "The Innocent Man, Part 1," and "The Innocent Man, Part 2," are available at Texas Monthly.

Earlier coverage of Michael Morton's exoneration and the Court of Inquiry begins at the link.

Colloff also wrote a Texas Monthly article, "Innocence Lost," that called critical attention to Anthony Graves' case before his capital exoneration.  After his exoneration she wrote, "Innocence Found."

An Update on the Justin Wolfe Case in Virginia

"Prosecutors accused of bias in capital case retrial; defense wants special prosecutor off case," is the AP report, via the Washington Post.

Defense attorneys on Wednesday accused prosecutors in Fairfax and Prince William counties of bias in their efforts to retry a former death-row inmate whose conviction and sentence were overturned by a federal court.

Attorneys for Justin Wolfe sought to put on evidence at an acrimonious hearing in Prince William Circuit Court to have special prosecutor Ray Morrogh disqualified from the case.

The defense alleges that Morrogh, the commonwealth’s attorney in Fairfax County, is essentially in cahoots with Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul Ebert, who first convicted Wolfe. Morrogh and Ebert are friends who have collaborated on cases before, including the 2003 prosecutions of the D.C. snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo.

Ebert recused himself from Wolfe’s retrial when the federal court that overturned the conviction accused Ebert of prosecutorial misconduct. Ebert successfully petitioned the judge to have Morrogh named as his replacement.

The defense alleges that Morrogh’s friendship with Ebert calls into question whether Morrogh would confront the accusations of impropriety against Ebert, who was accused by a federal judge of deliberately withholding evidence of Wolfe’s innocence. The defense has claimed that Morrogh’s overriding interest will be to vindicate his friend at any cost by obtaining another capital conviction.

And:

A federal appeals court earlier this year upheld a judge’s decision to toss out Wolfe’s conviction and death sentence in the slaying of his marijuana supplier, Daniel Petrole, in a 2001 case that exposed the workings of an elaborate drug ring in wealthy northern Virginia. The court ruled that prosecutors wrongly withheld evidence from Wolfe’s attorneys that discredited the government’s star witness — triggerman Owen Barber IV. who later recanted his testimony that Wolfe was involved in Petrole’s killing.

WUSA-TV reports, "Justin Wolfe of Manassas, Va., convicted in murder-for-hire case, back in court for pre-trial hearing."  It's by Peggy Fox.

Judge Mary Grace O'Brien rejected the defense subpoena to force Paul Ebert and Richard Conway to testify in today's hearing. The motion under review today and continuing is whether special prosecutor Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Morrogh should be removed. Ebert, after recusing himself from the case, recommended Morrogh for the job and Judge Obrien made the appointment.

The defense believes Morrogh cannot be impartial in the retrial because of his close relationship with Ebert.

"Letter urges removal of special prosecutor in Prince William," is an earlier AP report by Larry O'Dell.  It appeared in the October 25 edition of the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Fifty-nine former judges, prosecutors and other attorneys sent a Prince William County judge a letter Wednesday advocating the removal of the special prosecutor in a high-profile murder-for-hire case.

A federal appeals court this year upheld a judge's decision to toss out Justin Wolfe's conviction and death sentence in the slaying of his marijuana supplier, Daniel Petrole.

The court ruled that prosecutors wrongly withheld evidence from Wolfe's attorneys that would have discredited their star witness - triggerman Owen Barber IV, who later recanted his testimony.

And:

The letter was filed along with court papers by Wolfe's lawyers, Edward Ungvarsky and Kimberly Irving, alleging that Morrogh has been improperly collaborating with Ebert and his aides as he prepares for the retrial.

They also say Ebert orchestrated the appointment of Morrogh, his longtime friend, prompting "public concern and loss of confidence in the integrity of court proceedings."

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

From David Love of Witness to Innocence

"Terry Williams Case Highlights the Need For Death Penalty Moratorium," is the title of David Love's latest Huffington Post essay.  He's the Executive Director of Witness to Innocence.

When Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina stayed the execution of Terry Williams, she dealt a blow to the death penalty in Pennsylvania. Now the public has caught a glimpse of prosecutorial misconduct and evidence suppression in the application of the death penalty, and it isn't pretty.

In her order, Judge Sarmina -- a former prosecutor -- issued a scathing indictment of the prosecutor in that case for hiding evidence that Amos Norwood was allegedly, a sexual predator who had molested Williams and other children.

Sarmina said "evidence has plainly been suppressed," and accused former assistant D.A. Andrea Foulkes of engaging in "gamesmanship" and "playing fast and loose." The judge also said Foulkes "had no problem disregarding her ethical obligations" in an attempt to win.

And:

With 200 people condemned to death, Pennsylvania has the fourth largest death row in America. With no voluntary executions in the state in half a century, the tragic story of Terry Williams has reopened the debate on capital punishment. We do not know how many of death row inmates would be free or serving a lesser sentence, but for an ethically challenged prosecutor who believed in winning over seeking justice. Given what we know, now is as good a time as any to shut down Pennsylvania's broken death machine.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams case begins at the link

Terry Williams' Case Coverage

Today's New York Times reports, "Pennsylvania Justices Block an Execution," by Jon Hurdle.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday halted the execution of Terrance Williams, a convicted murderer who had been scheduled to die by lethal injection only a few hours later.

The ruling upheld a stay of execution granted last week by Judge M. Teresa Sarmina of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on the ground that prosecutors had withheld evidence at Mr. Williams’s 1986 trial that could have led to a lesser penalty.

In a brief statement, the state’s highest court denied an emergency application by the Philadelphia district attorney, R. Seth Williams, to overturn Judge Sarmina’s ruling, which also granted a new sentencing hearing. The defendant remains under sentence of death unless or until the State Supreme Court upholds the ruling for resentencing and a new jury commutes the sentence to life without parole.

The court gave no reason for its decision, which followed defense arguments that the murder victim had sexually abused Mr. Williams for most of his adolescence and that prosecutors had withheld that evidence from the jury.

Mr. Williams had been scheduled to be put to death at 7 p.m. Wednesday. The execution would have been the first in Pennsylvania in 13 years, and the first in the state since 1962 for an inmate who did not choose to die because he had lost all appeals.

"Terrance Williams misses his date with executioner," by Joseph A. Slobodzian in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In an unsigned one-sentence order, the state's high court decided to take more time - possibly months - to review Friday's ruling by Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina. Sarmina ruled that the integrity of Williams' 1986 death sentence had been undermined by new evidence that the trial prosecutor withheld information that Williams was sexually molested by his victim.

Williams attorney Shawn Nolan thanked more than 380,000 people who signed an Internet clemency petition.

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has wisely decided to consider all of the evidence before making a final decision, and we look forward to presenting our case in the coming months," Nolan said.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said in a statement that he continues to believe that Terrance Williams is one of the few who deserves the death penalty and that "his new claims are not true."

"The case will now proceed as a normal appeal to the Supreme Court," Williams said. "This is not the first time the prosecution has appealed a capital case, and it probably won't be the last."

The AP filing is, "Pa. court spares inmate from execution," by Maryclaire Dale, via the Allentown Morning Call.

Terrance "Terry" Williams spent a day on death row waiting for a call that never came.

Williams feared he'd be shipped across the state to be executed on Wednesday, the first person sent to the death chamber in Pennsylvania since 1999. But the call never came. Instead, his defense lawyers phoned him that afternoon to say the state Supreme Court had in effect halted the execution.

A state judge last week granted a stay of execution, and the court said it wouldn't overturn her decision before Williams' death warrant expired at midnight. The court plans to review Williams' case over time.

Additional coverage includes:

"Terrance 'Terry' Williams will not be executed today," by Donald Gilliland for the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

"Pennsylvania high court upholds stay of execution for Terrance Williams," by David Ariosto at CNN.

"Pennsylvania Supreme Court stays Terrance Williams' execution," by Karen Langley in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"Williams spared from execution," by Mary Wilson at WHYY-FM NewsWorks.

"Pa. Supreme Court Spares Man From Execution," by Jim Malewitz at Stateline - the Pew Center on the States.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Statement From Terry Williams' Attorneys

Shawn Nolan has released a "Statement from Attorneys for Terry Williams Re: Stay of Execution."  Here's the statement in full:

“On behalf of Terry Williams we are extremely pleased that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed Judge Sarmina’s grant of a stay of execution and want to thank everyone supporting the effort to stop this execution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has wisely decided to consider all of the evidence before making a final decision and we look forward to presenting our case in the coming months.
 
After hearing multiple days of testimony and careful consideration of all the records, Judge Sarmina granted a stay of execution and found that the prosecution withheld critical evidence from the jury. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has now confirmed, Judge Sarmina’s grant of a stay was factually and legally sound.
 
The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office should stop its pursuit to execute Terry Williams. The time has now come for them to heed the call from the victim’s widow, jurors, child advocates, victim’s rights advocates, and over 380,000 people who do not want Terry executed.”

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins with the preceding post.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Refuses to Lift Stay

"Not tonight. Condemned killer spared execution," is the Philadelphia Inquirer breaking news post by Joseph A. Slobodzian.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has refused a prosecution plea to reinstate today's execution of condemned Philadelphia killer Terrance Williams.

At about 3:45 p.m., the court in a one-sentence order denied the District Attorney's emergency motion and ordered court personnel to draft a schedule for filing legal briefs and, perhaps, an oral argument.

The state's high court decision let stand last Friday's ruling by Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina that the 1986 trial prosecutor made Williams' death sentence more likely by withholding informtion that Williams was sexually molested by his victim.

"Condemned Killer's Life Spared in Last Hours," is the AP filing, via WCAU-TV.

Pennsylvania's top court has denied prosecutors' emergency petition in a death penalty appeal, meaning Terrance Williams will not be executed tonight.

The 46-year-old Williams has a stay of his scheduled execution, which is the first in Pennsylvania in more than a decade. A state judge has vacated his death sentence and ordered a new sentencing hearing after finding last week that prosecutors hid evidence at his 1986 trial.

Judge M. Teresa Sarmina said prosecutors suppressed evidence that Williams' victim was an alleged pedophile who abused boys, including Williams, so jurors were not aware of those allegations when they voted to impose the death penalty.
 
But Philadelphia prosecutors appealed to the state's high court to overturn that ruling and reinstate the death penalty in time to execute Williams on Wednesday. The court rejected the appeal.

CounterPunch posts, "Prosecutorial Misconduct and the Death Penalty," by Linn Washington, Jr.

The recent outrage in Pennsylvania over the scheduled October 3 execution of a man who killed two men who had sexually abused him during his childhood has tarnished the reformer image of Philadelphia DA Seth Williams, exposing him as just another prosecutor willing to trample justice to preserve a death penalty.

When Seth Williams successfully campaigned to become Philadelphia’s top prosecutor a few years ago he used a catchy phrase: “A New Day/A New DA.”

But based on Williams’ recent posturing and positions taken by him, evidence indicates this new DA continues operating in the same old way as his predecessors.

Instead of running his office in accordance with that ‘New Day’ many expected, DA Williams is defending death penalty cases that are stained by prosecutorial misconduct and is pursuing factually bogus charges against victims of police brutality, including one involving a blind man charged with attacking the police who beat him.

The most pronounced example of Williams’ old wine/new bottle stance is his vigorous –and intellectually dishonest — public relations campaign backing the execution of child-sex abuse victim-turned-murderer Terrance Williams.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

A Flagrant Conflict of Interest

That's the title of Lincoln Caplan's New York Times Taking Note blog post.

Last Friday, a state trial judge stayed Pennsylvania’s execution of Terrance Williams—scheduled for this Wednesday—and ordered a new sentencing hearing. In response to a motion from Philadelphia’s district attorney, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could overturn the stay and order, putting the execution back on schedule. Yet the court’s chief justice has no business judging this case.

Chief Justice Ronald Castille has a classic and flagrant conflict of interest: he is passing judgment on a prosecution that he approved and oversaw, and on a trial judge’s ruling that strongly censured that prosecution. He was the Philadelphia district attorney in 1986 and accountable for the serious misconduct that led to Mr. Williams’ death sentence.

The current Williams defense team filed motions on Monday for the chief justice to either recuse himself, or refer the matter to his fellow justices, so he was not deciding his own case. But, within hours, Mr. Castille turned down both motions.

And:

When Mr. Castille was elected chief justice in 1993 on a law-and-order platform, his campaign boasted that he had put 45 criminals on death row, including Mr. Williams. He has called previous requests that he recuse himself “ethical lapses”—of the lawyers making the requests. And he has otherwise displayed untenable judicial ethics, as The Philadelphia Inquirer reported, receiving many gifts of dinners, event tickets, golf outings and plane rides, some from people with cases decided by his court.

With the decision not to recuse himself in this case, Mr. Castille has underscored his obtuseness about what basic fairness requires. He has diminished his position, the court he sits on and the rule of law in Pennsylvania. Even if the court upholds the trial court’s stay and order, as the merits dictate, its ruling will be badly tainted. And if it does not, the ruling will simply not be trustworthy.

"Philly DA wants to file new brief in death appeal," is an updated AP article, via the Erie Times-News.

For now, Williams has a stay of his scheduled execution. A state judge vacated his death sentence Friday and ordered a new sentencing hearing after finding that prosecutors hid evidence at his 1986 trial.

But Philadelphia prosecutors appealed to the state's high court to overturn that ruling and reinstate the death penalty in time to execute Williams today. Williams' death warrant expires at midnight, and prosecutors asked on Tuesday to respond to the objection filed by his lawyers.

The state Supreme Court could grant District Attorney Seth Williams' appeal, reject it or allow him to file another legal brief. Seth Williams is no relation to Terry Williams.

A second AP report examines Pennsylvania's execution protocol, "Condemned Killer Could Still Be Executed Wednesday."  It's via WCAU-TV.

If Terrance Williams is executed, it will be an event strictly supervised by the state.

For now, the 46-year-old Williams has a stay of his scheduled execution, which would be the first in Pennsylvania in more than a decade. A state judge has vacated his death sentence and ordered a new sentencing hearing after finding last week that prosecutors hid evidence at his 1986 trial.
 
But Philadelphia prosecutors have appealed to the state's high court to overturn that ruling and reinstate the death penalty in time to execute Williams on Wednesday. His death warrant expires at midnight.
 
If he is executed, his death would be carried out according to a bureaucratic script under the steely supervision of the state government.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports, "Execution’s stay won’t open ‘floodgates’ in Pennsylvania," by Adam Brandolph.

A Philadelphia judge’s decision last week that brought the state back from the brink of its first execution in more than a decade likely won’t have much of an impact on the remaining 199 inmates sitting on death row, legal observers say.

“Every one of these decisions is unique and idiosyncratic. Every one has his or her own circumstances, different backgrounds, different crimes,” said University of Pittsburgh law professor John Burkoff. “This won’t be precedential, and I don’t think the floodgates will open.”

Judge M. Teresa Sarmina on Friday stayed the execution of Terrance Williams, 46, who was scheduled to be put to death on Wednesday for the death of Amos Norwood, 56, a chemist and church volunteer.

Sarmina said prosecutors suppressed evidence that Norwood had sexually abused Williams as a teenager, a mitigating circumstance never heard by the jury that sentenced Williams to death in 1987.

“This case is a perfect storm of what can go wrong with the death penalty,” said Marc Bookman, executive director of the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit that helps lawyers whose clients face the death penalty. “It’s really a learning moment for Pennsylvania.”

Bookman said Williams’ case may deter juries from imposing the death penalty.

“It’s inconceivable to me that this debacle would encourage our community to seek more executions. I think a lot of people learned from this all the mistakes that can happen, and it shows how frail and full of errors the death penalty can be.”

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Judge's Stay Should End Williams' Death Sentence

That's the title of an editorial published in today's Philadelphia Inquirer.

The historic ruling Friday by a Philadelphia judge to stay the execution of condemned killer Terrance Williams has given Pennsylvania yet another compelling reason to vacate Williams' death sentence once and for all.

With the clock still ticking, the courts and Gov. Corbett have an opportunity to correct a horrific wrong by sparing Williams' life and commuting his punishment to life in prison, a more appropriate sentence.

Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina made the right ruling in staying the execution scheduled for Wednesday. At the same time, she upheld the guilty verdict for the murder.

Sarmina found that prosecutors withheld crucial evidence that might have convinced a jury in Williams' 1986 trial to sentence him to life for the killing of a city man, Amos Norwood.

Her findings are stunning in a case that could be a textbook example of the flaws in a capital punishment system already proven to be fallible, a system that puts minority and poor defendants at a greater risk of the death penalty.

And:

The governor should leave Williams to spend the rest of his life in prison without a chance of parole. And Pennsylvania should scrap the death penalty entirely.

"Castille refuses to recuse self in Williams decision," is the Inquirer news report written by Joseph A. Slobodzian.

Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday rejected a defense motion to disqualify himself from the case of Terrance Williams because he had been the city district attorney when Williams was condemned to death.

Trying to preserve a stay that will keep Williams, 46, out of the execution chamber Wednesday, Williams' lawyers contended that Castille's participation created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Castille, however, denied the motion in a one-sentence order late Monday. Castille rejected as well a companion bid to leave the decision up to his five fellow justices.

Castille was Philadelphia district attorney in 1986 when Williams was sentenced to death for the 1984 murder of Amos Norwood.

As the city's top prosecutor, Castille approved the decision to seek the death penalty and to defend the sentence on appeal.

Now, as chief justice of the state's high court considering whether to reinstate Williams' execution Wednesday, Castille's history seems a conflict of interest, the defense argues.

In 18 years on the court, Castille has rebuffed recusal motions based on his tenure as district attorney from 1986 to 1991.

And:

The death warrant for Williams expires at midnight Wednesday. If the stay is later reversed, Gov. Corbett would have to sign a new death warrant.

"Pennsylvania has a log-jam of death penalty cases nearing the ends of their appeal processes," by Charles Thompson of the Harrisburg Patriot-News looks at and beyond the Terry Williams' case.

While Williams’ fate has yet to be determined, legal experts suggest that the state will likely soon be dealing with the death penalty for the first time in more than a decade.
    
It appears that in Pennsylvania, the death penalty could soon mean death again.
    
There is a logjam of decades-old death penalty cases that are nearing the end of the appeals marathon. And for some of them, there may be no more valid reasons to apply the brakes that haven’t already been fully litigated.
    
The next test case may be that of Hubert Lester Michael Jr.
    
A former Lemoyne resident, Michael is currently facing a Nov. 8 execution for the 1993 abduction and killing of 16-year-old Trista Eng near Dillsburg.
    
Michael has no more appeals remaining, so he will be forced to seek some sort of emergency stay to avoid execution. His attorney, Ronald Travis of Williamsport, did not respond to requests for an interview for this story.
    
Of the 200 inmates currently on Pennsylvania’s death row, 85 were sentenced to the death penalty before Michael. Thirty-nine of them have been on death row since the 1980s. Three inmates on death row are women.

“I don’t know whether it’s this year or next year... but for Pennsylvania to have three, four executions a year I don’t think would be surprising,” said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.
    
“There’s just too many cases clicking along in that long, slow system.”

"Disrespecting victims of abuse," is by Sue Osthoff in the Inquirer.  She's the director of the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, based in Philadelphia.

Many advocates for victims of sexual assault, victims of violent crime, children's rights advocates, and others are closely following the case because of the horrific physical and sexual abuse that Terry Williams suffered from age 6 until he killed two of his abusers at ages 17 and 18.

With Pennsylvania's recent history of child sexual-abuse cases, it is unacceptable for the district attorney to write about allegations of sexual abuse with such disdain: "There was a neighbor boy, allegedly, and a friend, and a teacher, and his cellmates at the youth detention center, all of whom supposedly took advantage of him." Whether Seth Williams believes these charges or not, the rape of a child is not "taking advantage of him."

The district attorney's language fails to reflect the gravity of the experience of child sexual abuse and rape, and most importantly, disrespects all victims of childhood sexual abuse.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

More From Philadelphia

Andrew Cohen posts, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Execution," at the Atlantic.

Twenty-six years after the fact, too late but just in time, a measure of justice finally found Terry Williams on Friday when a Pennsylvania judge, a former prosecutor, stayed his October 3 execution and vacated a death sentence that had been unfairly imposed upon him in 1986. No reasonable review of Williams' case -- no evaluation of the evidence, no respect for his trial jurors or the victim's widow, no fealty to the Sixth Amendment's fair trial guarantees -- can sustain, in law or fact, the imposition of capital punishment here.

And yet today, seeking to defend an indefensible verdict, unapologetic about the misconduct of his predecessor, impervious to the dynamics of child sex abuse cases, tone-deaf to local politics and morality in the Age of Sandusky, unrepentant about misstatements to the state's parole board, Williams' prosecutor pushes on. I have been covering capital cases like this for 15 years and I can rarely remember an instance where a district attorney fought so willfully for so long for the right to do an injustice. It's a risible offense.

And:

Instead of accepting Judge Sarmina's reasoned judgment, instead of acknowledging that defendants like Williams are entitled to a meaningful remedy when the state cheats at trial, instead of preparing for a new sentencing hearing which would include all the relevant evidence, Williams' current prosecutor doubled down.

Late Friday, Seth Williams (obviously no relation) issued a statement that beggars belief. In Seth Williams' world, the prosecutor who cheated in 1986 in a capital case has been "unfairly victimized." In this world, he is obliged to "preserve the integrity of the jury's verdict and sentence" even though nearly half of that jury has walked away from its work. What "integrity" is left to protect about an inaccurate sentence? Seth Williams didn't say. But he was sure to tell the world that he doesn't want to make a villain out of the victim, Amos Norwood, the child sex predator.

None of this excuses what Terry Williams did. But it sure explains it, doesn't it? And isn't that the essence of what the sentencing phase of a capital trial should be about? Terry Williams is not getting away with anything, he's not cheating anyone, and that's never been the point of this round of appeals. If he is not executed, he will spend the rest of his life in prison, which is the sentence he almost certainly would have gotten in 1986 had prosecutors played by the rules, had jurors been given all the relevant evidence, and had a capital defendant been given adequate counsel.

But even this is not good enough for prosecutor Williams. He immediately appealed Judge Sarmina's ruling. Want to know why more and more Americans are skeptical of the death penalty, why the constitutional guarantees of due process and fair trials so often go unmet? It's because of cases like this one, where prosecutors cheat at trial and where their successors, decades later, cannot then admit, to themselves or the world, that such behavior undercuts confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the criminal justice system.

"Lawyers ask state's chief justice to step down from death row case," is the AP filing, via WITF-FM.

Lawyers for a death-row inmate facing a possible execution Wednesday want Pennsylvania's chief justice to step down from the case.

Lawyers for Terrance "Terry" Williams argue that Chief Justice Ronald Castille should recuse himself because Castille supervised Williams' death-penalty case when he was Philadelphia's district attorney.

WHYY-FM posts, "Terrance Williams safe for now, but D.A. falls short of 'zealous, ethical and effective' standards," by Aja Beech, a board member of Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

Williams is one of over 200 people on Pennsylvania's death row and almost half of those people have come from Philadelphia. Of the 95 people on death row that have come from Philadelphia courts, approximately 18 of those cases were tried and sentenced to death in a period from 1983 until 1987, according to an execution list maintained by the state. (See document below.) This four-year period has come under great scrutiny because of issues such as the McMahon tapes, an instructional video made in 1986 by senior prosecutor at the time in the Philadelphia district attorney's office Jack McMahon on excluding "young blacks" from juries.

The verdict in the Williams hearing confirmed that the original prosecutor willfully withheld and suppressed important information relevant to the initial Williams case in the late 1980s, continuing the tragic saga of justice deferred in Philadelphia.

And:

Something is wrong with the capital punishment system in Pennsylvania, and our state is finally starting to see this. There are some in state government working to fix this problem, such as Senators Daylin Leach and Stewart Greenleaf, who on behalf of the bipartisan task force and advisory committee studying the death penalty in Pennsylvania, released a letter requesting "no execution be carried out in the Commonwealth" until the study is completed in December 2013. That we may be sure we are doing the right thing by proceeding with state executions; can we not wait a year until we are sure it is within the law and ethics of our state to do so?

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Update From Philadelphia

Judge Sarmina's order staying Terry Williams' execution and vacating the death sentence is available in Adobe .pdf format.

Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky writes,"State has dirty hands in Terrance Williams case," for today's paper.

Judge Sarmina, a former city prosecutor who is no dewy-eyed sap, believes that's what happened.

I am for the death penalty, but only when we are certain the accused committed coldblooded murder. Another stipulation is that the prosecution must play by the rules. The D.A.'s role is to secure justice, not just convictions.

There is, at least, strong suspicion that the D.A.'s office broke the rules. If so, sadly, that wouldn't be a first. It happens more often than we would like.

If you believe in justice, you can't allow prosecutors to put their thumbs on the scales. Some of you are thinking the defense does that all the time, and you are right. But the defense represents an individual; the D.A. represents the state - you and me.

The Philadelphia Inquirer posts, "What next?" by Joseph Slobodzian.

Monday and Tuesday could see a burst of last-minute legal activity as Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court decides whether to affirm or reverse Friday’s ruling staying Wednesday’s scheduled execution of condemned Philadelphia killer Terrance Williams.

Legally, as of now Williams’ death sentence for the 1984 murder of Amos Norwood, 56, is on hold. But that could change in an instant if the state’s high court reverses the stay by Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office filed the emergency motion with the Supreme Court hours after Sarmina’s ruling but since then, according to the court’s website, nothing: no orders for the filing of legal briefs, scheduling of a hearing, response of any kind.

That may not be unusual and District Attorney Seth Williams said Friday that he does not believe it likely that the court will act on his emergency motion before Terry Williams’ death warrant expires at midnight Wednesday.

According to Janet Kelley, a spokeswoman for Gov. Corbett, if the warrant expires the governor is required to sign a new warrant within 30 days from when Sarmina’s stay is lifted. A new execution date would then have to be set within 60 days of the signing of the new warrant, Kelley said.

Any action by the state Supreme Court before Wednesday will trigger appeals by one side or the other to the federal court system or even to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Judge in Terrance Williams case a "terrier" for the truth," is by Donald Gilliland for the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

When attorneys speak Judge Teresa Sarmina's name, they tend to do so in the respectful tone of the previously wounded.

The diminutive but ferociously intelligent Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge has a courtroom demeanor reminiscent of Martin Shaw's Judge John Deed on the BBC, alternately humorous and severe, prone to sparring with attorneys over the nuance of case law and - with a keen ear for the unsaid - taking over the examination of witnesses herself.

Sarmina is known as a terrier: once she gets her teeth into something, she doesn't let it go.

What she usually shakes out is the truth - or something closer to it than would have been presented to her otherwise.

But the habit exasperates attorneys on both sides of the bench. 

This week Sarmina granted a stay of execution for Williams after a last-minute appeal that stretched into three days. Her ruling - which excoriated the prosecution in the case as both unconstitutional and unethical - dropped like a boulder into the pond of current and former state prosecutors, prompting the likes of Ed Rendell to spring to the former prosecutor's defense.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams accused Sarmina - without speaking her name - of unfairly victimizing former prosecutor Andrea Foulkes and "offering brutal murderers what they don't deserve."

The circling wagons of political reputation aside, the evidence was clear - and much of it had been unearthed and entered into evidence by Sarmina herself.

And:

In the end it was clear that multiple witness interviews had been "sanitized" of references to Norwood's predilection for boys before being handed over to the defense. Critical information - including full details of the prosecution's plea bargain deal with their main witness - had been withheld.

And most importantly, it was clear that Foulkes presented a skewed and misleading portrait of the victim to the jury when they sat down to consider the death sentence.

"Evidence has plainly been suppressed," said Sarmina, who  noted that Foulkes' tendency of "playing fast and loose" inclined her "toward a finding that the suppression was closer to willful" rather than inadvertent.

Sarmina said Foulkes engaged in "gamesmanship" and "had no problem disregarding her ethical obligations" in an attempt to win.

"Judge calls off execution of death-row inmate," by Mensah M. Dean in the Philadelphia Daily News.

CITING GROSS prosecutorial misconduct and evidence suppression, a Philadelphia judge on Friday vacated the Oct. 3 execution sentence of Terrance Williams and ordered that he be granted a new penalty hearing.

The ruling by Common Pleas Judge M. Teresa Sarmina indefinitely halted an execution decades in the making.

Williams' first-degree-murder conviction is unchanged by the ruling, meaning that the jury at his new penalty hearing will determine if he should be sentenced to death or spend the rest of his life in prison without parole.

And:

The defense argued that former Assistant District Attorney Andrea Foulkes, who prosecuted Williams in 1986, kept that evidence from the trial defense attorney and jury and instead presented Norwood as a kindly, sympathetic figure who merely had offered Williams a ride home.

Sarmina agreed with the defense, noting the two boxes of evidence turned over just this week from homicide detectives that, she said, corroborated the defense claims against Norwood and Herbert Hamilton, 50. Williams, at 17, had a sex-for-money, abusive relationship with Hamilton and murdered him five months before killing Norwood.

Additional coverage includes:

"Execution Halted for Killer Claiming Abuse by Victim," by Jon Hurdle in the New York Times.

The updated AP report is, "Judge Halts Execution of Terrance Williams," by Maryclaire Dale, via WCAU-TV.

"Terry Williams, Facing Death for Killing Alleged Abuser, Granted Stay of Execution," by John Rudolf at Huffington Post.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

Statement From Terry Williams' Attorneys

Shawn Nolan has issued a, "Statement from Attorneys for Terry Williams in Response to the Stay of Execution and Vacation of Death Sentence."  Here's the full text:

“On behalf of Terry Williams, we are extremely pleased that Judge Sarmina, after carefully considering all of the evidence in this case, has vacated the death sentence based on misconduct by the prosecution.  Her decision was right and well-reasoned.  As prosecutor for more than 10 years and a judge who likely presided over more than a hundred homicide trials, Judge Sarmina certainly understands how the prosecution misled the jury in this case. The Philadelphia District Attorney should stop their appeals and stop fighting to have Terry executed.

The District Attorney’s very own files were replete with evidence from as early as 1984 of predatory, exploitive and abusive acts by Herbert Hamilton and Amos Norwood against Terry Williams and other teenage boys.  It is legally and ethically unconscionable that Seth Williams and his Assistants have been advocating for the execution of Terry Williams after hiding critical evidence from jurors and continuing to hide it for 28 years.

Judge Sarmina found that the trial prosecutor engaged in misconduct. She found that the prosecutor 'played games and took unfair measures to win.' She also noted that the prosecutor violated her ethical duty for failing to turn over evidence in the files in the possession of the Commonwealth.

If the DA appeals, we are confident that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will not overturn Judge Sarmina’s well-reasoned decision, and do not believe that the Court will tolerate the prosecutor’s actions in this case, especially when life or death are at issue.

We are also hopeful that Governor Tom Corbett and the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons will now grant clemency in light of Judge Sarmina’s decision and the significance of the evidence that prosecutors kept from the Board during their life or death deliberations.  A majority of the Board, including Attorney General Linda Kelly, previously voted in favor of clemency.  Surely, after considering the new evidence, they will not allow this execution to go forward.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer's updated coverage is, "DA vows to appeal execution stay," by Joseph A. Slobodzian.

Criticizing the prosecutor for "gamesmanship" and withholding evidence that would have likely convinced the jury not to impose a death sentence, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina today stayed Wednesday's execution of condemned killer Terrance Williams.

District Attorney Seth Williams vowed an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Sarmina, in a 45-minute oral opinion delivered to a courtroom packed beyond its 71-person capacity, said evidence that was withheld about the sexual proclivities of Williams' victim Amos Norwood, and the extent of the prosecution's deal with admitted accomplice Marc Draper had undermined confidence in the fairness of Williams' 1986 death sentence.

Sarmina, however, affirmed the guilty verdict against Williams in Norwood's murder. She said the District Attorney's office had the option of conducting a new penalty phase for Williams if it still wished to seek the death penalty.

Terrance Williams' attorney Shawn Nolan praised Sarmina's ruling and said it is "time for the District Attorney's office to end the appeals."

The prosecutors could file an emergency challenge to Sarmina's ruling with the state Supreme Court and the state's high court could reinstate Williams' Oct. 3 execution date.

Andrea Foulkes, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted Williams in two murder trial in 1985 and 1986, could not be reached for comment.

The Harrisburg Patriot-News also updates coverage with, "Philadelphia D.A. to appeal ruling that halted inmate's execution," by Donald Gilliland.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams criticized the ruling today that stayed Terrance Williams' execution and will appeal the decision.

Terrance Williams had been scheduled to die by lethal injection Wednesday for killing two men. His lawyers are not challenging his guilt, but asking that he remain in prison on a life sentence. They contend that Williams had been sexually abused from the time he was a child, including by the victims.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina ruled that the prosecution in Williams' 1986 murder trial withheld evidence and sanitized witness statements to police before handing them over to the defense.

Seth Williams said that her ruling is unjust and has instructed his staff to file an immediate appeal.

"Evidence has plainly been suppressed," said Sarmina, who was especially tough on prosecutor Andrea Foulkes, who is now a U.S. Attorney. Sarmina said Foulkes "had no problem disregarding her ethical obligations" in an attempt to win.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Philadephia Judge Stays Terry Williams' Execution

CNN reports, "Stay of execution issued for convicted killer."

A Philadelphia judge ruled Friday to stay the execution of Pennsylvania convicted killer Terrance Williams and grant a new penalty phase in the case.

Williams, 46, was scheduled to be executed on October 3. No one disputes that Williams beat Amos Norwood to death with a tire iron in 1984 or that he should be in prison.

But his defense team says information that Norwood had allegedly sexually abused Williams was withheld from the trial, and his life should be spent in a cell.

"Philadelphia judge halts Terrance Williams' execution," at the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

Common Pleas Judge M. Teresa Sarmina took two days of new testimony from the trial prosecutors and an accomplice, then and this morning ruled to stay Williams' execution, citing government suppression of evidence.

She said: "Evidence has plainly been suppressed" and that prosecutor Andrea Foulkes was "playing fast and loose." Sarmina said Foulkes "had no problem disregarding her ethical obligations" in an attempt to win.

The judge's ruling is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

"Judge stays execution of Terrance Williams," is Joseph A. Slobodzian's post at the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge M. Theresa Sarmina today issued a stay of execution of condemned killer Terrance Williams.

Williams, 46, had been scheduled to die by lethal injection next Wednesday.

Sarmina's decision came a day after the state Board of Pardons agreed to hear for a second time Williams' plea for clemency plea, but put off any action in apparent deference to the court in Philadelphia.

The board's action to rehear William's clemency plea reversed a Sept. 17 vote in which the panel failed to recommend that Gov. Corbett commute the killer's death sentence to life in prison without parole.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

Philadelphia Judge to Issue Williams' Ruling Friday

"Judge to consider new evidence in appeal of Philly death row killer," is Maryclaire Dale's AP filing, via the Delaware County Times.

A Philadelphia judge will consider a death row inmate's new claims that the men he killed had sexually abused him as she mulls halting next week's scheduled execution.

Terrance Williams, now 46, is set to be the first person executed in Pennsylvania in 50 years who has not given up his appeals. He now says the two men he killed just before and after his 18th birthday had been molesting him.

His lawyers argued Tuesday that they found leads in police homicide files turned over to them only Monday night that support claims victim that Amos Norwood was a child molester. And they believe police and prosecutors knew it — but never shared the information with Williams' now-disbarred trial lawyer or the jury.

Prosecutors accused the defense of stall tactics.

"Judge says she will announce Friday whether Terrance Williams' execution can proceed," by Joseph A. Slobodzian in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A Philadelphia judge said she will announce Friday whether she will halt the Oct. 3 execution of Terrance Williams for the 1984 killing of Amos Norwood.

Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina's announcement came Tuesday after two days of testimony on the defense claim that the 1986 trial prosecutor withheld evidence from and misled the jury before it condemned the then-18-year-old Cheyney University freshman.

Williams, 46, has exhausted his federal and state appeals and, barring emergency judicial intervention, will become the first person executed in Pennsylvania in 13 years and the first contested execution in a half-century.

Williams' lawyers argue that the jury would have opted for life in prison without parole had the prosecutor disclosed evidence that Norwood, 56, had sexually molested Williams since Williams was 13.

Instead, said defense lawyer Billy Nolas, the prosecutor portrayed Norwood's killing as the brutal culmination of a robbery of an innocent man.

"It's clear as day," Nolas told Sarmina during oral arguments Tuesday. "The sentence was unconstitutionally unreliable. The jury voted for death based on misinformation."

The arguments by Nolas and Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg followed a morning during which Nolas outlined newly discovered evidence that investigators had more information about Norwood's sexual activities than was disclosed to Williams' attorney in 1986.

"Terrance Williams' lawyers make final stand," by Mensah M. Dean in the Philadelphia Daily News.

ATTORNEYS for a Philadelphia man facing execution made a final stand Tuesday to save his life by presenting two boxes of 28-year-old police evidence that they claimed city prosecutors had kept from the jury that sentenced their client to death.

The federal public defenders for Terrance Williams, 46, said the evidence, which they received Monday, contain documents corroborating their contention that their then-teenage client had been sexually abused by the middle-aged man he killed.

"We presented an extremely strong case in light of the fact that the commonwealth continued to hide evidence up until last night," defense attorney Shawn Nolan said after closing arguments in the three-day evidentiary hearing.

Assistant District Attorney Robin Godfrey told Common Pleas Judge M. Teresa Sarmina that boxed evidence was the property of the Police Department, not the D.A.'s Office, and that the defense would often not receive it.

The defense team asked Sarmina to vacate Williams' 1986 death sentence and grant him a new penalty hearing, during which a jury would hear the new evidence and render a sentence of death or life in prison without parole.

A ruling will be announced Friday morning, the judge said.

"Ruling on new evidence in Terrance Williams execution case due Friday," by Donald Gilliland in the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

The defense team for Terrance "Terry" Williams said the prosecution's case "stinks to high heaven" amid mounting evidence prosecutors intentionally withheld evidence from the defense when Williams was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in 1986.

Williams is scheduled to be executed on Oct. 3. 

On Tuesday, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina presided of a third day of argument in an emergency hearing seeking a stay of execution. She will make a ruling on Friday morning.

The defense is arguing that the prosecution withheld evidence that the murder victim, 56-year-old Amos Norwood, had a history of fondling young boys and was likely having sex with Williams, who had just turned 18 at the time of the killing in 1984. There's evidence Norwood may have been sleeping with the boy since he was 13.

On Tuesday evidence from the 28-year-old police investigation files was entered into the record, showing the pastor at St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Germantown told police he thought Norwood may have been homosexual and that there had been an incident several years earlier in which a mother claimed Norwood had propositioned her 17-year-old son for sex. Norwood was leader of the altar boys and director of a youth theater fellowship at the church.

Earlier coverage of Terry Williams' case begins at the link.

Advocates for Terry Williams have posted an online petition calling for clemency.

Missouri Hearing for Reggie Clemons Concludes

"Missouri death row case sparks calls for broader reforms," is the AP report via the Kansas City Star.

Advocacy groups that rallied around Missouri inmate Reginald Clemons at the special hearing of his death sentence this week are calling for broader reforms of the criminal justice system.

Representatives from Missourians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, the ACLU, the NAACP and the Justice for Reggie Campaign pointed to allegations that St. Louis police beat Clemons’ confession out of him and that a police report was altered to strengthen the prosecutor’s case.

Clemons, 41, was one of four men convicted in the rape and murder of sisters Julie Kerry, 20, and Robin Kerry, 19, in 1991.

This week, a special master appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed his case to help decide whether the conviction should be abandoned. Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manners still is collecting evidence to turn over to the high court with a recommendation.

"Special hearing in Chain of Rocks murder case concludes for the week," is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch report by Jennifer Mann.

A special review of Reginald Clemons' death sentence in the 1991 Chain of Rocks Bridge double murder case ended for the week on Thursday.

Lawyers for both sides intend to call at least one more witness each, which will be done through depositions out of the public eye.

The attorneys will then submit legal briefs by Dec. 1 to Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Michael Manners, who the Missouri Supreme Court appointed as "special master" to review the case.

After that, the parties may reconvene for final statements before the judge. Manners is expected to take several months before submitting all the evidence and a final recommendation to the high court, which would then begin its process of reviewing Clemons' appeal. 

Ultimately, the court could decide anything from upholding the conviction or vacating it, to ordering a new trial.

Mann also wrote, "Clemons' supporters say case highlights larger problems in criminal justice system," for the Post-Dispatch.

KWMU-FM, St. Louis Public Radio, posts, "Clemons's supporters question integrity of prosecution," by Julie Bierach.

Earlier coverage of Reggie Clemons' case begins at the link.

The Reggie Clemons Hearing in Missouri

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is providing extensive coverage of Reggie Clemons' hearing in Missouri.  Today's updating coverage is, "Clemons testifies police beat him to get murder confession in Chain of Rocks case."  It's by Jennifer Mann.

Reginald Clemons, under a death sentence for a double murder in 1991, testified in court here this morning that police beat a confession out of him after telling him they "have ways of making people talk."

He denied on the witness stand that he had participated in the rape and murders of sisters Julie Kerry, 20, and Robin Kerry, 19, at the old Chain of Rocks Bridge. But he declined to elaborate.

While Clemons lawyers focused solely on how the confession was conducted, attorneys for the state Attorney General's Office went straight to what it contained: a detailed accounting of the rapes and murders of the young women that night.

Clemons asserted his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination more than 30 times, to every single question about those events.

While allowed in criminal trials, there are repercussions to doing so in a civil proceeding, like this one.  

Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manners, who was appointed "special master"  to hear the case and make a recommendation to the Missouri Supreme Court, reminded Clemons of that risk after the questioning ended.

"You understand that the inferences I will draw from your testimony will be unfavorable to you," he warned Clemons. Clemons acknowledged he understood.

Manners' recommendation could range from upholding the death sentence, to ordering a new trial or reversing the conviction.

"Hearing for Reginald Clemons in 1991 Chain of Rocks murder case is delayed," also by Mann, was posted Tuesday.

A special review of Reginald Clemons' 1993 death row case has been delayed a day because of unspecified legal issues.

The "special master" hearing ordered by the Missouri Supreme Court began Monday and had been scheduled to resume Tuesday, but after about two hours in which attorneys met behind closed doors in the judge's chambers, a bailiff announced it would resume Wednesday morning. At that point, Clemons is expected to take the stand.

Clemons is one of four men convicted in the 1991 murders of Julie and Robin Kerry on the old Chain of Rocks Bridge.

On Monday the prosecutor who won convictions against the four had to fend off claims that he bolstered his case by having a police report altered and ignoring signs of police brutality.

Late Monday, a judge appointed to make a recommendation on the case to the Missouri Supreme Court was presented a video-taped deposition of Robert Baumann, who was captain of the St. Louis Police unit that investigated the double murder of Julie and Robin Kerry. Baumann, in response to Clemons' attorneys' questions, said he would consider it inappropriate to make changes to a police report.

Lawyers for Clemons on Monday also highlighted crime lab results — which they argue would have raised doubt of his culpability — that never made it into the 1993 trial in which their client was sentenced to death.

A stay of execution, 12 days before Clemons was to die in June 2009, paved the path for the information to be discovered, his attorneys said. Now they are hoping to convince the special master, Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manners, that it's enough to reverse Clemons' conviction, or at least to spare him from execution.

One of the others convicted has been executed, another is serving a life term and a third received early parole in exchange for testimony against the others.

"Clemons' lawyers claim he was coerced into confessing 1991 bridge murders," was posted Monday afternoon.

Attorneys for Reginald Clemons argued this morning that an altered police report, a coerced confession and withheld lab evidence cast doubt on the 1993 conviction that sent him to death row.

Lawyers from the Missouri attorney general's office disputed those characterizations and said many of the debated points have already been litigated.

Clemons, now 41, was one of four men convicted in the murders of Julie and Robin Kerry, sisters who were raped and forced to leap into the Mississippi River from the old Chain of Rocks Bridge on April 5, 1991. The women's cousin, Thomas Cummins, said that he was made to watch and then forced off the bridge himself. He alone managed to swim to shore.

Under interrogation in 1991, Cummins confessed the crime before recanting. His statements took center stage today, at the start of an evidentiary hearing to help determine whether Clemons' death sentence or even conviction might be overturned.

Clemons' lawyers produced a draft police report of Cummins' statements to detectives, which differed from a final report that was entered into the record at Clemons' trial.

Earlier coverage of Reggie Clemons' case begins with a preview of this week's hearing.

Monday Hearing in Missouri for Reggie Clemons

"Hearing may decide fate of man on Missouri's death row in Chain of Rocks case," is by Jennifer Mann in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  Here's the beginning of this thorough review of the issues in the case:

One is dead, one is on parole and one is serving a life term, but the fourth man convicted of throwing two sisters to their deaths off the Old Chain of Rocks Bridge two decades ago still has the court's attention in his bid for freedom.

Lawyers for Reginald Clemons, 41, will make their case here next week to a judge appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court to hear evidence and make recommendations on the claim he was wrongfully convicted.

The high court could do anything from leaving him on death row to throwing out his conviction.

The case has been watched by activists around the world, and is the primary focus of Amnesty International USA's Death Penalty Abolition Campaign, its director, Laura Moye said Thursday. She plans to be at the hearing. The organization plans a rally for Clemons on Saturday.

"We were very struck by a long list of problems with the case, which to us was emblematic of the worst things that can happen in a death penalty," Moye said. She recited complaints about police misconduct, a lack of physical evidence and reliance on shaky witness testimony.

Not all of it will necessarily be a rehash of old issues.

A DNA test on evidence that might have been overlooked at the time of the trial may surface during what is expected to be a weeklong hearing at the Carnahan Courthouse downtown. What it shows has never been publicly revealed; lawyers in the case are under a gag order.

The St. Louis American reports, "Clemons hearing is Monday," by Chris King.

Missouri death row inmate Reginald Clemons finally will have his new day in court on Monday, September 17 when Judge Michael Manners convenes a hearing in St. Louis. Manners is the Special Master appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court on June 30, 2009 to gather new evidence in the case and submit a report to the court.

The instigation of a new evidence phase in the Clemons case by a court that had recently set an execution date for him was startling. For many years, Clemons and his pro bono defense team have claimed that the trial court permitted inadmissible evidence and that relevant evidence has appeared since his conviction that calls the verdict into question.

Indeed, on the day Clemons was sentenced to death, the key witness against him, Thomas Cummins, settled a police brutality claim against the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. Clemons alleged almost identical acts of brutality by some of the same detectives working the same case. Clemons’ coerced confession was permitted in court and helped to convict him, whereas Cummins’ coerced confession was retracted and he was paid $150,000 to settle his claim.

Earlier coverage of Reggie Clemons' case begins at the link.

Texas Prosecutors Downplay Misconduct

"District Attorneys' Report: Misconduct Exceedingly Rare," is Brandi Grissom's Texas Tribune report.

In a report issued Monday morning, an association representing Texas prosecutors disputed what they say are illegitimate claims of rampant prosecutorial misconduct without accountability.

“It’s just not true,” said Rob Kepple, executive director of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.

The association spent months reviewing 91 Texas cases in which the Northern California Innocence Project in a March report identified prosecutor error or misconduct. The TDCAA said it discovered only six instances “in which a prosecutor arguably engaged in deliberately dishonest or fraudulent conduct that produced unjust results.”

And:

The role of prosecutors in wrongful convictions and questions about accountability for state lawyers whose mistakes lead to years in prison for innocent people have been the subject of intense debate in the wake of the Michael Morton exoneration last year. Morton was convicted in 1987 of murdering his wife and spent nearly 25 years in prison before DNA testing revealed that another man was connected to the crime. 

Morton’s attorneys allege that the prosecutor in his case, former Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson (now a state district judge), deliberately withheld evidence that could have led to his acquittal. Anderson has denied any wrongdoing, and a special court of inquiry that will determine whether the judge should face criminal charges is set to begin in December.

Morton applauded the association's report.

"This report will serve as a good starting point for our discussions with various stakeholders as we prepare to ask the Texas Legislature to make meaningful changes to state law," he said in a prepared statement.

Innocence Project advocates, along with Morton and other exonerees, have called for more accountability for prosecutors who commit misconduct. In its March report, the Innocence Project said it had identified court rulings in 91 cases in which judges ruled there was prosecutorial error or misconduct from 2004 to 2008. None of those cases, the report said, resulted in discipline for the state lawyer.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct index.  Earlier coverage of Michael Morton's exoneration and the court of inquiry begins at the link.

Justin Wolfe Case Update

"Va. prosecutor preparing to retry man whose death penalty conviction was overturned," is the AP filing, via the Washington Post.

A Prince William County prosecutor says his office is preparing to retry a former death row inmate whose conviction was overturned on accusations of government misconduct.

Justin Wolfe was recently released from Virginia’s death row and transferred to the Manassas jail. He had been sentenced to death for a drug-related slaying in 2001.

Earlier this year, though, a federal judge tossed out his conviction and death sentence. A federal appeals court said prosecutors wrongly withheld information from Wolfe’s lawyers that would have helped him at trial.

At a status hearing Monday in Manassas, a judge set a Friday bail hearing for Wolfe. After the hearing, senior Prince William prosecutor Rick Conway told reporters that preparations are under way for a retrial.

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

Michael Keenan Freed From Ohio Prison

Here's updated coverage of the Ohio case that broke wide open, yesterday.

"Charge dismissed against Ohioan once on death row," is the AP report.

A man who spent more than 21 years on death row is free after a judge dismissed the murder charge against him in the 1988 stabbing death of a man found dead in a brook in a Cleveland park.

A Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge on Thursday dismissed the charge of aggravated murder against Michael Keenan, 62, after determining evidence that could have exonerated him was withheld from his trial attorneys.

Judge John Russo said the evidence withheld by prosecutors "would have strengthened and been beneficial" to Keenan's case and that the harm done to him by the state's failure to disclose the evidence "cannot be resolved by a new trial," according to a transcript from Thursday's hearing.

Richard Bell, the assistant prosecutor who handled the latest proceedings in the case, said in a statement Thursday that the prosecution disagrees with the court's decision and will appeal. Bell said Keenan could have received a fair trial.

"We were prepared to prove for the third time that Keenan and his employees murdered Tony Klann," said Bell, chief of the criminal investigations division.

Keenan's attorney, John Hildebrand, said his client was "obviously thrilled" with the judge's ruling.

"It's unfortunate that he had to spend that time on death row," Hildebrand said. "A lot of money was spent to keep him there because prosecutors concealed evidence."

And:

Hildebrand said Thursday that a proposed plea deal had been discussed with prosecutors as late as Wednesday. It would have required Keenan to plead guilty to a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter, but would have meant he would be free immediately on probation. But Keenan, who continues to maintain his innocence, decided not to do that, Hildebrand said.

He said Keenan is considering suing the state for wrongful imprisonment.

"Former death row inmate Michael Keenan released from prison," is by Peter Krouse for the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Former death row inmate Michael Keenan won his freedom Thursday after facing the prospect of a third trial for the 1988 murder of Tony Klann.

Cuyahoga County Judge John Russo dismissed a 24-year-old murder charge against Keenan and released the 62-year-old former Cleveland Heights resident on bond, pending an appeal by the state. He left prison about 5:30 p.m.

Russo's decision surprised those in the gallery because the previous day Keenan was prepared to plead guilty to a lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the 1988 death of Tony Klann.

Keenan had been willing to accept the prosecutors' plea deal because it meant Russo would release him from prison immediately, but Keenan and his attorneys thought differently after learning Keenan also would face five years of parole.

Russo gave both sides until Thursday morning to explore other sentencing options, but by then Keenan and his attorneys had changed their minds.

"You gamble every once in a while," Keenan's attorney John B. Gibbons said after the hearing. "This one turned out well."

Both sides knew that if the plea negotiations collapsed, Russo was prepared to respond to Keenan's request to dismiss the case. Had Russo not dismissed the case, a trial was scheduled for Oct. 31, which would have been the third time Keenan was tried for Klann's murder.

A transcript of yesterday's court hearing is available at the bottom of the linked page.

Earlier coverage of Michael Keenan's case is at the link.

Justin Wolfe Moves Step Closer to Full Exoneration

"Va. won't appeal decision vacating death sentence," is Larry O'Dell's AP breaking news report, via the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The Virginia attorney general's office said today it will not appeal a court's ruling exonerating a death row inmate convicted of hiring another man to kill his marijuana supplier.

Justin Michael Wolfe was sentenced to death for the 2001 slaying of Daniel Petrole Jr. in a case that exposed a multimillion-dollar drug ring run by young people barely out of high school in the affluent northern Virginia suburbs. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month upheld a judge's decision vacating the 31-year-old's conviction and sentence because prosecutors withheld evidence that would have discredited their star witness -- the triggerman, who later recanted his testimony.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli's office did not oppose a ruling today finalizing the appellate court's decision.

"In our opinion, further litigation would not change the result," Cuccinelli spokeswoman Caroline Gibson wrote in an email to The Associated Press.

She referred further questions to the Prince William County prosecutor's office, which will determine whether to retry Wolfe. Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert did not immediately respond to a voice mail message.

Technically, the attorney general's office still has until mid-November to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but Wolfe's attorney was encouraged by the developments.

"We are optimistic this means the attorney general's office is not going to pursue further appeals, and the only question is whether the commonwealth's attorney is going to allow Justin to return home or retry him," attorney Ashley Parrish said.

He added that he will ask for Wolfe's release from prison "at the appropriate time."

And:

Wolfe would become the first wrongfully convicted inmate freed from Virginia's death row since DNA evidence cleared Earl Washington in 2000.

Wolfe was convicted largely based on the testimony of Owen Barber IV, who in 2005 recanted his story that Wolfe hired him to kill Petrole. After a four-day evidentiary hearing last year, U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson found Barber's recantation credible and ruled that prosecutors improperly suppressed several pieces of evidence.

The appeals court zeroed in on one piece of withheld evidence: a report by a detective who flew to California to bring Barber back to Virginia. The report said the officer told Barber he might avoid the death penalty if he implicated Wolfe in the slaying. Barber later agreed to plead guilty to first-degree murder and testify against Wolfe in exchange for a life sentence.

Appeals Court Judge Robert King wrote that the report "is indubitably impeaching, in that it establishes a motive not only for Barber to implicate someone else, but to point the finger specifically at Wolfe."

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.  The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

 

Ohio Exoneration in the Works

"Michael Keenan freed, murder charge from 24 years ago dismissed by Cuyahoga County judge," is the breaking news report filed by Peter Krouse at the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

A Cuyahoga County judge this morning dismissed a 24-year-old murder charge against Michael Keenan, who had spent about two decades on death row with co-defendant Joe D'Ambrosio.The decision was a dramatic change of events from Wednesday, when it appeared that Keenan was prepared to plead to involuntary manslaughter charges in order to be released from prison right away.Judge John Russo set bond at $5,000 today, essentially allowing Keenan to be freed immediately.

Keenan was prepared to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter Wednesday for the 1988 slaying of Tony Klann if he could walk out of the Justice Center a free man.

But the proposed plea deal with county prosecutors hit a snag when Keenan balked at the prospect of spending five years under supervised release with regular visits to a parole officer.

So prosecutors and defense lawyers resumed their negotiations.

Keenan, 62, was twice convicted of killing Klann in 1988 in Cleveland's Rockefeller Park. D'Ambrosio, who also was convicted of killing Klann, was freed in 2009 after a federal judge determined that evidence that could have exonerated him had been withheld from his trial attorneys.

Another federal judge ruled in April that Keenan had to be tried again or have his verdict set aside.

Both Keenan and D'Ambrosio spent many years on death row, always professing their innocence.

Ohians to Stop Executions has issued the news release, "Michael Keenan becomes Ohio's second exoneration of 2012."

After 24 years of imprisonment, Michael Keenan is the second man in nine months to be exonerated from Ohio’s death row. Judge Russo dismissed all charges against Mr. Keenan this morning, making Mr. Keenan the seventh exoneree from Ohio and the nation’s 141st death row exoneration.

Mr. Keenan was first tried, convicted and sentenced to death for his alleged role to the murder of Tony Klann in 1988. His conviction was overturned in 1994 and again in 2012 due to prosecutorial misconduct. Most recently, a federal court ruled in April 2012 that Mr. Keenan must be retried or freed in light of potentially exculpatory evidence hidden from Keenan at the time of his trial.

Cuyahoga County prosecutors elected to conduct a third trial against Mr. Keenan but removed the death penalty in an effort to coax Keenan into taking a plea deal. Kevin Werner, executive director of Ohioans to Stop Executions said, “Ohio’s track record of making these kinds of mistakes is both troubling and a sharp reminder that our state routinely sends people to death row for crimes they did not commit. This is completely unacceptable.”

Six other innocent men have been freed from death row in Ohio.

Related posts are in the exoneration, innocence, and prosecutorial misconduct category indexes.

The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

Virginia Will Not Seek En Banc Review of 4th Circuit Justin Wolfe Ruling

"State declines 1 of 2 appeal options in murder-for-hire case," is the AP report, via the Salisbury Times.

The Virginia attorney general’s office has eliminated one of its two options for appealing a court’s decision vacating a death row inmate’s conviction and sentence.

Justin Wolfe was convicted of hiring someone to kill his marijuana supplier in 2001. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 16 that Wolfe’s conviction should be vacated and he should be freed from prison because prosecutors withheld evidence that would have discredited their key witness — the triggerman who testified against Wolfe, but later recanted.

Thursday was the deadline if the attorney general’s office wanted to appeal the panel’s decision to the full federal appeals court. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, said that option was ruled out.

However, he said no decision has been made on whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The deadline for that is mid-November.

The state also could accept the panel’s decision and either let Wolfe go free or retry him.

Wolfe’s attorney, Ashley Parrish, said he was pleased with the decision not to seek a rehearing in the appeals court.

“We hope it’s an indication they don’t intend to seek further review from the Supreme Court and will reach the right decision of letting Justin Wolfe go home to his family,” Parrish said.

Earlier coverage of Justin Wolfe's case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.

The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Oyez.

California Editorial Roundup

"Santa Clara County murder case shows folly of death penalty," is the Silicon Valley Mercury News editorial.

A Monday ruling by the California Supreme Court finally gives us a local example to show why voters should approve Proposition 34 this fall and repeal the death penalty.

The court vacated the death sentence of Miguel Bacigalupo, finding that a Santa Clara County prosecution team's failure to turn over key evidence tainted the penalty phase of the murderer's 1987 trial. The unanimous verdict by the seven-member court demonstrates that the system determining life and death is itself tainted, having taken 25 years to reach this conclusion.

Had Bacigalupo been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the state would have saved about $90,000 a year on his care, which is more expensive on death row, and on the legal appeals that ultimately succeeded. Current District Attorney Jeff Rosen could elect to retry the penalty phase of this case, but the right thing to do is not spend another taxpayer dollar on it. Bacigalupo should stay in prison for life. That would be both morally right and fiscally responsible.

It's what should happen to all convicted murderers.

And:

Taxpayers have spent $4 billion on just 13 executions since capital punishment was reinstated in California in 1978. Voters should bring a halt to a barbaric practice that is ineffective and carries the potential to kill inmates who are innocent -- or at least, under the law, don't deserve to die themselves.

The Paradise Post publishes the editorial, "Time to end the death penalty."

This November, California voters are going to be asked to repeal the death penalty. The election hasn't started yet, but we anticipate a whole lot of soft on crime ads directed at Proposition 34 supporters.

And an even greater number of claims by supporters of those who've been unfairly executed.

Prop. 34 would repeal the death penalty as the maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder, and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Those already on death row would be commuted to life in prison.

And:

Aside from the money, government shouldn't have the power to decide who dies and when. We punish those who take that decision into their own hands and there's no good reason why government should assume that role.

Government's role should be to protect society from some of our most brutal members. And locking them away for the rest of their natural lives does that.

Whether they gain absolution is up to their maker, not us.

Earlier coverage of the Bacigalupo case begins at the link; earlier coverage of Prop. 34, the SAFE California ballot initiative, is also available.

Related posts are in the abolition and editorial indexes.

California Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence - Prosecutorial Misconduct

The California Supreme Court ruling In re: Bacigalupo is available in Adobe .pdf format.

"California Supreme Court overturns Santa Clara County death sentence," is Howard Mintz' Silicon Valley Mercury News report.

The California Supreme Court on Monday reversed a Santa Clara County double murderer's death sentence, finding that the prosecution's failure to turn over key evidence tainted his 1987 trial.

In a unanimous ruling, the seven-member court, which seldom overturns California death sentences, ordered a new penalty phase trial for Miguel Bacigalupo, who was sent to death row for the 1983 slayings of two brothers in their San Jose jewelry store. The Supreme Court left Bacigalupo's murder convictions intact, but concluded that prosecutorial misconduct could have altered the jury's death sentence recommendation.

The Supreme Court largely followed the findings of a superior court judge assigned to explore allegations that the lead prosecutor, current Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Joyce Allegro, and her lead investigator decades ago did not reveal crucial evidence to the defense that a Colombian drug cartel was involved in the crime.

"Substantial evidence supports the (lower court's) determination and it is reasonably probable that petitioner's penalty phase jury would have returned a verdict of life in prison without parole had it heard the evidence withheld by the prosecution," Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the court.

Bacigalupo has a separate appeal pending challenging his murder convictions on the same grounds, and the Supreme Court indicated it will rule later on those issues.

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff

Rosen, who was still in college when the trial took place, said he's reviewing the ruling to determine whether to retry the penalty phase "or simply allow Mr. Bacigalupo to die in prison."

Robert Bryan, Bacigalupo's lawyer, sharply criticized the DA's office for its conduct in a case cited in a 2006 series by this newspaper exploring breakdowns in the local criminal justice system.

"Our system doesn't work properly when this type of thing occurs," Bryan said.

The ruling, which wipes out a death sentence handed down during the Reagan administration, highlights one of the central issues in the current debate over Proposition 34, a measure on the November ballot that would abolish the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports, "Court: Ex-prosecutor, now judge, hid evidence."  It's by Bob Egelko.

The state Supreme Court overturned the death sentence Monday of a man who killed two men at the San Jose jewelry store where he worked in 1983, ruling that the prosecutor - now a Santa Clara County judge - withheld evidence that the defendant was coerced by a Colombian drug gang.

The unanimous ruling entitles Miguel Angel Bacigalupo to a new penalty trial if Santa Clara County prosecutors decide to seek another death sentence. Otherwise, he will be resentenced to life in prison without parole.

Bacigalupo, now 50, admitted fatally shooting Orestes Guerrero, owner of the jewelry store, and his brother Jose Luis Guerrero in December 1983. Police found jewelry from the store in Bacigalupo's suitcases when they arrested him in his mother's home in Palo Alto, and he was convicted of committing the murders during a robbery.

Bacigalupo told police, however, that a drug dealer had brought him to the Bay Area several months earlier to carry out the murders and had threatened to kill him and his family if he refused.

The prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Joyce Allegro, told the jury there was no evidence of any such threats. Defense lawyers, with no corroboration available, did not raise the coercion as a reason jurors should spare Bacigalupo's life.

Monday's ruling reflected findings by Superior Court Judge Richard Arnason of Contra Costa County that the prosecutor's office withheld critical evidence from Bacigalupo's lawyers.

Allegro was elected to the Santa Clara County Superior Court in 1998 after 17 years as a prosecutor and is still on the bench. She did not respond to a request for comment.

"California Supremes Overturn Death Sentence Based on Withheld Evidence; Prosecutor Is Now a Judge," is the ABA Journal post by Debra Cassens Weiss.

The DA’s office had argued it met its legal obligations by giving the defense a police report mentioning the confidential informant, who said she had learned the motive for the killings was revenge rather than robbery. The DA's office says there was misconduct by the investigator, but it is unclear if Allegro had knowledge of wrongdoing, the Chronicle says.

The California Report posted, "High Court's Death Penalty Reversals Examined," prior to the Bacigalupo ruling.  There is audio at the link.

The California Supreme Court has reversed five death penalty cases since December. That tally could rise Monday, when the court is expected to issue another death penalty case decision. This clutch of reversals so far follows two years without a single reversal. Is this a statistical blip, or is something else going on?

We talk with Emily Green, who covers the state's highest court for the Daily Journal. She says the reasons for the reversals vary according to the individual case.

The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland; more via Justia.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.

More on Prop. 34, the SAFE California ballot initiative, at the link