The Gazette-Mail of Charleston, WV carries the editorial, "Injustice: Railroaded victim."
Sometimes, America's criminal justice system -- police, prosecutors, courts, prisons -- doesn't see accused suspects as human beings, but just as scumbags to be locked away as quickly as possible. This attitude can cause cruel outcomes. In extreme cases, police and prosecutors actually frame the innocent.
In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that when prosecutors have evidence tending to prove the innocence of a suspect, they're honor-bound to inform the defense. But sometimes they violate this mandate and hide evidence. An ugly case recently produced a disturbing outcome in the Supreme Court. Here's the saga:
Down in Louisiana in 1985, John Thompson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He spent 18 years in prison. Execution dates were set for him seven times.
Eventually, it was learned that Thompson was innocent. First, one of his prosecutors, on his deathbed, told a fellow prosecutor he had hidden a blood sample and test results showing that the murderer's blood type didn't match Thompson's. The fellow prosecutor concealed this confession for five more years.
Other hidden evidence: An eyewitness identification of the killer didn't match Thompson's appearance, but the defense wasn't told. An informant who fingered Thompson did so to get a reward from the victim's family, but again the defense wasn't told.
Altogether, five assistant prosecutors knew about this concealment. Their elected chief prosecutor was politician-lawyer Harry Connick Sr., father of the famed singer-actor-composer. The prosecutor's office had a record of hiding such exculpatory evidence, and Connick once was indicted by federal agents for the practice.
Syndicated columnist Jim Brown's, "Supreme Court’s betrayal of justice," is via Houma Today of Louisiana.
There is an aura of myth that surrounds Lady Justice, who is pictured standing tall with the balanced scales of justice in her hands. She is blindfolded to assure impartiality and fairness. But if she read the decision about the death row inmate from New Orleans that was handled down by the U.S. Supreme Court last week, one could only wonder whether she dropped her scales, pulled off her blindfold, and wept.
And:
With full justification, Thompson sued the prosecutor’s office in New Orleans for ripping away and stealing 18 years of his life. He had two sons that he never saw grow up. A New Orleans jury awarded him 14 million dollars. Some said it was too much money. Would you give up 18 years of your life in solitary confinement on death row for 14 million dollars? On appeal, the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals, reputedly the most pro prosecutorial circuit in the nation, upheld the award in favor of Thompson.
But a bitterly divided Supreme Court said to Thompson “no way.” In a 5-4 decision, his case was tossed out by the Supreme Court– not because they disagree that the prosecutor’s office hid evidence (in fact all 9 justices agree on that point). Instead they tossed the case because, in their divine judicial opinion, they didn’t see any “pattern” of the prosecutor’s office doing this to other people besides Thompson (because one life ruined is apparently not enough). Sounds like a John Grisham novel with a bad ending, right? If only that were so. Unfortunately, this is real life and John Thompson gets nothing for his 18 years in jail. Not a red cent. Tough luck fella. The system failed you, but “stuff happens.”
Hartford Courant columnist Colin McEnroe posts, "Death Penalty Tale," at the Connecticut paper's website.
John Thompson's essay should be mandatory reading, no matter what your position is on the death penalty.
To me it is:a. an answer to the people who say there are too many appeals, that the the death penalty takes too long and costs too much. So Thompson should have been dead after three appeals?b. a reminder that cases are not always as ironclad as the Petit murders. Energized by that story and the often fetishistic press coverage of it, pro-death-penalty sentiment seems to be rising here in Connecticut. People who support the death penalty because of their revulsion at the crimes of Hayes and Komisarjevsky should understand that it may not always be applied in such clear-cut circumstances.
Comments