The Innocence Project

[mb227]

Demouchette was executed the same year the Innocence Project was founded. Did they even have time to comment on Demouchette?

If you believe that was the first such effort to do what IP has been engaging in, then you were never paying attention.

Back when I was with the agency, I had access to things like visitor's lists. Almost every swinging dick on death row had eight to ten European addresses on their list. And the lists only held ten names. Those people would waste untold sums of money in the name of 'innocence.'

They STILL do it. Even in the early aughts, when I shared space with one of the Karla Faye appellate attorneys, we got a parole client funded by one of the Euros AFTER they had given the building owner a low-six figure sum that resulted in the death penalty case being set aside and replead to time-served. Client STILL had a 99-year sentence related to the drug-activities he was running from the jail telephones while awaiting the original trial...

But...as memory serves...Demouchette had precisely ZERO on his visiting list, meaning even the bleeding hearts wanted nothing to do with him.

PAROLED with a murder conviction! What a joke.

I guess you don't realize that we release people on an almost daily basis to parole and mandatory supervision who have convictions for murder. Some are by Board vote and others are by operation of law.

This is why broad generalized statements do neither side a whit of good when it comes to the criminal justice system. Some, like Buntion, McDuff, or Demouchette are simply evil. Anyone that looked at the file could see it.

However, contrast that with the 16yo who science tells us lacks full capacity but who kills a classmate and gets a lengthy sentence. They are not even in the same category or class even though all have homicides on their conscience.

And, just to add to the discussion...the aforementioned 16yo finished his GED requirements while in jail, got a couple of associates degrees soon after arrival in prison, went on to get a Bachelors degree and, then, added two different Masters degrees. Oh, and that was on top of three vocational programs.

As far as I am aware, that one has been in the community now for about 20 years without incident...

 

[NJlonghorn]

What you propose allows the convicted felon to constantly throw crap against the wall into perpetuity, and THAT is not a way to handle appeals. The simple reality is that a substantial majority of cases with appellate/writ efforts that SHOULD be time-barred are, in effect, a delaying tactic, not one designed to actually get the conviction set aside.

Does your "crap" category include proof that the defendant is innocent? How about proof that the defendant is probably innocent? If so, then yes, I think defendants should be able to throw that "crap" against the wall in perpetuity.

Other kinds of crap, not so much.

 

[mb227]

Does your "crap" category include proof that the defendant is innocent? How about proof that the defendant is probably innocent? If so, then yes, I think defendants should be able to throw that "crap" against the wall in perpetuity.

Other kinds of crap, not so much.

If such evidence exists, then it existed almost as soon as the conviction occurred.

While not capital cases, I cannot begin to tell you how many recantation cases have been shown to have been purchased or otherwise fall apart when the 'recanter' realizes THEY will be going to prison for the aggravated perjury.

In some instances, the delays are intentional and flaunt rules and procedures often associated with the Doctrine of Laches specifically to try and hinder the ability to retry a case.

You are trying to paint an isolated case into a broad, sweeping policy statement without apparently understanding the loads of bull that go into appellate law in capital cases.

35 years ago, there might have been a more solid basis for positions like you seem to be advancing, but the reality is that current DNA testing across the past thirty years render moot many of the claims that form the basis of the last minute appeals. They are NOT claims with merit but are simply designed to try and either appeal to the masses to gin up a wave of support or even simply to get another month or two of sucking up stinky air and eating average food (many prison meals actually are not that bad).

 

[Mr. Deez]

Thanks. I read it. Now I am curious - is there anyone on death row that the Innocence Project refuses to support? Not a 'we don't have enough people to help you', but straight up 'nah, you're guilty.' And sadly it looks like the Innocence Project doesn't have a perfect record either with Steven Avery getting out of jail only to murder someone two years later.

Many have already addressed these points. However, I will state that I don't necessarily endorse the Innocence Project in full. They want a moratorium on the death penalty, and I'd strongly oppose that. I am a very firm supporter of the death penalty and believe it should be expanded for use on forcible rapists and child molesters. However, I am a strong believer that you don't execute people who are not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. Avoiding that is the whole point of due process and protections for the criminal defendant. We would rather a guilty man walk free than an innocent man lose his life or liberty.

Was Steven Avery actually guilty of the underlying crime? I haven't seen much of a case for that. The fact that he went on to do terrible things doesn't reflect badly on IP. Their point isn't that everybody who gets released is a good guy who never does bad things. Their point is that the people they try to help aren't guilty of the crime for which they were convicted.

Is Rodney Reed a saint? No. Would it shock me if he does bad things after he's released? Not at all. He was banging another guy's girlfriend. That's not a smart thing to do if you aren't looking for trouble in your life. However, that's not a reason for the state to execute him for something he almost surely didn't do.

 

[Horn6721]

mb
Since you walk your talk, not just opine ,it is interesting to us nonlegal people to understand the appeal process for convicted people.
Knowing many of the appeals are nothing more than delay tactics costing taxpayer money isn't it still better to have the process?
OR is there a way to separate legitimate appeals from delaying tactics?

 

[Mr. Deez]

mb
Since you walk your talk, not just opine ,it is interesting to us nonlegal people to understand the appeal process for convicted people.
Knowing many of the appeals are nothing more than delay tactics costing taxpayer money isn't it still better to have the process?
OR is there a way to separate legitimate appeals from delaying tactics?

You mean a way to separate out cases like this?

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
That looks like the Court harassing an innocent civilian.

 

[OUBubba]

I had a college friend who lawyers in LA. He filed a "Motion to quash stink eye".

 

[guy4321]

Interesting info from you attorney folks. For the record, I support the death penalty but don't hold it dear like other issues. I'd probably trade it for life in prison without parole (but realize liberals would fight to get parole added) IF - big IF - they gave something big in return. (And the only way to get that big thing back for the libs would be to reinstate the death penalty.)

 

[mb227]

One of my favorite civil claims by a pro se litigant was from East Texas...employment law matter and he was way over his head. After the case initially gets kicked, he filed a "Motion to Start Over."

Interesting info from you attorney folks. For the record, I support the death penalty but don't hold it dear like other issues. I'd probably trade it for life in prison without parole (but realize liberals would fight to get parole added) IF - big IF - they gave something big in return. (And the only way to get that big thing back for the libs would be to reinstate the death penalty.)

We have LWOP as an option in this State but it cannot be applied retroactively. Sentencing is ALWAYS to be based upon the laws in effect when the offense was committed.

On more than one occasion, I have had calls from attorneys with a case subject to either re-hearing or re-sentencing and where the prosecutor does not believe they have enough remaining evidence or live witnesses to move forward. The math gets done to figure out how much TOTAL time credits would exist in the case...a pre-September 1977 case discharges when total time equaled the sentence of record without a prior parole decision, which then gave us mandatory supervision between 1977 and 1987. In those cases, a release to a supervised status had to occur when the total time credits equaled the sentence of record. There is no combination which equals a life sentence.

Under the good-time practices in that era, an inmate that did everything that they were supposed to have done basically got three for one, which is why in the past few years, we have started seeing more of the mid-80's 99-year sentences being released back into the community who had not previously been released to parole.

 

[guy4321]

I know Texas has LWOP as an option. I meant as the most severe option in my post.

 

[mb227]

I know Texas has LWOP as an option. I meant as the most severe option in my post.

In some jurisdictions, it HAS become the de facto option as more and more DA's refused to pursue the death penalty as an option even for cop killers...

Generally speaking, if a DA is a Demonrat, you can bet they rarely pursue the death penalty, even here in Texas where we have an express lane.

 

[utahorn]

"Motion to Start Over."

If I'd known that was an option, I might have gone to law school.

 

[mb227]

If I'd known that was an option, I might have gone to law school.

And if it truly WAS that easy, so to perhaps should have the filer...the motion was denied and his case remained dismissed.

 

[NJlonghorn]

SCOTUS issued a troubling death-penalty opinion today (troubling to me, at least). The opinion addressed two cases, but the more troubling one (to me, at least) involves Barry Lee Jones.

Jones was caring for his girlfriend's 4-year-old daughter when the little girl died. The autopsy showed that the death resulted from abuse. Jones' trial lawyer did not investigate the case (at all, it appears) and just let the conviction happen.

For the appeal that followed, Arizona has rules on the qualifications appointed council must have. The state couldn't find anyone who had the requisite qualifications, so they appointed some unqualified boob. That new lawyer didn't know what he was doing and bungled the ineffective-assistance argument.

In a later proceeding in Federal Court, Jones had a competent attorney for the first time. That attorney investigated the case and found pretty strong evidence that the little girl's injuries were caused before she came into Jones custody. The Federal District Court found that the defendant had indeed suffered from ineffective assistance, that a jury likely wouldn't have convicted him if the full evidence had been presented. On this basis, the District Court ordered Arizona to give the defendant a new trial. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed this morning. Basically, they said they don't care whether the guy may be innocent. He had his chance to make his arguments, and he failed.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the grant of certiorari in the Texas case was a good thing after all. Maybe Thomas and Alito have convinced a majority of the Court to uphold what Texas did, so that Federal Courts in other states will have to follow the "**** 'em and let 'em die" approach.

 

[OUBubba]

SCOTUS issued a troubling death-penalty opinion today (troubling to me, at least). The opinion addressed two cases, but the more troubling one (to me, at least) involves Barry Lee Jones.

Jones was caring for his girlfriend's 4-year-old daughter when the little girl died. The autopsy showed that the death resulted from abuse. Jones' trial lawyer did not investigate the case (at all, it appears) and just let the conviction happen.

For the appeal that followed, Arizona has rules on the qualifications appointed council must have. The state couldn't find anyone who had the requisite qualifications, so they appointed some unqualified boob. That new lawyer didn't know what he was doing and bungled the ineffective-assistance argument.

In a later proceeding in Federal Court, Jones had a competent attorney for the first time. That attorney investigated the case and found pretty strong evidence that the little girl's injuries were caused before she came into Jones custody. The Federal District Court found that the defendant had indeed suffered from ineffective assistance, that a jury likely wouldn't have convicted him if the full evidence had been presented. On this basis, the District Court ordered Arizona to give the defendant a new trial. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed this morning. Basically, they said they don't care whether the guy may be innocent. He had his chance to make his arguments, and he failed.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the grant of certiorari in the Texas case was a good thing after all. Maybe Thomas and Alito have convinced a majority of the Court to uphold what Texas did, so that Federal Courts in other states will have to follow the "f**k 'em and let 'em die" approach.

They are taking the eastern oklahoma approach of "f**k 'em and feed 'em fish heads". Stitt will be ramping up the death wagon. You'd think he's trying to get into a football playoff as much as he wants to execute people.

 

[Horn6721]

NJ
What is in the Constitution that covers this?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

NJ
What is in the Constitution that covers this?

The general principle of innocent until proven guilty comes from English common law.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments both touch on "due process." Due process generally means that the government cannot deprive you of your freedom or property unless they go through the right processes. It is understood that your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental element of due process. In that sense, it is a constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.

 

[NJlonghorn]

The general principle of innocent until proven guilty comes from English common law.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments both touch on "due process." Due process generally means that the government cannot deprive you of your freedom or property unless they go through the right processes. It is understood that your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental element of due process. In that sense, it is a constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.

Plus, the 6th Amendment gives the right to counsel. The Supreme Court has interpreted that to require competent counsel.

On its face, the 6th only applies to prosecutions in Federal court. The Supreme Court held long ago that the 14th Amendment guaranty of Due Process "incorporates" the right to competent counsel, making it binding on state courts, too.

 

[guy4321]

Plus, the 6th Amendment gives the right to counsel. The Supreme Court has interpreted that to require competent counsel.

On its face, the 6th only applies to prosecutions in Federal court. The Supreme Court held long ago that the 14th Amendment guaranty of Due Process "incorporates" the right to competent counsel, making it binding on state courts, too.

So the Supreme Court is saying the law requires counsel, and he had it?

Then isn't the problem this part?

"For the appeal that followed, Arizona has rules on the qualifications appointed council must have. The state couldn't find anyone who had the requisite qualifications, so they appointed some unqualified boob."

Why isn't AZ getting sued for not following its laws?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I read the opinion, and it's pathetic. I understand the desire to keep federal courts from second guessing every criminal conviction, but when a criminal defendant gets screwed by ineffective assistance of counsel, he shouldn't get hosed just because he was unlucky enough to get screwed AGAIN by ineffective assistance of counsel during post-conviction proceedings. If due process requires anything, it should certainly require that, but the Court basically didn't give a crap about it even though the Constitution actually requires them to.

I think there is a portion of conservative judicial thought that thinks that if you vacate a death sentence you're striking a blow against the death penalty regardless of why you're vacating it. I don't think that's true. I think that when a court vacates a death sentence, not because it thinks the death penalty is substantively bad, but because there is real doubt about the defendant's guilt, that is a mark in support of the death penalty, because it's evidence against the biggest criticism of the death penalty, which is that the government might execute an innocent person. On the flip side, when the Court knowingly allows a likely innocent person to be executed, that is a huge mark against the death penalty. It supports and fulfills its biggest criticism. This is exactly the kind of case that turns fair minded people against the death penalty.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So the Supreme Court is saying the law requires counsel, and he had it?

Then isn't the problem this part?

"For the appeal that followed, Arizona has rules on the qualifications appointed council must have. The state couldn't find anyone who had the requisite qualifications, so they appointed some unqualified boob."

Why isn't AZ getting sued for not following its laws?

A habeas corpus case is the state getting sued. In all likelihood they tried to follow their own rules but simply couldn't find better counsel and did the best they could short of paying indigent defense lawyers better.

 

[Statalyzer]

For those whose crimes are in doubt in any way, the death penalty should not be applied until such time as the doubt has been completely removed.

True, but note that's really supposed to be the standard for all punishment for any crime.

The criminal justice system would collapse if we tried to fix every wrongful conviction.

Pretty scary and disturbing if true, for the "land of the free".

there is readily available DNA evidence that has not been tested. Paxton opposes testing the evidence

Sadly not even slightly surprising about Paxton.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sadly not even slightly surprising about Paxton.

At least among Republicans, Paxton is the biggest assclown AG in the country.

 

[Mr. Deez]

And I used to be a fan of Paxton's - before he turned into a partisan crook.

 

[Statalyzer]

Haven't liked him ever since he refused to even look into if the Baylor or Waco PD or any of the various prosecutors and district attorneys had anything to do with covering for the rapists on the football team of his alma mater.

 

[Horn6721]

Thst is egregious of Paxton
When did he refuse to test DNA?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Haven't liked him ever since he refused to even look into if the Baylor or Waco PD or any of the various prosecutors and district attorneys had anything to do with covering for the rapists on the football team of his alma mater.

That's a good reason. His ethical problems are another reasons. The moronic Trump lawsuit he filed is another.

 

[mb227]

Haven't liked him ever since he refused to even look into if the Baylor or Waco PD or any of the various prosecutors and district attorneys had anything to do with covering for the rapists on the football team of his alma mater.

There ARE limitations of what the OAG can do in those sorts of cases in this State. Being an alum of Bailor would not have changed that. Being the Attorney General does not permit unfettered access to essentially take over investigations.

 

[OUBubba]

There ARE limitations of what the OAG can do in those sorts of cases in this State. Being an alum of Bailor would not have changed that. Being the Attorney General does not permit unfettered access to essentially take over investigations.

Baylor sucks! Can we agree on that?