Posted on June 14, 2010 by Walter Reaves

Why innocence shouldn't be in the hands of politicians

I'm sure it was a nightmare, and the source of more than a few sleepless nights. The lawyer's client admitted a murder - a murder someone else had been convicted of, and was serving time. For obvious reasons, the client didn't want that admission disclosed - the lawyer - Thomas O'Toole -had no choice but to maintain his client's confidence. He did that until the client was killed in prison. He was then free to tell what he knew.

Fortunately it wasn't too late. William Macumber had been charged with the murders - based on estranged wife's testimony that he confessed. Even though there was almost no supporting evidence, the case went to trial.

What happened next is a textbook example of how innocent people get convicted. Mr. O'Toole offered to testify at Macumber's trial, as did another lawyer and psychiatrist who also had been told the same thing. Even though the physical evidence was lacking, the judge refused to allow it as unreliable! So without evidence that another person confessed to the murder, the jury did what you would expect - they convicted Macumber and sentenced him to prison - where he has remained for the past 35 years.

In 2003 the Arizona innocence project entered the case, and eventually made a presentation to the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency.They unanimously recommended that Macumber be released from prison "to correct a miscarriage of justice". So far so good - all the cards to be lined up.

There was one last hurdle though - the governor, Jan Brewer. She denied the recommendation, and announced for re-election the next day. If anyone thinks the decision was based on anything other than political considerations, I have some swamp land you might be interested.

This is Arizona, so you have to expect certain things - especially when it concerns criminal justice. What  happened here though could happen anywhere. There is a huge problem with leaving innocence decisions to politicians. They will never make a decision that doesn't align with their own interests. Unfortunately, most voters don't get upset denials - they get upset when inmates are freed - even though they know nothing about the case. When it comes down to a choice between doing the morally correct decision, and the political decision, you know where they are going to come down.

As you would guess, I don't have much respect for the moral compasses of most politicians. Some  have been in politics in so long, I'm not even sure they know what is right or wrong anymore. They simply know what is politically best. Many know doubt believe the excuses and explanations they advance for such decisions. In the end, Mr. Macumber gets to remain in prison so gov. Brewer can get re-elected. And he can't even vote against her.

There has to be a better way.

Tags: , ,
Posted on November 22, 2009 by Walter Reaves

Is there any doubt clemency is political decision ?

Several weeks ago Randall Thompson's future was probably looking pretty good. He was scheduled to be executed, but the parole board voted to recommend a commutation to life. In Texas that's a rare thing - I'm sure his lawyers had to look several times to make sure they were reading it right.  If you compare it to the lottery, he was told all his numbers matched. All he had to do was collect his money - in this case get the approval of the Governor.

The governor of course is Rick Perry - who just happens to be engaged in a heated primary election. Never thought to be soft on the death penalty, Gov. Perry had commuted sentences before based on the parole board recommendation. Too bad he didn't do it in this case - Mr. Thompson was executed after Gov. Perry refused to follow the recommendation.

I'm sure Gov. Perry has his reasons - just like he continues to insist Todd Willingham is guilty. I think the truth is that he didn't want a commutation to be an campaign ssue. His base of support is to put it mildly "off the chart" on criminal justice issues. They believe in more crimes, and tougher punishments. Heaven forbid you suggest someone shouldn't be executed - even if there are doubts about their guilt.

The bottom line is that if Mr. Thompson's execution had been scheduled a few months earlier he would probably be spending the rest of his life in prison - just like his co-defendant.

This was upsetting enough; then I had to read Mark Bennett's comments, which included a post by Mr. Thompson's habeas attorney. It appears that Mr. Thompson was the victim of an all too often situation - bad lawyering. Any doubt is dispelled by looking at what happened to his co-defendant, who was represented by a good lawyer. In short, the justice system failed him.

I've written before about my belief that we are all going to be accountable for our actions some day. Most of us have a lot of things we aren't proud of - and aren't going to get off the off the hook for. Imagine having to explain why you thought it was better to let someone be executed so you wouldn't damage your re-election chances.

There has to be a better way to handle death penalty cases. Whatever it is, it's not leaving decisions in the hands of those who worried more about their own future - i.e. politicians. They are always going to be decisions with political ramifications. Any doubt - look at the the heat coming down on Mike Huckabee for reducing the sentence of Randall Clemmons (who recently gunned down four police officers). When a decision like that goes bad, it's easy pickings for your opponents.

Politics should not enter into decisions on clemency and communation. In fact, the political ramifiactions of a decision have nothing to do with the meritts. Unfortunately, as long as politicians are the ones making those decisions, it will remain.

Tags: , , ,