Waco Criminal Law Blog : Waco Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Walter Reaves Law Firm : DWI, DUI, Drug Crimes, Appeals : Waco, McLennan County, Texas

in the past several years we have become used to seeing reports of inmates who were released and exonerated after spending years in prison. The most recent was Johnny Pinchback in Dallas. Most of those cases – as was Pinchback – were the results of DNA evidence. Far more rare are the cases where there is no such evidence to conclusively prove innocence.

Years ago an exoneration for actual innocence was almost unheard of. Cases were few and far between. One of the first was out of Texas – Randall Dale Adams. Many simply know that case is the result of the film The Thin Blue line.Adams was convicted in 1977 of killing a police officer. He was released from prison in 1989, largely due to the efforts of a filmmaker who took an interest in the case, and the work of a lawyer who never gave up. They were finally able to establish that the real killer was the person who testified against Adams at trial. The speculation was that prosecutors went after Adams because he was eligible for the death penalty, whereas the co-defendant was not because he was only 16 at the time.

The case of Adams has long been an inspiration to me. Although I had already been out of law school for almost 10 years when he was finally exonerated, I knewf that's what I wanted to do. My idea of a lawyer was someone who pushed back against the system, and took on cases like that. The ability to undo an and injustice – especially one that was the product of blatant misconduct – was the epitome of a lawyer. So it was with sadness that I saw today that Randall Dale Adams diedin October 2010. Perhaps it was reported at the time, or more likely not. I only saw it because of an article in the New York Times on Sunday, by reporter Douglas Martin.

Randall Dale Adams most likely died in obscurity, which is probably what he wanted. It's a shame though that more people don't know about his case, and what he went trhough. I would imagine there is a whole generation of lawyers who have never even heard the name. That's a shame, because it's an important piece of history every lawyer should know.

Rest in Peace Randall Adams - you certainly deserve it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Michael Green walked out of a Harris county courtroom several weeks after spending 27 years for a rape he didn't commit. The story was a familiar - a bad eyewitness identification, disproved by DNA evidence. The story is familiar because most of the exoneration involved bad ID's. That's not surprising, since studies show eyewitness identifications are not nearly as reliable as everyone believes. You would think - or at least hope - that these exonerations would give credence to these studies, and cause prosecutors to look closely at cases that are based solely on eyewitness ID's. Well keep hoping.

There is an incredible disconnect between what people read about, and how that applies to their own life. You read about bad things happening to people, and you think nothing like that could happen to you. The same concept applies to eyewitness cases - prosecutors know about them, but they don't think it could happen in their cases. After all, the police officers they work with are good guys, and wouldn't bring a case if they aren't sure the defendant is guilty. Well guess what - the prosecutors in all the 270 plus exonerations probably thought the same thing.

I realized this when talking with a prosecutor last week about a case, where an identification was made in questionable circumstances. There were a number of reasons why the ID could be bad, which I pointed out. The response I got was - yeah but he picked him out, why would he do that if it wasn't the guy. He knew about problems with eyewitness ID's, but he was convinced they didn't apply in this case.

I'm convinced this is always going to be the case. Prosecutors want to believe victims; no one, whether it be the prosecutor or the police officer, wants to tell them they are wrong. They are willing to overlook contradicting evidence because it's just an attempt by the accused to get off. And after all, the victim doesn't have any motive to identify the accused (at least in most cases).

We need to start handling these cases differently. So far changes in identification procedures have been the primary focus, but I'm not sure that is enough. Perhaps we need to treat eyewitness ID's like we treat accomplice witnesses in Texas - require corroboration.  Instructions might be another way, as well as greater use of expert testimony.  We need to do something though, or we have learned nothing from the individuals who have been required to years of lives to bring the problem in the open.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday a District Court judge in Austin - Charlie Baird - issued an opinion formally exonerating Timothy Cole of rape. What's historic is that Cole died in prison; as far as I know, no one has ever been exonerated after their death. Thank's to Grits, you can view the opinion here.

Cole was convicted of raping MIchelle Mallin, who had positively identified him. Mallin was present at the hearing - flying in from out of state with her husband - and has been a vocal supporter of Cole's family. She also has become a vocal supporter of innocence reform legislation.

Baird was critical of the police investigation, which he said zeroed in on Cole and ignored clues that could have led investigators elsewhere. He also took the opportunity to pitch legislative reform, including revising eyewitness identification procedures, and improving access to the courts for those pursuing innocence claims. That's a start, but I don't think its near enough. We need to change our mindset, which is far harder to do.

Cole's case has a happy ending - largely because of the resolve of his family. They were able to convince the Texas Innocence Project to take the case - I doubt it took much persuasion. The actual rapist had been trying for several years to take responsibility, and exonerate. He had written letters to everyone he could think of, and they were all ignored. Unfortunately, that is not uncommon. Authorities have to deal with hundreds of such claims - and the vast majority are groundless. However, some have merit, and they get dismissed far too easily. Somehow, we need a system to identify those claims that need to be investigated. Providing money is a good start - we cannot expect a few lawyers to shoulder the responsibility of providing representation in these cases - there is so much pro bono work you can do; you still have to pay the bills.

Criminal defense lawyers don't get a pass on this. I handle post-conviction litigation and supervise a innocence clinic at Baylor Law School. I cannot guess at the number of letters I've received from inmates declaring their innocence. Unfortunately, I've received a few letters from people who were able to obtain relief from someone who listened to them. I try to take each claim seriously, but its human nature to become jaded when so many turn out to be false.

We can set up the best system humans can devise, but it will still be run by people. Unless those in the system take it seriously, there are still going to be those who fall through the cracks. How you do that I don't know. I do know that when you see cases like Timothy Cole you look at things a little differently - at least for awhile. We need to constantly remind ourselves that there many other Timothy Cole's out there - trying to get someone to listen.

I realize not everyone who says they are innocent actually is - most probably aren't. I also recognize that there are probably a lot of innocent people who are never going to be able to prove their innocence, even with the best team of lawyers. No matter  what system you devise, there will always be those who can't meet their burden.

Timothy Cole was lucky (if you can call dying in prison a convicted rapist lucky) - there's no doubt there are others that are not so lucky. I believe the legislature has finally realized - after years of prodding - that something needs to be done. Thank you to everyone involvied in obtaining this result - it should be a lesson to us all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Bennett recently posted on the long awaited exoneration of James Blair. That story has been covered elsewhere. In case you don't know, Blair was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Ashley Estelle. Many people at least know Ashley's name because of Ashley's law, which was enacted as a result of her death. A critical piece of evidence against Blair were hairs, which the State claimed matched Blair. Scientific tests were subsequently able to exclude Blair. More recently, genetic material under her fingernails also excluded Blair. After an exhaustive re-investigation, Collin County District Attorney John Roach finally concluded that there was not enough evidence to prosecute Blair again.
The investigation included 5,000 man hours, and almost $50,000. Mr. Bennett's comment was that more money was probably spent on the investigation than was spent on Mr. Blair's original defense.  He's not the first to point out the lack of resources devoted to defending capital defendants. You only have to  look at high profile celebrity prosecutions to discover what a difference money makes. Resources (which includes money and time) make a difference in most cases. Unless you  have an extremely wealthy client, defendants are always at a disadvantage.

I don't have the answer, but I can identify the problem. You only have to look at the recent exonerations to see what a difference money and time can make;although certainly not all, many of those wrongfully convicted may have been cleared if they had access to all the resources the government used to prosecute them.  Unless we devote the resources to defending those whose liberty the government is trying to take away, there is always going to be injustice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link