Amy Bach, author of Ordinary Justice: How America Holds Court, has a troubling article in Slate about the question that no one seems to be asking regarding one of the juvenile life cases that will soon be heard by SCOTUS: Namely, did the kid even do the crime that got him a sentence of Life Without Parole at 13-years old?
Next week the Supreme Court will hear arguments, in Sullivan v. Florida, about whether sentencing a 13-year-old boy to prison without the possibility of parole violates the cruel-and–unusual-punishment clause of the Constitution. Joe Harris Sullivan is one of two teenagers that young currently doing life without parole for a nonhomicide offense in the United States. His lawyers are hoping that the court will extend its 2005 bar on executing criminals who committed crimes as juveniles to Sullivan’s sentence.Whatever the court decides, its ruling will be based on the premise that Sullivan received a fair trial. The adequacy of that proceeding isn’t before the justices now. But a brief review of the trial record reveals a process so pathetic that it raises questions about whether Sullivan committed the crime in the first place.
Read the rest.
Wasn’t his first crime was it Celeste? By “accident” he killed a dog by hitting it over the head during the course of another residential burglary? Seems he had already demonstrated that he had a violent streak in him.
I’m always amazed at the lack of caring of the far left for the victims of crime. This stood out to me about Bach’s article, not what you posted.
——————-
Here’s what we do know happened. One May morning in 1989, Sullivan, then 13, and two older teens, Nathan McCants, 17, and Michael Gulley, 15, burglarized a home in Pensacola, Fla. They left with jewelry and coins. Later that day, someone returned to the house and found a 72-year-old woman, threw a black slip over her head, made her lie on her bed, and raped her orally and vaginally—so brutally that she had to have corrective surgery.
The remaining facts are trickier. The woman testified at trial that her assailant was a “dark colored boy” who “had kinky hair and he was quite black and he was small.” She never looked directly at him. However, she remembered her attacker saying something like, “If you can’t identify me, I may not have to kill you.” At trial, she was permitted to testify that she recognized Sullivan’s voice, saying, it “could very well be” his.
The two older boys, who both received brief sentences for their roles in the crimes, also testified. Gulley claimed that Sullivan said he’d raped the woman; McCants claimed not to have gone back to the house the second time.
—————–
She had to have corrective surgery due to the brutality of the attack and a known dog killer flees the scene, interesting. So what was the difference in the size, skin tone and voices of Sullivan and Gulley? On top of that, what about the fact that an officer identified Sullivan as the suspect seen running from the home after the rape? I found this in another article on this case.
———
Edward Hill of the Florida Attorney General’s Office urged the Supreme Court to reject Sullivan’s appeal. He said there was no compelling reason for the Supreme Court to hear the case, and that the appeal should have been filed much earlier.
“Given the procedural posture of this case, [Sullivan’s] request is extraordinary,” Mr. Hill wrote. “What Sullivan is asking this court to do is to treat his petition as if this court was conducting a direct review of his conviction. However, this is not a direct review case.”
Florida’s brief says that one of the first police officers at the scene of the rape identified Sullivan as the person she saw running from the victim’s house. Sullivan received the life sentence under state sentencing guidelines that took account of earlier crimes.
Typical leftist drivel.
Way to ignore the obvious libs, you guys are beyond pathetic.
Hmm, we’ve got a past violent criminal history, admission that he was at the scene (oh, but he didn’t go back for some reason?), and he was identified by the victim. The article points at some vague quotes like “dark colored boy”, but there was probably more than that. I mean, she probably SAW him you liberal scum. Now we’re in a country where even if the victim SEES the criminal, you liberals still challenge it. If the races were reversed then the liberals would be calling for the death penalty, but because he’s a member of the oppressed (see: criminal) race then he clearly must not be at fault (some logic there huh?).
OK folks, I’m a grad student studying this case and way beyond what you will find in typical magazine articles.
Sullivan was pretty well shafted at his trial. His attorney, Mack Allin Plant, failed even to give an opening statement. Plant also never questioned the fact that the other two boys involved that testified, did so in exchange for lesser sentences for their involvement. So, immediately you have to question the obvious. They may have lied on the stand to save their own necks. And, they too had a violent past of several juvenile offenses, just like Sullivan. Third, if the woman saw her attacker, why wouldn’t she say so on the stand? Why would she use words like “it very well COULD be him” instead of something to the effect of “he did it and I have no doubt”? She of all people would have no reason to downplay Sullivan’s identification. Fourth, if a police officer saw him fleeing the scene, is it not possible that he ran because one of the other boys was doing something unthinkable? The 2 other boys fit the same physical description as Sullivan. Being at the scene of a crime does NOT make you a criminal. Fifth, Mack Allin Plant, Sullivan’s defense attorney has been in trouble with the Florida State Bar 5 times since trying Sullivan’s case. At least one of which involved criminal activity and conduct unbecoming a lawyer and degrading to the profession. Why he hasn’t been disbarred yet, I may may never know. Sixth, when a juvenile offender turns 18, all juvenile records are sealed and inadmissible evidence to any future trial. Why then, when trying a juvenile as an adult (as Sullivan was) are those records fully admissible? If we are going to use them then it should be fair in ALL cases. Not just those where it serves the prosecutors purposes. Seventh, one is entitled to a FAIR trial by a jury of your peers. Its a constitutional right and anyone trying to stamp on it for the convenience of convicting someone doesn’t deserve it’s freedoms. When a 13 year old is on trial, the youngest juror can’t be any younger than 18. So is it really a trial of your peers at that point? Seventh, we so often let adult rapists and child molesters out on parole with even more evidence against them and a worse history of violence. So why should a 13 year old be held to even more stringent standards? Eighth, Plant failed to even see if Sullivan at 13 years old was truly competent for trial as an adult. Most 13 year olds would be incapable of understanding the concepts, charges, offers for plea bargains, etc. Last but not least, the most important question is if this sentence is fair. Do you really think the punishment fits the crime? Even if he is guilty, he was 13 for crying out loud. While most people don’t do things this bad as an adolescent, who here can honestly say they didn’t do something royally stupid between 12 and 25? Something that probably could have hurt themselves or someone else. Most people are just lucky enough to either not get caught and/or walk away with no injuries. There was little to no physical evidence to prove Sullivan’s guilt and one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
For those that want to call this liberal crap – let’s hope you’re never on trial by these same rules or you would be kicking and screaming.
And those of us that simply question his guilt, ARE worried about justice. We want to make sure that the RIGHT person is in prison. Because if he isn’t, the real perpetrator is still out there roaming free, able to do it again anytime to anyone. Even YOU!
This was clearly was an emotionally driven case. If something like this happened to my mother or grandmother, I would be furious. But bad decisions happen when you let that take over the facts. No on is saying he is purely innocent, only that it is POSSIBLE that he didn’t get a fair trial and should probably be granted an appeal to have his case reheard. If he is guilty, you should be able to prove it without underhanded tactics and statements that use words like “probably” and “don’t you think”
I forgot to mention to Obvious, that it is true that eye-witness accounts ARE becoming less credible, but not without reason. Psychological studies can prove that when a person’s memory is hazy, their own brain can and will play tricks on them, like filling in gaps they don’t really remember, like someone’s nose or eye color. And the accused’s face essentially “fills” the gaps in. So while a person may not actually remember their attackers eye color, someone is accused of the crime and in their wanting for someone to be guilty, their brain makes them “remember” something that isn’t there.
To illustrate, one defense lawyer once played a switcharoo in the courtroom where they put a stand-in at the defendant’s table and put the actual defendant in the courtroom audience and asked the witness to point to the guilty party. She pointed at the stand-in at the defendant’s table, NOT the true defendant. It was someone she had never seen before in her life. The psychological studies show that the person is NOT intending to lie, but just that his/her brain makes them think they are telling the truth.
I used to think the same thing, that it was just b.s. and we were tromping on the victim’s rights in cases like this, but when you break down the science of it, you have to recognize the fact that a mistake COULD have been made and if it was, the real attacker is still out there. That is more injustice to the victim than anything.
Legal Eagle, This is all interesting and important material.
I’m going to reread it carefully to incorporate in a future post.
If you’d be willing to email me separately, I’d love to talk about this case more.
Correction: the attorney’s name is Mack Arrin Plant