Bad Prosecutors, Bad Pardons, Bad Law…& More

SCOTUS REVERSES MURDER 1995 CONVICTION OF NEW ORLEANS MAN—ANOTHER CASE OF BAD PROSECUTOR BEHAVIOR

NY Times’ Adam Liptak has the story involving another Deputy DA who decided it wasn’t all that necessary to turn over all the evidence in the then-high profile murder case.

Here’s a clip:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the conviction of a New Orleans man, saying prosecutors there had withheld important evidence that his lawyers could have used in his defense.

The decision, by an 8-to-1 vote, was the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions suggesting a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct in the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

Tuesday’s case concerned Juan Smith, who was convicted of killing five people in 1995, when a group of men burst into a house in search of money and drugs. They ordered the occupants to lie down and opened fire.

Mr. Smith was the only person tried for the killings. He was convicted based solely on the eyewitness testimony of a survivor, Larry Boatner. Prosecutors presented no DNA, fingerprints, weapons or other physical evidence.

But Mr. Boatner’s testimony proved sufficient.

“He’s right there,” Mr. Boatner said at Mr. Smith’s trial, pointing at the defendant. “I’ll never forget him.”

It later emerged that prosecutors had failed to disclose reports of interviews with Mr. Boatner. In one, hours after the killings, Mr. Boatner said he could not describe the intruders except to say they were black men. Five days later, he said he had not seen the intruders’ faces and could not identify them.

Leave it to Clarence Thomas to be the only person dissenting in a 17-page masterpiece of illogic.

Law professor Brandon Garrett looks at Thomas’s maddening—and scary—dissent in an essay for Slate.

Here’s a clip:

A “single witness” linked Juan Smith to the five murders for which he was convicted in New Orleans in 1995. The Supreme Court reversed Smith’s conviction yesterday, dwelling on that single witness in the 8-1 opinion it handed down. The justices had been “incredulous” at oral arguments at the conduct of New Orleans prosecutors. So it was an easy case, decided early in the season, with seven justices joining Chief Justice Roberts’ short and sweet three-and-a-half page opinion. But sometimes it is the easy decision that disguises insidious problems. The head prosecutor in New Orleans at the time, Harry Connick Sr., was nowhere to be found in the court’s opinion.

Before we get to him however, it is noteworthy that the court nowhere called the single witness who identified the culprit in this case the “single eyewitness.” Was he even really an eyewitness? At trial, the witness said he saw the attacker face to face and was sure Smith was the one. He said he had “[n]o doubt.” That sure sounds like the testimony of an eyewitness.

Everything in this case hinged on that single witness. The police explained that “[a]s amazing as it may seem,” no fingerprints matching Smith were found. And jurors place great stock in the testimony of a confident eyewitness. This was a terrible mass murder, where men stormed into an apartment, demanded money and marijuana, told everyone inside to lie on the floor, then shot five people. Smith was sentenced to life without parole.

The problems in the case emerged only during state habeas proceedings. That’s when Smith obtained for the first time notes from the detective stating that the eyewitness said on the night of the murder that he “could not … supply a description of the perpetrators other then [sic] they were black males.” Again, five days after the crime, the ostensible eyewitness said he “could not ID anyone because [he] couldn’t see faces” and “would not know them if [he] saw them.” The detective wrote these statements down—and then wrote down “Could not ID.” It’s understandable that the eyewitness was, as he later said, “too scared to look at anybody” under the circumstances. But usually police know that a person who didn’t see a face is not an eyewitness at all.

There’s more, so if the case—and the issue—interests you, click through as Garrett’s points are worth reading.

---

MISSISSIPPI GOV. HALEY BARBOUR AND THE MATTER OF THE 215-ISH PARDONS

So….in the last few days, outgoing Republican Governor of the state of Mississippi Haley Barbour has caused a massive uproar with his 200 or so 11th hour pardons, a bunch of them given to people who were convicted of murder or manslaughter. (Everyone seems to have a different total for the Barbour pardons because, in the last few days, )

Some of the pardons he issued leave even bleeding hearts like me muttering in dismay.

Barbour’s Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, was appalled at the pardoning frenzy and asked for an injunction against the inmates’ releases, telling reporters he thinks some of the pardons may have violated the state constitution in that Barbour began madly issuing the things without giving adequate public notice, particularly to the families of some of those killed by those whom Barbour has now pardoned.

A whole host of folks have the story, but you can start with this ABC report and go from there.

---

AMENDING 3 STRIKES WOULD SAVE STATE $100 MILLION, SAYS LEGE ANALYST REPORT

Ryan Gabrielson from California Watch has the story.

Here’s a clip:

Prisoners serving long sentences under California’s “three strikes” law are so expensive that legislative analysts say releasing some of them early could eventually save the state $100 million.

A proposed ballot measure, called the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 , would amend the landmark sentencing law that brought jail terms of 25 years to life to criminals convicted of three offenses.

Major savings to California taxpayers are central to proponents’ pitch for the measure. But if it passes, the big reduction in state prison spending is not guaranteed.

The measure would narrow courts’ authority to sentence “third-strikers” to 25 years or more in prison unless their new offense is serious or violent in nature. Secondly, it would allow a select group of third-strikers serving a decades-long sentence for a minor crime to apply for a reduced term.

---

MONTEREY COUNTY RANKS #1 IN CALIFORNIA FOR YOUTH HOMICIDE RATE

Monterey County’s young are victims of murder at a rate that leads all California counties and is nearly three times the overall state rate for the same age range (10-24), according to “Lost Youth: A County-by-County Analysis of 2010 California Homicide Victims Ages 10 to 24.” The study, released this week by the Violence Policy Center (VPC), and funded by The California Wellness Foundation, offers a wealth of information about the sad business of the affect of violence on California kids.