Wrongful convictions of three innocent men 39 years ago in Ohio set aside

November 21, 2014

Friday, November 21, 2014

Good morning:

Good news today.

Professor Mark Godsey, Director of the Ohio Innocence Project at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, writes in today’s Huffington Post,

This morning, Ricky Jackson walked out of the Cuyahoga County courtroom in downtown Cleveland a free man after 39 years in prison–several of those on death row–for a murder he didn’t commit. The last time he tasted freedom was in 1975 when a postage stamp cost 10 cents, Gerald Ford was president, Pete Rose was the World Series MVP, Billie Jean King won Wimbledon, and Saturday Night Live had just premiered.

Jackson and his codefendants, Wiley and Ronnie Bridgeman, are black. They were convicted of murdering a white businessman named Harry Franks and sentenced to die in the electric chair in 1975. Their sentences were commuted to life in prison after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declared a similar Georgia death penalty statute unconstitutional.

Police misconduct caused their wrongful convictions. They terrified a 12-year-old boy, Ed Vernon, who initially lied to police claiming he witnessed the shooting when, in fact, he was a passenger in a school bus a couple of blocks away and did not see it. When he attempted to recant his statement, they screamed, threw objects at him and threatened to send his parents to prison for attempting to get him to change his story. He capitulated, testified in court and identified them as the killers.

Vernon recanted his story under oath in court last week and two witnesses who had been riding on the bus with Vernon that day testified that no one on the bus could have witnessed the murder because the location where it happened was not visible.

I suspect ineffective assistance of counsel played a role in the wrongful convictions because defense counsel should have assigned an investigator to check-out the scene and interview the school bus driver and all of the students on the bus before trial. If that had been done, defense counsel would have been able to impeach Vernon’s credibility and save their clients from death sentences and 39 years in prison.

For more information, go here.


Susan Mellen is free today after spending 17 years in prison for a murder she did not commit

October 11, 2014

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Good morning:

Free at last!

After serving 17 years in prison for a crime that she did not commit, Susan Mellen is free at last.

Corrina Knoll of the Los Angeles Times reports:

Superior Court Judge Mark S. Arnold said the trial had hinged on a single witness who was a “habitual liar” and claimed Mellen had confessed involvement in the crime. But jurors never learned that the witness’ sister, a Torrance police officer, believed she was a pathological liar or that Torrance police had several years earlier deemed the witness an “unreliable informant.”

The judge said Mellen had received “subpar representation” from a trial attorney who should have conducted a thorough investigation of the witness’ credibility.

“I believe that not only is Ms. Mellen not guilty, I believe based on what I’ve read, she’s innocent, and for that reason I believe the criminal justice system failed,” Arnold said.

“Thank you, your honor, thank you so much,” Mellen, 59, said in a small voice.

“Good luck,” the judge replied.

Mellen was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole in 1998 for soliciting the murder of a homeless man, Richard Daly, at a home in Lawndale, California where she and others were living at the time. Three gang members were subsequently linked to the murder and one of them was convicted of beating Daly to death. One of the others later passed a polygraph in which he admitted that he was present during the murder, but Susan Mellen was not there.

The three causes of this wrongful conviction are:

1) Jailhouse informant perjury;

2) Police and prosecutorial misconduct; and

3) Ineffective assistance of counsel.

The jailhouse informant or ‘snitch’ in this case was a woman named June Patti. People who work in the criminal justice system all know that jailhouse snitch testimony is inherently unreliable because they have powerful motives to lie in order to receive beneficial consequences lightening their load in return for their cooperation and testimony against a defendant. For this reason, I believe no conviction based solely on jailhouse snitch testimony should ever stand.

Mellen’s case is a perfect example of what can go wrong, if jailhouse snitch testimony is admitted to shore up a weak prosecution case.

June Patti testified that Susan Mellen admitted her guilt in the Daly murder while they were together in jail before Mellen’s trial. The lead investigator, LAPD Detective Marcella Winn, and the prosecutor who tried Susan Mellen should have known and likely knew that June Patti was an unreliable witness because she had a long history of providing false tips to law enforcement. For example, Patti’s sister, the Torrance police officer to whom Judge Arnold referred in his comment, now claims that she warned Detective Winn that June Patti was a pathological liar and several years before the murder a narcotics detective for the Torrance Police Department wrote a report in which he said Patti had provided a series of tips that turned out to false.

Police and prosecutors have a duty to investigate the reliability of an informant before putting her on the stand and risk convicting a potentially innocent defendant.

This information was exculpatory evidence that should have been obtained and disclosed to defense counsel before trial pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, and Giglio v. United States. Their failure to obtain and disclose this information to defense counsel was misconduct.

Finally, Mellen’s defense attorney compounded their misconduct by failing to investigate June Patti’s credibility. Her failure constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.

I have often referred to defense counsel as liberty’s last guardian and that statement is certainly true in this case because Susan Mellen is free today due to the efforts of Deirdre O’Connor, an attorney who runs Innocence Matters, a nonprofit organization that represents wrongfully convicted innocent people.

Upon her release yesterday after serving 17 years in prison for a crime that she did not commit, she said,

I always forgave my enemies. Even your haters, you have to forgive them and sometimes thank them because they bring you closer to God.

For more information about June Patti’s pathological lying in Washington State after she left California, please go here.


Glen Ford is free at last after 30 years on death row

March 12, 2014

Wednesday, March 12, 2013

Good morning:

Glen Ford, 64, is a free man today after spending 30 years on death row in Louisiana for a murder he did not commit.

This awful case features police and prosecutorial misconduct, forensic fraud, lying witnesses and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The victim was Isadore Rozeman, 56, a watchmaker in Shreveport who was found shot to death behind the counter in his store. Mr. Ford worked for him occasionally doing yard work.

Police arrested Mr. Ford in November 1983 for possession of property stolen from Rozeman’s store. He was charged with the murder the following February together with George Starks, Henry Robinson and Jake Robinson.

The Death Penalty Information Center is reporting,

Prosecutors said they recently received “credible evidence” that Ford “was neither present at, nor a participant in, the robbery and murder” of which he was convicted in 1984. Ford, who has always maintained his innocence, was tried and sentenced to death by an all-white jury. One of the witnesses against him said at trial that police had helped her make up her story. A state “expert” who testified about the victim’s time of death had not even examined the body. Ford’s lead trial attorney had never tried a jury case before. A second attorney, two years out of law school, worked at an insurance defense firm. They failed to hire any experts to rebut the prosecution’s case because they believed they would have to pay for the experts themselves. The Louisiana Supreme Court earlier said it had “serious questions” about the outcome of the trial, but did not reverse Ford’s conviction. Ford may have been involved in trying to pawn jewelry from the victim that he received from one of the original codefendants.

USA Today is reporting,

Movement in Ford’s decades-old case began last year when Caddo Parish prosecutors began filing motions in federal court indicating someone other than Ford had confessed to being Rozeman’s killer. The court documents indicate a confidential informant questioned in an unrelated homicide identified Jake Robinson, one of four men initially charged in Rozeman’s murder, as the triggerman, not Ford.

Few other details were provided until Thursday, when the motion spurring Ford’s release plainly stated that if the new evidence had been known when Ford went to trial the outcome would have been different. “Indeed, if the information had been within the knowledge of the state, Glenn Ford might not even have been arrested or indicted for this offense,” the motion states

There were no eyewitnesses to the crime and the murder weapon was never found. The prosecution’s most important witness was a woman named Marvella Brown. The Atlantic reports,

With all signs pointing to the Robinsons, and with police under the impression that the one or both of the brothers still possessed the murder weapon, Ford was not immediately charged with Rozeman’s murder. He and the two Robinsons were instead charged three months later—only after Jake Robinson’s girlfriend, Marvella Brown, incriminated them by telling the police that Ford was with the Robinsons, and in the possession of a firearm, on the day of Rozeman’s murder.

/snip/

Under cross-examination, however, she told jurors that the police had helped her make up the story she had told about Ford. When Ford’s attorneys later called her to the witness stand, she told jurors that a bullet left from an old gunshot wound to her head had affected her thinking. “I did lie to the Court… I lied about it all,” she said in court.

The all-white jury took less than 3 hours to convict Mr. Ford and it subsequently recommended a death sentence.

There were no blacks on the jury because the prosecution used a peremptory challenge to strike the only one from the jury, a practice condemned by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

Pursuant to Louisiana law, Mr. Ford will receive some financial compensation for being incarcerated for 30 years. The law requires the state to pay $25,000 per year of wrongful incarceration up to a maximum of $250,000 plus up to $80,000 for loss of life opportunities.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is our 930th post and donations are lagging. We work hard to keep you informed by filling in the blanks between the lines. After 30 years in the trenches, I am familiar with all of the rules and strategies prosecutors and defense counsel utilize. Experience counts and most of my predictions have been accurate.

Adjusting and fine tuning to dial in the white fear and racist corruption frequencies in the Florida courts took some doing, but I am on track now.

If you appreciate what we do, please make a donation.

We cannot pay our bills without your support.

Fred


Get Out Your Checkbook, Aurora, CO!

June 6, 2012

Responding to a tip they considered to be “reliable,” police officers in Aurora, CO stopped all traffic at a downtown intersection two days ago (June 4), removed all of the adult drivers and passengers (40 people) from their vehicles, and handcuffed them. They gathered them together and explained that they were looking for someone who had robbed a Wells Fargo Bank.

Aurora Police Department Officer Frank Fania told ABC News,

We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber.

Officer Fania said everyone consented to a search of their vehicle. When the officers finished searching a vehicle without finding the gun they were looking for, they released the driver and any passengers who were in the vehicle. The searches lasted approximately two hours as they systematically searched every vehicle at the intersection.

Eventually they found what what they were looking for in the last vehicle they searched: two loaded semiautomatic handguns. They arrested the suspect and took him to jail.

This was a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment which prohibits police officers from stopping a vehicle unless they have a reasonable suspicion that a person in that vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

A reasonable suspicion is more than a mere hunch. It requires articulable facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that a particular individual had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.

Apparently, Officer Fania was looking for a particular weapon, which he believed was concealed in one of the vehicles at the intersection, but he did not have a description of the robber or the vehicle the robber was driving or in which he was riding. Therefore, every vehicle the police stopped was an unlawful stop, including the stop of the vehicle that contained the person they subsequently arrested.

His case should be dismissed and 40 adults have valid lawsuits against the police department and the city for violating their right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment because this was a clear violation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in City of Indianapolis v. Edmund, 513 U.S. 32 (2000).

Message to Aurora: Get out your checkbook!


%d bloggers like this: