May 19 OHIO: ACLU of Ohio Encouraged by Lawmakers Approval of State DNA Testing Bill ----Bill is a First Step, ACLU Says; More People Must Have Access to Tests for Measure to Be Effective The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio today said it was pleased by the passage of State Senate Bill 262 by the Ohio House, which extends the window of opportunity for convicted criminals to petition the state to test DNA evidence to prove their innocence. The bill received widespread support from criminal justice advocates, law enforcement and various legislators. "This bill is a needed first step that can help correct some of the deficiencies in our justice system and increase the chances that innocent persons imprisoned or on death row can get released," said ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Jeffrey Gamso. "However," he warned, "in too many cases there is no DNA to test and this bill will do nothing for those wrongly convicted prisoners." The bill allows certain inmates who have already gone to trial to obtain DNA testing. However, the law gives prosecutors virtually unfettered and unreviewable discretion to deny DNA testing to prisoners who entered pleas of guilty or no contest even if they strenuously denied their guilt as they were entering the plea. Additionally, prisoners can rely only on DNA evidence to prove their innocence, which makes the standard to qualify for DNA testing unreasonably difficult to meet. "Study of DNA exonerations reveals that when innocent people are convicted, they have often confessed to police; there are often eyewitnesses who identify them with certainty; and there are often others who claim to have heard confessions," Gamso said."Yet where there are any of these, testing could be denied under this bill as it might not eliminate substantial, even if false, evidence of guilt." In Ohio, the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization at the University of Cincinnati, has been responsible for several exonerations. Just last week, 30 year old Christopher Bennett was released 4 years into his nine-year term for vehicular homicide after DNA evidence proved he was not driving the car that killed his best friend, Ronald Young. Nationally, Innocence Projects have been responsible for the release of over 130 people who were falsely imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. The ACLU said it is currently awaiting scientific testing that may help prove whether Ohio death row inmate John Spirko is guilty of a crime for which he is due to be executed in July. "Whenever an innocent person is convicted of crime, the guilty party goes free. That is a disservice to the victim, to the state, to the idea of justice, and of course to the innocent," said Gamso. "Unfortunately, for too many innocent persons, there is no DNA to test and this bill will do no good. It remains no more than a needed first step." (source: ACLU) CALIFORNIA: Death penalty bill defeated Democrats played the role of executioner Thursday, killing a bill that sought to protect doctors from dealing with the death penalty. Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, had introduced Senate Bill 1808 to shield doctors from having their licenses suspended or removed if they chose to participate in a state-sanctioned execution. Calling it premature, Sens. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, and Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, said the state Legislature should not pass bills related to the death penalty until the courts finish reviewing the state's execution process. Aanestad's bill was headed for a Senate floor vote after clearing the Business and Professions Committee. But Senate Democratic leaders rerouted it to the Public Safety Committee chaired by Migden. The panel killed it Thursday on a 2-2 vote. While the California Medical Association wants to block doctors from taking part in executions, the medical group did not oppose Aanestad's bill because it agrees, in principle, that an execution is not a medical procedure. A CMA-backed bill, Assembly Bill 1954, would prohibit physicians from attending executions in an official capacity, monitoring vital signs, determining an inmate's point of death, or prescribing, administering or supervising the injection of lethal medication. It awaits action in the Assembly. (source: Sacramento Bee) ****************** THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE HAS RELEASED ITS TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON FALSE CONFESSIONS AND ANNOUNCED PLANS FOR ITS NEXT PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 21, 2006. ATTACHED ARE COPIES OF THE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS AND A PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING THE HEARING. BOTH HAVE BEEN POSTED ON THE COMMISSION'S WEBSITE AT http://www.CCFAJ.ORG. PRESS RELEASE FROM: CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. CONTACT: Chris Boscia, Executive Assistant California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice 900 Lafayette Street, Suite 608 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Tel. 408-554-5002; Email cboscia at scu.edu. CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING IN LOS ANGELES ON JUNE 21, 2006. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, created by the California State Senate to examine the causes of wrongful convictions and to make recommendations and proposals to further insure that the administration of criminal justice in California is just, fair and accurate, will hold its second public hearing in Los Angeles on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Commission Chair John K. Van de Kamp announced that this hearing will focus on false confessions as a cause of wrongful convictions, and proposals to require the electronic recording of custodial interrogations. The Commission released tentative recommendations (attached) which will be the focus of testimony and discussion at the hearing. Keynote presentations will be made at the hearing by Thomas P. Sullivan, a Partner in Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, Illinois, who served as co-chair of Illinois Governor George H. Ryans Commission on Capital Punishment, and as Chair of the Illinois Capital Punishment Reform Study Committee, and by Professor Richard A. Leo, a law professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, who has researched and published several studies analyzing cases of wrongful convictions from false confessions. Representatives of statewide organizations of judges, prosecutors, police and defense lawyers are being invited to address the Commission with regard to its tentative recommendations. The Los Angeles hearing will be held at Loyola Law School, 919 Albany Street, Los Angeles, California 90015. --------------------------------------------- CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS RE: FALSE CONFESSIONS 1. The Commission urges all California law enforcement agencies to videotape the entirety of all custodial interrogations of crime suspects or, where videotaping is impractical, to audiotape the entirety of such custodial interrogations. 2. The Commission recommends that the state legislature enact the following statute to require the videotaping of the entirety of custodial interrogations of individuals suspected of homicide, and require the electronic recording by video or audio of the entirety of custodial interrogations of individuals suspected of serious felonies other than homicide: The People of the State of California do enact as follows: Section 1: Definitions. (a) "Cautionary Instruction" means an instruction, in a form to be recommended by the California Judicial Council, which advises the jury to view statements which have not been Electronically Recorded with caution. (b) "Custodial Interrogation" means an interview which occurs while a person is in custody in a Place of Detention, involving a law enforcement officer's questioning that is reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses. (c) "Place of Detention" means a jail, police or sheriffs station, holding cell, correctional or detention facility, or other place where persons are held in connection with juvenile or criminal charges. (d) "Electronic Recording" or "Electronically Recorded" means an audio, video or digital audio or video that is an authentic, accurate, unaltered record of a Custodial Interrogation, beginning with a law enforcement officer's advice of the person's constitutional rights and ending when the interview has completely finished. (e) "Homicide" means any offense defined in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 187) of Title 8 or Part 1 of the California Penal Code. (f) "Serious Felony" means any of the offenses listed in Section 1192.7(c) of the California Penal Code. (g) "Statement" means an oral, written, sign language or nonverbal communication. Section 2: Recordings Required. All Statements made by a person during a Custodial Interrogation relating to a Serious Felony shall be electronically recorded. All Statements made by a person during a Custodial Interrogation relating to a Homicide shall be electronically recorded by means of video or digital video. Section 3: Cautionary Instruction Required. If any Statement is admitted in evidence in any criminal proceeding which was not Electronically Recorded in compliance with Section 2, the court shall, at the request of the defendant, provide the jury with a cautionary instruction unless the court finds: (a) That the Statement is admissible under applicable provisions of the Evidence Code; and (b) That the Statement is proven to have been made voluntarily and to be reliable; and (c) That, if feasible to do so, law enforcement personnel made a contemporaneous record of the reason for not making an Electronic Recording of the Statement; and (d) That it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of the Custodial Interrogation: (i) The questions put by law enforcement personnel, and the persons responsive Statements, were part of a routine processing or booking of the person; or (ii) Before or during a Custodial Interrogation, the person agreed to respond to the officers questions only if his or her Statements were not Electronically Recorded; or (iii) The law enforcement officers in good faith failed to make an Electronic Recording of the Custodial Interrogation because the officers inadvertently failed to operate the recording equipment properly, or without the officers knowledge the recording equipment malfunctioned or stopped operating; or (iv) The Custodial Interrogation took place in another jurisdiction and was conducted by officers of that jurisdiction in compliance with the law of that jurisdiction; or (v) The law enforcement officers conducting or contemporaneously observing the Custodial Interrogation reasonably believed that the crime for which the person was taken into custody, or was being investigated or questioned, was not among those listed in Section 2; or (vi) Exigent circumstances existed which prevented the making of, or rendered it not feasible to make, an Electronic Recording of the Custodial Interrogation. Section 4: Handling and Preservation of Electronic Recordings. (a) Every Electronic Recording of a Custodial Interrogation shall be clearly identified and catalogued by law enforcement personnel. (b) If a juvenile or criminal proceeding is brought against a person who was the subject of an Electronically Recorded Custodial Interrogation, the Electronic Recording shall be preserved by law enforcement personnel until all appeals, post-conviction and habeas corpus proceedings are final and concluded, or the time within which they must be brought has expired. (c) If no juvenile or criminal proceeding is brought against a person who has been the subject of an Electronically Recorded Custodial Interrogation, the related Electronic Recording shall be preserved by law enforcement personnel until all applicable state and federal statutes of limitations bar prosecution of the person. (source: Indybay) NEW YORK: Wrong man was imprisoned but fortunately not executed We mourn the lost 10 years of Douglas Warney, released Tuesday from prison after DNA evidence found him innocent of murdering William Beason in 1996. We hear cries of disdain for our criminal justice system. We see red faces among those who run our courts. We read angry analyses from advocates for justice. We also see the rejoicing of friends and family reunited with their brother and son. However, amid all the hand-wringing and breast-beating, I suggest we look on the bright side for a few reasons: - A case like Warney's helps every person accused of a crime get a better trial. It will be invoked in courtrooms directly and in the minds of juries and judges for years to come. - New York state, where courts have found our death penalty laws unconstitutional, will pay closer attention as the Senate considers a new law legalizing capital punishment. - Candidates in the governor's race will pause in their endorsement for the death penalty. The most often cited reason for pro-capital punishment folks to change their position is that innocent people might be killed in our name. This case will surely turn more against the practice. - Our faith in juries, or individual jurors, should continue to grow. It was a grand jury that saved Douglas Warney from death row 10 years ago when it indicted him for second-degree rather than 1st-degree murder. It was a jury that recently spared al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui the death penalty. It was a jury that sent 2 Rochester murderers to prison for life rather than death - Jose Santiago in 2000 and John Owens in 2001. - People in Rochester will feel a personal connection when they see the poignant film The Exonerated, which tells the story of six people spared from death after years on death row. It was shown by the Campaign to End the Death Penalty in Rochester just one week ago. It is available on DVD for classroom and discussion groups. - Slowly but surely, groups like the Innocence Project, responsible for helping to win Warney's freedom, will show us the folly of capital punishment. As David Kaczynski, executive director of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, told the Democrat and Chronicle Editorial Board when he met with them earlier this year, "A growing majority of New Yorkers have learned that we can live without the death penalty." The loss of 10 years for Douglas Warney is a tragedy. Had he been indicted for 1st-degree murder, the loss might have been irreversible. May this case inspire us to rethink the punishment that does not allow for error. Once we execute people, we can't alter the course. Let us use this horrendous case to remember what courts should intend: finding people innocent until proven guilty, not finding people guilty until proven innocent. (source: Democrat & Chronicle - Suzannae Schnittman is Rochester's representative on the board of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OHIO, CALIF., N.Y.
Rick Halperin Fri, 19 May 2006 13:58:35 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
