Well, I only thought I had witnessed the greatest miscarriage of justice in the U.S. (the O.J. Simpson case), but after reading John Grisham's, The Innocent Man and Dennis Fritz's, Journey Toward Justice, I am completely assured there must hang some sort of black cloud over the city of Ada. Perhaps the lack of ozone
read more digg story
Showing posts with label article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label article. Show all posts
Monday, November 26, 2007
Saturday, April 7, 2007
A Family Photo of Debra Sue Carter and Article On Exonerated Man Dennis Fritz
Exonerated man, victim's family push for reform By Jaclyn Houghton CNHI News Service
The Exonerated Man is Dennis Fritz and The Family is The Family of Debbie Sue Carter.
Great Article
( UPDATE 2008 story and photo was removed from site, I left my story here))and a photo of the Rape and murder victim Debra Sue Carter, 21, of Ada, Okla. The photo was taken a few days before her murder. Photo of Debra Sue Carter was provided by the family of Debra Sue Carter
Family members of Carter, as well as Fritz and representatives of the New York-based Innocence Project that helped free Williamson and Fritz, are pushing for state commissions that would look at what mistakes were made in cases where convicts later were exonerated. You can read about the case in Dennis Fritz's Book.
Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz click here On Amazon Here
Saturday, May 10, 2008 -
At an Innocence Project dinner, Peggy Sanders danced with Dennis Fritz, who was sent to prison for her daughter’s murder.
International Orders Order Here Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz From Around The World click on here Amazon International Just type in Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz
The Exonerated Man is Dennis Fritz and The Family is The Family of Debbie Sue Carter.
Great Article
( UPDATE 2008 story and photo was removed from site, I left my story here))and a photo of the Rape and murder victim Debra Sue Carter, 21, of Ada, Okla. The photo was taken a few days before her murder. Photo of Debra Sue Carter was provided by the family of Debra Sue Carter
Family members of Carter, as well as Fritz and representatives of the New York-based Innocence Project that helped free Williamson and Fritz, are pushing for state commissions that would look at what mistakes were made in cases where convicts later were exonerated. You can read about the case in Dennis Fritz's Book.
Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz click here On Amazon Here
Saturday, May 10, 2008 -
At an Innocence Project dinner, Peggy Sanders danced with Dennis Fritz, who was sent to prison for her daughter’s murder.
International Orders Order Here Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz From Around The World click on here Amazon International Just type in Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz
Friday, March 30, 2007
The Growing Crisis In The Adminstration Of Capital Punishment
As I was researching the pros and cons abouth the Death Penalty, I came across this in The Congressional Record.For people who are visiting my blog for the first time. I decided after reading the book Journey Toward Justice, Author Dennis Fritz, to join his Journey Toward Justice. I started this blog to bring about Public Awareness of major issues in his book. This is one of them. I do wish Dennis Fritz a Wonderful Journey in his Journey Toward Justice. He was in prison for a unwarranted prosecution and wrongful conviction and spent 12 tortuous years in prison as a innocent man. Please pass my blog along and join My Journey.
Here is what I read: Since it is from The Congressional Record I can Post the entire text.
[Page: S198]
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to a growing national crisis in the administration of capital punishment. People of good conscience can and will disagree on the morality of the death penalty. But I am confident that we should all be able to agree that a system that may sentence one innocent person to death for every seven it executes has no place in a civilized society, much less in 21st century America. But that is what the American system of capital punishment has done for the last 24 years.
A total of 610 people have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976. During the same time, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, 85 people have been found innocent and were released from death row. These are not reversals of sentences, or even convictions on technical legal grounds; these are people whose convictions have been overturned after years of confinement on death row because it was discovered they were not guilty. Even though in some instances they came within hours of being executed, it was eventually determined that, whoops, we made a mistake; we have the wrong person.
What does this mean? It means that for every seven executions, one person has been wrongly convicted. It means that we could have more than three innocent people sentenced to death each year. The phenomenon is not confined to just a few States; the many exonerations since 1976 span more than 20 different States. And of those who are found innocent--not released because of a technicality, but actually found innocent--what is the average time they spent on death row, knowing they could be executed at any time? What is the average time they spent on death row before somebody said, we have the wrong person? Seven and a half years.
This would be disturbing enough if the eventual exonerations of these death row inmates were the product of reliable and consistent checks in our legal system, if we could say as Americans, all right, you may spend 7 1/2 years on death row, but at least you have the comfort of knowing that we are going to find out you are innocent before we execute you. It might be comprehensible, though not acceptable, if we as a society lacked effective and relatively inexpensive means to make capital punishment more reliable. But many of the exonerated owe their lives to fortuity and private heroism, having been denied commonsense procedural rights and inexpensive modern scientific testing opportunities--leaving open the very real possibility that there have been a number of innocent people executed over the last few decades who were not so fortunate.
Let me give you a case. Randall Dale Adams. Here is a man who might have been routinely executed had his case not attracted the attention of a filmmaker, Earl Morris. His movie, `The Thin Blue Line,' shredded the prosecution's case and cast a national spotlight on Adams' innocence.
Consider the case of Anthony Porter. Porter spent 16 years on death row. That is more years than most Members of the Senate have served. He spent 16 years on death row. He came within 48 hours of being executed in 1998, but he was cleared the following year. Was he cleared by the State? No. He was cleared by a class of undergraduate journalism students at Northwestern University, who took on his case as a class project. That got him out. Then the State acknowledged that it had the wrong person, that Porter had been innocent all along. He came within 48 hours of being executed, and he would have been executed had not this journalism class decided to investigate his case instead of doing something else. Now consider the cases of the unknown and the unlucky, about whom we may never hear.
Last year, former Florida Supreme Court Justice Gerald Kogan said he had `no question' that `we certainly have, in the past, executed . . . people who either didn't fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida, or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.' This is not some pie-in-the-sky theory. Justice Kogan was a homicide detective and a prosecutor before eventually rising to Chief Justice.
This crisis has led the American Bar Association and a growing number of State legislators to call for a moratorium on executions until the death penalty can be administered with less risk to the innocent. This week, the Republican Governor of Illinois, George Ryan, announced he plans to block executions in that State until an inquiry has been conducted into why more death row inmates have been exonerated than executed since 1977 when Illinois reinstated capital punishment. Think of that. More death row inmates exonerated than executed.
Governor Ryan is someone who supports the death penalty. But I agree with him in bringing this halt. He said: `There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied.' The Governor is absolutely right. I rise to bring to this body the debate over how we as a nation can begin to reduce the risk of killing the innocent.
I hope that nobody of good faith--whether they are for or against the death penalty--will deny the existence of a serious crisis. Sentencing innocent women and men to death anywhere in our country shatters America's image in the international community. At the very least, it undermines our leadership in the struggle for human rights. But, more importantly, the individual and collective conscience of decent Americans is deeply offended and the faith in the working of our criminal justice system is severely damaged. So the question we should debate is, What should be done?
Some will be tempted to rely on the States. The U.S. Supreme Court often defers to `the laboratory of the States' to figure out how to protect criminal defendants. After 24 years, let's take a look at that lab report.
As I already mentioned, Illinois has now had more inmates released from death row than executed since the death penalty was reinstated. There have been 12 executions, and 13 times they have said: Whoops, sorry. Don't pull the switch. We have the wrong person. This has happened four times in the last year alone.
In Texas, the State that leads the Nation in executions, courts have upheld death sentences in at least three cases in which the defense lawyers slept through substantial portions of the trial. The Texas courts said that the defendants in these cases had adequate counsel. Adequate counsel? Would any one of us if we were in a taxicab say we had an adequate driver who was asleep at the wheel? What we are saying is with a person's life at stake the defense lawyer slept through the trial, and the Texas courts say that is pretty adequate.
Meanwhile, in the past few years, the States have followed the Federal lead in expanding their defective capital punishment systems, curtailing appeal and habeas corpus rights, and slashing funding for indigent defense services. The crisis can only get worse.
The States have had decades to fix their capital punishment systems, yet the best they have managed is a system fraught with arbitrariness and error--a system where innocent people are sentenced to death on a regular basis, and it is left not to the courts, not to the States, not to the Federal Government, but to filmmakers and college undergraduates to correct the mistakes. History shows that we cannot rely on local politics to implement our national conscience on such fundamental points as the execution of the innocent.
What about the Supreme Court? In a 1993 case, it could not even make up its mind whether the execution of an innocent person would be unconstitutional. Do a referendum on that one throughout the Nation. Ask people in this Nation of a quarter billion people whether they think executing an innocent person should be considered constitutional or unconstitutional. Most in this country have no doubt that it would be unconstitutional, but that really does not matter: executing an innocent person is abhorrent--it is morally wrong. Whether you support the death penalty or not, executing an innocent person is wrong, and we in this body have the moral duty to express and implement America's conscience. We should be the Nation's conscience. The buck should stop in this Chamber where it always stops in times of national crisis.
How do we begin to stem the crisis? I have been posing this question to experts across the country for nearly a year. There is a lot of consensus over what must be done. In the next few weeks, I will introduce legislation that will address some of the most urgent problems in the administration of capital punishment.
Two problems in particular require our immediate attention. First, we need to ensure that defendants in capital cases receive competent legal representation at every stage in their case. Second, we have to guarantee an effective forum for death row inmates who may be able to prove their innocence.
In our adversarial system of justice, effective assistance of counsel is essential to the fair administration of justice. It is the principal bulwark against wrongful conviction.
I know this from my own experience as a prosecutor. It is the best way to reduce the risk that a trial will be infected by constitutional error, resulting in reversal, retrial, cost, delay, and repeated ordeals for the victim's family. Most prosecutors will tell you they would much prefer to have good counsel on the other side because there is less apt to be mistakes, there is less apt to be reversible error, and there is far more of a chance that you end up with the right decision.
Most defendants who face capital charges are represented by court-appointed lawyers. Unfortunately, the manner in which defense lawyers are selected and compensated in death penalty cases frequently fails to protect the defendant's rights. Some States relegate these cases to grossly unqualified lawyers willing to settle for meager fees. While the Federal Government pays defense counsel $125 an hour for death penalty work, the hourly rate in many States is $50 or less, and some States place an arbitrary and usually unrealistically low cap on the total amount a court-appointed attorney can bill.
New York recently slashed pay for counsel in capital cases by as much as 50 percent. They might say they are getting their money's worth if they cut out all the money for defense counsel. The conviction rate is probably going to shoot up. Let me tell you what else will go up--the number of innocent people who will be put to death.
Congress has done its part to make a bad situation worse. In 1996, Congress defunded the death penalty resource centers. This has sharply increased the chances that innocent persons will be executed.
You get what you pay for. Those who are on death row have found their lives placed in the hands of lawyers who are drunk during the trial--in some instances, lawyers who never bothered to meet their client before the trial; lawyers who never bothered to read the State death penalty statute; lawyers who were just out of law school and never handled a criminal case; and lawyers who were literally asleep on the job.
Even some of our best lawyers, diligent, experienced litigators, can do little when they lack funds for investigators, experts, or scientific testing that could establish their client's innocence. Attorneys appointed to represent capital defendants often cannot recoup even their out-of-pocket expenses. They are effectively required to work at minimum wag or below while funding their client's defense out of their own pockets.
Although the States are required to provide criminal defendants with qualified legal counsel, those who have been saved from death row and found innocent were often convicted because of attorney error. They might not have had postconviction review because their lawyer failed to meet a filing deadline. An attorney misses a deadline by even 1 day, and his death row client may pay the price with his life.
Let me be clear what I am talking about. I am not suggesting that there is a universal right to Johnnie Cochran's services. The O.J. Simpson case has absolutely nothing to do with the typical capital case, in which one or possibly two underfunded and underprepared lawyers try to cobble together a defense with little or no scientific or expert evidence and the whole process takes less than a week. These are two extremes. You go from the Simpson case, where the judge let the whole thing get out of control and we had a year-long spectacle, to the typical death penalty case which is rushed through without preparation in a matter of days. Somewhere there must be a middle ground.
Let me give three examples of some of the worst things that have happened--but not untypical.
Ronald Keith Williamson. In 1997, a Federal appeals court overturned Williamson's conviction on the basis of ineffectiveness of counsel. The court noted that the lawyer, who had been paid a total of $3,200 for the defense, had failed to investigate and present a fact to the jury. What was that fact? Somebody else confessed to the crime. If I were the defense attorney, I think one of the things that I would want to bring to the jury is the fact that somebody else confessed to the crime; Williamson's lawyer did not bother. Then, two years after the appeals court decision, DNA testing ruled out Williamson as the killer and implicated another man--a convicted kidnapper who had testified against Williamson at trial. Of course, he did. He is the one who committed the crime.
Let's next consider George McFarland. According to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, McFarland's lawyer slept through much of his 1992 trial. He objected to hardly anything the prosecution did. Here is how the Houston Chronicle described what happened as McFarland stood on trial for his life. This is not for shoplifting. He is on trial for his life.
Let me quote from the Houston Chronicle:
[Page: S199]
Seated beside his client . . . defense attorney John Benn spent much of Thursday afternoon's trial in apparent deep sleep. His mouth kept falling open and his head lolled back on his shoulders, and then he awakened just long enough to catch himself and sit upright. Then it happened again. And again. And again.
Every time he opened his eyes, a different prosecution witness was on the stand describing another aspect of the Nov. 19, 1991, arrest of George McFarland in the robbery-killing of grocer Kenneth Kwan.
When state District Judge Doug Shaver finally called a recess, Benn was asked if he truly had fallen asleep during a capital murder trial. `It's boring,' the 72-year-old longtime Houston lawyer explained. . . . Court observers said Benn seems to have slept his way through virtually the entire trial.
Unfortunately for McFarland, Texas' highest criminal court, several of whose members were coming up for reelection, concluded that this constituted effective criminal representation.
I guess they felt because the lawyer was in the courtroom, even though sound asleep, that would be effective representation. If you read the decision they probably would have ruled the same way if he had been at home sound asleep, so long as he had been appointed at some time.
McFarland is still on death row for a murder he insists he did not commit, on the basis of evidence widely reported by independent observers to be weak.
Then we have Reginald Powell, a borderline mentally retarded man who was 18 at the time of the crime. Mr. Powell was eventually executed. Why? Because he accepted his lawyer's advice to reject a plea bargain that would have saved his life.
There were a number of attorney errors at the trial. The advice he received seems to be very bad advice. Some may feel this advice, the advice given to this 18-year-old mentally retarded man, was affected by the flagrantly unprofessional conduct of the attorney, a woman twice Powell's age, who conducted a secret jailhouse sexual relationship with him during the trial. Despite this obvious attorney conflict of interest, Powell's execution went ahead in Missouri a year ago.
I ask each Member of the Senate when you go home tonight, or when you talk to your constituents, and when you consider the bill I will be introducing, to remember these cases and consult your conscience to ask whether these examples represent the best of 21st century American justice.
The judge who presided over McFarland's trial summed up the Texas court's view of the law quite accurately when he reasoned that, while the Constitution requires a defendant to be represented by a lawyer, it `doesn't say the lawyer has to be awake.' If your conscience says otherwise, maybe we ought to do something.
My proposal rests on a simple premise: States that choose to impose capital punishment must be prepared to foot the bill. They should not be permitted to tip the scales of justice by denying capital defendants competent legal services. We have to do everything we can to ensure the States are meeting their constitutional obligations with respect to capital representation.
Can miscarriages of justice happen when defendants receive adequate representation? Yes, they can still happen. So I think it is critical to ensure that death row inmates have a meaningful opportunity--not a fanciful opportunity but a meaningful opportunity--to raise claims of innocence based on newly discovered evidence, especially if it is evidence that is derived from scientific tests not available at the time of the trial.
Perhaps more than any other development, improvements in DNA testing have exposed the fallibility of the legal system. In the last decades, scores of wrongfully convicted people have been released from prison--including many from death row--after DNA testing proved they could not have committed the crimes for which they were convicted. In some cases the same DNA testing that vindicated the innocent helped catch the guilty.
Most recently, DNA testing exonerated Ronald Jones. He spent close to 8 years on death row for a 1985 rape and murder that he did not commit. Illinois prosecutors dropped the charges against Jones on May 18, 1999, after DNA evidence from the crime scene excluded him as a possible suspect. It was also DNA testing that eventually saved Ronald Keith Williamson's life, as I discussed earlier. He spent 12 years as an innocent man on Oklahoma's death row.
Can you imagine how any one of us would feel, day after day for 12 years, never knowing if we were just a few hours or a few days from execution, locked up on death row for a crime we did not commit?
Some of the major hurdles to postconviction DNA testing are laws prohibiting introduction of new evidence--laws that have tightened as death penalty supporters have tried to speed executions by limiting appeals. Only two States, New York and Illinois, require the opportunity for inmates to require DNA testing where it could result in new evidence of innocence. Elsewhere, inmates may try to get DNA evidence for years, only to be shut out by courts and prosecutors.
What possible reason could there be to deny inmates the opportunity to prove their innocence--and perhaps even help identify the real culprits--through new technologies? DNA testing is relatively inexpensive. But no matter what it costs, it is a tiny price to pay to make sure you have the right person.
The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, a Federal panel established by the Justice Department and comprised of law enforcement, judicial, and scientific experts, issued a report last year urging prosecutors to consent to postconviction DNA testing, or retesting, in appropriate cases, especially if the results could exonerate the defendant.
In 1994, we set up a funding program to improve the quality and availability of DNA analysis for law enforcement identification purposes. The Justice Department has handed out tens of millions of dollars to States under this program. Last year alone, we appropriated another $30 million for DNA-related grants to States. That is an appropriate use of Federal funds. But we should not pass up the promise of truth and justice for both sides of our adversarial system that DNA evidence holds out. We at least ought to require that both sides have it available.
By reexamining capital punishment in light of recent exonerations, we can reduce the risk that people will be executed for crimes they did not commit and increase the probability that the guilty will be brought to justice. We can also help to make sure the death penalty is not imposed out of ignorance or prejudice.
I learned, first as a defense attorney and then as a prosecutor, that the pursuit of justice obliges us not only to convict the guilty, but also to exonerate the wrongly accused and convicted. That obligation is all the more urgent when the death penalty is involved.
Let's not have the situation where, today in America, it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. That is not equal justice. That is not what our country stands for.
I was proud to be a defense attorney. I was very proud to be a prosecutor. I have often said it was probably the best job I ever had. But there was one thought I always had every day that I was a prosecutor. I would look at the evidence over and over again and I would ask myself, not can I get a conviction on this charge, but will I be convicting the right person. I had cases where I knew I could get a conviction, but I believed we had the wrong person, and I would not bring the charge. I think most prosecutors feel that way. But sometimes in the passion of a highly publicized, horrendous murder, we can move too fast.
I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle, both those who support the death penalty and those who oppose it, to join in seeking ways to reduce the risk of mistaken executions.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[Page: S200]
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
END
The Growing Crisis In The Adminstration Of Capital Punishment
Senate - February 01,2000
Here is what I read: Since it is from The Congressional Record I can Post the entire text.
[Page: S198]
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to a growing national crisis in the administration of capital punishment. People of good conscience can and will disagree on the morality of the death penalty. But I am confident that we should all be able to agree that a system that may sentence one innocent person to death for every seven it executes has no place in a civilized society, much less in 21st century America. But that is what the American system of capital punishment has done for the last 24 years.
A total of 610 people have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976. During the same time, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, 85 people have been found innocent and were released from death row. These are not reversals of sentences, or even convictions on technical legal grounds; these are people whose convictions have been overturned after years of confinement on death row because it was discovered they were not guilty. Even though in some instances they came within hours of being executed, it was eventually determined that, whoops, we made a mistake; we have the wrong person.
What does this mean? It means that for every seven executions, one person has been wrongly convicted. It means that we could have more than three innocent people sentenced to death each year. The phenomenon is not confined to just a few States; the many exonerations since 1976 span more than 20 different States. And of those who are found innocent--not released because of a technicality, but actually found innocent--what is the average time they spent on death row, knowing they could be executed at any time? What is the average time they spent on death row before somebody said, we have the wrong person? Seven and a half years.
This would be disturbing enough if the eventual exonerations of these death row inmates were the product of reliable and consistent checks in our legal system, if we could say as Americans, all right, you may spend 7 1/2 years on death row, but at least you have the comfort of knowing that we are going to find out you are innocent before we execute you. It might be comprehensible, though not acceptable, if we as a society lacked effective and relatively inexpensive means to make capital punishment more reliable. But many of the exonerated owe their lives to fortuity and private heroism, having been denied commonsense procedural rights and inexpensive modern scientific testing opportunities--leaving open the very real possibility that there have been a number of innocent people executed over the last few decades who were not so fortunate.
Let me give you a case. Randall Dale Adams. Here is a man who might have been routinely executed had his case not attracted the attention of a filmmaker, Earl Morris. His movie, `The Thin Blue Line,' shredded the prosecution's case and cast a national spotlight on Adams' innocence.
Consider the case of Anthony Porter. Porter spent 16 years on death row. That is more years than most Members of the Senate have served. He spent 16 years on death row. He came within 48 hours of being executed in 1998, but he was cleared the following year. Was he cleared by the State? No. He was cleared by a class of undergraduate journalism students at Northwestern University, who took on his case as a class project. That got him out. Then the State acknowledged that it had the wrong person, that Porter had been innocent all along. He came within 48 hours of being executed, and he would have been executed had not this journalism class decided to investigate his case instead of doing something else. Now consider the cases of the unknown and the unlucky, about whom we may never hear.
Last year, former Florida Supreme Court Justice Gerald Kogan said he had `no question' that `we certainly have, in the past, executed . . . people who either didn't fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida, or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.' This is not some pie-in-the-sky theory. Justice Kogan was a homicide detective and a prosecutor before eventually rising to Chief Justice.
This crisis has led the American Bar Association and a growing number of State legislators to call for a moratorium on executions until the death penalty can be administered with less risk to the innocent. This week, the Republican Governor of Illinois, George Ryan, announced he plans to block executions in that State until an inquiry has been conducted into why more death row inmates have been exonerated than executed since 1977 when Illinois reinstated capital punishment. Think of that. More death row inmates exonerated than executed.
Governor Ryan is someone who supports the death penalty. But I agree with him in bringing this halt. He said: `There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied.' The Governor is absolutely right. I rise to bring to this body the debate over how we as a nation can begin to reduce the risk of killing the innocent.
I hope that nobody of good faith--whether they are for or against the death penalty--will deny the existence of a serious crisis. Sentencing innocent women and men to death anywhere in our country shatters America's image in the international community. At the very least, it undermines our leadership in the struggle for human rights. But, more importantly, the individual and collective conscience of decent Americans is deeply offended and the faith in the working of our criminal justice system is severely damaged. So the question we should debate is, What should be done?
Some will be tempted to rely on the States. The U.S. Supreme Court often defers to `the laboratory of the States' to figure out how to protect criminal defendants. After 24 years, let's take a look at that lab report.
As I already mentioned, Illinois has now had more inmates released from death row than executed since the death penalty was reinstated. There have been 12 executions, and 13 times they have said: Whoops, sorry. Don't pull the switch. We have the wrong person. This has happened four times in the last year alone.
In Texas, the State that leads the Nation in executions, courts have upheld death sentences in at least three cases in which the defense lawyers slept through substantial portions of the trial. The Texas courts said that the defendants in these cases had adequate counsel. Adequate counsel? Would any one of us if we were in a taxicab say we had an adequate driver who was asleep at the wheel? What we are saying is with a person's life at stake the defense lawyer slept through the trial, and the Texas courts say that is pretty adequate.
Meanwhile, in the past few years, the States have followed the Federal lead in expanding their defective capital punishment systems, curtailing appeal and habeas corpus rights, and slashing funding for indigent defense services. The crisis can only get worse.
The States have had decades to fix their capital punishment systems, yet the best they have managed is a system fraught with arbitrariness and error--a system where innocent people are sentenced to death on a regular basis, and it is left not to the courts, not to the States, not to the Federal Government, but to filmmakers and college undergraduates to correct the mistakes. History shows that we cannot rely on local politics to implement our national conscience on such fundamental points as the execution of the innocent.
What about the Supreme Court? In a 1993 case, it could not even make up its mind whether the execution of an innocent person would be unconstitutional. Do a referendum on that one throughout the Nation. Ask people in this Nation of a quarter billion people whether they think executing an innocent person should be considered constitutional or unconstitutional. Most in this country have no doubt that it would be unconstitutional, but that really does not matter: executing an innocent person is abhorrent--it is morally wrong. Whether you support the death penalty or not, executing an innocent person is wrong, and we in this body have the moral duty to express and implement America's conscience. We should be the Nation's conscience. The buck should stop in this Chamber where it always stops in times of national crisis.
How do we begin to stem the crisis? I have been posing this question to experts across the country for nearly a year. There is a lot of consensus over what must be done. In the next few weeks, I will introduce legislation that will address some of the most urgent problems in the administration of capital punishment.
Two problems in particular require our immediate attention. First, we need to ensure that defendants in capital cases receive competent legal representation at every stage in their case. Second, we have to guarantee an effective forum for death row inmates who may be able to prove their innocence.
In our adversarial system of justice, effective assistance of counsel is essential to the fair administration of justice. It is the principal bulwark against wrongful conviction.
I know this from my own experience as a prosecutor. It is the best way to reduce the risk that a trial will be infected by constitutional error, resulting in reversal, retrial, cost, delay, and repeated ordeals for the victim's family. Most prosecutors will tell you they would much prefer to have good counsel on the other side because there is less apt to be mistakes, there is less apt to be reversible error, and there is far more of a chance that you end up with the right decision.
Most defendants who face capital charges are represented by court-appointed lawyers. Unfortunately, the manner in which defense lawyers are selected and compensated in death penalty cases frequently fails to protect the defendant's rights. Some States relegate these cases to grossly unqualified lawyers willing to settle for meager fees. While the Federal Government pays defense counsel $125 an hour for death penalty work, the hourly rate in many States is $50 or less, and some States place an arbitrary and usually unrealistically low cap on the total amount a court-appointed attorney can bill.
New York recently slashed pay for counsel in capital cases by as much as 50 percent. They might say they are getting their money's worth if they cut out all the money for defense counsel. The conviction rate is probably going to shoot up. Let me tell you what else will go up--the number of innocent people who will be put to death.
Congress has done its part to make a bad situation worse. In 1996, Congress defunded the death penalty resource centers. This has sharply increased the chances that innocent persons will be executed.
You get what you pay for. Those who are on death row have found their lives placed in the hands of lawyers who are drunk during the trial--in some instances, lawyers who never bothered to meet their client before the trial; lawyers who never bothered to read the State death penalty statute; lawyers who were just out of law school and never handled a criminal case; and lawyers who were literally asleep on the job.
Even some of our best lawyers, diligent, experienced litigators, can do little when they lack funds for investigators, experts, or scientific testing that could establish their client's innocence. Attorneys appointed to represent capital defendants often cannot recoup even their out-of-pocket expenses. They are effectively required to work at minimum wag or below while funding their client's defense out of their own pockets.
Although the States are required to provide criminal defendants with qualified legal counsel, those who have been saved from death row and found innocent were often convicted because of attorney error. They might not have had postconviction review because their lawyer failed to meet a filing deadline. An attorney misses a deadline by even 1 day, and his death row client may pay the price with his life.
Let me be clear what I am talking about. I am not suggesting that there is a universal right to Johnnie Cochran's services. The O.J. Simpson case has absolutely nothing to do with the typical capital case, in which one or possibly two underfunded and underprepared lawyers try to cobble together a defense with little or no scientific or expert evidence and the whole process takes less than a week. These are two extremes. You go from the Simpson case, where the judge let the whole thing get out of control and we had a year-long spectacle, to the typical death penalty case which is rushed through without preparation in a matter of days. Somewhere there must be a middle ground.
Let me give three examples of some of the worst things that have happened--but not untypical.
Ronald Keith Williamson. In 1997, a Federal appeals court overturned Williamson's conviction on the basis of ineffectiveness of counsel. The court noted that the lawyer, who had been paid a total of $3,200 for the defense, had failed to investigate and present a fact to the jury. What was that fact? Somebody else confessed to the crime. If I were the defense attorney, I think one of the things that I would want to bring to the jury is the fact that somebody else confessed to the crime; Williamson's lawyer did not bother. Then, two years after the appeals court decision, DNA testing ruled out Williamson as the killer and implicated another man--a convicted kidnapper who had testified against Williamson at trial. Of course, he did. He is the one who committed the crime.
Let's next consider George McFarland. According to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, McFarland's lawyer slept through much of his 1992 trial. He objected to hardly anything the prosecution did. Here is how the Houston Chronicle described what happened as McFarland stood on trial for his life. This is not for shoplifting. He is on trial for his life.
Let me quote from the Houston Chronicle:
[Page: S199]
Seated beside his client . . . defense attorney John Benn spent much of Thursday afternoon's trial in apparent deep sleep. His mouth kept falling open and his head lolled back on his shoulders, and then he awakened just long enough to catch himself and sit upright. Then it happened again. And again. And again.
Every time he opened his eyes, a different prosecution witness was on the stand describing another aspect of the Nov. 19, 1991, arrest of George McFarland in the robbery-killing of grocer Kenneth Kwan.
When state District Judge Doug Shaver finally called a recess, Benn was asked if he truly had fallen asleep during a capital murder trial. `It's boring,' the 72-year-old longtime Houston lawyer explained. . . . Court observers said Benn seems to have slept his way through virtually the entire trial.
Unfortunately for McFarland, Texas' highest criminal court, several of whose members were coming up for reelection, concluded that this constituted effective criminal representation.
I guess they felt because the lawyer was in the courtroom, even though sound asleep, that would be effective representation. If you read the decision they probably would have ruled the same way if he had been at home sound asleep, so long as he had been appointed at some time.
McFarland is still on death row for a murder he insists he did not commit, on the basis of evidence widely reported by independent observers to be weak.
Then we have Reginald Powell, a borderline mentally retarded man who was 18 at the time of the crime. Mr. Powell was eventually executed. Why? Because he accepted his lawyer's advice to reject a plea bargain that would have saved his life.
There were a number of attorney errors at the trial. The advice he received seems to be very bad advice. Some may feel this advice, the advice given to this 18-year-old mentally retarded man, was affected by the flagrantly unprofessional conduct of the attorney, a woman twice Powell's age, who conducted a secret jailhouse sexual relationship with him during the trial. Despite this obvious attorney conflict of interest, Powell's execution went ahead in Missouri a year ago.
I ask each Member of the Senate when you go home tonight, or when you talk to your constituents, and when you consider the bill I will be introducing, to remember these cases and consult your conscience to ask whether these examples represent the best of 21st century American justice.
The judge who presided over McFarland's trial summed up the Texas court's view of the law quite accurately when he reasoned that, while the Constitution requires a defendant to be represented by a lawyer, it `doesn't say the lawyer has to be awake.' If your conscience says otherwise, maybe we ought to do something.
My proposal rests on a simple premise: States that choose to impose capital punishment must be prepared to foot the bill. They should not be permitted to tip the scales of justice by denying capital defendants competent legal services. We have to do everything we can to ensure the States are meeting their constitutional obligations with respect to capital representation.
Can miscarriages of justice happen when defendants receive adequate representation? Yes, they can still happen. So I think it is critical to ensure that death row inmates have a meaningful opportunity--not a fanciful opportunity but a meaningful opportunity--to raise claims of innocence based on newly discovered evidence, especially if it is evidence that is derived from scientific tests not available at the time of the trial.
Perhaps more than any other development, improvements in DNA testing have exposed the fallibility of the legal system. In the last decades, scores of wrongfully convicted people have been released from prison--including many from death row--after DNA testing proved they could not have committed the crimes for which they were convicted. In some cases the same DNA testing that vindicated the innocent helped catch the guilty.
Most recently, DNA testing exonerated Ronald Jones. He spent close to 8 years on death row for a 1985 rape and murder that he did not commit. Illinois prosecutors dropped the charges against Jones on May 18, 1999, after DNA evidence from the crime scene excluded him as a possible suspect. It was also DNA testing that eventually saved Ronald Keith Williamson's life, as I discussed earlier. He spent 12 years as an innocent man on Oklahoma's death row.
Can you imagine how any one of us would feel, day after day for 12 years, never knowing if we were just a few hours or a few days from execution, locked up on death row for a crime we did not commit?
Some of the major hurdles to postconviction DNA testing are laws prohibiting introduction of new evidence--laws that have tightened as death penalty supporters have tried to speed executions by limiting appeals. Only two States, New York and Illinois, require the opportunity for inmates to require DNA testing where it could result in new evidence of innocence. Elsewhere, inmates may try to get DNA evidence for years, only to be shut out by courts and prosecutors.
What possible reason could there be to deny inmates the opportunity to prove their innocence--and perhaps even help identify the real culprits--through new technologies? DNA testing is relatively inexpensive. But no matter what it costs, it is a tiny price to pay to make sure you have the right person.
The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, a Federal panel established by the Justice Department and comprised of law enforcement, judicial, and scientific experts, issued a report last year urging prosecutors to consent to postconviction DNA testing, or retesting, in appropriate cases, especially if the results could exonerate the defendant.
In 1994, we set up a funding program to improve the quality and availability of DNA analysis for law enforcement identification purposes. The Justice Department has handed out tens of millions of dollars to States under this program. Last year alone, we appropriated another $30 million for DNA-related grants to States. That is an appropriate use of Federal funds. But we should not pass up the promise of truth and justice for both sides of our adversarial system that DNA evidence holds out. We at least ought to require that both sides have it available.
By reexamining capital punishment in light of recent exonerations, we can reduce the risk that people will be executed for crimes they did not commit and increase the probability that the guilty will be brought to justice. We can also help to make sure the death penalty is not imposed out of ignorance or prejudice.
I learned, first as a defense attorney and then as a prosecutor, that the pursuit of justice obliges us not only to convict the guilty, but also to exonerate the wrongly accused and convicted. That obligation is all the more urgent when the death penalty is involved.
Let's not have the situation where, today in America, it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. That is not equal justice. That is not what our country stands for.
I was proud to be a defense attorney. I was very proud to be a prosecutor. I have often said it was probably the best job I ever had. But there was one thought I always had every day that I was a prosecutor. I would look at the evidence over and over again and I would ask myself, not can I get a conviction on this charge, but will I be convicting the right person. I had cases where I knew I could get a conviction, but I believed we had the wrong person, and I would not bring the charge. I think most prosecutors feel that way. But sometimes in the passion of a highly publicized, horrendous murder, we can move too fast.
I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle, both those who support the death penalty and those who oppose it, to join in seeking ways to reduce the risk of mistaken executions.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[Page: S200]
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
END
The Growing Crisis In The Adminstration Of Capital Punishment
Senate - February 01,2000
Friday, March 23, 2007
An Examination of Wrongful Convictions in America
This Information is from Friends of Peltier.
Event: An Examination of Wrongful Convictions in America
The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project is pleased to invite you to "Innocence Week: An Examination of Wrongful Convictions in America," to be held at American University’s Washington College of Law from March 26 through March 30.
The week will feature a series of engaging luncheon panels, which will include Dennis Fritz, whose case was featured in John Grisham’s most recent book, and Kirk Bloodsworth, who was sentenced to death in Maryland for a crime he did not commit.
Innocence Week will culminate in two performances of The Exonerated, a critically acclaimed play about the experiences of six individuals who were sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit.
To purchase tickets or to reserve space at the luncheons, please call (202) 274-4075 or email secle@wcl.american.edu.
.Peltier supporters in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area may wish to attend. This will be a friendly venue and an opportunity for you to educate people about the Peltier case.
More Information From The Mid Atlantic Innocence Project:
All lectures are free and open to the public. Monday's panel will consist of Washington College of Law criminal law professors in a discussion of how a truly innocent person can be wrongly convicted in the American system of justice. Tuesday's luncheon will feature Detective Jim Trainum of the DC Metropolitan Police Department, Tim O'Toole of the DC Public Defender Service, and MAIP Executive Director Shawn Armbrust discussing eyewitness misidentification and false confessions. On Wednesday, we will have a special presentation and book-signing by Kirk Bloodsworth, a Maryland man who was wrongly convicted of a brutal rape and murder and who spent several years on death row before his exoneration. He will be accompanied by Tim Junkin, who wrote a book about his case, and John Terzano, the Executive Director of The Justice Project. Finally, on Thursday, we will hear from two men, including Dennis Fritz, who were wrongly convicted and eventually exonerated after spending many years in prison. Mr. Fritz will sign copies of his new book following the luncheon.
More Information From The Mid Atlantic Innocence Project:
All lectures are free and open to the public. Monday's panel will consist of Washington College of Law criminal law professors in a discussion of how a truly innocent person can be wrongly convicted in the American system of justice. Tuesday's luncheon will feature Detective Jim Trainum of the DC Metropolitan Police Department, Tim O'Toole of the DC Public Defender Service, and MAIP Executive Director Shawn Armbrust discussing eyewitness misidentification and false confessions. On Wednesday, we will have a special presentation and book-signing by Kirk Bloodsworth, a Maryland man who was wrongly convicted of a brutal rape and murder and who spent several years on death row before his exoneration. He will be accompanied by Tim Junkin, who wrote a book about his case, and John Terzano, the Executive Director of The Justice Project. Finally, on Thursday, we will hear from two men, including Dennis Fritz, who were wrongly convicted and eventually exonerated after spending many years in prison. Mr. Fritz will sign copies of his new book following the luncheon.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
John Grisham's The Innocent Man Gets Director David Gordon Green
David Gordon Green, is in final negotiations to direct the adaptation of John Grisham's The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town.
David Gordon Green (born 9 April 1975 in Little Rock, Arkansas) is an American filmmaker. Green grew up in Richardson, Texas and attended the North Carolina School of the Arts, where he studied directing. He currently lives in New Orleans and owns a home in Austin, Texas as well.
HIS FILMS ARE
In 2007, Snow Angels, his first film created from a screenplay rather than his own writing, was adapted from a Stewart O'Nan novel. The film was debuted at Sundance in January 2007 and stars Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale.
David Gordon Green (born 9 April 1975 in Little Rock, Arkansas) is an American filmmaker. Green grew up in Richardson, Texas and attended the North Carolina School of the Arts, where he studied directing. He currently lives in New Orleans and owns a home in Austin, Texas as well.
HIS FILMS ARE
In 2007, Snow Angels, his first film created from a screenplay rather than his own writing, was adapted from a Stewart O'Nan novel. The film was debuted at Sundance in January 2007 and stars Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale.
Undertow - (2004) - Director, Screenwriter
All the Real Girls - (2003) - Director, Screenwriter, Story
George Washington - (2000) - Director, Screenwriter, Producer
Dennis Fritz The Other Innocent Man in John Grisham's Book The Innocent Man,
All the Real Girls - (2003) - Director, Screenwriter, Story
George Washington - (2000) - Director, Screenwriter, Producer
Dennis Fritz The Other Innocent Man in John Grisham's Book The Innocent Man,
writes his own story. Endorsed on Jacket by John Grisham and States on Jacket Compelling and Fascinating.
A Companion book to The Innocent Man, Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz. True Crime, Murder and Injustice in a Small Town.
Journey Toward Justice is a testimony to the Triumph of the human Spirit and is a Memoir. Dennis Fritz was wrongfully convicted of rape and murder after a swift trail.
Journey Toward Justice is a testimony to the Triumph of the human Spirit and is a Memoir. Dennis Fritz was wrongfully convicted of rape and murder after a swift trail.
The only thing that saved him from the Death Penalty was a lone vote from a juror. Dennis Fritz was the other Innocent man mentioned in John Grisham's Book. which mainly is about Ronnie Williamson, Dennis Fritz's co-defendant. Both were exonerated after spending 12 years in prison.
The real killer was one of the Prosecution's Key Witness.
Read about why he went on a special diet of his while in prison, amazing and shocking. Dennis Fritz's Story of unwarranted prosecution and wrongful conviction needs to be
Read about why he went on a special diet of his while in prison, amazing and shocking. Dennis Fritz's Story of unwarranted prosecution and wrongful conviction needs to be
heard.
Look for his book in book stores or at Amazon.com , Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz, Publisher Seven Locks Press 2006. ..
Look for his book in book stores or at Amazon.com , Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz, Publisher Seven Locks Press 2006. ..
Read about how he wrote hundreds of letters and appellate briefs in his own defense and immersed himself in an intense study of law. He was a school teacher and a ordinary man whose wife was brutally murdered in 1975 by a deranged 17 year old neighbor.
On May 8th 1987, Five years after Debbie Sue Carter's rape and murder he was home with his young daughter and put under arrest, handcuffed and on his way to jail on charges of rape and murder.
On May 8th 1987, Five years after Debbie Sue Carter's rape and murder he was home with his young daughter and put under arrest, handcuffed and on his way to jail on charges of rape and murder.
After 10 years in prison he discovered The Innocence Project, a non-profit legal organization. With the aid of Barry Scheck and DNA evidence Dennis Fritz was exonerated on April 15,1999 Since then, it has been a long hard road filled with twist and turns and now on his Journey Toward Justice.
He never blamed the Lord and solely relied on his faith in God to make it through. He waited for God's time and never gave up.
Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz click here On Amazon Here
International Orders Order Here Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz From Around The World click on here Amazon International Just type in Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz
He never blamed the Lord and solely relied on his faith in God to make it through. He waited for God's time and never gave up.
Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz click here On Amazon Here
International Orders Order Here Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz From Around The World click on here Amazon International Just type in Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Shanghai Daily Article Death Penalties Don't Mean Justice
Death penalties don't mean justice by -- FOR the young farmer, the decision came too late. If China's Supreme People's Court had retrieved the right to review the death penalty earlier, 20-year-old Nie Shubin, who was executed as a scapegoat, might...
Click on Death penalties don't mean justice, to read more of this very interesting article.
Book Recommendation - Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz click here On Amazon Here
International Orders Order Here Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz From Around The World click on here Amazon International Just type in Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Mother of Debbie Sue Carter Meets Dennis Fritz For The First Time At Book Signing and The Juror That Saved Him
There for the first time met Peggy Carter Sanders, Mother of Debbie Sue Carter and Bonnie Flowers. Dennis Fritz was convicted of rape and murder after a swift trail.
The vote of a single juror, Bonnie Flowers saved him from the death penalty and was sentenved to life behind bars. His co-defendant, Ronnie Williamson, was sentenced to death.
On April 15,1999, after twelve years of wrongful imprisonment, Dennis and Ron were free men. Dennis Fritz's book is called Journey Toward Justice Publisher Seven Locks Press ISBN: 1931643954 .
Photo of John Grisham and Dennis Fritz The Other Innocent Man in John Grisham's The Innocent Man Book. 2006 Date
John Grisham endorsed Dennis Fritz's Book. On the front book cover of Journey Toward Justice John Grisham wrote Compelling and Fascinating
Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz On Amazon Here
- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
On April 15,1999, after twelve years of wrongful imprisonment, Dennis and Ron were free men. Dennis Fritz's book is called Journey Toward Justice Publisher Seven Locks Press ISBN: 1931643954 .
Photo of John Grisham and Dennis Fritz The Other Innocent Man in John Grisham's The Innocent Man Book. 2006 Date
John Grisham endorsed Dennis Fritz's Book. On the front book cover of Journey Toward Justice John Grisham wrote Compelling and Fascinating
Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz On Amazon Here
- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
John Grisham Writing The Innocent Man All Started With Reading The New York Times
One Day John Grisham picked up The New York Times and read the obituaries. He read about Ronald Williamson - John Grisham Said “After reading the entire obituary, I knew it had the makings of a much longer story, " To find that story, his first step was calling Williamson’s sister, Annette, in Tulsa, who had been mentioned in the obituary.
It took me about 10 minutes to convince her it wasn’t a crank call,” Grisham said. Annette eventually shared the full story, at which point Grisham said he “realized the obituary had hardly scratched the surface. Ron Williamson died Dec. 4, 2004
From New York Times:
Ronald Williamson, Freed From Death Row, Dies at 51 Ronald Keith Williamson, who left his small town in Oklahoma as a high school baseball star with hopes of a major league career but was later sent to death row and came within 5 days of execution for a murder he did not commit, died on Saturday at a nursing home near Tulsa. He was 51.
Mr. Williamson's early life appeared charmed. As a pitcher and catcher in Ada, he twice led his high school teams to the championship of a state where another native son, Mickey Mantle, enjoyed the status of near deity. The Oakland Athletics picked Mr. Williamson in the 2nd round of the 1971 amateur draft. After 6 years in the minor leagues, Mr. Williamson saw his career end because of arm injuries.
He returned to Oklahoma and worked at a sales job, but began to show signs of a mental illness that was eventually diagnosed as bipolar disorder.
In late 1982, a waitress, Debbie Sue Carter, 21, was found raped and killed in her apartment in Ada. The case remained open until 1987, when a woman who had been arrested for passing bad checks told the police that she had heard another prisoner discussing the killing. The man, she said, was Mr. Williamson, who had been in the jail for kiting checks. Mr. Williamson was charged with the killing.
So was a 2nd man, Dennis Fritz, a high school science teacher who had been one of Mr. Williamson's few friends when he returned to town after his baseball career.
The evidence, the authorities said, consisted of 17 hairs that matched those of Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fritz, and the account provided by the woman who said she had heard Mr. Williamson confess.
A 2nd jailhouse informer later stepped forward to buttress the case against Mr. Fritz. Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fritz were tried separately and found guilty. Mr. Fritz was sentenced to life in prison, and Mr. Williamson - who had not received his psychiatric medicines for months before the trial and shouted angrily at the prosecution witnesses - was sentenced to die. Mr. Williamson later said the prison guards taunted him over an intercom about Ms. Carter's murder.
In September 1994, when all of his state appeals had been exhausted, he was taken to the warden's office and told that he would be executed on Sept. 24. He recalled filling out a form that directed his body to be returned to his sister for burial.
A team of appellate lawyers, however, sought a writ of habeas corpus from Judge Frank H. Seay of Federal District Court, arguing that Mr. Williamson had not been competent to stand trial and that his lawyer had not effectively challenged the hair evidence or sought other suspects. Judge Seay granted a stay 5 days before Mr. Williamson was scheduled to die.
In 1998, lawyers from the Innocence Project at the Benjamin C. Cardozo School of Law in New York arranged DNA tests for Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fritz. They showed that neither man had been the source of the semen or hair collected from the victim's body. Another man, Glen D. Gore, has since been convicted of the killing and sentenced to die for it.
Photo of John Grisham and Dennis Fritz The Other Innocent Man in John Grisham's The Innocent Man Book. 2006 Date
John Grisham endorsed Dennis Fritz's Book. On the front book cover of Journey Toward Justice John Grisham wrote Compelling and Fascinating
Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz On Amazon Here
- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
It took me about 10 minutes to convince her it wasn’t a crank call,” Grisham said. Annette eventually shared the full story, at which point Grisham said he “realized the obituary had hardly scratched the surface. Ron Williamson died Dec. 4, 2004
From New York Times:
Ronald Williamson, Freed From Death Row, Dies at 51 Ronald Keith Williamson, who left his small town in Oklahoma as a high school baseball star with hopes of a major league career but was later sent to death row and came within 5 days of execution for a murder he did not commit, died on Saturday at a nursing home near Tulsa. He was 51.
Mr. Williamson's early life appeared charmed. As a pitcher and catcher in Ada, he twice led his high school teams to the championship of a state where another native son, Mickey Mantle, enjoyed the status of near deity. The Oakland Athletics picked Mr. Williamson in the 2nd round of the 1971 amateur draft. After 6 years in the minor leagues, Mr. Williamson saw his career end because of arm injuries.
He returned to Oklahoma and worked at a sales job, but began to show signs of a mental illness that was eventually diagnosed as bipolar disorder.
In late 1982, a waitress, Debbie Sue Carter, 21, was found raped and killed in her apartment in Ada. The case remained open until 1987, when a woman who had been arrested for passing bad checks told the police that she had heard another prisoner discussing the killing. The man, she said, was Mr. Williamson, who had been in the jail for kiting checks. Mr. Williamson was charged with the killing.
So was a 2nd man, Dennis Fritz, a high school science teacher who had been one of Mr. Williamson's few friends when he returned to town after his baseball career.
The evidence, the authorities said, consisted of 17 hairs that matched those of Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fritz, and the account provided by the woman who said she had heard Mr. Williamson confess.
A 2nd jailhouse informer later stepped forward to buttress the case against Mr. Fritz. Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fritz were tried separately and found guilty. Mr. Fritz was sentenced to life in prison, and Mr. Williamson - who had not received his psychiatric medicines for months before the trial and shouted angrily at the prosecution witnesses - was sentenced to die. Mr. Williamson later said the prison guards taunted him over an intercom about Ms. Carter's murder.
In September 1994, when all of his state appeals had been exhausted, he was taken to the warden's office and told that he would be executed on Sept. 24. He recalled filling out a form that directed his body to be returned to his sister for burial.
A team of appellate lawyers, however, sought a writ of habeas corpus from Judge Frank H. Seay of Federal District Court, arguing that Mr. Williamson had not been competent to stand trial and that his lawyer had not effectively challenged the hair evidence or sought other suspects. Judge Seay granted a stay 5 days before Mr. Williamson was scheduled to die.
In 1998, lawyers from the Innocence Project at the Benjamin C. Cardozo School of Law in New York arranged DNA tests for Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fritz. They showed that neither man had been the source of the semen or hair collected from the victim's body. Another man, Glen D. Gore, has since been convicted of the killing and sentenced to die for it.
Photo of John Grisham and Dennis Fritz The Other Innocent Man in John Grisham's The Innocent Man Book. 2006 Date
John Grisham endorsed Dennis Fritz's Book. On the front book cover of Journey Toward Justice John Grisham wrote Compelling and Fascinating
Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz On Amazon Here
- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
Monday, February 19, 2007
The Jailhouse Snitch The Innocence Project Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson
In 1982, high school science teacher Dennis Fritz was living near Ada, Okla., raising his 8-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, whose mother had been murdered by a deranged neighbor when Elizabeth was 2 years old. Fritz frequently visited Ada, where he befriended Ron Williamson a tall, lanky local who suffered from mental disorders. The two would often play guitar together and then go out to local bars. One of the places they frequented was the Coachlight Club.
On Dec. 8, 1982, Debra Sue Carter, a waitress at the Coachlight Club, was found raped and murdered in her apartment. A witness, Glen Gore, came forward to say that Williamson was at the bar bothering Carter on the night of the murder. Fritz, due to his association with Williamson, also came under suspicion. Fritz and Williamson were both questioned by police and then released due to lack of evidence.
A few years later, with no one yet charged for the murder, a jailhouse snitch came forward and claimed that Williamson, while in jail on unrelated charges, had confessed to killing Carter. On May 8, 1987, Fritz was arrested along with Williamson for the rape and murder. The police claimed that hair evidence from the crime scene that had been microscopically analyzed matched both men. While Fritz was awaiting trial in county jail, other snitches claimed that they heard Fritz confess to the crime.
The snitches' testimony, along with the hair samples, were the prosecution's main evidence during trial.
On April 12, 1988, Fritz was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Williamson, as the primary suspect, was sent to Death Row.
After several appeals of his conviction were denied, Fritz contacted The Innocence Project At the time, Williamson's public defenders had successfully gained permission to perform DNA tests on the physical evidence, and Fritz had to file an injunction so that the evidence would not be totally consumed in the tests on Williamson's behalf. In 1999, DNA testing revealed that neither Fritz nor Williamson had raped the victim. Further testing also proved that none of the hairs belonged to either of the men.
Fritz and Williamson were exonerated and released on April 15, 1999. The profile obtained from the semen evidence matched Glen Gore, the state's main witness at trial. Gore had been serving three 40-year sentences for unrelated charges of first-degree burglary, kidnapping, and shooting with intent to injure. In April 2002, Gore was charged with the rape and murder of Debra Sue Carter; he pled not guilty.
Book Recommendation - Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz On Amazon Here
International Orders Order Here Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz From Around The World Amazon International Just type in Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz
On Dec. 8, 1982, Debra Sue Carter, a waitress at the Coachlight Club, was found raped and murdered in her apartment. A witness, Glen Gore, came forward to say that Williamson was at the bar bothering Carter on the night of the murder. Fritz, due to his association with Williamson, also came under suspicion. Fritz and Williamson were both questioned by police and then released due to lack of evidence.
A few years later, with no one yet charged for the murder, a jailhouse snitch came forward and claimed that Williamson, while in jail on unrelated charges, had confessed to killing Carter. On May 8, 1987, Fritz was arrested along with Williamson for the rape and murder. The police claimed that hair evidence from the crime scene that had been microscopically analyzed matched both men. While Fritz was awaiting trial in county jail, other snitches claimed that they heard Fritz confess to the crime.
The snitches' testimony, along with the hair samples, were the prosecution's main evidence during trial.
On April 12, 1988, Fritz was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Williamson, as the primary suspect, was sent to Death Row.
After several appeals of his conviction were denied, Fritz contacted The Innocence Project At the time, Williamson's public defenders had successfully gained permission to perform DNA tests on the physical evidence, and Fritz had to file an injunction so that the evidence would not be totally consumed in the tests on Williamson's behalf. In 1999, DNA testing revealed that neither Fritz nor Williamson had raped the victim. Further testing also proved that none of the hairs belonged to either of the men.
Fritz and Williamson were exonerated and released on April 15, 1999. The profile obtained from the semen evidence matched Glen Gore, the state's main witness at trial. Gore had been serving three 40-year sentences for unrelated charges of first-degree burglary, kidnapping, and shooting with intent to injure. In April 2002, Gore was charged with the rape and murder of Debra Sue Carter; he pled not guilty.
Book Recommendation - Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz On Amazon Here
International Orders Order Here Journey Toward Justice by Dennis Fritz From Around The World Amazon International Just type in Journey Toward Justice Author Dennis Fritz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
