Hat Tip: Simple Justice
At least he ends it with the line:
I'm fine with using DNA to find people innocent it they're truly innocent. I just want you to know that.
I’m sure they’re happy to have your permission to do that, Senator.
From today’s New York Times piece “Putting a Price on a Wrongful Conviction”:
William Gregory and David Pope were both convicted of rape. Mr. Gregory served seven years in a Kentucky prison and Mr. Pope was imprisoned by Texas for 15 years before being released because of new DNA evidence.
Mr. Gregory, 59, now lives at the edge of a golf course, in a five-bedroom house he bought with part of the $4.6 million he received in legal settlements. Mr. Pope, 46, received $385,000 from the State of Texas.
To the extent that they got money, they are among the lucky ones. Of the more than 200 people released from prison since 1989 on the basis of new DNA evidence, 38 percent have received nothing for the years they spent behind bars.
I’m not sure if Gregory was able to sue or settle with other civil defendants besides the city of Louisville, Kentucky, but it looks like that case actually settled for $3.9 million.
But why the difference in the two settlement amounts? Pope was jailed more than twice as long as Gregory.
Apparently the city of Louisville felt Gregory could make a case that there had been bad faith or intentional misconduct in his prosecution, didn’t want to take the risk of trial and settled. Pope must not have been as ‘fortunate’.
The article asks “What are those years worth?” Ultimately, the question is unanswerable. And some politicians believe that gives the State an opening to deny compensation altogether:
“Once you open up those floodgates, where do you get all the money to pay for these falsely charged people?” asked state Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone of Pennsylvania, co-chairman of that state’s House Judiciary Committee, where a compensation bill recently stalled. “How much money is it going to require? How much is a person worth?”
Good point. We can’t accurately say how much time in prison for a crime you didn’t commit is worth, and anything resembling a fair settlement will come out of the taxpayers’ pocket… so, the answer is: give them nothing.
Or perhaps, if we had a system where jurors knew that convicting the innocent could mean a few dollars out of their pocket, we wouldn’t have as big a problem in the first place.
You Don’t Make Friends With Salad writes about an Oklahoma District Attorney who has sued John Grisham and a wrongfully imprisoned man for, well apparently, for writing a book that hurt his feelings.
Grisham’s non-fiction best seller The Innocent Man chronicled the wrongful prosecution of 2 men charged and convicted of
From Friend’s cleverly titled post “Innocent After All These Years? Well, Time to Lawyer Up”:
An Oklahoma prosecutor and former DA investigator have sued both author John Grisham and Dennis Fritz, one of the men recently exonerated for the 1982 murder of Debbie Sue Carter. The parties claim that the defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy "to commit libel, publicity placing a person in false light and intentional infliction of emotion distress."
You know, you put someone in prison for 11 years based on shoddy work and I think you waive any right to complain about the names they call you when they get out.
I didn’t know much – OK, didn’t know anything- about the Fritz case, so I surfed around for info. In doing so, I came across an article about the plaintiff and now the former District Attorney who complains so mightily that he is the one that has been wronged.
"I've tried to conduct myself in an honorable way for 27 years. I was what I was. I was a prosecutor, a passionate prosecutor. I went after them. I was convinced they killed Debbie Carter. If that was your mother, your sister or your daddy who was killed, you wouldn't want a pansy prosecutor. You would want someone passionate,” Peterson [said].
Of course, a prosecutor’s job is (supposed to be) to seek justice, not ‘just’ to convict. When you hear a criminal defense attorney saying things like…
I am a defense lawyer. I defend people. I am convinced my clients all have the right to a fair trial. If your mother, your sister, your daddy was accused of a crime, you wouldn’t want a pansy defense attorney. You would want someone passionate.
…well, then you’ve found a lawyer who at least has the right attitude.
Peterson, however, seems to want credit where it isn’t due. From the same article, “Peterson is quick to point out that he requested DNA evidence be reviewed in the cases against Fritz.” So… you want extra points because you didn’t object to DNA testing. Yes, some D.A.’s offices fight tooth and nail to prevent the truth from coming out, but that doesn’t mean we applaud you.
You have immunity from civil prosecution for your ‘little mistake’. The least you can be expected to put up with is that you might face a little criticism for imprisoning, and in one case seeking and getting the death penalty for an innocent man.
Grisham, meanwhile, has recently petitioned the Federal Court hearing the case to dismiss the libel lawsuit.
Grisham’s book, just like each of the other books about which the plaintiffs complain, is core political speech protected by the First Amendment and representing the highest order of public service by raising awareness about important social and political issues – the criminal justice system – and bringing to light issues of public concern about the performance by government officials of their public duties,” their brief states…
[The plaintiff’s] suggestion that The Innocent Man portrays them generally as ‘bad guys’ for their roles in the controversial convictions discussed in the book does not state a claim against Grisham and Doubleday,” the author’s attorneys stated to the court.
Makes sense to me.
Enter keywords:
