Lessons Not Learned - The Innocence Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

including A.8693, an omnibus reform package that would mandate the preservation of evidence, provide post-conviction case review and require the recording of custodial interrogations. Unfortunately, this legislation and similar bills did not pass. It is imperative that the recommendations below – which address common problems that New York’s DNA exonerations illustrate – be advanced by the New York Legislature to enhance public safety and restore confidence in the state’s criminal justice system. ensure Proper Preservation, Cataloguing & Retention of Biological evidence Evidence that can be subjected to DNA testing to prove innocence or solve cases (both new cases and “cold” cases) is often lost, destroyed or impossible to locate in New York State. Properly identifying, preserving and cataloguing biological evidence will enable New York to most effectively capitalize on the crime-solving potential of DNA. In the “DNA era” of criminal justice, preserved biological evidence can provide critical proof of guilt or innocence. In New York, the crime-solving potential of this evidence is squandered because of a failure to preserve it in a manner that allows its ready retrieval. By properly identifying, preserving, and cataloguing biological evidence, New York can help law enforcement agencies and others to find the evidence that can solve crimes and resolve credible claims of innocence. This will require stronger laws to require the preservation of biological evidence. It will also require substantial efforts to catalogue biological evidence that currently exists in warehouses and other local or state facilities. Other cities, such as Charlotte, North Carolina, have done precisely that, using computerized inventory bar-coding to catalogue existing evidence. These systems enable officials to readily locate all biological evidence – past, present, and future – when such evidence can help resolve questions of guilt or innocence. 26 THe InnoCenCe PRoJeCT
THe LeARnInG Allow All of the Wrongfully Convicted to Prove Innocence with DnA Some judges have interpreted New York’s post-conviction DNA statute to prevent those who pled guilty to crimes from trying to prove their innocence with post-conviction DNA testing. The legislature should enact a minor change in language that would allow such people to prove their innocence with DNA. Eleven of the 208 people nationwide exonerated through DNA testing originally pled guilty to crimes we now know they did not commit. This counterintuitive phenomenon occurs for a number of reasons. Innocent people, faced with a choice between a guilty plea or the possibility of a guilty verdict resulting in a much higher sentence, are presented with an impossible dilemma – particularly if it’s not clear at the time that DNA can set the record straight. But the innocent should not be doomed because they didn’t realize before their trial that they could have proven their innocence. When DNA testing can prove guilt or innocence, it should be allowed, regardless of whether a guilty plea led to the conviction. While New York’s statute on post-conviction DNA testing does not address this explicitly, judicial interpretation in recent years makes clear that a clarification in the law is necessary. enable Judges to order Comparison of Crime scene evidence to Forensic Databases Judges in New York State do not have the explicit authority to order that DNA or fingerprints from crime scenes be compared to the DNA or fingerprint databases that could identify the person who left them. New York’s Legislature should provide judges with the explicit authority to order such comparisons. Comparing crime scene evidence to the appropriate forensic databases can solve crimes and exonerate the innocent, yet the explicit discretion to make such comparisons is solely in the hands of law enforcement and the prosecution. That discretion is often sufficient, but where the court deems such a comparison necessary while the prosecution disagrees, the court should have the ultimate authority to order such comparisons. WHILe DoZens oF oTHeR sTATes HAVe PAsseD LeGIsLATIon To ADDRess WRonGFUL ConVICTIons, neW YoRK HAs noT. 27
Page 1 and 2: Lessons n o t learned neW YoRK sTAT
Page 3 and 4: exeCUTIVe sUMMARY Throughout New Yo
Page 5 and 6: Despite the large number of DNA exo
Page 7 and 8: 23 CAses AnD THeIR ConseqUenCes: A
Page 9 and 10: 8 Hector Gonzalez - Brooklyn Convic
Page 11 and 12: 18 Doug Warney - Rochester Convicte
Page 13 and 14: TRYInG To ReBUILD THeIR LIVes All o
Page 15 and 16: ReAL PeRPeTRAToRs CoMMIT ADDITIonAL
Page 17 and 18: THe Lessons THe Lessons CAUses oF W
Page 19 and 20: THe Lessons • The victim identifi
Page 21 and 22: THe Lessons • County rape in 1987
Page 23 and 24: THe Lessons • victed of the 1989
Page 25: THe LeARnInG THe LeARnInG LeGIsLATI
Page 29 and 30: THe LeARnInG cessful, New York shou
Page 31 and 32: THe LeARnInG Convictions, composed
Page 33 and 34: FInDInGs oF THe CoMMIssIon The comm
Page 35 and 36: ReCoMMenDATIons oF THe CoMMIssIon A
Page 37 and 38: ConCLUsIon time to research for evi
Page 39 and 40: APPenDIx A APPenDIx A FULL PRoFILes
Page 41 and 42: APPenDIx A ecution for DNA testing
Page 43 and 44: APPenDIx A process. On July 18, 199
Page 45 and 46: APPenDIx A The initial description
Page 47 and 48: APPenDIx A and if it was still avai
Page 49 and 50: APPenDIx A The following year, all
Page 51 and 52: APPenDIx A Eventually, the evidence
Page 53 and 54: APPenDIx A On December 19, 2002, on
Page 55 and 56: APPenDIx A On the night of April 19
Page 57 and 58: APPenDIx A His chance to test the e
Page 59 and 60: APPenDIx A defenses. Prosecutors al
Page 61 and 62: APPenDIx A suggested she had been r
Page 63 and 64: APPenDIx A from the defendants pres
Page 65 and 66: APPenDIx A brother’s moving busin
Page 67 and 68: APPenDIx A days or weeks. The bandi
Page 69 and 70: APPenDIx A While the case was being
Page 71 and 72: APPenDIx A watching television, he
Page 73 and 74: APPenDIx A The Office of the Chief
Page 75 and 76: APPenDIx A Deskovic’s alleged con
Page 77 and 78:
APPenDIx A consistent” with Brown
Page 79 and 80:
APPenDIx B APPenDIx B RePoRT on THe
Page 81 and 82:
RePoRT on ConVICTIon oF JeFFReY Des
Page 83 and 84:
RePoRT on ConVICTIon oF JeFFReY Des
Page 85 and 86:
scientific evidence exonerated him.
Page 87 and 88:
It is, of course, theoretically pos
Page 89 and 90:
· · a murder that he did not comm
Page 91 and 92:
wholly unsupported by anything poli
Page 93 and 94:
investigative reports strongly sugg
Page 95 and 96:
interrogations of Deskovic on Janua
Page 97 and 98:
a confession. 44 During part of thi
Page 99 and 100:
emained steadfast. Finally, on Janu
Page 101 and 102:
Deskovic’s knowledge of Correa’
Page 103 and 104:
As it was, the Grand Jury was denie
Page 105 and 106:
he was aware, as the jury was not,
Page 107 and 108:
On this record, the trial judge may
Page 109 and 110:
without his attorney. 112 There is
Page 111 and 112:
Court’s Mid-trial Loss of Evidenc
Page 113 and 114:
arrested. District Attorney DiFiore
Page 115 and 116:
occasions a voice tape recorder was
Page 117 and 118:
The Innocence Project was founded i
show all

Lessons Not Learned - The Innocence Project

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?