Lessons Not Learned - The Innocence Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ConCLUsIon Several New Yorkers who were exonerated through DNA testing have shared their experience with the State Legislature in an effort to pass the reforms outlined in this report. As Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld told an Assembly Committee earlier this year, “I’d like each of these gentlemen to speak. Because what you’ll see is that we didn’t just select these exonerees at random, but each of them – their stories, their cases – raise issues that are part of your legislative package. And so it makes it much more significant, I think, when you realize how human beings are affected by what you want to do here today.” Following are excerpts of legislative testimony over the last year by several of the 23 people in New York State who have been exonerated through DNA testing. “I don’t want to undermine anything that is going on here or anything, but we are almost in the year 2007. It is ludicrous that this stuff cannot be inventoried. How can they not inventory evidence?” — Scott Fappiano of Brooklyn, testifying before the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Codes and Correction in October 2006 – less than a week after he was exonerated. “Now they want to come up and say, okay, we have one year [to seek DNA testing after a conviction]. It takes one year just to get into a courtroom and sometimes longer for a judge to hear a case. It takes, as you people know, as the attorneys know, it takes effort and a long 36 THe InnoCenCe PRoJeCT
ConCLUsIon time to research for evidence, statements, witnesses. And another thing I would like to raise up… I feel strongly in support of having cameras and audiotapes during interrogation on all crimes… Because there are prosecutors, and there are judges, that do make mistakes, and [the case] does not go according to the law… There’s guilty people right now walking the street… and you’ve got innocent people like us four gentleman and the 201 other exonerees sitting behind bars waiting to get out of jail for a crime we did not do. I think that’s terrible for the justice system to wake up in the morning knowing that they put innocent people in hail for a crime we didn’t do.” — Doug Warney of Rochester, testifying before the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Codes and Correction in May 2007 “I knew the evidence would exonerate me once it was found. At least I was one of the lucky ones. There are other men like me who are still living in cages who claim that they are innocent and their DNA will prove they are innocent. Unfortunately, the state, the city, and the police departments across the state cannot produce this evidence. Legislation is needed to require the preservation of criminal evidence. No such legislation exists. Legislation is needed to improve the registration and storing of evidence.” — Alan Newton of the Bronx, testifying before the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Codes and Correction in May 2007 “We need to have videotaping of all interrogations from beginning to end. This would enable there to be an objective record of who said what, when, and in what context. It would prevent police fro omitting those dirty little details that they would rather the rest of the world no know that they engage in. Similarly, it would protect them from unfounded accusations of coercion… I think that one of the key factors in preserving my conviction, and the convictions of many other people, is that the finality of the conviction, you know, the upholding the validity of the result is often given greater precedence than that of the basic premise [of] the court system, which is guilt or innocence. Procedural and technical issues become a barrier towards establishing innocence.” — Jeffrey Deskovic of Westchester County, testifying before the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Codes and Correction in May 2007 “I feel very strongly about this because it’s not just me… Because there’s more at the door. There’s more people behind that wall… And I’ve seen other cases where they just turned them down, the 37
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 and 26: THe LeARnInG THe LeARnInG LeGIsLATI
Page 27 and 28: THe LeARnInG Allow All of the Wrong
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: ReCoMMenDATIons oF THe CoMMIssIon A
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?