This is unreal~

[RNR]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110216/ts_yblog_thelookout/texas-man-wrongly-put-away-for-decades-denied-compensation-after-legal-glitch


Someone try and defend this bullshit. They did what they intended to do~


Wed Feb 16, 5:00 pm ET
Texas man wrongly put away for 18 years denied compensation after legal glitch
EmailPrint..By Liz Goodwin liz Goodwin – Wed Feb 16, 5:00 pm ET
A courtroom technicality has cost a wrongly convicted Texas man the compensation that would otherwise be due him for the 18 years he'd served in Texas prison--14 of which he spent on Death Row.

Anthony Graves would have received $1.4 million in compensation if only the words "actual innocence" had been included in the judge's order that secured Graves's release from prison. The Comptroller's office decided the omission means Graves gets zero dollars, writes Harvey Rice at the Houston Chronicle, even though the prosecutor, judge, and defense all agreed at trial he is innocent.

So how did this happen? Cory Session, a Texas Innocence Project policy director and one of the architects of the 2009 Tim Cole compensation law for exonerated prisoners, tells The Lookout that the Brenham prosecutor's office decided to dismiss the murder charges they originally filed against Graves, instead of retrying him all over again and finding him innocent. The compensation law provides $80,000 per year in prison only to claimants explicitly found innocent in a retrial or who are granted a pardon. Neither status now applies to Graves.

Session says he has no idea why the Brenham prosectors neglected to explicitly say in the court order that Graves was innocent. By simply dropping the charges, prosecutors could always retry Graves for the same crime if new evidence surfaced. Double Jeapordy rules would not apply, because the original charges against him have effectively disappeared.


Graves's lawyers are now pointing fingers at Burleson County District Attorney William Parham, who "declined to sign an order asking District Judge Reva Towslee Corbett to amend Graves' order of release to include the words 'actual innocence,'" according to the Brenham Banner Press. Parham said last month he also believes Graves is innocent, but that "actual innocence" carries no strict legal meaning; he also said he made no recommendations on the compensation case. Parham's office informed The Lookout he was not available for comment on the Graves case.

Session says Graves could now sue under federal civil rights law on the grounds that he suffered cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Corbett could also rescind the original order and add the words "actual innocence." If Graves sues the state of Texas in civil court, tort laws there limit any compensation to $200,000.

Meanwhile, Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry won't be able to rectify the other judicial technicality that's blocked his qualification from the state compensation fund: Graves is not eligible for a pardon because he is no longer accused or convicted of any crime.

The Tim Cole Act is named after Session's brother, who was exonerated of a rape conviction after he died in prison. Session says he plans to lobby to amend the law and close the loophole Graves slipped through.

"It's obvious to us that under the spirit of the state legislation passed in 2009, Graves deserves compensation," The Houston Chronicle editorialized. "No one disputes the fact that the man is actually innocent. And the $1.4 million payment that he's due according to the state's formula hardly makes up for the loss of freedom for most of his adult life. The state has paid more than $30 million to 67 wrongfully imprisoned Texans. Graves should be the 68th."

"I need some help," Graves told The Chronicle in a video before the decision. "It doesn't feel good being a 45-year-old man and having to depend on your family just to make sure you eat. It's kind of embarrassing. But right now, this is my life."

For more background, Pamela Colloff at Texas Monthly has a fascinating chronicle of the crime, reconstructing how Graves was falsely accused.

(Graves: AP.)

[Saulbadguy]

Judge Corbett could also rescind the original order and add the words "actual innocence."

He should probably do this.

[DJ's left nut]

He should probably do this.

I disagree.

If the judge amends the order to include the actual innocence language and in a month a picture of him killing the guy surfaces, the prosecution can't do anything about it; he's been fully exhonorated. For a judge to create that precedent is simply not wise. If he does it for this guy, he's going to be expected to to do it for the next defendant that perhaps doesn't have a strong a claim.

The problem is the law itself, not its application. The prosecutor and the Judge both have reason to be reluctant to apply the 'actually innocent' tag to any homicide case. Ultimately, the loophole in the law should be closed.

I don't believe for a minute that the judge was trying to screw this guy out of his money; the fact that the state has paid out so frequently supports that. It was just an unfortunate situation where an individual had the misfortune of being the guy that found the loophole. Close it, apply it retroactively and have him re-apply.

[ModSocks]

I disagree.

If the judge amends the order to include the actual innocence language and in a month a picture of him killing the guy surfaces, the prosecution can't do anything about it; he's been fully exhonorated. For a judge to create that precedent is simply not wise. If he does it for this guy, he's going to be expected to to do it for the next defendant that perhaps doesn't have a strong a claim.

The problem is the law itself, not its application. The prosecutor and the Judge both have reason to be reluctant to apply the 'actually innocent' tag to any homicide case. Ultimately, the loophole in the law should be closed.

I don't believe for a minute that the judge was trying to screw this guy out of his money; the fact that the state has paid out so frequently supports that. It was just an unfortunate situation where an individual had the misfortune of being the guy that found the loophole. Close it, apply it retroactively and have him re-apply.

Well, they did it for the 67 defendants before him...so.....you know....

[RNR]

I disagree.

If the judge amends the order to include the actual innocence language and in a month a picture of him killing the guy surfaces, the prosecution can't do anything about it; he's been fully exhonorated. For a judge to create that precedent is simply not wise. If he does it for this guy, he's going to be expected to to do it for the next defendant that perhaps doesn't have a strong a claim.

The problem is the law itself, not its application. The prosecutor and the Judge both have reason to be reluctant to apply the 'actually innocent' tag to any homicide case. Ultimately, the loophole in the law should be closed.

I don't believe for a minute that the judge was trying to screw this guy out of his money; the fact that the state has paid out so frequently supports that. It was just an unfortunate situation where an individual had the misfortune of being the guy that found the loophole. Close it, apply it retroactively and have him re-apply.

I hope you are right. I also hope he at least gets the $200k~

[DJ's left nut]

Well, they did it for the 67 defendants before him...so.....you know....

We don't know how many of those were murder cases, nor do we know how many of those went to trial where they would've been fleshed out further.

Reading the Texas Monthly piece on it, I think there's probably a 90% chance the guy is completely innocent, but damn, wouldn't you hate it if he falls into that 10% chance?

Rather than make a rash, politically expedient decision to just rubber-stamp an amended court order, one that has potentially crucial ramifications, how 'bout we actually fix the problem? He'd still get his money, it may just take another few months.

[Chiefs Rool]

who was it that I was arguing about how stupid our judicial system is?

[Over-Head]

Sure he's pissed, I would be too.
But has he forgotten what it was like to be locked up when actually innocent?
****er should be happy to get out. :p

Give him the $200K under Tort law and send him back to school.

[Simplex3]

Reading the Texas Monthly piece on it, I think there's probably a 90% chance the guy is completely innocent, but damn, wouldn't you hate it if he falls into that 10% chance?

“Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer,”: William Blackstone

Besides, they clearly didn't think they could convict him again with the evidence they have, meaning they would have to find something new to try him again anyway, meaning double jeopardy wouldn't apply, right?

[DJ's left nut]

“Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer,”: William Blackstone

Besides, they clearly didn't think they could convict him again with the evidence they have, meaning they would have to find something new to try him again anyway, meaning double jeopardy wouldn't apply, right?

No. Additional evidence is irrelevant when discussing double jeapordy. In fact, that's when it is at its strongest. If they list him as actually innocent, they've essentially acquitted him of murdering those people. Even if new evidence shows up to suggest he did it, he's been acquitted and they're SOL.

And I'm aware of Blackstone's quote; I'm also disinclined to agree with it. It's a pretty standard distinction between a crime-control school of thought and a raw due process school of thought. Blackstone's approach (and the due process approach), is that every criminal defendant should get every advantage in order to ensure we never put anyone in jail wrongly.

The problem is, that it also puts prosecutors like Sebesta in a position where they feel they have to strong-arm convictions. Prosecutors lose convictions all the time where they absolutely know the defendant is guilty because of the due process rules expressly designed to ensure that that 1 person doesn't go into jail wrongly. So they develop strategies to deal with those cases and they are strategies that become universally applied (such as the indict/flip trick).

Even if you agree with the mantra on paper, it really doesn't work well in application. When you start throwing up roadblocks to convictions, prosecutors develop methods of getting around them. I'd argue that the due process model actually contributes to the wrongful conviction of many by creating the feeling in prosecutors that they need to resort to these tactics. I simply don't agree with Blackstone in this regard and until I'm that one guy wrongfully convicted, I'm not likely to change my mind. Then again, if someone kills your family and walks on a technicality, I wonder if perhaps you wouldn't change your mind as well...

[kepp]

So it sounds like the prosecutor is just trying to leave the door open for a possible future trial? Maybe he's not so convinced the guy is innocent.

[Simplex3]

Then again, if someone kills your family and walks on a technicality, I wonder if perhaps you wouldn't change your mind as well...

If I had hard evidence that someone killed my family and the killer got off on a technicality I'd be angry at the person who screwed up, not more angry at the killer. The killer being convicted or not doesn't change the part I'm angry about.

[DJ's left nut]

So it sounds like the prosecutor is just trying to leave the door open for a possible future trial? Maybe he's not so convinced the guy is innocent.

Nah.

I think the prosecutor is fully convinced that he's innocent. I think the Judge was just following protocal.

If there's no trial, I don't see how a judge could call him 'innocent' without wildly exceeding the scope of his authority. Think about it, if the prosecutor went to the judge and said "your honor, I'm positive he didn't do it" and the judge just said okay and took it at face value, doesn't that pose some Constitutional issues of its own? Should a judge be determining the ultimate innocence of this man without a jury? Should he be doing it exclusively on the unsolicited opinion of a prosecutor? Further, that's a textbook ex-parte communication which shouldn't be permissible.

There's just not a good way for a judge to note him as actually innocent there. No evidence has been submitted to the judge that would allow him to make that determination and he's not allowed to go outside the trial record. The prosecutor doesn't want to throw resources at the case in order to secure an acquittal because frankly it's not her job.

It's a problem with the law. It's not the judge's fault, it's not the current prosecutor's fault. It's the legislature's fault alone.

[kepp]

Nah.

I think the prosecutor is fully convinced that he's innocent. I think the Judge was just following protocal.

If there's no trial, I don't see how a judge could call him 'innocent' without wildly exceeding the scope of his authority. Think about it, if the prosecutor went to the judge and said "your honor, I'm positive he didn't do it" and the judge just said okay and took it at face value, doesn't that pose some Constitutional issues of its own? Should a judge be determining the ultimate innocence of this man without a jury? Should he be doing it exclusively on the unsolicited opinion of a prosecutor? Further, that's a textbook ex-parte communication which shouldn't be permissible.

There's just not a good way for a judge to note him as actually innocent there. No evidence has been submitted to the judge that would allow him to make that determination and he's not allowed to go outside the trial record. The prosecutor doesn't want to throw resources at the case in order to secure an acquittal because frankly it's not her job.

It's a problem with the law. It's not the judge's fault, it's not the current prosecutor's fault. It's the legislature's fault alone.

I see...actual innocence can only be the result of a real trial. Makes sense, i suppose.

[DJ's left nut]

If I had hard evidence that someone killed my family and the killer got off on a technicality I'd be angry at the person who screwed up, not more angry at the killer. The killer being convicted or not doesn't change the part I'm angry about.

I don't believe you can honestly say you wouldn't question the rules that allowed the killer to walk.

If there's a gap in the chain of custody for the murder weapon, for instance. So now the weapon can't get in and the guy gets off. You wouldn't wonder if perhaps the rules of evidence weren't too strict there? Maybe it should've been submitted anyway and the Jury could've been allowed to determine the value of the evidence?

Or what if there's a pre-miranda confession as to the location of critical evidence? The evidence is found, it clearly establishes that the guy did it but now it can't come in because it's the fruit of a poisonous tree. You wouldn't wonder about the propriety of the exclusionary doctrine? Why not let it in but tell the jury how the confession was secured in order to allow them to determine if it was a coercion that makes the defendant innocent?

Sure, you'd be angry at the officer that couldn't find the check-in slip for the knife. Or the irritable cop that questioned the guy before giving him a cliche'd speech. But there's no way you can convince me that you wouldn't wonder if perhaps we haven't given too many criminals too many free passes when it hits your doorstep. There are some true believers out there, but they're far fewer than they claim once it gets close to home.

[DJ's left nut]

That's kinda where Blackstone's approach falls apart in my eyes.

Blackstone absolutely believes that the knife shouldn't come in as evidence and should essentially be thrown in the trash. Why? Why the hell should the murder weapon simply never be shown to the jury? We have enough faith in these 12 individuals to allow them to determine the ultimate liberty of a human being yet we don't have enough faith in them to determine whether or not the evidence is what it purports to be?

Isn't it odd that we'll allow them to send a man to die, but we won't allow them to determine if some potentially tainted evidence is actually useful in making that determination?

Like I said - the idea is sound in theory. But in practice, it makes the playing field incredibly uneven and it does so for no good reason, IMO. If you believe these people can determine a man's life or death, then you have to also believe they're wise enough to recognize the problems with the evidence they're shown.

[Chief Chief]

Someone should quickly make a movie of this guy's incarceration so we can add its title to that other thread.

[Buck]

I disagree.

If the judge amends the order to include the actual innocence language and in a month a picture of him killing the guy surfaces, the prosecution can't do anything about it; he's been fully exhonorated. For a judge to create that precedent is simply not wise. If he does it for this guy, he's going to be expected to to do it for the next defendant that perhaps doesn't have a strong a claim.

The problem is the law itself, not its application. The prosecutor and the Judge both have reason to be reluctant to apply the 'actually innocent' tag to any homicide case. Ultimately, the loophole in the law should be closed.

I don't believe for a minute that the judge was trying to screw this guy out of his money; the fact that the state has paid out so frequently supports that. It was just an unfortunate situation where an individual had the misfortune of being the guy that found the loophole. Close it, apply it retroactively and have him re-apply.

What precedent? Innocent until proven guilty should be the precedent. Just my 2 cents.

[Ralphy Boy]

Just watch, with all of the states having budget issues, they'll end up tying the police officers pensions to wrongful imprisonment payments. Good cops will get screwed, more cops will go "on the take" and an already blemished system will be worthless.