Bluhm Blog

Vulnerable Suspects and False Confessions

"The friendless, the weird, and the mentally disabled are all vulnerable" when police are under pressure to solve a high profile crime, writes Robert Chesshyre in his article in the Britsih Daily online magazine "The First Post" available at: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1074

Chesshyre's article tells the story of Stefan Kiszko (pictured below), who was charged with and convicted for the murder of 11 year-old school girl in 1976, based inpart on an alleged confession. 

                                               

Kiszco was large, awkward, and did some strange things that caught the attention of the authorities, including jotting down the license number of a car seen near the crime scene. Kiszco languished in jail for 15 years and was treated the way most child sex offenders are treated in prison -- he was given a taste of his own medicine by his fellow prisoners who physically assaulted and shunned him. In part, due to the heroic efforts of his mum, authorities tested traces of semen which has been left by the perpetrator.  When it was determined that Kiszco was sterile, he was released.  Neither Kizsco or his long-suffering mum got to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  Within six months after his release, both had died.  Now 31 years later, police have arrested a new suspect 53-year-old Ronald Castree of Oldham on suspicion of Lesley's murder after forensic scientists produced a DNA profile.

Thee are many cases like Kiszco's in the annals of false confessions.  Police, relying on little more than hunches and so-called experience, zero in on a suspect against which they have little evidence.  This starts the process of "confirmation bias" in which police officers interpret all evidence to support their belief that their suspect is guilty and ignore or manipulate all evidence pointing to the suspect's innocence.  This "tunnelvision" is common to all wrongful convictions, but is especially pronounced in the area of false confessions where the mere fact of a confession or an admission is enough evidence to set in stone the interrogator's belief that the suspect is guilty. 

Grisham's is Good but Mayer's is Marvelous

I strongly recommend John Grisham's book "The Innocent Man," a retelling of one of the most haunting stories in the annals of false confessions.  The book tells the story of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz, two friends from in and around Ada, Oklahoma, who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Debra Sue Carter in 1988.  The evidence against the men included junk science (microscopic hair analysis), jail house snitches, and Williamson's so-called dream confession.  Both men were eventually exonerated when DNA evidence linked another man -- Glenn Gore -- to the murder.  At one point, Williamson came within 5 days of being executed. 

The Grisham book works best as a character study of Williamson, a former minor-league baseball star who like other Oklahoma boys dreamed of being the next Mickey Mantle.  Williamson's descent into madness and the toll that drug and alcohol abuse (and prescription drugs) had on his body is harrowing but not quite as harrowing as the way in which the Oklahoma authorities -- both the jails and the courts -- expedited Williamson's demise by ignoring his attorney's numerous pleas that he be housed in a mental health facility.  Their callousness no doubt contributed to Williamson's early death in his early fifties. 

Grisham's book has had two other salutory effects. First, by writing a book about a false confession case, his book will certainly expose the realities of false confessions to a much larger audience.  Second, his book has revived interest in another book, Robert Mayer's excellent "The Dreams of Ada," which recounts the wrongful convictions of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot, two other men who also falsely confessed (Ward's was a dream confession) to the same Ada police officers and are still behind bars for a crime they did not commit.  Mayer's tale, which reminds us that many wrongful convictions are based on numerous errors -- faulty i.d.'s, false confessions, jailhouse snitches, and junk science (all of them played a role in Fontenot and Ward's case) -- works best as a thorough and detailed deconstruction of a police investigation gone awry and how these mistakes (and the refusal of those in power to admit them) have led to the wrongful convictions of two innocent men.  It also provides gripping narrative of the trial strategies of both prosecutors and defense and how difficult it is for jurors to accept the notion that anyone would confess to a crime he or she did not commit.  Never mind that the confessions of Ward and Fontenot were inconsistent with each other, got numerous key facts wrong (the method of killing, the place of the killing, who did the killing, etc. etc. etc.) and the fact that their confessions did not lead police to any corroborative evidence.  It was the simple "fact" that they confessed that led to their convictions.

In airport terminals and bookstores around the country, Grisham's book is selling like hotcakes.  In most displays, a newly released paperback version of Mayer's book, "The Dreams of Ada," is right alongside Grisham's book.  Buy them both but read Mayer's book first.  The Fontenot and Ward convictions came first and Mayer's book will provide a crucial context in which to evaluate and understand the wrongful convictions of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz.

The release of these two books has led Mark Barrett, an Oklahoma criminal defense attorney whose work (along with Barry Scheck and a host of other fine Oklahoma defense attorneys) helped exonerate Williamson and Fritz to take up the cause of Fontenot and Ward. For more information about their case and what can be done to help these two innocents go to www.wardandfontenot.com

False Guilty Pleas: DNA Clears Man in Carjacking Case

In my study of 125 proven false confessions (with Richard Leo), we documented 14 false guilty pleas, approximately 11% of the sample.  There were two types: 1) a defendant is convinced that he will get a harsh sentence (often the death penalty) if he goes to trial but a more lenient sentence if he takes the plea so he will enter a plea (often an Alford plea which allows him to maintain his innocence and still challenge issues relating to his confession on appeal); 2) the defendant's conviction has been reversed, usually based on evidence that appears to exonerate him like DNA evidence, but is told that if he persists in his claim of innocence, the State will take him to trial and he could get convicted a second time.  Sometimes, the state threatens to appeal the reversal, a decision which will keep the defendant in jail for at least a year before his case is resolved.  In either case, the State offers the defendant a deal -- plead guilty to the same crime or a lesser crime in exchange for time-served.  It is a deal that few defendants can resist. Their faith having been shaken once, they are not willing to place their faith in the system a second time.  The same kind of cost-benefit analysis that an innocent  defendant is asked to make during an interrogation is at play in the false guilty plea context, except the promises of leniency and threats of harm are clearer and out in the open.

Last week (11/2) , in an article reported by H.G. Reza of the LA TIMES, James Ochoa was exonerated by DNA evidence in a carjacking case, the first such DNA exoneration in a non-rape or murder case.  At the time of trial, prosecutors knew that DNA found on the sweatband of a cap found in the stolen car was not Ochoa's.  They also knew that his fingerprints did not match those found on the car.  But two eyewitnesses identified him so they took the case to trial.  Three days into the trial, Ochoa was offered a plea deal.  Plead guilty and you'll get out in two years.  The deal was too tempting, especially given that the judge told Ochoa, who had several priors, that if he was convicted, he would go away for life.  Over his attorney's advice, Ochoa pled guilty.  The twenty year old spent 10 months in prison when the very same DNA that prosecutors ignored, exonerated him.  The DNA at the crime scene was linked to another man, Jaymes T. McCollum, was in L.A. County jail on carjacking charges.

Should prosecutors have proceeded to trial knowing the DNA did not match Ochoa's? They knew that the victim had described the gunman as wearing the clothing found in the car and that he was sweating profusely.  They also knew that their eyewitness i.d.'s were shaky, one of which was based on a suggestive photo array followed by a suggestive showup.  Perhaps there should be a presumption against proceeding with a case when DNA presumed to be from a suspect does not match the suspect. And what about the trial court judge? Should he have been more concerned about the fact that the DNA did not match? 

How many other innocents who pled guilty could be exonerated by DNA evidence?  This number is unknowable but in light of the Ochoa case and other like it (ironically, Chris Ochoa of Austin, Texas is perhaps the most infamous false confession/DNA exoneration case in the annals of exonerations; he not only falsely confessed to a murder and rape, he testifed against his close friend who was also convicted to avoid a death sentence), no courts should exclude defendants who have pled guilty from obtaining post-conviction DNA evidence.

Updates on False Confession Cases: Two New Official Exonerations

Two cases which I have written about on this blog can now be officially categorized as exonerations -- the case of Jeffrey Deskovic from Peekskill, New York and the case of JA, who was a 12 year old from Carrolton, Ga. when police claimed he confessed to the murder of 8 year old Amy Yates.  Both involved juveniles who falsely confessed to murders.  Deskovic's exoneration was a "formality" after DNA evidence not only cleared him of murder but identified the true perpetrator.  Formality or not, Deskovic did get the satisfaction of an apology of sorts from the judge who vacated his conviction ("There is no relief for your immeasurable loss that I may offer you" said Supreme Court Justice Richard Molea in granting the State's motion to dismiss his indictment).  He spent 16 years in prison for a crime he did not commit and surely will be seeking relief in the civil courts to recover some compensation for his nightmare.

The second exoneration for J.A. was anything but a formality. A grand jury on Friday 11/3, after nearly a week of hearing evidence, indicted Chris Gosset for involuntary manslaughter in the killing of 8 year old Amy Yates.   This new indictment means the end to J.A.'s nightmare.  J.A. spent nearly two years in a juvenile facility after he pled guilty (an Alford plea) to murdering Amy Yates.  J.A. claimed that police coerced him into giving a false confession but once the court ruled the confession would be admitted (J.A. took the plea which ensured he'd receive treatment as opposed to punishment).  The grand jury heard from dozens of witnesses, including J.A. (he was granted immunity), and came to the conclusion that Gossett, who is mentally disabled, killed Yates but did not mean to kill her. 

Although J.A. can close this chapter on his life, the case remains mired in controversy.  Gossett's attorney is likely to seek a competency hearing and is already preparing a false confession defense and a blame J.A. defense if the case goes to trial.  Because the grand jury chose not to indict for murder, Gossett will be tried as a juvenile and if convicted, can serve at most a couple of years for killing Yates.  This news sent Yates father over the edge -- he screamed profanities and fought with a police officer, actions which led to his arrest.   Expect a one hour television special on the case sometime in the near future.