Innocence trumped by technicality

Many folks react with frustration upon hearing that a criminal has been released on a “technicality,” such as an illegal search or lack of a speedy trial. I find it much more infuriating, however, when innocent convicts cannot have their new evidence heard due to tortured legal reasoning (an even more insidious form of “technicality”).

For instance, the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act permits a prisoner to challenge his conviction based on new evidence of actual innocence. But exactly what is “new evidence”?

Let’s take an example. John Q. Unfortunate is charged with an armed robbery that was actually committed by Larry, Curly, and Moe. John knows who the actual robbers were, but not surprisingly, they refuse to testify on his behalf. Larry flees the jurisdiction, Curly lies and says he wasn’t involved, and Moe takes the Fifth. John is convicted based on a mistaken identification and is sentenced to a long prison term.

Years later, however, Larry, Curly, and Moe have a change of heart and sign sworn affidavits admitting their own participation and exonerating John. Is this new evidence? Logically, one would assume so because their accounts weren’t heard at the original trial.

But logic does not always drive the law. Read what one Illinois appellate court panel recently wrote on the subject:

“[E]vidence is not newly discovered when it presents facts already known to a defendant at or prior to trial, though the source of these facts may have been unknown, unavailable or uncooperative.”

In other words, because our John Q. Unfortunate knew before trial who the real offenders were, the recent confessions of Larry, Curly, and Moe cannot be offered as new evidence. On the other hand, had John not learned their identities until after trial, he could now present the affidavits as “newly discovered” evidence and possibly win his freedom. Talk about a “technicality”!

No conceivable societal interest is furthered by the refusal to consider new proof of innocence. The aforementioned appellate court ruling is either blatantly incorrect (my view), or else the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act should be amended so that new evidence of innocence may be offered at any time (also my view). Let us hope that our legislators will be brave enough to take this step without fear of being labeled soft on crime. Remember, for every innocent person locked up for a crime she did not commit, there is at least one unpunished criminal still at large.

Comments

[Diane Seltzer]

Yes, wrongful convictions are horrible and they occur for many reasons. To not allow someone to prove their innocence is inhumane. Please take a look at this wrongful conviction and see how media bias compromised this young man's civil rights.
Media bias is pervasive in our daily lives. The First Amendment assures freedom of the press and allows all opinions to be expressed. Historically, various perspectives were viewed as thought provoking and a source of stimulation for ideas or actions. However, a new type of journalistic attitude has taken hold of much of the media. Ideas become fact, and these "facts" are manipulated to produce a more scandalous version of the truth and spun into sensationalized stories to boost sales. There are serious topics and issues being misrepresented by this tabloid media with little concern for accountability or consequence for the "public lynchings" they orchestrate. One consequence can be the undermining and ultimate loss of a citizen's civil rights. American law states a citizen is to be innocent till proven guilty in a fair court of law. However, you can be tried and convicted by the media with no chance to prove otherwise unless you have incredible resources. Even then, it can rob a person of years of freedom before the truth is allowed to be proven. There is such a situation in New York that a group of concerned citizens became aware of and couldn't ignore. We feel this is an attack on the rights of all citizens. The media took a story and sold their product ,the truth be damned, and helped to wrongfully convict a very talented young man named Paul Vincent Cortez.

Paul grew up in a tough neighborhood in the Bronx New York but focused intensely on academic, athletic and theatre interests in hopes of fulfilling a dream to create a better life for himself and his family. He earned academic scholarships to the prestigious Buckley School, Poly Prep Country Day School, and Boston University. During his school years, he accumulated an impressive resume of achievements. After becoming the first family member to graduate from college, he was an aspiring Broadway actor and lead singer in a popular New York City band and supported himself by working as a trainer at Equinox Gym in Manhattan.

On November 27, 2005, Paul endured the most unthinkable devastation. A person he loved was found murdered on the floor of her Upper East Side apartment. Paul voluntarily spoke to the police in hopes of providing them with information that might help find the murderer. During six hours of intense interrogation, Paul volunteered his foot prints, allowed the police to photograph his hands and body (which revealed no cuts or wounds), provided his cell phone for inspection (no blood stains), volunteered his DNA, and allowed the police to search his apartment without any sort of warrant in order to eliminate himself from the list of suspects hoping they could concentrate their efforts on finding her killer. There was no reason or evidence to believe that Paul had committed this crime. The first three weeks of the investigation did not yield any relevant witnesses, DNA, surveillance videos or any other illuminating evidence.

With the media hungry to announce a killer on the loose in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the world, the police were under incredible scrutiny to produce immediate answers and make an arrest. In addition, this made-for-Hollywood scenario featured a fast-rising Manhattan District Attorney looking to capitalize on the high-profile nature of the murder frenzy. The investigation and forensic testing was limited. Apparently, informing the media that the investigation lacked any significant breakthroughs was not a viable option.

Instead, much of the personal information that Paul volunteered to the police during his questioning was somehow leaked to the media by unnamed or “anonymous police sources”. Fabricated stories were printed from these leaks that created an erroneous image of Paul Cortez as a twisted madman. Paul was tried and convicted by the media for this crime before his trial. His trial was a farce with little defense by his inept lawyers. Paul found out the hard way that innocence and the truth is not one's guarantee for freedom and is now rotting away in an 8X10 foot cell on a wrongful conviction.
We believe that all citizens of the United States have the right to a fair trial with competent counsel. We believe that Paul Cortez was denied a fair trial because of inept counsel, media bias influence on the jury, inadequate investigation, and inexplicable lack of forensic testing. We believe that Paul Cortez was denied his basic civil rights and was unfairly convicted by a bias media rather than a fair court of law. Accordingly, we have formed a Defense Fund ( FREEPAULCORTEZ.ORG) to attempt to have Paul Cortez’s case be reopened and reviewed by the State of New York through the grant of a new trial. We hope that all fair minded people will feel compelled to join this fight for Paul Cortez, as well as themselves, to see that Paul Cortez is afforded a fair and proper attempt to prove his innocence.

[Kim Tandy]

Steve:
Every time I hear the term "technicality" I am reminded of an interview done by NPR with Justice Brennan where the interviewer used that term. Brennan immediately corrected her, stating something to the effect that "there are no 'technicalities' in the law - they are called constitutional rights."

[Karen Daniel]

Kim: Love the quote from Justice Brennan. This blog post was by Karen Daniel, though, rather than by Steve Drizin!

[Billy]

nice post i really appreciate it.

[Max International]

Thank your for the the great information.

I appreciate and respect your point of view.

[Bloomington Attorney]

Thats a interesting point of view. Good article, it makes sense. I am one of those that gets infuriated

[Andrew Jacob]

Hi,

This is a great article, though right now I am more worried about making my blog web-browser-friendly.

Thanks,
Andrew Jacob

[Peter Parker]

Hello,

I look forward to your posts on our other blog too.Good article here I just do not know if I agree with all of it. Keep up the great work.

Thanks,
Peter Parker

[Jack Lee]

Hi,

This is an excellent step by step process and its great to see so many people turning their attention about this topic.Very valuable and informative information.

Thanks,
Jack Lee