Bluhm Blog

UPDATE: Charges dropped against Rowley and Lee

http://abqjournal.magnify.net/video/Yi-Killing-Charges-Dropped

To her credit, District Attorney Kari Brandenburg today dropped all charges against Travis Rowley and Michael Lee in the murders of the Yis.  Although the District Attorney dismissed the charges, she did not yet exonerate Lee and Rowley.  She acknowledged the lack of physical evidence -- no DNA and no fingerprints --against the two men and also noted that Rowley's defense team presented a "reasonable alibi." She also acknowledged that the authorities have been unable to place Lee and Rowley together with Bloomfield.  In February, the DA's office received an expert report (from Dr. Richard Ofshe) which raised questions about the reliability of Rowley's statement.  According to Brandenburg, the DA's office has retained an expert of its own to address the statement.  The "investigation continues" and charges can be refiled depending upon the results. 

Another False Confession in New Mexico?

     

Clockwise from the Top (Clifton Bloomfield, Travis Rowley, and Michael Lee)

In December 2007, Travis Rowley and Michael Lee were arrested and charged with a brutal double murder in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  The two men were accused in the deaths of Tak and Pung Sil Yi, an elderly Korean couple.  The police brought the men in for questioning after several neighbors told them that a man who had been selling magazines door to door had been in the area and had been acting creepy.  Rowley appeared to match a composite drawing circulated by police.  After several hours of interrogations, during which Rowley repeatedly denied any involvement in the crime, he was persuaded to admit being present at the crime scene as his friend Michael Lee beat the couple.  It was a reluctant admission, one secured with a mix of promises of leniency and false evidence ploys.  Notably, Rowley did not admit to the one critical fact that the police held back -- that the female victim had been sexually assaulted.  Both men were charged with capital murder and the State declared its intent to seek the death penalty.  Early in the investigation, however, questions began to surface about the guilty of the defendants.  Both had alibis that placed them far away from the scene of the crime and not a shred of physical evidence, including the DNA, linked the men to the crime scene.  And then came a huge break in the investigation.  DNA testing linked a third man, Clifton Bloomfield, to the crime.  Bloomfield was a suspect in several murders in the area, all of which involved attacks in people's homes.  And there was no connection between Rowley, Lee, and Bloomfield.  Case closed, right? Police and prosecutors admitted their mistake and released Lee and Rowley, right? Keep dreaming.  According to information published by the Albuquerque Journal, the police tried to get Bloomfield to agree that he committed the crimes with Rowley and Lee, in exchange for a plea that took the death penalty off the table.  Bloomfield, to his credit, has refused to implicate the men.  Efforts to get the case dismissed by the defendants have, to date, failed.  The case is set for trial on March 16 and guess who is testifying for the defense -- Clifton Bloomfield.  Unless prosecutors can legitimately link the three men, they should cut their losses now, rather than later.  Each day these probably innocent men sit in jail for crimes they did not commit may end up costing taxpayers big money down the road in judgments from civil lawsuits.  This is the second high profile rape murder case from Albuquerque in which a confession has been proven false by DNA evidence -- the other one being the case of Robert Gonzales about which I blogged last summer.

 

False Guilty Pleas and Juvenile Injustice

 

 

    

Bruce Lisker 1988                                Bruce Lisker 2009 (Robert Durrell LA TIMES)

If it is hard for people to believe that someone would confess to a crime he or she did not commit, it is even harder for people to grasp why anyone would plead guilty in open court to a crime he or she did not commit.  By pleading guilty, defendants not only forfeit the right to prove their innocence but they often foreclose any chance of prevailing on appeal or in post-conviction proceedings (and, in several states, are excluded from seeking DNA testing).  False Guilty Pleas are the dirty little secret of the criminal justice system.  We don't know how often this occurs, but in light of the increasing power given to prosecutors and the increasing severity of sentences, there is every reason to think that false guilty pleas are not uncommon.  Imagine that you are a juvenile (under the age of 18) charged with a serious crime, you live in a state in which the prosecutor has broad power in deciding whether to prosecute you as a juvenile or as an adult (perhaps a state in which the prosecutor can "direct file" your case in adult court.)  If you are convicted as a juvenile, the harshest consequence is a sentence in a juvenile prison until your 21st birthday (or perhaps your 25th), but if you are sentenced as an adult, you could face anywhere from 20 years in prison to life without parole.  You know that you are innocent, but the case against you appears to be strong -- perhaps you made a false confession or have been fingered by a jailhouse snitch or a shaky eyewitness -- and your lawyer tells you that you will probably be convicted.  What do you do?  The incentive to plead guilty is simply too powerful --even if you are innocent -- in such cases.  Add to the equation that you are an adolescent, that you are prone to making risky decisions which are focused on the short-term and not the long term consequences, that you lack maturity and judgment, and that your lawyers and parents are telling you to take the deal, and you can see why it happens. 

Two recent cases involving juveniles who appear to have been wrongfully convicted illustrate the point.  The first hails from Virginia, where a 15 year old boy admitted to rape and burglary, in exchange for a juvenile sentence.  The reason, he admitted to rape, was that the prosecutor was preparing to try the boy as an adult, a move which could have led to a 25 year sentence.  As Pamela Gould, of the Fredericksburg, Va. Free Lance Star writes, the case took an unusual turn http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/022009/02052009/442642/index_html  A few months after the guilty plea, the victim's mother hired an attorney to help right a wrong --her daughter recanted her claim of rape, stating that the two had engaged in sexual activity consensually and that they had done so on a previous occasion: "[The boy] didn't rely rape me in fact we did it befor. [He] was a friend of mine befor this even happend. Me and [the boy] where good friends, but now it just seems that I lied about [him]. Now I will never forgive myself. [He] didn't realy come in by himself, I let him in." The boy has been released but his conviction still stands.  Lawyers from the Virginia Innocence Project and JustChildrencq, a program of the Virginia Legal Aid Society are seeking to vacate the conviction.  If the conviction stands, the boy will remain on the state's sex offender registry.

Bruce Lisker's case is even more tragic.  In 1988, Lisker was wrongfully convicted of killing his mother, a crime which took place in 1983 when Lisker was only 17.  Five days into his first trial, the judge made known that he would sentence Lisker to a juvenile sentence until his 25th birthday in exchange for a plea.  Here's how Scott Glover and Matt Tait described the scenario in their brilliant investigative series on Lisker's case in the LA Times: 

"Mulcahy (Lisker's attorney) ordered him to do it (take the plea). Then Bob Johnson, a lawyer and family friend spoke to him.  "He got right in my face and said I had to take the deal. 'They are going to convict you of first degree murder if you don't, Lisker recalled."

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/22/local/me-lisker22

Lisker took the deal.  When questioned by psychologists as part of a pre-sentence investigation, Lisker admitted killing his mother, going so far as to blame Satan: "I fell to what he wanted me to do.... It was so stupid."  The psychologists saw through Lisker's lies.  They, however, did not see them as lies, but as evidence of manipulation and a lack of remorse.  Upon receiving these reports, the judge backed out of the deal.  Lisker was allowed to withdraw his plea and go to trial. He was convicted and sentenced to life. 

Lisker became eligible for parole in 1992.  Hoping that it would help him gain his freedom, Lisker again admitted to killing his mother -- another false guilty plea. And again, it did not work.  When he next appeared before the Board in 1999, he again claimed his innocence. After his parole was denied, Lisker set out to prove his innocence and to get his conviction reversed.  As Lait and Glover have reported, Lisker's efforts, coupled with a reinvestigation of the case by the LA Times and the LA Police Department, have raised serious questions about Lisker's guilt.  This past week, a federal magistrate has ordered that Lisker's conviction be vacated and that he be retried or released.  While the magistrate's decision is not final -- it must be reviewed by a federal district court -- the prospects for Lisker's release are looking good for the first time since he was taken into custody -- 26 years ago.  To review the magistrate's decision and and news of the decision, read Lair and Glover's latest piece at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lisker4-2009mar04,0,6497197.story

There are many good reasons for revisiting laws that make it too easy to try children as adults, the best being perhaps that it leads to higher recidivism rates when youth are released.  Youth tried as adults are more likely to commit crimes upon release, they commit them sooner and their crimes are more violent.  But another reason is that it creates too big a punishment gap between juvenile and adult court, a gap which gives prosecutors too much power to coerce guilty pleas from innocent suspects.  One way to solve this problem is to take the decision of whether to transfer a minor out of the hands of prosecutors (whose decisions are unreviewable) and place it into the hands of judges.  For those who are still transferred, the idea of "youth discounts" for juveniles sentenced in adult court, an automatic reduction of sentences for juvenile offenders which makes the court take their youth as a mitigating factor, is critical in reducing the punishment gap between juvenile and adult court, a gap which gives prosecutors too much power in plea negotiations and gives too strong an incentive for innocents to plead guilty.  Such discounts would also except juveniles from life without parole, mandatory minimum sentences, and "truth in sentencing" schemes which have exacerbated the punishment gap between juvenile and adult sentencing.  For juveniles sent to adult court, there must also be an opportunity to send the juvenile back to the court for trial sentencing -- "a reverse waiver" option. 

 

 

A mother's love . . . Remembering Bobbie Steidl

What does a mother do when a son is sent to death row for a double homicide he didn't commit?  One can only imagine the personal anguish Bobbie Steidl felt for 17 years while her son Randy fought for his life and his freedom.  But what she did was attend each and every one of Randy's court appearances and provide him the inner strength that enabled him to survive those dark times.

Bobbie was there, of course, when Randy walked into the sunshine and away from Danville Correctional Center on May 28, 2004.  Bobbie lived to see Randy make a life for himself on the outside, maintain employment, purchase a home, and become a national spokesperson against the death penalty.  By the end of Bobbie's life, Randy had moved close enough to his mom to be able to stop and check on her every day.  He was finally in a position to care for her, just as she had cared for him all those years of his wrongful incarceration.

Bobbie was a tiny woman, but her heart was huge and her love was boundless.  Next to any list of exonerees should be a companion list of those family members and friends behind the scenes who push lawyers, investigate facts, raise funds, and lend critical moral support to wrongfully convicted prisoners awaiting vindication.

Barbara "Bobbie" Steidl belongs at the top of that list.  She passed away on February 23, 2009, at the age of 79.  She will be greatly missed by all who knew her and especially by her sons Randy and Rory Steidl.

Read about Randy's case

Read about Randy's anti-death penalty work

  

(Randy Steidl and his mom on the day of Randy's release from prison)

A lonely death . . . then exoneration

Timothy Cole, separated from family, friends, and decent medical treatment for his asthma, lapsed into unconsciousness in his Texas prison cell and died on December 2, 1999.  He had served 14 years of a life sentence for a rape he always maintained he did not commit.

Earlier this month, Cole was officially exonerated after DNA testing proved him innocent.  It is unutterably sad that Cole, a college student with a promising future at the time of his arrest, did not live to see his complete vindication, especially after he turned down an offer of parole if he would just admit his guilt.

What is particularly disturbing about this wrongful conviction is that the actual perpetrator, Jerry Johnson, confessed to the crime as far back as 1995, four years before Cole's death.  Johnson wrote to the court and asked for assistance in confessing to the crime.  He also wrote to the district attorney who had prosecuted Cole.  Johnson was ignored.  Only after he penned a letter in 2007 to Cole, whom he did not know had died, did someone take Johnson seriously.  Cole's family received the letter and started the process that exonerated Cole -- and conclusively fingered Johnson.

Even as far back as Cole's trial, though, there were red flags that called into question Cole's guilt.  These included:

• The rapist was a chain smoker, whereas Cole was an asthmatic who did not smoke.
• Cole had an alibi: he was at his brother's apartment with several friends at the time of the crime.  (These witnesses were branded liars by the prosecutor.)
• No physical evidence linked Cole to the rape.
• The evidence against Cole rested on the cross-racial identification testimony of the victim, who first identified Cole from a photo lineup consisting of a color Polaroid of Cole and five black-and-white photos of other men.

It is therefore not surprising that Johnson, who was a chain smoker and who was jailed for similar crimes in the same geographic area, should turn out to be the true rapist.

I would hope that the judge and prosecutor who received Johnson's confessions gave them serious consideration and had good reasons for not replying or initiating DNA testing on their own.  I fear, however, that Johnson's letters were either filed or trashed without a second thought.  In all likelihood, systemic reluctance to admit error resulted in Timothy Cole never again breathing free, and indeed never again breathing at all.

NPR story on Timothy Cole

Innocence in Juvenile Court?

In a decision that is otherwise not particularly noteworthy for wrongful conviction purposes, the First District appellate court recently pointed out that the Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not apply to juvenile proceedings.  In re Timothy P., No. 1-07-1518 (January 28, 2009).  Several previous appellate court cases have so held, although the Illinois Supreme Court has never spoken on the issue. 

The Post-Conviction Hearing Act is the primary procedural vehicle used for asserting innocence claims based on new evidence.  It is also the means of attacking constitutional violations that occurred at a defendant's trial.  What are we to take from the exclusion of minors' adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court from this Act?  Does this mean that no innocent minor is ever found guilty in juvenile court or that no minor has his constitutional rights violated?

We know this is not the case.  Rather, there is reason to believe that young people may be even more susceptible to wrongful convictions.  The growing list of exonerees includes many individuals who were accused when they were under 18.  While most were tried and convicted in adult court, this is because the vast majority of exonerations are in murder and rape cases, which are most often tried in adult court even when the accused is under 18.  We also know that the likelihood of a false confessions increases when the accused is a young person.  Certainly, there are young people who have falsely confessed to lesser crimes who have subsequently been convicted in juvenile court.

In fact, there is reason to believe that juvenile court might be particularly susceptible to wrongful convictions.  With no jury trial right, the same trial judge that may have previously presided over a case of the minor is the fact-finder in the new case.  This mihgt create an inherent bias in the judge's mind against the minor. Moreover, very few juvenile cases are appealed, so the appellate court is not given the opportunity to correct errors in judgment.  Further, the culture of juvenile court -- which at times discourages zealous advocacy in lieu of "the best interests of the minor" -- may contradict the presumption of innocence.  The reality is that the issue of wrongful convictions in juvenile court is largely unexplored.

Why should we care?  While it is true sentences in juvenile court may be less severe, there are serious consequences.  A minor may be imprisoned until he is 21.  A sentence of probation puts a minor in the system, and a subsequent, even non-criminal infranction could lead to prison time.  Even a small adjudication may affect a young person's future. For example, a misdemeanor sex offense requires a minor to register as a sex offender.  All felony offenses require the minor to submit his DNA into a state and national federal database.  And a juvenile adjudication may affect a minor's job or college prospects in the future, specifically a government job.  

The Illinois Supreme Court should address the issue of the applicability of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act to juvenile proceedings.  Alternatively, the general assembly should clarify the Act to make clear that it includes delinquency proceedings.  It does not make sense that Act does not apply to juvenile adjudications.

Latest Illinois exoneree: Alan Beaman

 

When false murder charges against a man who spent 13 years in prison are finally dropped, it is hard to know how to feel.  There is a measure of joy that the ordeal is over, but also great sadness at the years wasted and the damage inflicted -- and anger that it ever had to happen.  A week after Alan Beaman's exoneration on January 29, 2009, anger is uppermost in my mind as I reflect on the case.

First I must disclose that I am not an unbiased observer.  I have been representing Alan for six years.  (My colleague Jeff Urdangen has logged a dozen years in this fight for justice.)  During this time I have pored over all aspects of the case, and I have become very well acquainted with my impressive client Alan and his equally remarkable family.  My conclusion from this study is that Alan is absolutely innocent of the 1993 murder of his ex-girlfriend in Normal, Illinois, for the simple reason that he was 140 miles away in his Rockford home when it happened.

One of our mantras at the Center on Wrongful Convictions is that we cannot correct all miscarriages of justice one by one, so we must use individual cases to shed light on flaws in the criminal justice system that lead to erroneous convictions.  Each exoneration presents a "teachable moment."  What lessons can we learn from the Alan Beaman case?  Why is it that despite no evidence of guilt other than supposition and innuendo, and indeed clear evidence of his innocence, Alan was indicted and convicted?  Why did his conviction stand for 13 years until the Illinois Supreme Court ordered a new trial in May 2008, labeling the case aginst Alan "tenuous" and wholly circumstantial?

In a word, the answer is "Prosecutor."  The prosecutor holds a uniquely powerful position in the criminal justice process that rivals even that of the judge.  Alan Beaman's prosecutor, James Souk, involved himself early in the homicide investigation and eventually took it over.  When information surfaced during the investigation that supported Alan's alibi, the police were directed to try to refute it rather than shift their focus to more likely suspects.  (This phenomenon of tailoring an investigation around a premature conclusion is called "tunnel vision.")  Faced with a high profile murder of a college student in a college town, they indicted Alan rather than leave the crime unsolved.  At trial, the prosecutor hid evidence that supported Alan's innocence and misled the jury about the strength of the State's case.  Thus, the jury that decided Alan's guilt or innocence did not have access to all of the relevant evidence, including information about other potential suspects.  That angers me.

What is the appropriate response to a case like this?  We need to pay attention to the people in whom we invest the awesome powers of the prosecutor.  Candidates for prosecutor should be well screened, and when elected prosecutors (or their staff) abuse their power, they should be voted out of office.  Similarly, when a court of review finds that a prosecutor has committed an ethical or constitutional violation, there should be consequences and sanctions.  Finally, the public must express its outrage when prosecutors cross the line.  In the case of Alan Beaman, it may be that public support for his cause contributed to the dismissal of the wrongful charges against him.

To read more about Alan's case, try these links:

WMBD-TV story

Daily Pantagraph story

Center on Wrongful Convictions

(Photo by Steve Smedley/The Pantagraph)

Three New Must Read Tales of False Confessions

             

In 2008, three books were published detailing the cases of six men who were wrongfully convicted of brutal murders on the basis of their "confessions."  All are must-reads and should be added to the collections of anyone interested in the literature of wrongful convictions. 

Let's start with In Spite of the System, Gary Gauger's (with Julie Von Bergen) haunting first person account of his wrongful conviction in connection with the murder of his beloved parents Ruth and Morrie Gauger.  Short and sweet, this book clocks in at just under 200 pages, and can be read in a single sitting.  Beginning with Gary's account of the day he first noticed his parents were missing and the discovery of his parents' bodies, the book proceeds chronologically through his interrogation, arrest, trial, conviction, incarceration (including time on death row), and his exoneration.  As a client and longtime supporter of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, and a man whose story has been featured in the award-winning play "The Exonerated," I've heard Gary's story many times and it always remains fresh.  This book, based in part on letters Gary wrote from jail to his friend Nikki, gives the reader a true insight into Gary's character.  Filled with Gary's musings about farming (Gary was a budding organic farmer when arrested), Gary's dreams and thoughts about getting back to the farm helped sustain him through the chaos of prison life. The letters also contain very insightful comments about the need for better communication between trial lawyers and clients, the importance of family support for those wrongfully accused, and the almost pathological need for some in law enforcement to insist on a convicted person's guilt even in the face of powerful and overwhelming evidence of innocence.  It is an inspiring and uplifting tale, a tribute to Gary's indomitable spirit.  The book deserves a wider audience.  Self-published, it can be ordered at www.garygauger.com

A Criminal Injustice, Richard Firstman's and Jay Salpeter's book on the twenty year struggle to free Marty Tankleff, is a tour de force of a young man's (only a teenager when he was arrested for murdering his parents) and his family's struggle to regain Marty's freedom against a corrupt Suffolk County criminal justice system.  The book works on all levels.  Two thirds of the book is taken up with telling the back story of the case -- the tony suburb of Belle Terre, the lives of the victims, Marty's privileged, if not spoiled childhood, his relationships with his parents and extended family,  the business disputes between Marty's father and one of his partners that ultimately led to the murders, and the challenges faced by Marty's trial, appellate, and post-conviction lawyers.  Marty was privileged to have quality lawyers at every stage of the process, a reminder that confession evidence is so powerful, that even the best and brightest lawyers face and uphill battle.  The final third of the book reads like a detective novel because that is exactly what it is -- an account of Jay Salpeter's great gumshoe work to develop the evidence that eventually would prove that Marty was innocent and that a trio of other men, connected to Tankleff's father's business partner, were responsible for the killings. Salpeter and a team of lawyers worked for years for Tankleff on a pro bono basis, not only because they believed in his innocence, but because the power of Tankleff's personality, his own dedication to his case and his indomitable spirit, inspired them.  "Get busy living, or get busy dying" says Morgan Freeman in the Shawshank Redemption as he reflects on how he survived all those years in prison for a crime he committed as a youth.  That's precisely what Marty did --he refused to be defined by his surroundings and his circumstances -- he became his own strongest advocate. This attitude, captured by Firstman and Salpeter -- leaves me no doubt he will succeed in his new, post-prison life.

The Wrong Guys by Tom Wells and Richard Leo (one of the leading social scientific experts on police interrogations and false confessions), tells the tragic story of the murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko, a young Norfolk Virginia woman who was the wife of a Navy seaman.  The tragedy is compounded when Norfolk Police focus on another Navy man, Danial Williams, a neighbor, who supposedly showed an interest in Michelle, and browbeat this mentally vulnerable man into confessing to the murder and implicating several other Navy men.  As the Norfolk police pursue these men, they obtain four confessions from the men, and ultimately arrest eight men in connection with the crime.  It is a case of police tunnelvision gone haywire.  None of the confessions are corroborated by physical evidence -- the crime scene suggests a single perpetrator -- and DNA testing later not only excludes the men as the rapists but links an eighth man to the crime, a man named Omar Ballard, who has a history of assaulting women, who knew the victim, did not know the other men, and who later confessed to committing the crime alone.  When Ballard surfaced, police simply changed their story to accomodate Ballard, arguing, without any evidence, that Ballard met up with the sailors in the parking lot where they planned to rape Michelle.  Four men -- Williams, Eric Wilson, Joe Dick, and Derek Tice, were convicted of Ballard's crime (Ballard was also convicted).  There's no happy ending to this complex and gripping tale.    Despite a powerful push for clemency, see www.norfolkfour.org, Governor Tim Kaine, of Virginia, has yet to right this wrong.  Let's hope he reads this book which convincingly demonstrates why the confessions are false and why the men have been wrongfully convicted.

Human Lie Detector Machines?

As I watched Donovan McNabb and my beloved Eagles lose yet another NFL Championship game, I was deluged by promos for Fox's New Television Show "Lie To Me." http://www.fox.com/lietome/ The show features one of my favorite actors Tim Roth (of "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs" fame) as Dr. Cal Lightman, an expert at detecting whether a person is lying by analyzing their eye, facial, and other involuntary body movements. Lightman fancies himself as a human lie detector machine and the promos show scenes of him and the others he works with detecting lies during police interrogations. It's a fascinating premise for a television show and has great potential to be a hit but does it have the potential to mislead the public and increase the risk of wrongful convictions? Perhaps. There are a number of law enforcement officers who believe that they are human lie detector machines. (For a recent example, see Rick Firstman and Jay Salpeter's excellent new book about the Marty Tankleff case, A Criminal Injustice, where Detective James McCready, the interrogator who obtained Marty's confession to murdering his parents, claims that he is better at detecting lies than a lie detector) http://www.acriminalinjustice.com/. They make snap judgments about a suspect's innocence or guilt based on their analysis of a suspect's non-verbal responses to questions. These snap judgments often lead interrogators to launch into highly confrontational interrogations and to refuse to take no for an answer from a suspect. Such tactics can and do lead to false confessions. The problem is that these judgments are often wrong. Signs of nervousness are mistaken for signs of deception. And even when they are correct, the fact that a suspect is being deceptive about one thing does not mean he is guilty of committing the crime he is questioned about. Study after study of the lie-detecting ability of officers shows that while they are extremely confident in their ability to detect deception, especially if they have received training, they are not much better than the average person at detecting deception -- perhaps a little better than chance. Even if the best interrogators were able to detect deception 80% of the time, a 20% error rate would be intolerable and would lead to massive numbers of wrongful convictions. Interestingly, there is some common ground between some of these experts at human lie detection and advocates for the wrongfully convicted. Dr. Paul Ekman, whose work is the basis for "Lie to Me," appears to be a strong supporter of the need to require electronic recording of interrogations. In "Last Call," an October 14, 2008 Op-ed in the New York Times in which Op-ed editors asked a few writers and thinkers what questions they wanted Senators McCain and Obama to answer at their final debate, Dr. Ekman wrote: "Senator Obama helped pass a law in Illinois that requires the police to make audio or videotapes of interrogations of murder suspects. Would either of you require federal law-enforcement agencies to record all interrogations of witnesses as well as suspects in felony cases? And would you urge Congress to encourage recordings by state and local police departments?"

Grisham-Turow discuss death penalty

Ten years ago, a conference on wrongful convictions and the death penalty at Northwestern University School of Law launched the Center on Wrongful Convictions.  The conference brought together, on one stage, 29 former death row inmates who had been exonerated and freed from prison.  The event received national news coverage and many who attended or otherwise heard about it were shocked to learn of the high incidence of wrongful convictions in capital cases.

 

In October 2007, the Center sponsored another thought-provoking event concerning the death penalty, this one featuring two best-selling authors -- John Grisham and Scott Turow -- who discussed their personal journeys leading to death penalty opposition.  The discussion was moderated by former Chicago Tribune editorial board member Cornelia Grumman, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her editorials about the Illinois death penalty system.

 

Through the wonders of YouTube, folks who did not attend the 2007 forum can now view it on their computers, albeit in five separate parts:

 

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KESB0Ef_F10

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpEIWSO2EPI

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBI6btoOGMU

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=234ZsNV7ZqI

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCMWDFcW4to