Today in NC two innocent men were freed 30 years after being wrongfully convicted of murder. Which means for thirty years the innocent 11 year old girl left lying in a field after being raped and suffocated to death didn't get justice. Which means that for thirty years the real killer did not pay for his crime. Which means that for thirty years, the real killer was able to destroy the lives of even more innocent people.
Both men, who have IQ's below 70 falsely confessed to crime. As is usual in these situations, they confessed after hours and hours of pressure, locked in a room. Contrary to what people believe, people do confess to crimes they didn't commit.
According to a University of Virginia report released Aug. 21, nearly 20 percent of defendants who have been exonerated by DNA evidence had falsely confessed to the crime. DNA found at the scene and finally tested after all of these years, exonerated the two men. The prosecutor did not even oppose the Motion to dismiss the charges against the two men. In fact, the DNA implicates a man already convicted of similar crimes at a time very close to the time this crime was committed. But really, at this point, the exoneration of innocent men is hardly big news. At least 317 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
The real news is below the fold:
What is news in this NC case is that the arrogance and wrong-headedness of a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has been put on display for everyone to see. In 1994 the Supreme Court turned down a request to hear the appeal in Mr. McCollum's case. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, an eventual opponent of the death penalty had voted to hear the case. Justice Blackmun noted that Mr. McCollum had the mental age of a 9-year-old and said “this factor alone persuades me that the death penalty in this case is unconstitutional.” In fact, Justice Blackmun had completely renounced the death penalty in general saying he would, "no longer tinker with the machinery of death". He said that decisions involving the death penalty were too subjective and prone to human error for the death penalty ever to be administered constitutionally.
Unfazed by Justice Blackmun's concerns, Justice Antonin Scalia accused Justice Blackmun of attempting to “thrust a minority’s views upon the people.” Scalia strongly maintained that society had a need for the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for the most heinous of crimes. In fact, as evidence for his opinion he wrote about two cases before the Supreme Court at the time, which he believed made death by lethal injection look “enviable.” One of those cases concerned the brutal rape and murder of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie, committed in Red Springs, North Carolina. That case, the one that Justice Scalia found to be most deserving of the death penalty, is the murder for which these two men were exonerated today.
Henry McCollum was 20 when he was sentenced to death for committing the crime Scalia described. Today, he walked out of prison a free man. Like most of those who are exonerated, Mr. McCollum is looking forward instead of backward. But the ability of these two men to forgive and forget doesn't mean that the rest of us should ignore the fact that, contrary to the opinion of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, neither of these men deserved a day in prison, much less execution. The arrogance of a society that thinks taking another person's life is justified so long as they had "a fair trial" is on full display. The belief that any system that relies on fallible humans can ever be reliable enough to kill in the name of the Government shows a complete lack of understanding basic human nature. It isn't often that a Supreme Court Justice is shown just how utterly wrong his opinions are. Luckily today, at least two men have overcome a system designed to convict the accused and have proven just how fallible our highest court can be. I wonder what Justice Scalia has to say now.
UPDATED: ADA on death penalty: 'We need to kill more people'
Vickie Welborn, 8:07 p.m. CDT March 27, 2015
Caddo District Attorney's office speaks out concerning Glenn Ford's innocence, death penalty debate
(Photo: Henrietta Wildsmith/The Times)
No one in the Caddo Parish District Attorney's office ever said Glenn Ford is an innocent man even though a murder conviction and death sentence handed up by a jury in 1984 were dismissed and vacated in June.
"He may very well be or he may not be," said First Assistant District Attorney Dale Cox, who signed the dismissal papers leading to Ford's freedom from death row.
"The reason that is potentially important is under armed robbery he could still be in the penitentiary. I'm not saying he is guilty of armed robbery, I'm saying the evidence might have led to a charge of armed robbery," Scott said.
So bottom line, does Scott, who was not the DA when Ford was convicted in December 1984, think Ford should be a free man?
"No comment," Scott responded.
While Scott has remained guarded and tight-lipped in his response to questions about Ford, Cox was more forthcoming in two separate interviews this week, including lengthy explanations about changing viewpoints on the death penalty as a punishment for first-degree murder convictions.
VIDEO
Former prosecutor and lead attorney in the Glenn Ford case Marty Stroud speaks out on the Glenn Ford Case. The state admitted in 2013 that it had credible evidence to overturn a conviction and death sentence in the case. Douglas Collier/The Times
But the dueling opinions are an example of the national dialogue created when portions of Stroud's letter were repeated through perhaps hundreds of online and print reports, stretching from coast to coast and across the ocean.
Many complimented Stroud for his willingness to publicly apologize for his role in the conviction of a man who spent decades behind bars for a murder he didn't commit, while others once again debated the pros and cons of the death penalty, especially the possibility that a man not guilty of murder was slated for execution.
Ford's reaction to Stroud's apology and the firestorm it created is unknown. Because of his declining health, all interviews have been suspended until further notice, attorney Kristin Wenstrom said.
Ford, 65, is being treated for Stage 4 lung cancer in New Orleans and may only have eight months or less to live, according to a physician's diagnosis in February. He only learned of his fate following his release from Angola, even though health problems plagued him prior to that.
In his letter, Stroud questioned whether the justice system can be "fairly and impartially" imposed with the death penalty still in play. He calls it "state assisted revenge."
Cox disagrees the justice system is defective, saying it is only as good as the people who work in it. Even so, convicting an innocent man is a prosecutor's worst nightmare, he said.
He remains committed to the death penalty as a morally justifiable punishment even though his personal position has changed from an anti-stance to support over the past 35 years, just as Stroud started out in favor of it then moved to opposition.
Cox said he's too often witnessed the "enormous toll" homicides take on the victim and survivors. "Barbarians" with no remorse for their crimes, serial killers, baby killers of all races and genders demonstrate to Cox more barbaric behavior over a planned execution.
However, Cox is not a believer the death penalty serves as a deterrent to other homicide cases. "It's a deterrent if it goes fast, but we can't get it done fast enough."
"I'm a believer that the death penalty serves society's interest in revenge. I know it's a hard word to say and people run from it, but I don't run from it because I think there is a very strong societal interest as a people," Cox said. "I think (revenge) is the only reason for it."
"I think we need to kill more people. … I think the death penalty should be used more often. It has come to the place in our society where it is used less often, and I think crime in our society has expanded so expeditiously ... that we're going the wrong way with the death penalty that we need it more than ever and we're using it less now," he said.
'Not the shooter'
Approximately 10 months passed from the time Caddo Parish prosecutors learned in 2013 of new information implicating someone other than Ford in Rozeman's homicide until Ford was released last March. Would quicker access to oncology specialists have made a difference for Ford is among the questions being asked.
But Cox and Scott are in agreement that the timeframe from the new evidence discovery to release was not wasted. "Every effort" was made, Cox said, to reach the point of determining if the information from an informant was credible enough to lead to Ford's freedom.
"It concerned me the most that we handled it timely; don't sit on this another year or two. You can out-think yourself on this stuff. ... You've got one DA saying to another administration, 'What you did was wrong and I'm fixing it,'" Cox said. "There was no way we could ever retry the case against Glenn Ford. There was no way he could marshal a defense after spending 30 years in solitary confinement. It would be cruel and unusual to make him do that."
Still, Cox said he can't say for certain Ford is factually innocent because he believes Ford had information or may have been a participant but not necessarily the gunman.
"There was evidence at his trial that no one contradicted, evidence he purchased a gun shortly before this," Cox said referring to Rozeman's murder. Ford knew Rozeman, did work for him and would have been a familiar face to get past Rozeman's security system, Cox said.
Ford was in Rozeman's shop prior to his death, and later the same day "fenced" jewelry stolen during the robbery and homicide.
"None of that proves that Glenn Ford was the shooter. But neither does that exclude him as a participant in some fashion. So when I say innocent I mean that in the broadest possible case," said Cox. "I'm relatively certain he was not the shooter based on everything."
Caddo Parish District Court Judge Katherine Dorroh on Friday denied Ford's request for compensation allowed under Louisiana law for those meeting statutory requirements of innocence. Dorroh said while Ford didn't have the blood of the murder victim on his hands he was involved in two lesser crimes.
In her nine-page ruling, she said Ford knew the robbery of Rozeman was going to occur and did nothing to stop it, and he attempted to destroy evidence by selling items taken in the robbery and attempting to find buyers for the murder weapon used by those he implicated in the murder.
Was there conflict in the DA's office about how to proceed with the new evidence leading to Ford's exoneration?
Yes, according to Cox, in that there was a recognition of the seriousness of the information and what should be done. But no, said Scott, who described the talks as a "very, very careful and deliberate review of the issue."
"Here we have a jury verdict and have a death sentence that we have been defending against post-conviction relief applications for 30 years. So it was a large step to go from … taking a verdict away from a jury, which was unanimous, then reverse course. The discussion was that's a very serious step to take," Cox said.
Another thought was to give the information to the defense and let them file a motion with the court to seek Ford's release.
"I ultimately thought that was the wrong thing to do. I said we have credible information and we need to release the man; don't need to go through any more delays. That position is what we ultimately took," he said.
Cox added: "There was a real sense of earnestness that this was going to be something that was going to cause a lot of consequences for a lot of people and it has and it will continue to. In the end to me, there was no question about it. I feel so strongly about it, if we hadn't released the man I would have quit. I would have quit and gone to the FBI."
Scott would only say he was "on board" with the filing of the dismissal of charges against Ford. He declined to elaborate any more on the other behind-the-scenes decision-making.
Glenn Ford, 64, as he leaves Louisiana State Penitentiary in March. (Photo: AP Photo/WAFB-TV 9)
Shielded information
Specifics of the information an informant provided are under seal by order of the court. And it remain so because of a real concern about the person's safety, Cox said.
Quite a bit of time was spent in the months before Ford's release verifying the information before all were convinced it was reliable. Cox stressed the undisclosed information was not known to Stroud, his co-counsel Carey Schimpf or former DA Paul Carmouche.
"I inadvertently discovered it while interviewing a witness in another homicide. This is not information that any possessed in 1983. I think if they had had this information this would have altered their charging decision," Cox said.
Cox points out three other people — brothers Jake and Henry Robinson and George Starks — were indicted at the same time as Ford in connection with Rozeman's death. Charges were dismissed against the three, leaving only Ford to stand trial.
The Robinsons have been arrested in the months since Ford's release on other cold case homicides. "Soon," is all Cox would say as to when another grand jury might hear evidence in the Rozeman case.
Keeping the confidential informant safe in the interim is a concern of Cox's.
"We've heard a lot of rumbling from the Robinsons about that. In that regard you may even see additional charges for the Robinsons forthcoming. If not from us, then the feds," Cox said.
Times reporter Maya Lau contributed to this report.
DNA evidence clears Pennsylvania man's murder conviction after 34 years
Judge vacates murder conviction of Lewis Fogle, who has been in prison for the shooting death of a 15-year-old in 1976
Lewis Fogle, shown with his wife, has been released from prison after 34 years for the murder of a teenager on the basis of DNA evidence. Photograph: The Innocence Project
Reuters in Harrisburg
Thursday 13 August 2015 12.34 EDT Last modified on Thursday 13 August 2015 16.47 EDT
A man convicted in 1982 in the rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl has been freed from a Pennsylvania prison thanks to new DNA testing after spending more than three decades behind bars filing repeated appeals proclaiming his innocence.
Lewis Fogle, 63, had his conviction thrown out by Judge David Grine in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and was granted $25,000 bail pending a decision by Indiana County district attorney Patrick Dougherty on whether to retry him on second-degree murder charges. Dougherty’s decision is due by 14 September.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
