Alan Crotzer to Testify Before Congressional Subcommittee on Indigent Defense

Alan Crotzer to Testify Before Congressional Subcommittee on Indigent Defense
Florida Man Spent 24 Years in Prison for Someone Else’s Crime

On Thursday, June 4, Alan Crotzer will join two other members of the National Committee on the Right to Counsel when he testifies before the Congressional House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security about the crisis facing indigent defense in America. Mr. Crotzer was wrongfully convicted and served 24 and a half years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit due to a lackluster effort by his court-appointed defense counsel.

Mr. Crotzer was arrested in 1981 in St. Petersburg and charged with several crimes stemming from a double-kidnapping and rape that took place in Tampa. An eyewitness ID from a suggestive photo lineup was the trigger that set in motion a chain of events, from arrest to conviction to incarceration, that Mr. Crotzer said “profoundly affected [his] life in unimaginable ways.” In a prepared statement, he thanked two lawyers from New York, David Menschel and Sam Roberts, who “put their lives on hold” and spent thousands of dollars to prove his innocence with DNA testing. Their performance, he said, stands in stark contrast to that of his appointed counsel.

In his statement, Mr. Crotzer listed the failings of his defense attorney – including ignoring his innocence claim and encouraging him to accept a plea to 25 years, meeting with Mr. Crotzer on only a few occasions before trial, failing to subpoena and interview alibi witnesses, and failing to sever his case from a co-defendant, whose disastrous self-representation at trial likely served to incriminate Mr. Crotzer by association. Mr. Crotzer says this confluence of feckless actions made his wrongful conviction “not only possible, but probable.”

Public defenders’ offices around the country have seen their funding slashed in recent years and faced dire straits even before the current national recession. According to a recent report by the Constitution Project titled Justice Denied, the State of Florida, where Mr. Crotzer was convicted, has seen its county budgets for defense counsel cut by millions of dollars. Some counties have resorted to charging convicts – many of them indigent – special fees to cover the costs of their trials. Several public defenders’ offices in Florida have chosen to outright refuse to take new cases, citing their inability to fulfill their constitutional obligation to provide an adequate defense.

Mr. Crotzer now works with at-risk youth as an Intervention Specialist at the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and with the Innocence Project of Florida (IPF), where he raises awareness of criminal justice issues. He hopes his testimony will be the beginning of a real interest by Congress in reforming America’s system of indigent defense so that stories like his “will become infrequent, rather than a constant refrain.”

The Innocence Project of Florida is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to finding and freeing innocent people from Florida prisons. Alan Crotzer is a member of IPF’s Board of Directors.

The National Committee on the Right to Counsel is a bipartisan committee of independent experts representing all segments of America’s justice system created by the Constitution Project and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association. The Committee examines whether poor defendants are being provided with competent, experienced lawyers who have the necessary resources to defend them, and to create consensus recommendations for any necessary reforms. Their report Justice Denied can be found online at www.tcpjusticedenied.org. Alan Crotzer is a member of the National Committee on the Right to Counsel.

# # #

Information about the Hearing:
Indigent Representation: A Growing National Crisis
House Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Thursday, June 4, 2009 9:30 AM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Visit IPF's Website by clicking here; sign up to volunteer by clicking here; contribute to our work by clicking here.

Download a PDF of this press release here.

Dillon won't be paid for time spent in prison

That is the title of this article from Florida Today that was just published. The gist of the article is this: because Flrodia's Victims of Wrongful Incarceration statute, passed last year, has a "clean hands" provision, barring anyone with prior felonies from being awarded compensation, William Dillon will not be paid by the state for his 27 years of wrongful incarceration. If it sounds obviously unjust to you, that's because it is.

What the state is in essence saying is that Dillon is not entitled to, or does not deserve, the money because of his prior felony conviction, which was a DUI and possession of a controlled substance in 1979. Dillon plead to that crime, did his time and paid the fine. He ought to stand redeemed in the eyes of the state vis-à-vis that crime.

"It's a shame that a nonviolent drug conviction from when Mr. Dillon was 19 years old would bar him from being compensated under the new Victims of Wrongful Incarceration statute," attorney Melissa Montle of the Innocence Project of Florida said. "He now has to file a claims bill during a recession in order to be rightfully compensated for the 27 years he spent in prison for a crime he did not commit."

Several of the comments on the article make good points, albeit blunt and somewhat inelegant. Most are rightfully angry at the state for what is clearly an injustice. Most say things like, "The state made a mistake, time to pay up." That's a sentiment I can get behind 100%, mostly because it's absolutely correct. I like this one from Augnoz especially, because it sounds like something I would exclaim when not speaking in an official capacity for this organization: "Dillon got the shaft, correct this travesty."

But one comment is so dangerously false that it merits my correction. earthwateruser says, among other things, that "A compensation bill for wrongful imprisonment for 27 years shouldn't be a difficult thing to accomplish [this legislative session]," and points to the number of compensation bills that get passed each year. This is simply not true. Out of Florida's 10 DNA exonerees, only two have been compensated. Under this new bill, the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration statute, it is not clear that a single person has been awarded compensation. It is not easy. It is not common.

GenPop also chimes in and Courtney makes a good point when she asks, "Is [this] not then a continuation of the punishment for a minor drug offense 30 years after the fact?" It could easily be seen as a punishment in the philosophical sense, since it is an adverse treatment or harm – treatment that would not otherwise be acceptable – in light of some transgression. You might also think that, by letting his wrongful incarceration go unremedied, the state is refusing to admit wrongdoing, and letting it stand as an acceptable act of punishment against his previous offense.

Florida passes snitching reforms

On Thursday, Charlie Crist signed Rachel's Law, requiring law enforcement agencies to "create guidelines for the use of confidential informants." The eponymous Rachel Hoffman was a Florida State University grad arrested for possession of marijuana and ecstasy who, rather than face jail time, agreed instead to serve as an informant in a drug buy. While attempting to purchase drugs and a handgun in an undercover sting, Rachel was murdered.

Her death sparked increased scrutiny into the use of police informants. Several bills were introduced into the Florida Legislature in an attempt to regulate and oversee the use of wired informants by Florida police departments. From the St. Petersburg Times:

"Rachel's Law" calls on agencies to take into account a person's age and maturity, emotional state and the level of risk a mission would entail. Police also would be barred from promising an informer more lenient treatment; only prosecutors and judges can do that.

Not included are several provisions Hoffman's parents said could have prevented their daughter's death, including barring anyone in a drug treatment program, as 23-year-old Rachel was, from going on undercover drug buys.

Grits for Breakfast has more, including this highlight:

My favorite part: Law enforcement must "Provide a person who is requested to serve as a confidential informant with an opportunity to consult with legal counsel upon request before the person agrees to perform any activities as a confidential informant."

Friday Roundup

Though Colorado failed to abolish the death penalty yesterday, they did manage to ban texting while driving.

Add this to the list of bad signs coming out of the Obama Administration DOJ – when can we connect the dots between all the bad signs and officially become disappointed? – from TalkLeft: DOJ Argues FBI Had No Duty to Disclose Evidence of Perjury.

A good editorial, not to be missed, out of the DeMoines Register: Let plaintiffs sue for prosecutorial abuse.

Finally, from the "You can't write this stuff" department, Matt Kelley, author of the Criminal Justice blog on Change.org, tweeted this morning about a program called "Mock Prison Riot." The idea is to either participate in or watch trained professionals diffuse a staged prison riot and learn from the techniques used. Matt asks, "Is this a reality show or real prison guard training?" More than a little surreal.

Colorado death penalty bill dies in Senate

DENVER -- The Colorado Senate rejected a proposal to abolish the death penalty by a single vote Wednesday, hours after backers revived the measure for a final vote on the last day of the legislative session.

Senators voted 18-17 to defeat the bill, which would have used the savings from eliminating capital punishment prosecutions to fund cold case investigations. Last month, a similar proposal passed the House by one vote.

That looks to be the end of the line for the bill, unfortunately. TalkLeft says, "Today was the last day for the Senate to act. Hopefully, a similar bill will come up again next year."

Capital Defense Weekly is much more optimistic:

In Colorado repeal efforts came within vote of making that state the third to abolish in recent years. Folks on the ground in Colorado appear to have done one heck of a job even if their efforts came up a little short. This vote wasn’t supposed to be anywhere near this close. We are winning.

TalkLeft names four democrats who voted against the bill. The unspoken premise is that this is remarkable because Democrats should more reliably vote "the right way" on criminal justice issues like the death penalty. Although I think he's right that Democrats are more likely to support a bill like this, I still lament that the death penalty is seen as a partisan issue. It's not: it's about fairness, humanity, and, in this case, using resources wisely. Better luck next year.

Update on Colorado's death penalty abolition movement

Bad news on the fight in Colorado to abolish the death penalty. As you might recall, there had been a movement to use the money saved to solve cold cases, instead of using millions of taxpayer dollars on a death penalty that was hardly ever used in Colorado.

Change.org remarks:

Colorado's Senate decided yesterday not only to maintain status quo (wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on one execution every three decades) - but to go one step further. Senators also voted to charge every person convicted of a crime $2.50 on top of court fees they already pay, to help fund investigations of unsolved crimes.

From the New York Times:

An effort to repeal Colorado’s death penalty law stumbled Monday in the State Senate after two hours of sometimes anguished and angry debate, leaving the bill in limbo and supporters scrambling to find votes as the end of the session looms this week... The Colorado House voted in support of repeal, by a single vote majority, last month.

The death penalty as a deterrent

I know I've been harping quite a bit on the death penalty these last few weeks, with the developments in New Mexico, Colorado, and elsewhere, but reading this quote from Change.org really tickled me:

Only two murders in 1,000 are punished by execution. If you believe the death penalty is a deterrent, don't forward this post to a potential murderer - they might figure out that the chances of lethal injection are slim, and then who knows what they'll do.

Pointing out very well what any of us could discover by reflection: criminals are oftentimes not rational agents – and the worse the crime, we might think, the more genuinely deranged they are. Why do we think we might succeed in guiding their decision-making process?

Texas bill allows defendants to challenge their convictions based on junk science

Per the Innocence Project's blog today, "A bill passed by the Texas Senate this week would provide an avenue for prisoners to challenge convictions based on discredited forensic science." They reference a story in the Marshall News Messenger that begins,

Criminals who were sent to prison — or sentenced to death — based on discredited scientific evidence would be given a new way to challenge their convictions under a bill passed this morning by the Texas Senate.

In recent years, an increasing number of arson and gunshot convictions in Texas have triggered alarm as new technology proved earlier evidence wrong, and convictions were cast into doubt — including at least one case in which the prisoner was executed.

The measure by state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, would allow discredited scientific evidence that figured in a criminal conviction to be considered by an appeals court in order to establish the innocence of a defendant...

Advancements in forensic testing — DNA, ballistics and arson — have led to new evidence being uncovered in several cases in Texas. Whitmire said that led him to file the bill, which clarifies how discredited scientific evidence can be used in court appeals.

In December 2008, we worked to overturn Jimmy Ates' conviction, based largely on fraudulent FBI bullet lead analysis. Since then, the National Academy of Sciences has issued a scathing report, decrying the sorry state of forensic science labs around the country.

We know well how junk science can contribute to a wrongful conviction – indeed, the Innocence Project in New York says that junk science contributed to over half of the nation's first 225 DNA exonerations. We applaud steps like these being taken in Texas, and hope that a new incredulity toward and accountability regarding forensic science will spread to other states and jurisdictions.

The Coverdell Grant Program for forensic science

The Innocence Project in New York recently released a report titled, "Investigating Forensic Problems in the United States: How the Government Can Strengthen Oversight through the Coverdell Grant Program." From the executive summary:

In 2004, Congress established an oversight mechanism within the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program, which provides federal funds to help improve the quality and efficiency of state and local crime labs and other forensic facilities.

[...] Nearly five years after Congress passed legislation to help ensure that forensic negligence or misconduct is properly investigated, extensive independent reviews show that the law is largely being ignored and, as a result, serious problems in crime labs and other forensic facilities have not been remedied. In short, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP), which is responsible for the program, has failed to make sure that even the law’s most basic requirements are followed.

Yesterday, the blog for TheHill.com paraphrased some of the results of this study, and reiterated the Innocence Project's call for increased oversight or, rather, they called for the Obama administration to increasingly take advantage of the grant program that Congress created five years ago. One particularly egregious fact they quote is this: only 13% of designated oversight entities meet the federal law’s forensic oversight requirements. If you were a defendant, would you want to take a 1-in-8 chance that the forensic lab that processed the evidence in your trial was subject to proper oversight?

Finally, "Under new leadership, the Department of Justice can – and should – make sure crime lab problems are properly addressed, which will enhance the public safety and help prevent wrongful convictions." Remember, working to correct problems in order to preclude wrongful convictions is cheaper than housing wrongfully incarcerated individuals.


No sooner had The Hill run this post than Grits for Breakfast published some presentations from the public meetings held by the National Academy of Sciences, meetings held to address the problems plaguing forensic science labs around the country. They link to this presentation in particular that calls for forensic tests "to be as blind as possible, for as long as possible," and which contains the shocking graphic on common error rates linked above.

You'll notice that firearms and fingerprints, while among the most reliable forensic testing methods, still yield erroneous conclusions around 1-5% of the time. Some toolmark and bitemark tests, meanwhile, are reliable less than half of the time. That report also refers to several studies that found that, for example, when a scientist was provided with "context" for certain samples – context such as, "The suspect has already confessed, here's his hair and a hair from the crime scene" – that error rates were much higher. Those who conducted the psychological studies could induce false positives by giving false context, leading the forensic scientist to believe certain conclusions before they came to them independently.

All of these scientific studies point to the sad state of the crime labs in this country. Scientists might think so, but they are not immune to psychological tendencies – such as suggestibility – that afflict every human being. Independent oversight and common-sense reforms are the necessary solution to the problem.

Visit IPF's Website by clicking here; sign up to volunteer by clicking here; contribute to our work by clicking here.

The numbers on New Mexico's death penalty

In the wake of Bill Richardson signing the bill to abolish New Mexico's death penalty comes a study from attorney Marcia Wilson published in the New Mexico Law Review, "The Application of the Death Penalty in New Mexico, July 1979 through December 2007: An Empirical Analysis." Thanks to the Death Penalty Info Center for the link.

Some interesting numbers that show that, though Governor Richardon's stroke of the pen was unquestionably a moral victory, the simple fact was that New Mexico wasn't a particularly death-happy state like, say, Texas or Virginia:

Since 1979, in New Mexico:

• 211 death penalty cases filed
  
• 203 were resolved by the end of 2007
  
• 9 cases were dismissed before trial
  
• 47.8% of the resolved cases ended with a plea bargain and a sentence less than death
  
• 46.9% of the resolved cases went to trial
  
• 25% of the resolved cases had a penalty trial
  
• 15 people were sentened to death
  
• 2 defendants remained on death row still challenging their death sentence
  
• 1 defendant was executed (after dropping his appeals).

Monday Roundup

That has a strange ring to it.

You'll have to forgive me, I was in Durham, North Carolina this last weekend for the Full Frame documentary film festival. There were scores of intensely beautiful and moving films there, several that focused on human rights concerns around the world. But there were two in particular that are appropriate fodder for the blog:

• The Visitors follows a bus-full of women who travel from New York city upstate to visit their loved ones in prison every weekend. It was a powerful portrayal of love, devotion, and loneliness, as one of the women remarks, "I'm doing my time, too."
• Unit 25 (Unidad 25) follows Simon Pedro, an Argentinian convicted of stabbing a man. What makes Simon's story interesting is that he has the right to choose where he will serve out his sentence. His family convinces him to choose Unit 25, which gives prisoners "relief from customary prison horrors" in exchange for their embrace of Christianity while in prison.

I just discovered the website www.thousandkites.org, a dialogue project dedicated to reforming the criminal justice system, thanks to Twitter user @prettytoes.

Miguel Roman was exonerated in Connecticut after serving 20 years for a murder DNA now proves he didn't commit. He's the 235th person exonerated by DNA testing nationwide.

The Connecticut legislature's judicial committee voted to approve a bill to abolish the death penalty in that state. The bill will be sent to the floor for a vote. Connecticut and New Hampshire are the only two states in New England that still have the death penalty.

SentLaw reports that Ohio's death row is getting smaller, noting that the row shrunk by 15 people last year, either through executions or successful appeals. Related to that, Brett Hartmann was scheduled to die tomorrow in Ohio for a murder, but his execution was stayed. The three-judge panel that granted his reprieve specifically mentioned that they were awaiting the outcome of Osborne in the Supreme Court, which will determine whether inmates have the right to post-conviction DNA testing.

Finally, as you probably already know, Iowa's Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional. (File this loosely under Constitution and it's okay to blog about it here.)

Jim Webb takes courageous stand on prison reform

In my Friday roundup, I mentioned Jim Webb's introduction of the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009, which seeks to establish a commission "made up of recognized criminal justice experts, and charged with examining a range of policies that have emerged haphazardly across the country and recommending reforms. In addition to obvious problems like sentencing, the commission would bring much-needed scrutiny to issues like the special obstacles faced by the mentally ill in the system, as well as the shameful problem of prison violence." (NYT)

The bill represents a tremendously courageous act on his part. Glen Greenwald over at Salon.com explains why that is in a lengthy post that is well worth a read:

It's hard to overstate how politically thankless, and risky, is Webb's pursuit of this issue -- both in general and particularly for Webb. Though there has been some evolution of public opinion on some drug policy issues, there is virtually no meaningful organized constituency for prison reform. To the contrary, leaving oneself vulnerable to accusations of being "soft on crime" has, for decades, been one of the most toxic vulnerabilities a politician can suffer (ask Michael Dukakis). Moreover, the privatized Prison State is a booming and highly profitable industry, with an army of lobbyists, donations, and other well-funded weapons for targeting candidates who threaten its interests.

Adds Greenwald,

After decades of mindless "tough-on-crime" hysteria, an increasingly irrational "drug war," and a sprawling, privatized prison state as brutal as it is counter-productive, America has... become what Brown University Professor Glenn Loury recently described as a "a nation of jailers" whose "prison system has grown into a leviathan unmatched in human history."

It is the existence of this detestable myriad of reasons that brings the cause of criminal justice reform into higher relief. We have been supporters of criminal justice commissions for some time, but it is the realization of our wildest dream that a national reform commission should be formed under the leadership of an intrepid first-term Senator.

The New York Times has thrown their unequivocal support behind the bill with an editorial on Sunday. Ryan Grim authored a piece at the Huffington Post that lays out the bipartisan support that has quickly formed behind the bill, including that from senior Democrats, libertarian pundits, and traditional conservatives as well. Observes the New York Times, "Judging by the bipartisan support in the Senate, a national consensus has emerged that the criminal justice system is broken."

To visit Senator Webb's official page on the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009, click here.

Visit IPF's Website by clicking here; sign up to volunteer by clicking here; contribute to our work by clicking here.

Friday Roundup

A few good items in today's news.

For one, I've been blogging a lot lately about nascent death penalty reforms around the country and around the world. A Maryland bill I blogged about earlier harshly restricting the application of the state's death penalty has passed the state's House. Governor O'Malley has indicated he will sign the bill.

GenPop has a pretty outrageous post about the unfortunate citizens of tiny Parke County, Illinois, population approximately 17,000. The county was forced to raise taxes on its citizens in order to try a death case, costing in excess of $500,000. As Courtney points out,

Imagine being anti-death penalty in that county. Imagine being anti-death penalty and someone who's already suffering financially because of the state of today's economy, and having your taxes raised to put someone to death. That is so backward, barbaric and wrong.

A study by the ACLU of Northern California has concluded that "The 11 new additions to [California's] death row add almost $1 million to the annual cost of housing people on death row, now totaling $61.2 million more each year than the cost of housing in the general population." Speaking of an unfair burden levied iniquitously on the citizens of California, "of California’s 58 counties, only 10 counties accounted for nearly 83% of death sentences for 2000 to 2007, and 30 counties had not had a single death sentence since 2000." That means one half of the counties are forced to pay into a system they haven't used in almost 10 years, so that a minority of the counties can put their convicts to death.

Senator Jim Webb of Virginia introduced landmark legislation yesterday to create a blue-ribbon commission tasked with comprehensively examining every aspect of the criminal justice system. SentLaw and Change.org have more. Kudos to Senator Webb. Adds Change.org, "Calling our prison system a 'national disgrace,' Webb says 'we are wasting billions of dollars and diminishing million of lives.' Amen."

Finally, congratulations to Innocence Project founders Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. They are being awarded the 2009 Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law this April.

The Thomas Jefferson Medal in Law and its counterparts in architecture and civic leadership are the highest external honors bestowed by the University [of Virginia], which grants no honorary degrees. The awards recognize the achievements of those who embrace endeavors that Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence, third U.S. president and founder of the University of Virginia — excelled in and held in high regard.

New Hampshire House votes to repeal the death penalty, but...

USA Today reports that the New Hampshire House of Representatives has voted to repeal the death penalty. However, "Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, is certain about the death-penalty repeal: He said he would veto it if it reaches his desk." You can call Governor Lynch at this number: (603)271-2121 or email him here and tell him to follow the example of New Mexico and the rest of the civilized world by supporting the abolition of state-sponsored murder.

More developments on the death penalty

Last week, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico signed HR 285 to abolish the death penalty in that state. Here are two more interesting developments in New Mexico, and one worldwide.

First, the Death Penalty Info Center has the details from a cost assessment that was prepared before New Mexico's legislature voted on HR 285. Despite the tiny but stubborn segment of the populace that still believes executing prisoners is cheaper than condemning them to life in prison, the report's unambiguous conclusions join the chorus of received wisdom that indicates that, in fact, implementing the death penalty is hugely expensive.

Citing just one part of the death penalty process, jury selection, the report noted, "Jury selection is a long, arduous process that potentially touches on the constitutional and religious rights of New Mexicans, and costs at least four times as much as a non-death first-degree murder case."

Secondly, Sentencing Law and Policy relays a news story about a New Mexico Sheriff looking into reinstating the death penalty by putting a "reverse referendum" on the ballot that would put the issue to the voters.

Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White is looking into the possibility of petitioning to put the repeal of New Mexico's death penalty before the voters.

White said Thursday he's looking at a "reverse referendum" after the 2009 Legislature passed and Gov. Bill Richardson signed a measure that replaces lethal injection with life in prison without possibility of parole. The new law will apply to crimes committed as of July 1. "I think there's a lot of support out there" for an effort to reinstate the death penalty, the sheriff said.

That didn't take long.

Finally, Amnesty International released its annual report on capital punishment around the world. From the report:

Europe and Central Asia is now virtually a death penalty free zone following the abolition of the death penalty in Uzbekistan for all crimes. There is just one country left — Belarus — that still carries out executions.

In the Americas, only one state — the United States — consistently executes. However, even the USA moved away from the death penalty in 2008. This year, the smallest number of executions since 1995 was reported in the USA.

Read Amnesty's full report here.

New Mexico votes to abolish death penalty

The biggest story coming across my desk this morning is the news of the New Mexico legislature voting to abolish the death penalty. Governor Bill Richardson is asking for public input on whether to sign the bill, and he has established a hotline to take calls.

The number is (505) 476-2225. According to DKos, "The number will record your request. There is no human being on the phone, just a recorder."

And according to TalkLeft, "If you are near Santa Fe, the Governor is holding meetings with the public tomorrow from 2:30 to 5, first come-first serve...you get five minutes with him to tell him your position."

From an article in the New Mexico Independent newspaper:

From a political standpoint, there’s every reason in the world for him to sign the bill and few reasons for him to veto it.

The New Mexico Senate sent House Bill 285, sponsored by state Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque, to the governor today on a vote of 24-18. It’s the most significant legislation to head the governor’s desk so far this session.

Richardson put out a statement that says he’s still undecided on whether he’ll sign the bill.

“This is an extremely difficult issue that deserved the serious and thoughtful debate it received in the Legislature,” Richardson said. “I have met with many people and will continue to consider all sides of the issue before making a decision.”

If you'll excuse me, I have to go make a call.