James Bain Exonerated After 35 Years of Wrongful Incarceration

This morning Christmas came early for James (Jamie) Bain when a judge in Polk County vacated his conviction and dropped all charges against him. Jamie had been in prison for 35 years for a crime that DNA testing proved he didn't commit. He was only 19 years old when he went into prison and today he walks out a 54-year-old man.

Jamie submitted handwritten motions four times seeking DNA testing, but he was denied each time. He was denied the fifth time, too, but an appeals court overturned that denial. The Innocence Project of Florida (IPF) stepped in to assist Mr. Bain, and he was finally able to get the DNA testing he'd wanted for so many years, and which ultimately proved his innocence.

Jamie Bain is looking forward to seeing his mother in Tampa, and spending the holidays as a free man with his family. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

Watch CNN video of the press conference immediately following Jamie's release.

New Website and Blog for the Innocence Project of Florida!

It's a good day at the Innocence Project of Florida, because I get to announce the launch of our brand new website and branding!

Our new logo features prominently the state of Florida with a dawning sun; the blue and yellow represent freedom, hope, optimism and light.

Our new website has launched over at http://www.floridainnocence.org/ and our redesigned blog can be found at http://www.floridainnocence.org/content/.

This represents the culmination of a lot of hard work on our part, we're absolutely ecstatic that we get to introduce you all to our new site, and we know that it will help us deliver information to the public, rally readers to the cause, and, ultimately, better accomplish our goal of freeing innocent people from Florida prisons.

Make sure you update your bookmarks for our blog, as this is the last post that we will put here on Blogspot. The old posts and comments have been moved over to the new website, and this blog is being mothballed.

Thanks for being a reader. We hope you enjoy our new site. Make sure to drop us a line if you have a comment or a question!

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.

Troy Davis waits in limbo

Troy Davis was granted a stay by the 11th circuit which ran out almost two weeks ago. He has filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States, but there is no telling whether they will take the case, and if they do, which way they will rule. It could be weeks or months before they make a move. In the mean time, Troy Davis waits in a prison cell, put there for a crime he almost certainly didn't commit. Seven of the nine witnesses who testified against him – the nine witnesses that composed the entirety of the prosecution's case – have since recanted or contradicted their previous testimony. Still, Troy struggles in vain to have this new evidence heard in a court.

As Troy's case continues to draw attention, eyes are focusing on the new District Attorney in Savannah, Larry Chisolm, Chatham county's first black DA. This article from the Los Angeles Times plays up the racial implications and tensions running through Troy's case now that Chisolm is in power. (Troy, a black man, was convicted of shooting an off-duty white police officer in 1989.)

Though the compelling nature of the evidence that entitles Troy to a new trial transcends racial boundaries, the LA Times does not overlook the complications stemming from Chisolm's race. The article quickly moves, however, to its main focus, which is whether DA Chisolm would have the power to intervene, should the Supreme Court render the expected denial.

[Chisolm] could ask the state parole board to postpone the execution and open a new investigation, as Davis' attorneys have requested. That would be a bold move for a rookie elected official: Both the Georgia Supreme Court and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Davis a new trial, in part because courts view recantations as inherently suspect.

Chisolm finds himself in a difficult place, likely to anger blacks with nonintervention but irk conservatives and whites should he interpose himself and intervene. The world waits on tenterhooks for Chisolm – or less likely, the Supreme Court – to do the right thing.

Bill Dillon on TV: Talking About Compensation

As it turns out, after the Florida Today story came out (Ryan blogged it earlier), many in the media rightfully realized that Bill Dillon's struggle to get compensated is an important story.

Bill Dillon will appear on local Orlando/Space Coast TV news tonight:

Channels 2 & 6 at 6:00pm; and
Channel 33 at 10:00pm.

Check it out!

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.

CBLA conviction overturned in Colorado

After the FBI in 2005 abandoned a faulty scientific procedure called comparative bullet lead analysis, by which they claimed they could match bullets from a crime scene to a specific box of bullets found somewhere else, a joint task force was created consisting of national organizations such as the Innocence Project in New York and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The Innocence Project of Florida was appointed as the "point office" for issues related to CBLA in Florida.

Last Sunday, the Associated Press wrote an article about Tim Kennedy, a Colorado man whose conviction has been thrown out, partly because of comparative bullet lead analysis. (You'll recall that Jimmy Ates, a client of the Innocence Project of Florida, was the first person in the nation to have his conviction thrown due to the FBI's disavowal of CBLA.)

During an interview Thursday at the Limon Correctional Facility on the Eastern Plains about 95 miles east of Denver, Kennedy cherished the thought of being a free man. Apart from spending time with his sister and brother, one of the first things Kennedy would do if he is freed is get a steak dinner...

At trial, the only physical evidence linking Kennedy to the crime was the FBI's comparative bullet lead analysis, which purported to be able to trace a bullet from a crime scene to a box of bullets in a suspect's possession. That technique has since been discredited as "exceeding the limits of science" and the FBI stopped the analysis in 2005.

Tragically, both of Kennedy's parents died within the last four years, so they will not get to rejoice in his release. But Kennedy has fond memories and nothing but gratitude for his parents' solidarity and support: "There are times when it brings you to tears when you think about how lucky you are, how things have worked out, how your family stayed with you... You know, I'll never forget my parents. They spent their life savings (on his defense). Even after that you know, they stuck with me through the rest of their lives."

A dissenting view...

I read Ryan's post this morning about the dignity of using state or county prisoners to do menial work on the side of the road like picking up trash or mowing the side of our roads and highways.

On first blush, I tend to agree that it certainly may be demeaning for some and it brings to mind thoughts of enslavement.

That being said, there is another view that goes something like this. For some who choose to take part in those work details, while it may be demeaning to have passerby's see you in your prison blues, it may also be an anticipated period where one can be off the barbed-wire-enclosed compound and instead out in an ever-changing free world, albeit for a few hours at a time. Some may choose that over standing around on the yard doing nothing all day or sitting in your cell reading the same book over and over again.

Also, I must say that Governor Crist, despite his nickname and his reputation as Attorney General, has been decent on innocence issues since he took over Florida's government in 2007; certainly better than his predecessor. While we should certainly criticize where it is due, we should also give credit where credit is due.

That's the sound of the men working on the chain gang

Driving to work a few days ago in Tallahassee, I passed not one, but two separate chain gangs picking up litter along the street. It was the first time in a long while that I had seen them.

It must have been a special day, because there they were, in their black-and-white striped Hamburglar outfits with reflective orange roadwork vests, picking up trash. Several of those temporary orange diamond signs warned drivers, "Inmates Working." Governor Charlie Crist earned his nickname "Chain Gang Charlie" this way. Here's a good recap, from the Chicago Tribune:

[Under Attorney General Charlie Crist, Florida] in recent years has resurrected the chain gang, built an additional 21 prisons and passed a law that requires prisoners to serve 85 percent of their sentences. In January, Gov. Jeb Bush called for the closing of state legal offices that represent inmates awaiting execution, a move that critics fear would speed the walk to death.

And from the St. Petersburg Times:

When Crist ran for attorney general in 2002, rivals called him unqualified and unethical. He was derided as a vacuous "Chain Gang Charlie" who advocated a return to roadside prison labor gangs, hitched free rides on corporate jets, flunked the Bar exam twice and practiced little law.

It got me to thinking, the armchair ethicist that I am. I might concede that people surrender certain rights when they commit crimes. (I'll ignore the possibility that these people are innocent, though it's a distinct possibility, as we know.) But the question is whether they surrender the right to a certain basic dignity.

We might seek a comparison with setting prisoners to work, say, making license plates. What makes that different? Well, here are some considerations. Prisoners are being held in private, they are not being made a spectacle of. They are contributing to the public good just the same, though I would argue in a more meaningful way by contributing government labor versus menial, bottom-rung tasks like picking up garbage. As well, singling out a handful of prisoners, as chain gangs do, adds a unique – and therefore unfairly apportioned – stigma to the experience of those few inmates, whereas making license plates was, as I understand, something a larger percentage of prisoners participated in.

There is something about being singled out, in public, to perform a menial and degrading task that all entails a singularly inhumane treatment of people that, while we might say are "bad people," are people nonetheless. Instead, the proposers and enforcers of such policies come off as degrading, barbarian and inexcusably insensitive.

Speaking for me only.

Economy forces tough-on-crime legislatures to temper their rhetoric

That is the subject of an excellent post on Change.org's Criminal Justice blog titled, "A Shift Away From 'Tough on Crime' in Florida." Because the economic downturn is even being felt by state governments – a falling tide lowers all boats, as it were – policymakers around the country are turning their attention to the massive costs America's out-of-control prison population. What are some fair and just ways to reduce the prison population? Is it focusing on rehabilitation for drug crimes, as Obama has signaled? Is it focusing on re-entry programs for ex-offenders, or perhaps lowering ridiculous sentences for non-violent crimes? Perhaps it is all of the above:

On Friday, Florida lawmakers passed a budget including an expansion of drug courts and rejected proposals to stiffen sentences for sex crimes and drug crimes. When Florida legislators pass on a chance for long sentences, something is going on... This year's cutbacks are hopefully the beginning of something bigger in Florida, where the expanding prison population has led to estimates of opening 20 prisons in the next five years.

We can certainly hope that this is the beginning of something good, that legislators won't turn around and re-think their sensible decisions just because they have the money to throw at private prison contractors again. Florida's prison population just passed 100,000 inmates, not counting those on parole or probation, or otherwise under the control of the Department of Corrections. With a number that astronomical, and with a gigantic budget hole to fill, it's time to think about starting to institute more fiscally – and morally – responsible sentencing policies.

Death Row Foes See Newsroom Cuts as Blow

On Thursday, the New York Times ran an article on their front page with the above title. The opening sentence read, "Opponents of the death penalty looking to exonerate wrongly accused prisoners say their efforts have been hobbled by the dwindling size of America’s newsrooms, and particularly the disappearance of investigative reporting at many regional papers." The idea being that, since the newspaper industry has faltered recently, the Fourth Estate has become weakened in its ability to assist death penalty opponents in an investigative and litigious capacity.

According to the Innocence Project, 238 inmates have been exonerated through DNA testing. Many of those were on death row, and some of those were freed thanks to the hard work of investigative journalists. Now that papers have less time and less manpower to spare, they see it as more of a burden to take on those kinds of projects.

Oftentimes, advocates would enlist the help of newspapers to file suits to obtain DNA testing, arguing under the First Amendment that the public's right to information meant that newspapers should be allowed to test evidence.

Also quoted in the article is our own Seth Miller, our Executive Director:

“The problem is that stories that were getting written three, four years ago that supplemented the legal work the innocence projects were working on, are just not happening,” said Seth Miller, the executive director of the Innocence Project of Florida.

This is an unfortunate result of the industry-wide downsizing of journalism and, as well, the economy in general. Something few people think about is how journalism impacts not only on the public's access to information and original, incisive reporting about important issues, but on wrongly imprisoned inmates' access to justice.

A visit from Bill Dillon

We had quite a treat a few days ago when Bill Dillon, a man we fought to exonerate, swung by the office. Dillon spent 27 years in jail for a 1981 murder he didn't commit until DNA testing proved his innocence and he was released in November 2008.

William Dillon inspects a photograph of his November 2008 exoneration that hangs in our office.

William Dillon speaks to our summer law interns on their first day in the office. What a way to start an internship!

Dillon spoke to our incoming class of interns for about an hour, telling the story of how he was wrongfully convicted, sharing his new outlook on life, and answering questions.

"Justice is a word... If you want the soul of justice to be there, you have to put it there." –William Dillon

I was actively scribbling notes when he would utter something unintentionally profound and moving. It's remarkable how Bill is so gracious and sincere, not at all bitter.

"It's not about living my life thinking about what happened, it's about thinking about what will happen." – William Dillon

Why President Obama should have Georgia on his mind...

The day after Amnesty International's Global Day of Action for Troy Davis, the Telegraph out of London runs an opinion piece by Neil Durkin on the possibility of an Obama pardon for Troy.

Durkin points to the centrism that Obama has come to embody in his first days in Office, straddling the line between hardcore death penalty opponents and reformers. Obama could be described as a pragmatist on this issue who can be pro-death penalty for some crimes, while fully acknowledging the flaws in the system that might lead to an innocent man being executed, something that no one should be for. For example, Obama championed important criminal justice reform while he was a state senator in Illinois, while avoiding ambiguity about whether he supported the death penalty.

So, why should this concern a popular president, burrowing through an enormous in-tray 500 miles away in Washington? Well, on the one hand Barack Obama is unambiguously pro-death penalty in what he calls the "most egregious" or especially "heinous" crimes. Last year he disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the execution of child rapists receiving death sentences and he's said he'd want Bin Laden executed. Okay, so far so what? This is no different from most mainstream politicians in pro-death penalty USA.

But, Obama is also heavily associated with Illinois where, as he delicately puts it, they "had some problems ... in the application of the death penalty". In fact, the problems included the then Governor George Ryan being confronted with the fact that during his governorship more death row prisoners had been released from prison on the grounds of innocence than had been put to death. Death row was running at "a loss". As a lawmaker in Illinois Obama helped introduce new measures for videotaping police interviews and he says he's "proud" of his role in "overhauling a death penalty system that was broken".

A presidential pardon or commutation for Troy would draw enormous attention and scrutiny. It would likely draw criticism as well. People are executed in the United States almost every day, though Durkin is right when he says that Troy has a particularly strong claim of innocence, or at least a strong claim of entitlement to a new trial. Troy's case has drawn so much attention – even from across the pond, as we see here – because it is so egregious. We will see if that moves Obama to action, though, for my part, I doubt it.

Deep Thought

The opening salvo of a post on SimpleJustice today:

The Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal makes me wonder, how did we go from public servants to government officials so monumentally important and distant from the people they purport to serve that they are beyond the reach of an ordinary person in a court of law?

Global Day of Action for Troy Davis

We have blogged repeatedly about Troy Davis, the Georgia convict on death row despite the fact that the case against him has completely disintegrated since his conviction. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, nor a murder weapon ever found, yet Troy Davis was sentenced to death on the testimony of nine eyewitnesses. Seven of those witnesses have since recanted or contradicted their original testimony under oath. (Think: would we sentence him to death today, with what we have now: two witnesses?)

Troy has been set, stayed, and re-set for execution three times. His most recent stay ran out this past Saturday.

Troy's case has garnered serious media attention, and rightly so. Amnesty International has adopted his cause as their own, and they have declared today a global day of action. See their website here for events in your community.

In Tallahassee, there will be a vigil on Landis green tonight at 7 o'clock. Spread the word, and we encourage all of our Tallahassee readers to show up and voice your support for Troy.

The New York Times supports access to DNA testing

Yesterday, the New York Times published an editorial to accompany their article on prosecutors' reluctance to grant DNA testing. The editorial called for states to pass laws granting access to DNA testing. Forty-six out of 50 states have such laws today, with the remaining four being Maryland, Alabama, Alaska and Oklahoma.

An excerpt from the Op-Ed, that sounds a lot like yesterday's article:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2006 that defendants have a constitutional right to introduce evidence of this sort of “third-party guilt” — the suggestion someone else committed the crime. Prosecutors often say they oppose DNA testing because it is burdensome, but testing requests are not that common. In many cases, prosecutors seem to be motivated by a desire to avoid having their work second-guessed by objective science.

The comments on the article from yesterday were surprisingly civil and one-sided. Most reflected outrage and disappointment at prosecutors' general refusal. This particular reader put it better than I could have:

It is absolutely amazing that the same prosecutors who want to collect DNA from everyone who comes into contact with the courts, including traffic law violators, refuse to use that same test to verify their convictions. Apparently prosecutors view DNA evidence as a great tool to fish for perpretrators and get convictions, but don't want it used to question their convict at all costs prosecutions. It is sad that prosecutors believe the judicial system is about closing cases instead of justice and truth.
— darter1, Columbus, Ohio (emphasis added)

SimpleJustice also has a great commentary on the article,

The excuses offered are silly, easily undermined by basic arguments, facts and the science itself. There is no good reason to refuse a convicted prisoner access to DNA testing. Even the slippery slope, that if they let one prisoner do it, every prisoner will want to if for no better reason than to take a shot in the dark. After all, they can't do worse than they already have. But this doesn't pan out either, both because there are so few DNA cases to begin with, and because it involves DNA testing on old cases, since new cases are having it done already as a matter of routine. Assuming the worst, it's just not much of a burden.

And so we get down to the bottom line of the issue squarely framed in the Times' article, yet wholly ignored. Who cares what the prosecutors have to say. Why aren't judges ordering these DNA tests? (emphasis added)

That's a good question, and totally unaddressed, as he said. Now, I do wonder that...

The value of finality

One of the systemic problems contributing to the problem of wrongful incarceration – besides wrongful convictions in the first place – is a fierce reluctance by the system and its constituents to overturn previous convictions. This is what we casually refer to as the value of finality. Courts are afraid of getting 'bogged down' with every claim of innocence or procedural error, so much so that they create daunting procedural hurdles to having an appeal heard. Add to that the resistance from prosecutors and DAs who are afraid of losing face when it is revealed that they had convicted the wrong person. A picture of the difficulty facing innocent imprisoned now beings to take shape.

Two articles came out just now, in the New York Times and USA Today that are related to this attitude that stands in the way of justice post-conviction. The New York Times' A1 story discusses prosecutors' reluctance to grant DNA testing:

A recent analysis of 225 DNA exonerations by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, found that prosecutors opposed DNA testing in almost one out of five cases. In many of the others, they initially opposed testing but ultimately agreed to it. In 98 of those 225 cases, the DNA test identified the real culprit.

I find this particularly insulting:

In Illinois, prosecutors have opposed a DNA test for Johnnie Lee Savory, convicted of committing a double murder when he was 14, on the grounds that a jury was convinced of his guilt without DNA and that the 175 convicts already exonerated by DNA were “statistically insignificant.” (emphasis mine)

Says the New York Times, "Defense lawyers also say the arguments ignore the proven power of DNA to refute almost every other type of evidence." I'm not sure what the "almost" refers to, unless it is, say, an autographed and notarized picture of the defendant committing the crime.

Also today, USA Today ran a story on A3 about Troy Davis. Davis has been on death row for 18 years, though the case against him has since collapsed. Simply put, the State is unwilling to grant Davis a new trial just because he has already been convicted once.

Davis' attorneys and advocates for the wrongfully convicted say his case, set for another U.S. Supreme Court appeal this week, represents one of possibly dozens in which courts are reluctant to consider evidence discovered after conviction that might exonerate inmates on death row.

Davis' stay of execution ran out on Saturday. You can visit Amnesty International's page on Davis here.

Friday Roundup

The office is abuzz today because William Dillon, our most recent exoneree from November 2008 is visiting. Dillon served 27 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. Fault eyewitness testimony, fraudulent science, and police misconduct led to his wrongful conviction. But in person, Dillon is as good-hearted and sincere as you could imagine; always remarkable how exonerees show no bitterness, only gratitude and optimism.

Here's what's going on around the Internet:

Matt Kelley of the Innocence Project and Change.org has a blog post about torture and wrongful convictions:

I work at the Innocence Project when I'm not blogging here at change.org, and many of our cases have shown the power of emotional and physical abuse from law enforcement officers to force someone to admit to something they didn't do. About 25% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA testing have involved a false confession or admission. If one-quarter of information gleaned from torture was false – leading to wrongful arrests and convictions and to costly goose chases – would Dick Cheney still say it was worth it?

Texas raises its exoneree compensation from $50,000 to $80,000 per year of wrongful incarceration. Exonerees will also receive 120 hours of paid tuition "at a career center or public college." They now compensate their exonerees more generously than any other state. Of course, simple money can't make up for lost years of a person's life. It can only serve to help them get back on their feet after years of being completely divorced from mainstream society.

Connecticut House of Representatives votes to repeal the death penalty by an impressive margin: 90-56.

Finally, the DailyKos features an early-morning publicity and fundraising drive for the Innocence Project in New York.

Who owns your genes?

Well, you might be surprised who owns your genes. The ACLU published an article yesterday in their Daily Kos diary that began,

Today the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. government’s practice of granting patents on human genes – specifically, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer... At this point, 20 percent of the human genome has been patented.

Besides the immediate shock – surprise and disbelief – I wondered what the ACLU's angle was, what claims in particular they made in their lawsuit. On what grounds could they contest the practice?

The ACLU released a statement from their President, Anthony D. Romero, found here, that contains this compelling point: "Knowledge about our own bodies and the ability to make decisions about our health care are some of our most personal and fundamental rights." Perhaps, then, it is a privacy issue, a nebulous right not expressly defined in the Constitution, but often believed to exist. Instead, the ACLU is actually attacking this practice on the grounds that it infringes free speech:

We believe this is a gross violation of First Amendment rights: individuals’ rights to know about their own genetic makeup, doctors’ rights to provide their patients with crucial medical information, and scientists’ rights to study the human genome and develop new treatments and genetic tests.

The magazine Wired also covered the story. I found this to be a good quote, but not a free speech concern:

“All identifying of differences, including those that are found in the future by anyone to correlate with an increased risk of cancer, are patented. Myriad did not create any of the differences found in the genes. Nature did,” said the suit, referencing patent holder Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City.

Again, from Wired: "Myriad, which had issued a cease-and-desist order to Yale University scientists researching the genes, said it would prevail in the case."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 is written to protect intellectual property. It reads: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Not a patent lawyer, but suing a world-class research university to stop them from exploring something that's inside many people by nature, I don't think, promotes the progress of science.

Paul House exonerated in Tennessee!

From the New York Times:

Prosecutors dropped charges against a former Tennessee inmate who spent 22 years on death row before new evidence cast doubt on his guilt. The district attorney said DNA tests presented “a reasonable doubt” about whether the former inmate, Paul House, 48, acted alone in the murder of a woman near Knoxville in 1985. “This is the day we’ve been waiting for 24 years,” said Joyce House, his mother. “The tears have been flowing, and I’ve been dancing.” In 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Mr. House was entitled to a new trial. He was released from prison in July and placed on house arrest. DNA from key evidence, including semen on the victim’s clothing and blood beneath her fingernails, does not match Mr. House. Prosecutors said in a petition that they still suspected Mr. House of murder, possibly with accomplices, but a judge accepted their request to drop the charges.

Congratulations to the Innocence Project in New York for their hard work.