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

A few tidbits from around the legalsphere this morning:

Change.org: This blog post reports on a recent study from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). The study shows how the litigation of "small crimes" – crimes like loitering, driving with a suspended license, and dog leash violations – that still carry a prison sentence (!) are clogging the courts.

"Every year literally millions of accused misdemeanants, overwhelmingly those unable to hire private counsel, and disproportionately people of color, are denied their constitutional right to equal justice. And, taxpayers are footing the bill for these gross inefficiencies."

SentLaw: A Pennsylvania inmate who maintains his innocence asks to be executed by the State, having grown exhausted from having multiple appeals denied.

Grits for Breakfast has their take on the Houston Police Department crime lab fiasco: "This is another example of a "team spirit" mentality that contributes to many forensic-based false convictions. Houston crime lab workers apparently weren't acting as scientists seeking independent answers but considered themselves part of the prosecution's team, omitting lab results that might not favor the side they wanted to win."

Simple Justice has a thorough piece discussing what Obama should be looking for in his Supreme Court nominee, now that Justice Souter is retiring.

Destroyed evidence in Manatee County, Florida raises eyebrows

Let's play a game called Count the Outrages.

Derrick Williams is serving a life sentence for a rape he says he didn't commit. The Innocence Project of Florida has taken an interest in his case and was in the process of investigating further about the possibility of testing a crucial hair when they were notified that the evidence has been destroyed. In fact, it was destroyed several years ago along with the evidence for as many as 4,000 other cases.

The reason? One of the evidence vaults for the Manatee County Sheriff's Office suffered a flood that led to an infestation of mold. Several thousand cases' worth of evidence was destroyed in 2003 – without the knowledge of the public defender's office or the lawyers for those inmates whose cases were affected. Now that the Sheriff's Office is moving the remaining evidence to a new storage facility, they are taking the opportunity to destroy as much surviving evidence "as legally possible."

Sheriff's Office spokesman Dave Bristow blew off any concerns about the impact this might have on those cases at issue. He said, "These were cases that had already gone through the system, or ones where the chances of solving them were slim and none."

I count three outrages.

First, why is evidence in Manatee County being stored in a place where it is even possible to be flooded? It's not often that the Gulf of Mexico lurches inland several hundred feet. If this were the result of a hurricane, it might be understandable, but it apparently wasn't. Store vital biological evidence inland. Store it in a cool, dry place. Store it in a waterproof chamber. Store it off the ground level. Or face justified accusations of negligence.

Second, it took the Sheriff's Office six years to come clean about the destruction of this evidence. That, in itself, is reason to believe that if the Innocence Project of Florida had never made an inquiry into Williams' case, we would never know what happened to his – or the other – evidence. When did they plan to tell the lawyers for these inmates, or the inmates themselves? Since they let it lapse for six years, it doesn't seem like the loss of evidence in 4,000 cases was a big deal for them.

Third, it's crassly irresponsible to ignore the post-conviction possibility of exoneration for these affected cases. Frankly, it's unacceptable to write them off as if the book has been closed on them and then destroy evidence that you are, by law, required to preserve. We know in at least one of the cases that Manatee County might have had an exoneration on its hands. And on top of that, it appears it was flat out not true that these were all case-closed: "Some of the destroyed evidence was also from unsolved cases, including homicides. Sarasota Police recently made an arrest in a murder from 30 years ago based on DNA and fingerprints from evidence collected at the crime scene."

See these articles for more:

• Destroyed evidence surprises Manatee lawyers in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune
  
• Flood damage to evidence being assessed in the Bradenton Herald

Update from Seth Miller: I count a fourth outrage. It appears that they are destroying more evidence as they move to a new storage facility. In 2006, the Florida Legislature amended the post-conviction DNA testing law to require evidence-holding agencies to preserve physical evidence that may contain DNA for the length of the sentence or for at least sixty days after an execution in a death penalty case. Are they destroying evidence that could still have biological evidence on it despite the mold? Are they destroying evidence that they deem not to matter anymore that wasn't damaged by the flood? These key questions need be answered.

Take, for example, the case of the court and police evidence rooms for Orleans Parish, which were completely flooded and left to mold in the summer heat of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans is under sea level to begin with and practically the only thing that was kept under ground were the evidence rooms at the court and the police department. The rising waters affected both old and new evidence.

There are major problems with the way the local authorities handled the evidence as the New Orleans police removed evidence from that room, let it dry out in a dry place, and then simply put it back in the once moldy room. But the court, at least, removed the evidence, did not destroy any of it, and now stores the evidence in a climate-controlled facility well above ground. Additionally, defense, prosecutor, law enforcement, and court officials have come together to think about better ways to preserve evidence so it can maintain its integrity for future use and be easier to locate. As messed up as New Orleans is today, over three years since Katrina, the Manatee Sheriffs could learn a thing or two about how handle natural disasters and avoid destruction of evidence in the future.

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

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.

Troy Davis denied appeal by 11th circuit

Troy Davis was convicted of murdering a Savannah, Georgia, police officer in 1989. Since then, seven of the nine eyewitnesses who testified against him at trial have either recanted or contradicted their testimony. Still, Davis sits on Georgia's death row.

On Thursday, the 11th Circuit denied Davis' request to file a second habeas petition. However, Davis was originally scheduled to be executed in October of 2008. His execution has been stayed again, for another 30 days, to give him time to prepare an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

From Change.org:

Troy Davis faces execution for the murder of Police Officer Mark MacPhail in Georgia, despite a strong claim of innocence. 7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted or contradicted their testimony, no murder weapon was found and no physical evidence links Davis to the crime. The Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles has voted to deny clemency, yet Governor Perdue can still exercise leadership to ensure that his death sentence is commuted. Please urge him to demonstrate respect for fairness and justice by supporting clemency for Troy Davis.

We urge you to sign Amnesty International's petition on Change.org here.

More explanation from the Death Penalty Info Center:

In a 2-1 decision, the court held that Troy Davis could have presented most of his new evidence earlier and that the evidence did not offer clear and convincing proof of his innocence. Hence, the court did not consider his free-standing claim of innocence on its merits, but concluded it was barred because of the delay in filing. . . Judge Rosemary Barkett dissented, saying, "The concept of punishing an innocent defendant with the penalty of death simply because he did not file his papers as early as he should have is draconian. . . . where a defendant who can make a viable claim of actual innocence is facing execution, the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception should apply and AEDPA’s procedural bars should not prohibit the filing of a second or successive habeas petition."

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has coverage here.

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

UPDATE II: CBLA Amicus Brief

On Tuesday, IPF received the good news that the Florida Supreme Court sent the case of Thomas Wyatt, a death-row inmate, back down to the trial court for a new hearing on the Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis issue and the jailhouse snitch issue in Mr. Wyatt's case.

This was particularly important because they instructed the lower court to have a hearing on whether the CBLA testimony given at trial against Mr. Wyatt sufficiently prejudiced his trial given the fact that the FBI issued a letter recently saying that its testimony was false and not supported by science.

This ruling preserves the case-specific FBI letters as the paramount newly discovered evidence in these CBLA cases.

You can learn more about CBLA by reading this Washington Post article from 2007 or by reading our amicus brief by clicking here.

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

Update: Wyatt v. State Amicus brief

On Thursday, April 2nd, the Innocence Project of Florida, along with The Innocence Network, filed an amicus curiae brief with the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Wyatt v. State of Florida. IPF is urging the court to allow inmates, including Mr. Wyatt, the opportunity to present to the trial court recently received letters from the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicating that its agents gave false and misleading trial testimony regarding Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA). The press release we posted earlier is now available for download by clicking here, or you can read the brief we filed by clicking here.

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

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.)

Friday Roundup

A busy week in the world of criminal justice. Let's see if we can cover the highlights succinctly.

• Today, New Mexico's Senate is discussing HB 825, which would abolish the death penalty in the state. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) will be liveblogging the event.
  
• Yesterday, South Dakota became the 45th state to enact legislation giving inmates the right to post-conviction DNA testing... And then there were five. (Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Massachusetts and Alaska remain.)
  
• The Obama administration for the first time in Federal court opposed the claims of torture victims at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, claiming that aliens held at the camp had no due process rights. Not the move we would like to see from the President of Hope™ and Change™.
  
• Joeseph Fears became the eighth person in Ohio to be exonerated by DNA evidence and the 234th nationwhide. "[Ohio] State Sen. David Goodman introduced a bill yesterday seeking improved access to DNA testing, a requirement to record all interrogations and reforms to eyewitness identification procedures."
  
• From the Sentencing Project, Congressmen Steve Cohen (TN-09) and John Conyers (MI-14) have introduced legislation to study the racial disparities in the legal system:
  

  The advisory group would be responsible for gathering data on the presence, cause, and extent of racial and ethnic disparities at each stage of the criminal justice system. Each of the advisory groups would recommend a plan, specific to each district, to ensure progress towards racial and ethnic equality. The U.S. Attorney will consider the advisory group's recommendations, adopt a plan, and submit a report to the Attorney General. The Act requires the Attorney General to submit a comprehensive report to Congress at the end of the pilot program, outlining the results from all ten [pilot] districts and recommending best practices.

  
  
• In a laudable move, the DA in Harris County, Texas (which contains Houston), has ordered DNA testing in every case where biological evidence is available. A solid step toward the prevention of wrongful convictions, even if there is still much to be done.
  
• Finally, Bernie Madoff is, as you know, going directly to jail without passing GO.

LA Times asks for right to DNA testing in Osborne ruling

On Saturday, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial that began:

Contrary to what viewers of "CSI" might believe, not every criminal case can be resolved by DNA evidence. Even so, DNA testing has exonerated more than 200 convicted defendants. This week, the Supreme Court was asked to rule that access to DNA information is a constitutional right. The court must say yes.

Something that is at the heart of this matter is whether "a defendant convicted after a fair trial has a constitutional right to challenge that conviction on the grounds that he is innocent." It seems the answer ought to be yes. A mountain of procedure is in place that allows prisoners to challenge their sentence on technicalities or Constitutional violations, but they are in place as a means to securing a new trial, the object of which is to establish guilt or innocence. It seems to me that, if establishing guilt or innocence is the object of the criminal justice system – which it is – then it ought to be especially sensitive to claims of actual innocence, even after a jury has been convinced, and it is still extremely hard to obtain a new trial with "only" a claim of actual innocence.

Opening the flood gates is a serious concern in some circumstances, and the procedures in place were put in place to preempt just that possibility, by making sure that it's not every Tom, Dick and Harry that can make some noise to challenge their conviction. But, as the LA Times concludes, "The alternative is to say that a state may withhold evidence that could free a wrongly convicted person. That's an inconceivable interpretation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process of law."

Science Shows Jacksonville Man’s Innocence After 21 Years

For Immediate Release

Science Shows Jacksonville Man’s Innocence After 21 Years

Billy Joe Holton could become 2nd Man Exonerated from Duval County in Two Years

The Innocence Project of Florida (IPF) last week filed a Motion for a New Trial on behalf of Billy Joe Holton after DNA results revealed another man’s semen on the State’s key piece of evidence. If the motion is successful, Holton will become the nation’s 233rd DNA exoneree.

“These DNA results show that there was another man’s semen on the blanket used to cover the victim while she was raped,” said Seth Miller, Executive Director of IPF. “Since the victim said she had not had sex in six months and that she washed her blanket once a week, this means that the semen on the blanket could only come from the perpetrator.”

Holton and his former co-defendant Tim Smith were charged with raping a Jacksonville woman in the presence of her seven year-old son. The men became suspects after a jailhouse snitch implicated them in the crime. Holton was indicted with this crime despite the fact that the victim’s son repeatedly told police that Holton was not one of the perpetrators and that the victim told others she could not identify her attackers.

“The victim’s eventual photo ID of Holton was dubious considering that she was covered in the blanket throughout the attack, she had told her neighbor she did not get a good look at the men, and her own son told police that Holton was not the man who hurt his mom,” said IPF Staff Attorney Bobbi Madonna. “The DNA results from the blanket now prove what we suspected all along—Holton is actually innocent of this crime.”

On the eve of trial, the jailhouse snitch disappeared. The State, faced with having to drop the charges, offered Smith a sweetheart deal—testify against Holton and receive a reduced sentence. Smith, facing multiple life sentences if convicted, decided to take the deal.

“Smith had originally planned on putting on an alibi defense before agreeing to testify against Holton,” explained Miller. “Holton received three consecutive life sentences while Smith received time served. This is just another reason to trust science over testimony in a case where the witness has everything to gain.”

IPF called on the State Attorney’s office to work with them to see that justice is done. “We have exonerative DNA evidence, and it is our hope that the State will partner with us to bring an end to Mr. Holton’s wrongful incarceration,” said Miller.

The Innocence Project of Florida (IPF) is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to finding and freeing innocent people in Florida prisons. IPF and Jacksonville criminal defense attorney William Sheppard represented Billy Joe Holton to obtain his DNA testing and continue to represent him to achieve his release from prison.

# # #

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

Arson convictions "feeling the heat"

The recent report from the National Academy of Sciences tore into traditional forensic techniques used to analyze cases of arson, among other sciences. But it is not the first time that fire science has met resistance from experts in the field, or scientists outside it. An article in Miller-McCune magazine has a lengthy article detailing arson science's somewhat troubled history.

Even though much of the science has been discredited, Phoenix Attorney Larry Hammond points out the difficulties of getting a conviction overturned.

"Our legal system is designed to foreclose post-conviction review," [Hammond] noted, "and it does frustrate, and has frustrated, many of these cases." Attorney Walter Reaves, who works with the Innocence Project of Texas, agreed: "You have to convince a court that it is (newly discovered evidence), and then you have to convince them to actually listen and hear it."

DNA is the undisputed gold standard for exonerations, a virtually unassailable magic bullet. But arson convictions are a new frontier for exoneration work, and they are qualitatively different. If you find a bullet or knife in a dead man's back, no one disputes that a crime has taken place. Fires, however, are not so simple.

I found this following quote especially egregious:

Arson is the only crime for which someone can receive the death penalty based on the testimony of an expert witness whose education ended with high school.

And the article discusses possible suggestions for fixing the problem.

Common themes emerge when discussing reforms. One hot topic is the routine dependence on negative corpus evidence —simply put, investigators rule out electrical faults and exploding coffee pots, for example, rather than rule in evidence of how a fire did in fact start. So rather than a more accurate description of "cause undetermined," fires are often called arsons based on investigation by exclusion.

To veteran investigator Patrick Kennedy, that practice is unethical and immoral. "I don't know what it is, so it must be arson?" he said. "That is a pretty poor reason to kill somebody."

Friday Roundup

Arguments at the Supreme Court begin in Osborne on Monday. Today the New York Daily News has an article calling Alaska's refusal to grant post-conviction DNA testing "shameful."

The state admits that a DNA test now would be conclusive as to whether or not Osborne is guilty. But Alaska has no statute entitling anyone to post-conviction DNA testing, and the prosecution has simply refused to give Osborne access to the evidence. Instead, Alaska has fought tooth and nail to deny Osborne that access, in a decade-long legal battle that will soon culminate with a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. The state's position has been endorsed in "friend of the court" briefs filed by the federal government, 31 individual states and the New York City Corporation Counsel...

Given the numerous cases in which new evidence, including DNA evidence, has exonerated those who like Osborne seemed very likely guilty, a prosecutor owes it to the public to be open-minded with respect to requests like Osborne's. If such testing had, in 1997, shown that Osborne was guilty, it would have done no harm - and indeed saved the Alaska taxpayers a huge litigation bill. If Osborne had been shown to be innocent, he could have been released.

More links regarding Osborne can be found here and on SCOTUSblog here.

An interesting post for all those who love numbers and statistics – like I do – went up at TalkLeft that exposed some interested line items in President Obama's stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The post called out money appropriated for criminal justice "lock-em-up" programs:

• Violence against women prevention and prosecution programs $225,000,000
  
• Southern border and high-intensity drug trafficking areas $30,000,000
  
• ATF Project Gunrunner $10,000,000
  
• Internet crimes against children initiatives $50,000,000
  
• Rural drug crime program $125,000,000
  
• Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants $1,000,000,000
  
• Justice Department salaries and expenses for administration of police grant programs $10,000,000
  
• Office of Justice Programs state and local law enforcement assistance (Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants) $2,000,000,000

Finally, several more posts covering the movement to abolish the death penalty, which is picking up steam in many states.

• Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing: Tennessee Study Committee Issues a Report
  
• The New York TImes: Citing Cost, States Consider End to Death Penalty
  
• A map and infographic of states with and without capital punishment on Change.org.
  
• TalkLeft: States Consider Dropping Death Penalty.

NEWS REPORT: DNA Testing Granted in Pasco County Death Case

On December 19, 2007, a Pasco County judge granted Samuel Jason Derrick post-conviction DNA testing on evidence in this case. From the December 28, 2007, St. Petersburg Times story:

Derrick, his family and his lawyers hope the latest advances in forensic technology will exonerate the 40-year-old Moon Lake man in the 1987 murder of storekeeper Rama Sharma.

"I'm just thankful that the truth is going to come to light," said Derrick's former wife, Cherie.

A bloody remnant of a white T-shirt, a partially eaten hot dog, blood found under a picnic table and scrapings from the victim's fingernails will all be tested, the judge ordered Dec. 19. The defense's hope is that viable DNA can be recovered from the evidence that will implicate someone other than Derrick in the stabbing murder of Sharma.

Derrick has maintained his innocence since he was arrested for this 1987 murder and has spent half of his 40 years on this planet in prison, on death row. Previous DNA testing on fingernail scrapings was performed in 2002 but didn't yield a result. Derrick's attorneys hope that the more exacting Y-STR DNA testing now used will yield an excluding result this time around:

The fingernail scrapings were tested in 2002 but gleaned no DNA profiles, the defense motion said. But they could still yield something to a more sensitive DNA test called Y-STR now available, according to the defense motion, that "targets genetic markers found on the Y-chromosome, which only males possess."

"It's really vital that we use Y-STR or one of the really cutting- edge tests that have been developed," said Alba Morales, Derrick's Innocence Project attorney. "Because it really improves the chance of getting a result from what is by now a fairly degraded sample."

Mr. Derrick is represented pro bono by Alba Morales of the New York Innocence Project and appointed attorney Harry Brody.