Man freed after 20 years on death row

[Matteo Martini]

Just another story about a (possibly) innocent person spending about 20 years in the death row, for a crime maybe he has never committed.

If you are interested, read here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/07/freed.man.ap/index.html
and here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3075159.ece
and here:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvvefozsRsOo12wYC6nv8Zkw6NlAD8U19RHO0

Who knows how many other people are in the same situation now..

Some highlights of this story:

Ken Richey, who once came within an hour of being executed, walked free for the first time since he was convicted of setting an apartment fire that killed the toddler in 1986.

Richey was convicted of setting a fire that killed 2-year-old Cynthia Collins and stayed on death row until a federal appeals court determined in August that his lawyers mishandled his case.

The court overturned his conviction and sentence, saying expert testimony could have contended that the fire was an accident and not intentionally set.

“The State wanted him to plead guilty and he would not do that. They have agreed to drop murder, to drop the arson and took the most basic minor face-saving deal of no contest. There was nothing left for them to fight about.”

“It is a dreadful, inhumane and dehumanising system. If one man is off it, then remember there are hundreds of people in America still enduring that dreadful situation.”

"That's something I've got to do," he said. "There's still a lot of innocent people on death row that don't have a voice."

 

[BillC]

I watched a documentary on Richey many years ago. That documentary was then enough to convince me of his innocence, but I cannot remember how much attention and critical thinking I was then applying.

There are some contradictions that confuse me now, though. This news story says that his conviction was reduced to "attempted involuntary manslaughter", and that "in pleading no contest, the defendant concedes the charges alleged without admitting guilt".

Leaving aside any question of innocence or guilt, and what plea he may have felt driven to make to secure his release, how can anything that was attempted be involuntary, and how can one concede charges without admitting guilt?

It's the legal niceties I'm looking to have explained, not the details of this unfortunate case.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I watched a documentary on Richey many years ago. That documentary was then enough to convince me of his innocence, but I cannot remember how much attention and critical thinking I was then applying.

There are some contradictions that confuse me now, though. This news story says that his conviction was reduced to "attempted involuntary manslaughter", and that "in pleading no contest, the defendant concedes the charges alleged without admitting guilt".

Leaving aside any question of innocence or guilt, and what plea he may have felt driven to make to secure his release, how can anything that was attempted be involuntary, and how can one concede charges without admitting guilt?

It's the legal niceties I'm looking to have explained, not the details of this unfortunate case.

AFAIK, but I am not absolutely sure of this, "pleading no contest" means basically, you give away your rights to contest an accusation, but that does not mean you agree you are guilty.
More here:
http://ask.yahoo.com/20050420.html

 

[Rolfe]

It's some sort of US legal thing. He says he won't file any defence, without actually pleading guilty. They say, OK, sentenced to time served, and let him go.

He hasn't admitted guilt, which is what he wanted.

The authorities haven't admitted he was innocent, and (perhaps more importantly) they are now absolved from any lawsuit on his part for wrongful imprisonment, so they're happy too.

As best I can understand it anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[ceo_esq]

Leaving aside any question of innocence or guilt, and what plea he may have felt driven to make to secure his release, how can anything that was attempted be involuntary, and how can one concede charges without admitting guilt?

Heh heh. You're right that attempted involuntary manslaughter is contradictory, and some (I'm tempted to say most) U.S. states have held that this crime doesn't exist, given that required mental state for criminal attempt is a specific intent to commit the crime in question. However, some states allow a defendant to plea-bargain down to it, even though they acknowledge that an actual jury finding of "guilty of attempted involuntary manslaughter" would be subject to reversal. Just one of those strange legal fictions, maintained in some jurisdictions presumably due to its perceived utility in the plea bargaining context.

As for a plea of no contest (nolo contendere), it's really more a waiver of the right to trial and a consent to be punished as though guilty - the article probably shouldn't have used the term "concede", except to the extent that one could say a no-contest plea is often a concession by the defendant that the evidence is sufficient to result in a conviction if the case were to be tried. For most purposes (including, theoretically, sentencing purposes), it's identical in effect to a guity plea. But since underlying the no-contest plea is a refusal either to admit or contest charges, it can hold a certain face-saving attraction. The most significant practical legal distinction between pleading no contest and pleading guilty, however, has to do with subsequent civil litigation. A no-contest plea cannot be used against the defendant in a subsequent civil lawsuit (based on the same acts) as evidence that the defendant in fact committed those acts. A guilty plea, on the other hand, may be so used.

 

[Beerina]

AFAIK, but I am not absolutely sure of this, "pleading no contest" means basically, you give away your rights to contest an accusation, but that does not mean you agree you are guilty.
More here:
http://ask.yahoo.com/20050420.html

I thought it was "no contest" as in "there isn't a contest here", i.e. he acknowledges he has no hope in hell of not being found guilty.

 

[AgeGap]

KENNY Richey will "burn in hell" according to the aunt of Cynthia Collins, the two-year-old victim of the 1986 fire.

On the subject of American Justice the BBC had a programme about US prisoners who have been found innocent but remain in jail because their DA will not release them as it would be politically embarrassing.

What is going on there?

 

[danielk]

For once, Matteo, I agree with you.

 

[CFLarsen]

*kicks a few pebbles, hums "The Answer My Friend Is Blowing In The Wind" under breath*

 

[Rolfe]

This looks a lot like a case of "give a dog a bad name and hang him".

Richey is expected to touch down at my local airport any time now. The local paper's front page is covered in the story. Today's local radio news was full of predictions about how well (or badly) he'll cope with freedom. What isn't getting much mention is that so far as I can tell, he wasn't exactly an angel. "A tearaway" was one description. I understand his brother is currently in a US jail on a serious charge which is believed to be entirely justified.

I mentioned this to my mother while she was going dewey-eyed over the TV coverage last night. She was shocked. Well, I said, it's not usually the upper-middle-class well-behaved kids who find themselves in this position. But does any of that mean he's guilty? Or that any state is justified in killing him?

It all has to be black or white, according to the media. But it's seldom like that. Accepting that someone can be a complete waste of space and yet still be the victim of injustice is something that needs working on.

Rolfe.

 

[fuelair]

Try this for another view on arson and the law:

http://truthinjustice.org/arson-myths.htm

 

[Beerina]

KENNY Richey will "burn in hell" according to the aunt of Cynthia Collins, the two-year-old victim of the 1986 fire.

On the subject of American Justice the BBC had a programme about US prisoners who have been found innocent but remain in jail because their DA will not release them as it would be politically embarrassing.

What is going on there?

If a verdict is overturned on some technicality that doesn't involve the government doing Big Bad Wrong, the government can decide if they want to re-try the person. This would involve an estimate of the likelihood to succeed, the notoriety of the case, and how much time was served already (which would have essentially no effect on a murder case, see the second point.)

So in that sense, it's not really much different from the status of a prisoner before the first trial. For murder cases, the person frequently sits in jail since "death penalty", or "life in prison with no parole" make being a flight risk essentially a no-brainer.

 

[Beerina]

I couldn't blame the guy for jumping on a "no contest" offer that lets him walk free, forever beyond the ability of the government to re-try him for murder.

On the other hand, I wonder why the government didn't re-try him if the prosecutor truly thought he did it. Beyond the plea givining the DA another notch in his belt to brag about conviction rates, come election time, of course.

 

[krelnik]

My sister and her husband are involved in this sort of thing as case investigators. You would be amazed at how many people on death row were railroaded there.

My brother-in-law was instrumental in the case of Frank Lee Smith (covered on Frontline), unfortunately the poor guy died in prison before the truth came out via DNA testing. The cops knew of the right suspect, but kept persecuting Smith anyway.

He also helped Alan Crotzer get out after spending 25 years in prison. His website has tons of info on his case.

Both these guys were 100% innocent, but spent years in prison. There are hundreds of these cases, see The Innocence Project for more.

--Tim Farley

 

[Ranb]

I was looking at the Innocence Project website for some more information. I wanted to know how often their efforts support the conviction of a person instead of supporting his or her innocence. I only saw data on cases which supported innocence. Anyone have any info? Thanks.

Ranb

 

[danielk]

I was looking at the Innocence Project website for some more information. I wanted to know how often their efforts support the conviction of a person instead of supporting his or her innocence. I only saw data on cases which supported innocence. Anyone have any info? Thanks.

It's not their goal. No-one stops you from founding your own Guilty Project.

 

[krelnik]

I was looking at the Innocence Project website for some more information. I wanted to know how often their efforts support the conviction of a person instead of supporting his or her innocence. I only saw data on cases which supported innocence.

Well, as daniel pointed out they are trying to deal with a very specific problem in the justice system. Having worked with some of these lawyers myself, I'll tell you that they are not dummies. They know that most of the folks in prison really do belong there.

Perhaps a story will illustrate. My sister used to work at a government agency in Florida that existed to ensure that all death row inmates had legal representation. It was mostly created so nobody could get a stay of execution simply by arguing that they didn't have a lawyer. But the folks that worked there were personally against the death penalty, even though (paradoxically) they drew a state paycheck. I was there for a while to set up computers for them.

Mostly a "victory" in one of their cases consisted of "life without possibility of parole".

One of the cases came up where there was a slim possibility they could actually get the guy out. I remarked to someone that, oh, wouldn't it be nice if you could actually get this guy out of prison?

They immediately said, to my surprise, "Oh, no way. This guy belongs in prison." They explained that having worked with these guys, they long ago learned that most of them are so messed up from their childhood that there is very little possibility they could hack it in society. In most cases, the best place for some of them is in prison for the rest of their lives.

It really opened my eyes to what they did. I never expected an anti-death-penalty person to express that opinion.

I haven't worked directly with any of the Innocence Project people, but I'd venture to say they probably reject alot of cases after reviewing the facts, because there is really no chance the inmate in question is innocent. Lawyers like to win. They're not going to waste their time on a case they can't prove.

--Tim Farley

 

[balrog666]

Richey was convicted of setting a fire that killed 2-year-old Cynthia Collins and stayed on death row until a federal appeals court determined in August that his lawyers mishandled his case

Richey pleaded no contest to attempted involuntary manslaughter, child endangering and breaking and entering.

So he may not have started the fire but he did leave the child home alone? And the breaking and entering comes in where?


All I see here is a standard pragmatic trade of "time served" for no re-trial and no re-sentencing; no "innocence" involved, MM.

 

[Ranb]

It's not their goal. No-one stops you from founding your own Guilty Project.

I guess I was not clear. Has the Innocence Project ever tested DNA evidence and found that it did not support the defendant's claim of innocence? Or has every case they opened been a victory for the defense? I am not looking to make a Guilty Project.

Ranb

Edited to add; Thanks for the info krelnik.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's not their goal. No-one stops you from founding your own Guilty Project.

Hmmmmm....the wheels are turning.