Why is this man still in jail?

[newyorkguy]

It is hard to imagine why any innocent person would sign a confession to a murder for any reason. As in the case in the OP people wonder, 'Why in the world did he sign it?'

In the New York case I referred to the only real evidence they had against the defendant who, as it turned out, really was innocent, was a confession he signed. That foolish act cost him sixteen years of his life.

What happened was, this person was about seventeen years old at the time. He was questioned for hours. At some point late in the evening one of the detectives told him that if he would be willing to sign a confession they would let him go. The detective told him that police were sympathetic to his situation. That they didn't think he had really meant to hurt the girl, that they saw no point in "ruining his life" over this but they needed to "show our Chief" that they had identified the killer. He said the police told him, "We do this a lot," let people go after they confess. That their primary aim was to make sure this kind of murder was an aberration, not the work of a serial killer for instance.

He said when they first told him this he thought it sounded ridiculous. But as the hours passed he began to wonder, "Maybe it's true, maybe they do this in some cases." The police kept telling him, if he would only "help them out" by signing a confession, he'd be home in ten minutes. They were very persuasive. He said one detective assured him that, "I'll tell the chief this was a mistake, you didn't mean to kill her. He'll understand, he's a good guy. Come on sign the confession; then I'll give you a ride home."

He said that finally he decided to sign it even though he knew it was a really bad idea. The detectives had written out a confession and all he had to do was sign his name. Of course once he signed the atmosphere changed dramatically. He didn't see the friendly detective again. One of the other detectives came in and told him he was being arrested. After questioning him for hours now they didn't want to talk to him anymore; they had what they needed. He wasn't going home.

 

[Bob001]

It is hard to imagine why any innocent person would sign a confession to a murder for any reason. As in the case in the OP people wonder, 'Why in the world did he sign it?'
.....

In this case here is the reason:

When Tony refused, one of the detectives crouched before him and pressed his nose against Tony's, telling him that he'd pull his eyes out and skull**** him. The other detective stood behind him, hands pressed against Tony's neck. Panicked, Tony signed or initialed where they told him, though they wouldn't let him read what was on those pages.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture...ill-in-jail-tony-wright-philadelphia-20150302

This was after hours of brutal interrogation. I'm a lot older and more worldly than this guy, and I'd probably sign too. The thought process would be "I'll do anything to get out this box, and I'll fix it tomorrow." But a signed confession can't be fixed.

 

[newyorkguy]

This was after hours of brutal interrogation. I'm a lot older and more worldly than this guy, and I'd probably sign too. The thought process would be "I'll do anything to get out this box, and I'll fix it tomorrow." But a signed confession can't be fixed.

Any rational person would have a serious concern they might be seriously hurt by Philadelphia police. From the Rolling Stone article:

Bill Marimow, now editor-in-chief of The Philadelphia Inquirer, won a Pulitzer for uncovering dozens of cases in which suspects were taken to the basement of police headquarters, threatened with pistols or brutally beaten to sign confessions — some taken to emergency rooms with cracked skulls and broken jaws before being wheeled back to booking.

A serious head injury like a fractured skull is an injury that can cause lasting problems. Risking that kind of injury by resisting police efforts to make you confess to a crime you know you didn't commit is a choice no one in a civilized country should be forced to make. I think a big part of the problem is society itself. There is even evidence in some of the posts here. For some reason many people don't see this as much of a problem. I guess it's the old, "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs." This police misconduct exists because society tolerates it. When and if that attitude ever changes then these practices will end.

 

[Bob001]

......
A serious head injury like a fractured skull is an injury that can cause lasting problems. Risking that kind of injury by resisting police efforts to make you confess to a crime you know you didn't commit is a choice no one in a civilized country should be forced to make. I think a big part of the problem is society itself. There is even evidence in some of the posts here. For some reason many people don't see this as much of a problem. I guess it's the old, "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs." This police misconduct exists because society tolerates it. When and if that attitude ever changes then these practices will end.

One easy fix would be to require videotaping of interrogations, and for judges to advise jurors that any claims by interrogators that were not supported by video could be considered suspicious. Of course, we frequently see videos of interrogations where cops intimidate suspects anyway, but videos might reduce the worst abuses.

I have sometimes wondered whether, in extreme circumstances, it might be possible to sign a confession in a way that would indicate it was coerced. Suppose you misspelled your own name, or included someone else's middle name? Or you signed John P. or D. Smith, and revealed later that "P" or "D" meant "under protest" or "under duress?" Would that carry legal weight?

 

[Dissolution]

One easy fix would be to require videotaping of interrogations, and for judges to advise jurors that any claims by interrogators that were not supported by video could be considered suspicious. Of course, we frequently see videos of interrogations where cops intimidate suspects anyway, but videos might reduce the worst abuses.

I have sometimes wondered whether, in extreme circumstances, it might be possible to sign a confession in a way that would indicate it was coerced. Suppose you misspelled your own name, or included someone else's middle name? Or you signed John P. or D. Smith, and revealed later that "P" or "D" meant "under protest" or "under duress?" Would that carry legal weight?

What about just signing it in a completely different way to your normal signature?
Would the police even check what it was supposed to look like?

 

[newyorkguy]

Given the way some of the criminal courts have operated, I doubt the defendant showing that he signed his name in a different handwriting or used a 'code' initial for his middle initial would make much difference. To be accepted as meaning anything legally it would probably have to be established in law ahead of time.

I have heard of cases -- many cases -- where defense lawyers show photos they took of the defendant immediately after arrest showing obvious facial injuries as proof the defendant's confession was forced.

In one case that was overturned years later, at trial in Chicago police detectives explained a defendant's injuries by saying the defendant beat himself up in order to try and invalidate his confession. To make it "look" like police beat the confession out of him. Of course they denied doing that. Juries have accepted that kind of explanation again and again. Why would they be impressed because a defendant signed a confession with a strange handwriting?

 

[Blue Mountain]

When law enforcement and prosecutors decide to believe someone is guilty they can be relentless. Unshakeable. <snip>

Many years ago, the CBC current affairs program the fifth estate did a piece covering cases like this. When asked about a person who was still in jail despite DNA evidence exonerating him, a prosecuting DA said (paraphrasing), "I don't see what your problem is. The guy's been convicted of murder. As long as the conviction is on the books he stays in jail."

 

[newyorkguy]

I saw a similar program on PBS. Where they interviewed a North Carolina Supreme Court judge who had denied a prisoner a rehearing based on a new DNA finding. She made a similar comment. She said the defendant had already had "his day in court." The interviewer asked, "But this new evidence indicates that he's probably innocent of this crime, doesn't it?" She answered:

"I don't know. That would be up to a jury. A jury has already heard his case and found him guilty. He also lost an earlier appeal. How many bites at the apple do defendants get? How many trials do the taxpayers of this state have to provide?"

In a subsequent interview a defense lawyer -- who I think was formerly a prosecutor -- said (I'm paraphrasing): "I hear that a lot. That a defendant has already had all that was legally due him. That if a defendant can show he was denied some or one of his due process rights even conservative judges will usually order a new trial. When it's new evidence that's been uncovered, that's a little different. The truth is, if you asked Americans, what is the bottom line in our criminal justice system? Is it that, all other issues aside, the guilty get punished, the innocent go free. That at the end of the day that's all that counts, almost everyone would agree with that except -the people who work in the criminal justice system."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Commission on actual innocence

newyorkguy,

North Carolina has a governmental organization, a commission on actual innocence, whose intent was to some extent to fill in this gap IIUC. Gregory Taylor was the first person freed because of this commission. Other states might do well to follow its model, or even improve upon it. MOO.

 

[Dissolution]

I saw a similar program on PBS. Where they interviewed a North Carolina Supreme Court judge who had denied a prisoner a rehearing based on a new DNA finding. She made a similar comment. She said the defendant had already had "his day in court." The interviewer asked, "But this new evidence indicates that he's probably innocent of this crime, doesn't it?" She answered:

"I don't know. That would be up to a jury. A jury has already heard his case and found him guilty. He also lost an earlier appeal. How many bites at the apple do defendants get? How many trials do the taxpayers of this state have to provide?"

In a subsequent interview a defense lawyer -- who I think was formerly a prosecutor -- said (I'm paraphrasing): "I hear that a lot. That a defendant has already had all that was legally due him. That if a defendant can show he was denied some or one of his due process rights even conservative judges will usually order a new trial. When it's new evidence that's been uncovered, that's a little different. The truth is, if you asked Americans, what is the bottom line in our criminal justice system? Is it that, all other issues aside, the guilty get punished, the innocent go free. That at the end of the day that's all that counts, almost everyone would agree with that except -the people who work in the criminal justice system."

Some of those involved in the system seem to get carried away with the winning and losing aspect of the current setup.
They "won" by having somebody found guilty, so why should that be taken away from them after the event?
That somebody's in jail for something that they didn't do and someone that should be in jail is walking free doesn't seem to enter into their thinking.

 

[Antony]

Guy got convicted of murder. Over a dozen years later DNA evidence showed that the bloody clothes were another guy's, which meant they probably weren't found in the original guy's closet.

Almost. The bloody clothes belonged to the victim herself! The cops walked into his mother's house (without a warrant), went to his room and planted them. Both Wright and his mother denied ever having seen them before.

Add to that the standard mix of questionable confessions, underpaid/undermotivated public defense attorneys, and the system that's not designed to correct those problems.

 

[newyorkguy]

The man incarcerated for a murder that it appears he did not commit, and the seeming reluctance of Philadelphia authorities to let him out of prison now that the real perpetrator has been apprehended, has a past involvement with Philadelphia police. Back in 1988, at age 16, Tony Wright was a high school dropout, running in the streets and using drugs. He was caught red-handed by police while burglarizing a relative's home. From the article in the OP:

Cornered in the house, he grabbed a plank of wood, shattering the jaw of an officer named Bohndan Fylystyn before fleeing the scene. He was arrested hours later, hiding on a roof..there were calls for Tony to be charged as an adult with the aggravated assault against a policeman. But he was lucky enough to draw Brad Bridge as his lawyer. Bridge, an appeals wizard at the public defender's office, managed to keep the case in family court, enraging the dozens of cops who Tony remembers coming to the hearing to demand an eye for an eye.

Although he later turned his life around there may have been some payback in his being charged in a murder case in which it appears police may well have framed him.

 

[a_unique_person]

Obligatory dig at SJWs and reference to St Michael.

Meanwhile an Australian mini series about police corruption based on true events, . They use all the same tricks.