The Cost of Overzealous Prosecution – The Continuing Saga of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal
The consequences continue to mount for outgoing Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. He has been disbarred. His departure from office has been hastened by the Sheriff taking Mr. Nifong’s badge and the keys to his office, per the order of a North Carolina Superior Court Judge. There are rumblings of possible criminal contempt charges against the D.A. and civil lawsuits by the wrongly accused Duke lacrosse players.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/19/prosecutor.disbarred.ap/index.html
Some, perhaps many, are celebrating the public downfall of the once outspoken D.A. I don’t begrudge anyone their right to celebrate, but I’m not sure celebration is the appropriate reaction to what has taken place. It’s all sad.
It’s sad that a prosecutor, apparently for political gain, so blatantly crossed the line and attempted to convict and jail young men who turned out to be innocent. It’s sad that innocent young men were paraded in front of the nation as lawless rapists. It’s sad that Duke University was so quick to cancel the lacrosse season and condemn their own innocent students. It’s sad that this case so starkly exposed that “innocent unless proven guilty” does not apply when it comes to public opinion and media coverage. You could even say it’s sad that a young woman was so troubled that she was willing to ruin the lives of innocent men by making false allegations – that impacted not just the young men and their families, but the university and the local community.
If you don’t think the word “sad” applies, you can substitute into that commentary string whatever term you feel is more appropriate; maybe “disappointing” or “outrageous” or “shocking.” The point is, this one case has raised some critical issues in the criminal justice system at large.
Do you believe this is the only case in which an overzealous prosecutor went too far to win a case? Or, are many of these injustices simply never exposed? Do you believe this is the first case in which an alleged victim made false allegations? Or, did the stars just align perfectly in this case to show what has happened across jurisdictions throughout the history of our legal system? In an identical case with less public exposure, economically disadvantaged defendants, and defense attorneys with less skill, experience and/or resources, what do you believe the outcome of this case would have been? Would three young men be sitting behind bars for the better part of the rest of their adult lives? Hopefully, this case has made you think. The cost of overzealous prosecution is rarely born by the prosecutor.
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Attorney Richard Stevens Returns from South Korea
I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) recently returned to the States from a trip to represent a military member serving in South Korea. This trip took me through Seoul, Osan AB and Kunsan AB.
Consistent with what we have found during all of the worldwide travel Frank Spinner (of counsel) and I have engaged in to represent American military members stationed across the globe, our military men and women stationed in South Korea are motivated, cohesive and represent the best of their generation. We salute all of you for your continued efforts and commitment in distant locations and for a job very well done.
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyerConsistent with what we have found during all of the worldwide travel Frank Spinner (of counsel) and I have engaged in to represent American military members stationed across the globe, our military men and women stationed in South Korea are motivated, cohesive and represent the best of their generation. We salute all of you for your continued efforts and commitment in distant locations and for a job very well done.
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.
Monday, April 23, 2007
200th DNA Exoneration - Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project
Below is a link to a blog post by Barry Scheck, who is the Co-Director of the Innocence Project. Mr. Scheck has just attended the exoneration of Jerry Miller, who has spent the last 26 years in prison based on a conviction for rape, robbery and kidnapping - crimes that he was innocent of.
Here is an excerpt from Mr. Scheck's blog post:
Jerry is 48 years old now. He has lost virtually his entire adult life to a wrongful conviction. And he is the 200th person in the United States who has been exonerated through DNA evidence…
…Combined, these 200 people have served about 2,500 years in prison - that's roughly a million nights in prison.
People often tell me they can't imagine anything worse than spending years or decades in prison for a crime someone else committed. The only thing worse would be to endure the horror of wrongful conviction and not have it count for something - to have society fail to learn the lessons of injustice and reform the system to prevent it from happening to anyone else.
The 200 DNA exonerations nationwide give us irrefutable scientific proof of the flaws in the criminal justice system. We look at every exoneration to determine what caused the wrongful conviction in the first place, and we see clear patterns. More than 75% of the wrongful convictions involved eyewitness misidentification (often cross-racial misidentification, and often from more than one witness); nearly two-thirds involve forensic science errors (from simple mistakes to outright fraud); 25% were based on false confessions (as the result of coercive interrogations or defendants' limited mental capabilities).
By identifying the causes of wrongful convictions, we can develop reforms that work…
Mr. Scheck's blog post, and his work on the Innocence Project, prove that terrible injustices occur in the American criminal court system. These 200 exonerations are only those that were, thankfully, discovered and righted. How many other erroneous convictions have occurred? How many more will occur in the future? The work of the Innocence Project is critically important, not just to the lives of the individuals saved by the dedicated people who are the Innocence Project, but also to the systems of criminal justice around our country.
In my previous blog post I answered the question "How can you defend them?" The successes of the Innocence Project, and stories like that of Jerry Miller, are just more examples of why we do what we do as defense attorneys. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who helped expose the Jerry Miller case. By "we all" I don't mean the community of defense lawyers, I mean Americans.
Here is the link to Mr. Scheck's blog post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-scheck/on-the-200th-dna-exonerat_b_46551.html
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.
Below is a link to a blog post by Barry Scheck, who is the Co-Director of the Innocence Project. Mr. Scheck has just attended the exoneration of Jerry Miller, who has spent the last 26 years in prison based on a conviction for rape, robbery and kidnapping - crimes that he was innocent of.
Here is an excerpt from Mr. Scheck's blog post:
Jerry is 48 years old now. He has lost virtually his entire adult life to a wrongful conviction. And he is the 200th person in the United States who has been exonerated through DNA evidence…
…Combined, these 200 people have served about 2,500 years in prison - that's roughly a million nights in prison.
People often tell me they can't imagine anything worse than spending years or decades in prison for a crime someone else committed. The only thing worse would be to endure the horror of wrongful conviction and not have it count for something - to have society fail to learn the lessons of injustice and reform the system to prevent it from happening to anyone else.
The 200 DNA exonerations nationwide give us irrefutable scientific proof of the flaws in the criminal justice system. We look at every exoneration to determine what caused the wrongful conviction in the first place, and we see clear patterns. More than 75% of the wrongful convictions involved eyewitness misidentification (often cross-racial misidentification, and often from more than one witness); nearly two-thirds involve forensic science errors (from simple mistakes to outright fraud); 25% were based on false confessions (as the result of coercive interrogations or defendants' limited mental capabilities).
By identifying the causes of wrongful convictions, we can develop reforms that work…
Mr. Scheck's blog post, and his work on the Innocence Project, prove that terrible injustices occur in the American criminal court system. These 200 exonerations are only those that were, thankfully, discovered and righted. How many other erroneous convictions have occurred? How many more will occur in the future? The work of the Innocence Project is critically important, not just to the lives of the individuals saved by the dedicated people who are the Innocence Project, but also to the systems of criminal justice around our country.
In my previous blog post I answered the question "How can you defend them?" The successes of the Innocence Project, and stories like that of Jerry Miller, are just more examples of why we do what we do as defense attorneys. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who helped expose the Jerry Miller case. By "we all" I don't mean the community of defense lawyers, I mean Americans.
Here is the link to Mr. Scheck's blog post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-scheck/on-the-200th-dna-exonerat_b_46551.html
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
“HOW CAN YOU DEFEND THEM?”
The Duke Lacrosse rape case should have been a wake-up call about many issues. One of those issues should be the role of the criminal defense lawyer.
“How can you defend them?” is a question all criminal defense lawyers have faced – from strangers, associates, friends and even family. The question is usually accompanied either by a look of disgust or a look of incomprehension; sometimes both.
We in the criminal defense community know why we do this. We know how much we care about the rights everyone in our society enjoys. We know that our job gives a voice to those rights and protects all of you from those rights being ignored. We in the criminal defense community know that we are trying to protect all of you from false allegations, false arrests, improper convictions and inappropriate sentences. We are the people who stand between you as an individual and the power and resources of the state/government.
Maybe it takes a highly publicized case like the Duke case to shake you to realize that false claims are made and people can be convicted, jailed, and have their life ruined for something they didn’t do. Criminal defense lawyers are the people who fight to prevent that from happening. We fight to ensure the system stays honest. There seems to be a general acceptance that if an arrest is made, or if a conviction occurs, it must be correct. Maybe now more and more people are realizing that isn’t so. I’m not suggesting you need to completely distrust the police, the prosecutors and the courts. I’m simply saying you shouldn’t so readily rush to accept their version. It is important to ask questions. It is important to presume innocence unless guilt is proven.
Here is a true story:
I (attorney Richard Stevens) had a young military client who was accused of a particularly heinous crime. He was placed into military jail (pretrial confinement) awaiting trial. He sat in his jail cell for nearly seven months waiting on his day in court.
The military investigators were convinced they had their man. He was guilty. The local prosecutors were convinced they had their man. He was guilty. The community was convinced they had their man. He was guilty. The base commander calmed the community’s fears about the crime by proclaiming that my client was behind bars.
I remember, like it was yesterday, visiting my client in jail to tell him the prosecution notified me they were considering making his case a capital case – they were considering asking for the death penalty if he was convicted. I will never forget his father looking me in the eyes and imploring me, as only a father can, “Don’t let them kill my son for something he didn’t do!”
The lead military investigator actually laughed at me when I raised some questions about the case. He saw my questions as ridiculous. They had their man. My defense co-counsel and I investigated this case as we would any case. We don’t prejudge our cases. We don’t choose when to work a case and when to let it slide. We talked to witnesses, we followed leads, we established a timeline. We began to poke holes in the investigation and the evidence. The pretrial hearing lasted for days. Witness after witness testified. The holes in the investigation and the evidence grew wider. As I cross-examined the lead investigator about these problems with the case, his disdain was obvious. The look on his face said, “How could you represent him? How could you try to undermine our investigation?”
After the pretrial hearing was over, the hearing officer addressed the problems with the case, but said there was sufficient evidence to go forward to trial. But, the questions we were raising about the case had the interest of the supervising government attorneys (above the local level). They didn’t jump to the conclusion that the case was solved. They demanded a new investigation – although the lead military investigator protested it.
(I think you all know where this is heading…)
A new investigation was launched. The next door neighbor was questioned. He started to act strange. He was questioned again. The neighbor confessed to committing the crime. The forensic evidence that had been collected matched the neighbor. The military investigators had been wrong! The local prosecutors had been wrong! The community had been wrong! Fast forward…
My client was released from military confinement. The neighbor was charged, convicted and is now serving life in prison. My client has since married and he and his wife have had a child. Just think how different the course of my client’s life would have been if we, as his defense attorneys, had accepted what the military investigator and local prosecutors were telling us? If we had prejudged our client’s guilt and just went through the motions instead of zealously defending him and pointing out the flaws in the case?
We were just doing our jobs. We were doing what we, and defense lawyers around the country, do every day and do in every case. We were zealously defending our client, and it turned out our client was innocent. We zealously defend all our clients – and we are too often maligned for doing this. Remember what I said above. The military investigator laughed at me for asking questions about the case.
Maybe next time you hear about a criminal case you will catch yourself before jumping to conclusions. Think about the story above. Think about the Duke Lacrosse case. Don't prejudge the case and don't pass judgment on the defense attorneys defending it.
Here is an interesting opinion by Jonna Spilbor:
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20070416_spilbor.html?cnn=yes
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.
The Duke Lacrosse rape case should have been a wake-up call about many issues. One of those issues should be the role of the criminal defense lawyer.
“How can you defend them?” is a question all criminal defense lawyers have faced – from strangers, associates, friends and even family. The question is usually accompanied either by a look of disgust or a look of incomprehension; sometimes both.
We in the criminal defense community know why we do this. We know how much we care about the rights everyone in our society enjoys. We know that our job gives a voice to those rights and protects all of you from those rights being ignored. We in the criminal defense community know that we are trying to protect all of you from false allegations, false arrests, improper convictions and inappropriate sentences. We are the people who stand between you as an individual and the power and resources of the state/government.
Maybe it takes a highly publicized case like the Duke case to shake you to realize that false claims are made and people can be convicted, jailed, and have their life ruined for something they didn’t do. Criminal defense lawyers are the people who fight to prevent that from happening. We fight to ensure the system stays honest. There seems to be a general acceptance that if an arrest is made, or if a conviction occurs, it must be correct. Maybe now more and more people are realizing that isn’t so. I’m not suggesting you need to completely distrust the police, the prosecutors and the courts. I’m simply saying you shouldn’t so readily rush to accept their version. It is important to ask questions. It is important to presume innocence unless guilt is proven.
Here is a true story:
I (attorney Richard Stevens) had a young military client who was accused of a particularly heinous crime. He was placed into military jail (pretrial confinement) awaiting trial. He sat in his jail cell for nearly seven months waiting on his day in court.
The military investigators were convinced they had their man. He was guilty. The local prosecutors were convinced they had their man. He was guilty. The community was convinced they had their man. He was guilty. The base commander calmed the community’s fears about the crime by proclaiming that my client was behind bars.
I remember, like it was yesterday, visiting my client in jail to tell him the prosecution notified me they were considering making his case a capital case – they were considering asking for the death penalty if he was convicted. I will never forget his father looking me in the eyes and imploring me, as only a father can, “Don’t let them kill my son for something he didn’t do!”
The lead military investigator actually laughed at me when I raised some questions about the case. He saw my questions as ridiculous. They had their man. My defense co-counsel and I investigated this case as we would any case. We don’t prejudge our cases. We don’t choose when to work a case and when to let it slide. We talked to witnesses, we followed leads, we established a timeline. We began to poke holes in the investigation and the evidence. The pretrial hearing lasted for days. Witness after witness testified. The holes in the investigation and the evidence grew wider. As I cross-examined the lead investigator about these problems with the case, his disdain was obvious. The look on his face said, “How could you represent him? How could you try to undermine our investigation?”
After the pretrial hearing was over, the hearing officer addressed the problems with the case, but said there was sufficient evidence to go forward to trial. But, the questions we were raising about the case had the interest of the supervising government attorneys (above the local level). They didn’t jump to the conclusion that the case was solved. They demanded a new investigation – although the lead military investigator protested it.
(I think you all know where this is heading…)
A new investigation was launched. The next door neighbor was questioned. He started to act strange. He was questioned again. The neighbor confessed to committing the crime. The forensic evidence that had been collected matched the neighbor. The military investigators had been wrong! The local prosecutors had been wrong! The community had been wrong! Fast forward…
My client was released from military confinement. The neighbor was charged, convicted and is now serving life in prison. My client has since married and he and his wife have had a child. Just think how different the course of my client’s life would have been if we, as his defense attorneys, had accepted what the military investigator and local prosecutors were telling us? If we had prejudged our client’s guilt and just went through the motions instead of zealously defending him and pointing out the flaws in the case?
We were just doing our jobs. We were doing what we, and defense lawyers around the country, do every day and do in every case. We were zealously defending our client, and it turned out our client was innocent. We zealously defend all our clients – and we are too often maligned for doing this. Remember what I said above. The military investigator laughed at me for asking questions about the case.
Maybe next time you hear about a criminal case you will catch yourself before jumping to conclusions. Think about the story above. Think about the Duke Lacrosse case. Don't prejudge the case and don't pass judgment on the defense attorneys defending it.
Here is an interesting opinion by Jonna Spilbor:
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20070416_spilbor.html?cnn=yes
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
