June 29, 2009

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REQUIRES LAB ANALYSTS TO TESTIFY IN CRIMINAL CASES-A MAJOR VICTORY FOR THE DEFENSE

Supreme Confrontation: Impact of the Court’s lab report decision
Defenders hail ruling, prosecutors say drug offenders will go free
By Kimberly Atkins and David E. Frank
Staff writers
Published: June 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruling requiring criminal lab report analysts to be available at trial for cross-examination was hailed by defense attorneys who say it will help protect against wrongful convictions.

But prosecutors say that the decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts will tax their already strapped resources, and ultimately lead to more cases against alleged drug offenders being dropped altogether.

“Because of this ruling and the practical consequences of requiring chemists to testify in all of these trials, there are going to be cases called in courtrooms that end up getting dismissed, and that’s frustrating,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who argued the case and urged the Court to allow the reports to be admitted on their own.

Instead, in a 5-4 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that forensic reports, commonly used in the prosecution of drug and other offenses, are subject to the Confrontation Clause, meaning that the technicians who prepare them must be available at trial to be cross-examined by the defense.

Scalia wrote that such reports fall within the “core class of testimonial statements” that are subject to the Confrontation Clause under the Court’s rulings in the 2004 case Crawford v. Washington and the 2006 case Davis v. Washington.

“In short, under our decision in Crawford the analysts’ affidavits were testimonial statements, and the analysts were ‘witnesses’ for purposes of the Sixth Amendment,” Scalia wrote. “Absent a showing that the analysts were unavailable to testify at trial and that [the defendant] had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them, [the defendant] was entitled to ‘be confronted with’ the analysts at trial.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy penned a strong dissent joined by three other justices in the closely-split ruling.

Kennedy said that the majority ignored nearly a century of criminal jurisprudence where such reports were allowed in most of the nation’s courts as a matter of course.

“This rule has been established for at least 90 years,” Kennedy wrote. “It extends across at least 35 states and six federal courts of appeals. Yet the court undoes it based on two recent opinions that say nothing about forensic analysts.”

Good news for defendants
Defense attorneys said the right to cross-examine lab report analysts is crucial, and noted that the opinion itself states that “serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used at criminal trials” and that cross-examination will “weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well.”

“The Supreme Court rejected the notion that forensic science is always neutral and based on solid science,” said Peter Neufeld, co-director of the Innocence Project in New York.

“The Court said our criminal justice system can’t rely blindly on forensic analysts’ reports because they may distort results to favor the prosecution.”

Defense attorney groups and Scalia noted that the need to protect against inaccurate forensic reports was supported by a report earlier this year from the National Academy of Sciences, which said that most crime labs are administered by law enforcement agencies. The academy has also asked Congress to create a new agency to set and enforce uniform standards for forensic analysts to follow in preparing reports for court.

Jeffrey T. Green, a partner in Sidley Austin’s Washington office, who wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the ruling will not bring the parade of horribles prosecutors claim.

“At the end of the day, we will have a better system of justice and rules” because of Melendez-Diaz, said Green.

He also said that the rules for admitting evidence are no different in other kinds of cases. “In traffic cases, the prosecutor can’t just introduce [evidence] of the police radar,” Green said. “The officer who made the stop has to show up.”

However, Coakley said that the low numbers of crime lab technicians and tight budgets make drug prosecutions a very different matter.

“These chemists who work in the labs and produce the certificates are overburdened as it is,” she said. “Now as a result of this ruling [they] are going to have to take time out of their day to travel around the state and sit around for hours or days in individual courthouses waiting to see if the case gets called. That’s simply not practical."

BLOGGER'S NOTE: Prosecutors actually made the argument here that to require lab analysts to testify - so that people accused of crimes by the government actually get a fair chance to test the evidence - would be too much of a burdenon the labs and prosecutors. Boo hoo. Follow the rules, boys. If you want to prosecute, you'd better be able to provide the evidence for a thorough cross examination. Well done, Supremes.

Continue reading "UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REQUIRES LAB ANALYSTS TO TESTIFY IN CRIMINAL CASES-A MAJOR VICTORY FOR THE DEFENSE" »

June 25, 2009

CIVIL RIGHTS LAW: JURY AWARDS $5 MILLION TO MAN WHO SPENT 17 YEARS IN PRISON AFTER CRIME LAB WITNESS TESTIFIED FALSELY

In San Diego, we have had a prosecutor who intentionally and wilfully withheld evidence from defense attorneys that one of the San Diego Sheriff's Department crime lab analysts had testified falsely numerous times. Not only did he not tell defense attorneys about this information, he continued to allow his prosecutors to call that lying witness to the stand and let her lie again. Now that prosecutor is a judge. His name is Michael Smyth. Click HERE, for the story. All at tempts to have him respond to the proof of such allegations has been ignored, and the Office of the City Attorney has declined to rectify the wrongs that occurred.

n San Diego, San Bernardino and Riverside, BioTox lab analyst Aaron Layton lied falsified ther esults of tests, lied about conducting confirmatory tests, failed a polygrraph, and now thousands of his cases are being scrutinized. Under a federal g rant, the San Diego Police Department is tasked with investigating problem areas with BioTox and attempting to resolve them. However, the San Diego Police Department has declined to follow this mandatory federal requirement. Click HERE to see article.

Now, a jury has awarded a measly $5 million to a man who spent 17 years in a federal prison after a lab analyst testified falsely in his case. See below for story. It is time the public understands that power corrupts, that prosecutions witnesses lie, and that innocent people are put in prison every day.

JURY AWARDS RODRIGUEZ $5 MILLION

June 25, 2009, 10:03PM

A federal jury on Thursday awarded $5 million to a Houston man who spent 17 years in prison for a kidnapping and rape he did not commit, finding the city should pay for its “deliberate indifference” to problems at the crime lab whose false evidence secured the conviction.

George Rodriguez, 48, gained his freedom in 2004 after DNA tests discredited the findings of the troubled Houston Police Department crime lab on his case. By that time, he had served nearly two decades in prison. His father had died. His daughters faced abuse from men their mother lived with.

“Ain’t no amount of money is going to even my scale,” Rodriguez said after hearing the verdict. “I lost my dad and my girls have been through hell. I am grateful, but no money could replace what I lost.”

A jury of five women and three men deliberated for about two days after hearing testimony from former Mayor Lee P. Brown, who was police chief in 1987, James Bolding, a crime lab manager who testified at Rodriguez’s trial and from Rodriguez himself.

Continue reading "CIVIL RIGHTS LAW: JURY AWARDS $5 MILLION TO MAN WHO SPENT 17 YEARS IN PRISON AFTER CRIME LAB WITNESS TESTIFIED FALSELY" »

June 24, 2009

JURY DELIBERATES IN CASE WHERE LABORATORY WITHHELD EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE

A Texas jury is presently deliberating how much money to give an innocent man who spent 17 year in jail because the crime lab withheld evidence that excluded him as the perpetrator.

See http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6494429.html

June 22, 2009

TOP IPHONE APPLICATIONS FOR BUSY LAWYERS

Click HERE if you would like to see the top IPhone applications for busy lawyers.
iphone.jpg

June 20, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE: NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DNA TESTING

The defendant here wants DNA testing, but asked for it in the context of a civil rights lawsuit. The majority says that the defense seeks a free-standing constitutional right to DNA testing, and they aren't creating one. So big deal.

Of note is a concurring opinion, signed by three justices, saying that if the defendant decides not to do DNA testing pre-trial for tactical reasons, that defendant has no constitutional right to DNA testing post conviction.

But check out the dissent by Stevens, which clearly shows that the majority's position here is nonsense.

District Attorney v. Osborne; 2009 DJ DAR 8847; DJ, 6/19/09; US Supremes

June 19, 2009

DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND HUNG JURIES

This case involves a criminal prosecution arising from the Enron scandal. The jury acquitted the def. on some counts and hung on others. Does double jeopardy bar retrial on the hung counts? The U.S. Supremes rule, "Thus, if the possession of insider information was a
critical issue of ultimate fact in all of the charges against petitioner, a jury verdict that necessarily decided that issue in his favor protects him from prosecution for any charge for which that is an essential element."

Yeager v. U.S.; 2009 DJ DAR 8878; DJ, 6/19/09; US Supremes

June 18, 2009

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL LAW: DELAY CAUSING PREJUDICE, NO JUSTIFICATION, REQUIRES DISMISSAL

So there was a little, teeny, tiny preaccusation delay bringing this case. Like 26 years! Really.

In 1981, the DA filed attempted murder in San Diego and got an arrest warrant. In 1982, the defendant was arrested in Pennsylvania and waived extradition, but the DA couldn't find the victim so the defendant was released and was told the case was dismissed. The defendant was denied disability benefits in 2007 because of the still outstanding arrest warrant, so he tried to clear this up.

Oops, the DA decided to proceed. Evidence was lost and the victim's memory was unclear, so the defense was able to show prejudice. Since the DA did nothing for 25 of the 26 years after the defendant was arrested in Pennsylvania, there's no justification for the delay. The dismissal for violation of state speedy trial and federal due process rights is affirmed.

Um, how much taxpayer money was spend having to defend this case?

People v. Mirenda; 2009 DJ DAR 8732; DJ, 6/18/09; C/A 4th

June 18, 2009

SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE: 8 ARRESTED AT ESCONDIDO DUI CHECKPOINT

Eight people were arrested on suspicion of drunken driving and a large number of people cited for driver's license violations at a checkpoint that ended early today on Valley Parkway, police said.
More than 2,100 vehicles entered the checkpoint area, of which nearly 1,500 were screened, during the operation that ran from 6 p.m. Saturday to 12:15 a.m. today, Sgt. Dana Ray of the Escondido Police Department said.

Five drivers made U-turns and drove down the wrong side of the street to avoid the checkpoint. All four who were caught were found to be unlicensed, Ray said.

Officers impounded 66 cars, including 53 for driver's being unlicensed, according to Ray.

The sergeant said nine others were driving on suspended licenses.

Ray said three people were arrested for misdemeanors and seven cited for having open containers of alcohol in their vehicles.

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE: 8 ARRESTED AT ESCONDIDO DUI CHECKPOINT" »

June 17, 2009

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: CRIMINAL STREET GANGS AND THEIR PRIMARY ACTIVITY

As absurd as the criminal street gang enhancement (California Penal Code sec. 186.22(b)) is,
even more absurd is the nonsense testified to by the so-called gang expert, always a police officer.

Here, all the officer said was that the gang was involved in various criminal activities. As the concurring and dissenting opinion correctly points out, the officer never even claimed that the "primary" activity of the gang was commission of crimes.

The majority simply lists all the terrible stuff the gang does, and snarkily notes that there's no evidence that the gang provided after-school tutoring or helped clean up trash. Right, but there's still NO evidence that the PRIMARY activity was commission of crimes.

People v. Cortes; 2009 DJ DAR 8716; DJ, 6/17/09; C/A 2nd, Div. 5

June 17, 2009

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: IMPROPERLY BARRING THE DEFENSE FROM IMPEACHING THE VICTIM WARRANTS REVERSAL

The defendant was convicted of molesting an 11-year old girl. The defense sought to impeach the victim with evidence that she had advanced knowledge of sexual activities, and told others how sexually attractive she was (she said that a neighborhood boy wanted to "hump her brains
out").

The California trial court excluded this evidence. The 9th circuit grants habeas relief, finding that this violated the defendant's 6th Amendment right of confrontation. The court points out that this evidence was clearly relevant to impeach the victim's credibility.

Holley v. Yarborough; 2009 DJ DAR 8638; DJ, 6/17/09; 9th Cir. Fed C/A

June 16, 2009

CALIFORNIA MURDER DEFENSE: ATTORNEY WHO CANNOT BE "READY" TO TRY A CAPITAL CASE WITHIN 60 DAYS OF ARRAIGNMENT CAN BE RELIEVED. OUTRAGEOUS!

California Penal Code sec. 987.05 says that the court can require you to say that you'll be able to try a case within 60 days of arraignment in the post-information court, and that if it turns out that you're not ready for trial, without good cause, the court can relieve you. The
Supremes here uphold relieving counsel on a death penalty case.

They say that California Penal Code sec. 987.05 applies, even though the reason counsel wasn't ready was that he was preparing two other death cases. California Penal Code sec. 987.05 says that counsel's other business isn't relevant. Here, counsel needed a year more to get ready. Of course, once he was relieved, new counsel surely needed almost that long (the court somehow doesn't mention this little problem).

What about Roswall (89 Cal.App.3d 467), which says that relieving counsel who's already handling a case interferes with the def.'s right to counsel? Not discussed. And we're going to have a
system where you literally handle one case at a time? Really?

People v. Avila; 2009 DJ DAR 8610; DJ, 6/16/09; Cal. Supremes

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA MURDER DEFENSE: ATTORNEY WHO CANNOT BE "READY" TO TRY A CAPITAL CASE WITHIN 60 DAYS OF ARRAIGNMENT CAN BE RELIEVED. OUTRAGEOUS!" »

June 9, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARY PREVOST TO SPEAK TO CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE

2009 DUI Seminar - Rules of the Road XII
Westin Mission Hills Resort Hotel
Rancho Mirage, CA
Saturday, September 26, 2009

REGISTRATION OPENING SOON!!

Featuring:

Opening Remarks & Legislative Update
Vincent John Tucci, Robert Wilson, and Ignacio Hernandez

Case Law Update in DUI Cases
Albert Menaster

Opening Statements in Criminal Cases
Steven L. Harmon

Rising BAC and Back Extrapolation
Ronald Jackson

Discovery in DUI Cases
Mary Frances Provost

20 DUI Myths in 45 Minutes
Bruce Kapsack

Voir Dire & Psychodrama in DUI Cases
Marjorie Russell

DON’T MISS
CACJ’s 5th Annual Texas Hold’ em Poker Tournament
Immediately Following the Seminar


Continue reading "SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARY PREVOST TO SPEAK TO CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE" »

June 4, 2009

SAN DIEGO MAN SUES RAMONA SHERIFF's DEPUTIES FOR BRUTAL ASSAULT AND BATTERY

A guy walks into a bar in Ramona...By Greg Moran
June 4, 2009, 6:19 p.m.

...and after a few minutes, a dozen different kinds of cross-eyed ugly breaks out. Allegedly.

That's the gist of a rather hair-raising complaint filed in federal court this week by Allen Baker of Ramona and James Playford. They sued the county, the sheriff's department and five deputies for using excessive force, assault and civil rights violations all stemming from an incident at Molly Malone's bar last July. Baker said he had seen deputies at the bar several times a week, fraternizing with women and sometimes handcuffing them and placing them in the back of the squad car. For fun. Apparently. Photos were taken and one of the young women even posted it on her MySpace page, according to the complaint, and captioned it "Bong loads in a cop car."

Well, Baker approached two members of the local constabulary, deputies Colby Hodge and Jeffrey Guthrie, and asked if they were there to pick up girls. They told him to shut up or he would be arrested, which triggered a First Amendment defense kind of response from Baker ("Plaintiff Baker asked Hodge and Guthrie if freedom of speech is illegal" the suit dryly recounts.) Baker says he was put under arrest, there in the bar, and then the suit contends things went from bad to very much worse very quickly.
The suit says he was hit with flashlights, tasered, kicked, beaten and put in a choke hold until he was unconscious. At one point he contends he lost control of his bowels. Taken to jail he was charged with resisting arrest and being drunk in public. But at a preliminary hearing last September Judge Louis Hanoian dismissed one of the resisting charges and reduced a similar charge to a misdemeanor. Eventually Baker pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor of disturbing the peace.


The incident got pretty good play on local television, partly because of the photos. A video of some of the incident is posted on YouTube. The person who took the video, Playford, contends in the suit that when he showed up at court for a hearing in Baker's case he was harassed by other deputies and was so intimidated he said he would not testify for Baker. The suit alleges a conspiracy among the deputies and faults the county for not investigating the matter.

It's not a pretty picture described by attorney Mary Prevost in the lawsuit, but these police misconduct cases are no walk in the park. There's a way to go here, but there is also lots of intriguing material. We're working on setting up a link to the suit, and are awaiting the response from the county.

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO MAN SUES RAMONA SHERIFF's DEPUTIES FOR BRUTAL ASSAULT AND BATTERY" »

June 4, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER MARY PREVOST NAMED TOP ATTORNEY BY SAN DIEGO MAGAZINE

The premiere issue of "Our City San Diego" has chosen San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Mary Frances Prevost as it's #1 choice for those seeking legal representation in the criminal arena in San Diego.

Click HERE to see the link, and view how "Our City San Diego" chose San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Mary Frances Prevost as it's top attorney for San Diego criminal defense.

prevost.photo.jpg


June 3, 2009

SAN DIEGO COP & PROSECUTOR COMMIT MISCONDCUT

Well, it's another day of misconduct in San Diego.

In December, I filed a federal Civil Rights case against a cop who has had to pay out hefty judgments in the past. Right after I filed a police misconduct motion in a criminal trial, the prosecutor filed a resisting arrest charge against my client just days before the statute of limitations was about to run.

What did they charge? They charged resisting arrest. Problem is, my client is a paraplegic and couldn't resist arrest anayway. It was pure, unadulterated retaliation.

So, what's new? Some woman who wants to divorce her husband gets a bunch of PI's to tail him. Then an SDPD sergeant called one of San Diego's DUI cops to tail the husband. Cop stops husband, and he seems to be fine. He blows a .10, but he has diabetes (and if you know anything about ketosis or acedosis, you know that these compounds in diabetics register like alcohol on these machines, skewing the results). So no charges are filed.

Oh, now wait a minute! That is, until the man who was hunted by the cops on the taxpayer dollar decided to file a claim against the City and sue. Lo and behold, the City Attorney files a DUI charge against the man who the cops hunted, just days after he sends them notice he is going to sue them!

Here it is. Oh, and City Attorney Jonathan Lapin, a misdemeanor prosecutor who will never be more than a misdemeanor prosecutor, scoffs at the medical testimony.

You might remember me posting that Lapin tried to quash a subpeoan of a former prosecutor who had information about a dirty cop I was investigating.

June 3, 2009

CAN REFUSAL TO CONSENT TO SEARCH ITSELF JUSTIFY A PAT DOWN SEARCH? THE COURT OF APPEALS RESOUNDINGLY SAY "NO!"

I suppose the most remarkable aspect of this case is that the minor lost in the trial court. I mean, there are a lot of bad cases out there, but what trial judge didn't get the basics of the Fourth Amendment in the trial court?

In this absolutely ridiculous case, wrongly decided by some trial judge completely and utterly ignorant of basic Fourth Amendment principles, and prosecuuted by a prosecuted equally as ignorant, the officer stopped the minor for riding his bike without proper lighting equipment.

The officer asked the minor to take off his backpack. The minor specifically said that he wasn't on probation and didn't consent to search. This, of course, raised a red flag and caused the fraidy cat officer to fear for his safety. After all, if you don't do what the officer can't make you do legally, it means you must be guilty of something or dangerous, right?

So, the officer patted the minor down and found a loaded revolver. The issue is, I kid you not, "whether the minor's refusal to consent to a search can, by itself, form the basis for reasonable suspicion to pat search."

The Court of Appeal resoundingly says "no!." Otherwise, why bother with the Fourth Amendment?

In re H.H
.
; 2009 DJ DAR 7935; DJ, 6/3/09; C/A 1st

June 3, 2009

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: SAN FRANCISCO MAY PAY 4.5 MILLION TO WRONGFULLY CONVICTED MAN

ITS PAYBACK TIME FOR PROSECUTORS WHO BREAK THE LAW. SAN FRANCISCO CITIZENS WILL PAY FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/03/BATB17VOV1.DTL

Francisco officials have tentatively agreed to pay $4.5 million to a man who spent nearly 14 years in prison before a judge reversed his murder conviction, finding that city authorities had withheld evidence his attorneys said could have cleared him.

The payout to John "J.J." Tennison, 37, would be the largest settlement ever in San Francisco of a lawsuit related to police conduct, records show. It will go first to the Police Commission and then the Board of Supervisors for approval.

Tennison was freed in 2003 after a federal judge overturned his conviction for the August 1989 killing of 18-year-old Roderick "Cooley" Shannon. He had been serving a prison term of 25 years to life.

Another judge freed Tennison's co-defendant, Antoine Goff, who was serving 27 years to life. A Superior Court judge subsequently declared both men "factually innocent." They then sued in federal court, saying the city had violated their civil rights.

The city attorney's office reached a proposed settlement with Tennison last month, court documents show. Goff's suit is still pending and is scheduled to go to trial later this year.

Although the documents do not give the proposed sum in Tennison's settlement, sources familiar with the matter told The Chronicle that it was $4.5 million. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the agreement has not been formally approved.

Elliot Peters, one of Tennison's attorneys, would not discuss the details of any agreement. But he said, "John is going to be compensated for his 14 years in custody - he deserves it."

The city attorney and the lawyer for the two retired police investigators who arrested Tennison when he was 17 have denied that the city or police did anything wrong. Matt Dorsey, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, declined to comment on any settlement.

Attorneys for Tennison and Goff have long argued that prosecutors and the two police investigators - Earl Sanders, later the chief of police, and Napoleon Hendrix - kept possibly exculpatory evidence from the defense at the time of trial and afterward.

Tennison's team said the evidence included a post-trial confession of another man and the earlier statement by a woman who indicated that the man may have been involved in Shannon's killing.

The courts found that other evidence the defense says San Francisco authorities never provided - including the existence of a $2,500 reward fund in the case - could have helped Tennison's attorneys challenge the credibility of the only eyewitnesses to the shooting, two girls ages 11 and 14.

Jim Quadra, a private attorney retained by the city to represent Hendrix and Sanders, declined to discuss the settlement but stressed that his clients had acted properly.

"They deny vehemently that they did anything wrong," Quadra said.

Judge found case weak

In freeing Tennison, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken concluded not only that authorities had withheld key evidence from the defense, but also that the prosecution's case was weak to begin with.

"No physical evidence was presented at trial tying Tennison to Shannon's shooting," she said. "The prosecution's entire case was dependent upon the testimony of ... two young girls whose eyewitness identifications of Tennison were questionable."

Wilken has served as the judge in Tennison's and Goff's lawsuits as well. In the civil case, she rejected some of the same claims that she had cited in releasing Tennison and left only three issues in dispute.

One was the issue of the existence of the "secret" $2,500 reward fund. Defense attorneys said they could have used its existence to challenge witnesses' credibility.

Quadra said police had given a memo mentioning the reward fund to prosecutor George Butterworth, an assertion disputed by Tennison's attorney. "Butterworth did not know about the secret memo," Peters said.

In any event, Quadra said, no money was paid out.

Late confession

The second issue involved the circumstances surrounding the post-trial, taped confession of Lovinsky Ricard. Butterworth admitted the existence of the tape during a hearing on the motion by Tennison's defense for a new trial in May 1991. He said he had just gotten the tape the day before.

Quadra said former inspectors Sanders and Hendrix had never known about the confession, which Ricard made to another investigator, or about the tape's existence. Tennison's attorneys argued that Sanders and Hendrix had known about the tape for seven months but withheld it from prosecutors.

Ricard ultimately asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions in the civil case.

The third issue concerned the account provided by the woman who had earlier told Sanders and Hendrix that Ricard might have been involved.

Tennison's attorneys said they had not known about the statement by Chante Smith until years after the trial. Butterworth suggested he had not fully understood the account of the interview he got from police, but that he had still given it to the defense.

Wilken ruled that a jury should sort out the dispute.

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: SAN FRANCISCO MAY PAY 4.5 MILLION TO WRONGFULLY CONVICTED MAN" »