Poor Services for the Wrongly Convicted After Release

David Sanders was wrongly convicted in a child molestation witch hunt. He has been freed, but is on the verge of bankruptcy since Milwaukee law caps awards at $5,000 per year for wrongful imprisonment. The Innocence Project has attracted a lot of publicity for getting the innocent released but there seems to be little compensation for the victims. Notably absent, in nearly every single case, is the lack of responsibility borne by the prosecutors and police. They get all the credit for these fake arrests and convictions, why should they get a pass on the shameful conduct of putting an innocent person in prison?

The state claims board seems likely to at least pay the $18,000 in attorney bills for Sanders ' first attorney. But under limits set in 1980, Sanders is entitled to a maximum of $5,000 for the eight months he was wrongly imprisoned.

Lichstein said Wisconsin ranks dead last among states that compensate people wrongly imprisoned. Wisconsin awards $5,000 a year, with a total cap of $25,000. By contrast, Alabama allows up to $50,000 per year in prison with no cap. Texas has raised its total cap to $500,000.
And states such as Virginia offer immediate financial assistance of up to $15,000 for those newly released.

Ironically, Sanders would have received more state services if he had committed the crime and was released on parole.

Prosecutor Misconduct Almost Executes Innocent Man

Unfortunately this type of behavior is far too common and is rarely exposed. The NY Times details this inmates close call with death row. Interestingly, the legal "ethics" committee forbid a lawyer who know about this gross misconduct from discussing it for years:

“As he began to describe the positions of the individuals and the firing of the shots,” Mr. Smith said last month, referring to his client, a prosecutor “reached over and stopped the tape recorder.” According to Mr. Smith’s testimony and a memorandum he prepared soon after the debriefing, the prosecutor, Cathy E. Krinick, said, “Les, do you see we have a problem here?”

The problem was that Mr. Jones’s account did not match the physical evidence. “This isn’t going to do us any good,” Ms. Krinick said, according to Mr. Smith.

For 15 minutes, Mr. Smith said, prosecutors coaxed and coached Mr. Jones to produce testimony against Mr. Atkins that did match the evidence. They flipped over a table and pretended it was a truck. “We used a chair, or something like that, to simulate the open door,” Mr. Smith testified, “because only one of the doors on the truck would open.”

An Op/Ed on Reasonableness in the Criminal Justice System

Canada almost gets it:

First, it sends the message to future mercy killers that they are now more likely to receive an acquittal, even if the law remains unchanged, given the amount of sympathy that exists in the general public for Latimer. In fact, one juror even stated that the jury decision would have been different had they known that Latimer would have to spend so much time behind bars. Given the public outrage at the NPB Latimer decision, "the next Latimer" will likely be held to a lower standard of justice-and juries may even allow him to walk free rather than dole out a draconian
mandatory sentence.

This would be a good thing. The jury is there to protect the people against prosecutors and legislators run amok. If this law is so odious to the population that they would not convict, then the law clearly needs to be changed.

Further, the decision sends a problematic message from a different perspective, which is that if Latimer had lied and showed remorse in front of the NRB, he would have almost certainly been granted parole. This is because the system often rewards supplication, rather than impartiality. However, the problem is that remorse can easily be feigned. This idea has practical implications. Most notably, it has the potential to give rise to false convictions, something that legislators, lawyers and judges alike all fear and abhor. Those wrongly accused will feel more compelled to plea bargain (to confess in exchange for a lighter sentence than if convicted following a full trial) and take their chances with a parole board.

But, prosecutors love this because it makes their job easier. Maybe things are different in Canada, however in the US its accepted that innocent people will admit to something to avoid facing a long list of trumped-up charges. Only the rich can afford to get justice, everyone else is forced to cut a deal since the prosecutor will overcharge to force capitulation.

Although this may be more difficult to remedy, the problem of future juries ignoring the law ("jury nullification") when faced with a sympathetic defendant can be avoided if Parliament should change the law to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for murder. Mandatory minimum sentences-advocated by those who purport to be "tough on crime"-may actually have the opposite effect, if juries and judges decide to acquit (or convict of lesser and included offences) when faced with sympathetic accused and strict sentencing regimes.

If this paper recognized the need for change and recognizes that nullification will catalyze the process, why do they not advocate nullification?

The War on Juries Continues

Very few things can be more chilling to a potential juror than being hauled up in front of a judge nearly a year after a trial to answer questions about what took place in the jury room.

From the article it seems like nothing will change in this case, but the message is clear: judges don’t hold the jury in very high regard. Clearly, the issue is controversial, however the potentials jurors are supposed to be grilled about their beliefs before the trial, not after. This is near harassment.

Questioning jurors in open court about their deliberations after a verdict is extremely rare. Jury deliberations are considered almost sacrosanct.

"It's extraordinary," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who warned that forcing jurors to testify could have a chilling effect.

"The jury system depends on jurors being open and frank in their views. We protect the sanctity of the jury room for that reason," he said.