Man executed by US on bogus DNA evidence.

[Kosugi]

It Does Happen Here.


Man was executed on June 6, 2000. Just released, the DNA the prosecution used to convict the man never existed. Credentials and career of DNA lab technician who provided fake DNA report in Jeopardy.


This is one of the reasons I am against the death penalty. At best, it is an in-exact science. At worst, it is state sanctioned murder.


Post your thoughts.

Edit: Story added for Imawiz.

Police Chemist Is Rebutted After Man's Execution

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

now-scrutinized Oklahoma City police chemist whose testimony helped convict a man later executed for murder cited scientific evidence that does not exist, a Police Department memorandum says.

The memorandum, written by another chemist in the Oklahoma City police laboratory and obtained by The Associated Press, refers to the case of Malcolm Rent Johnson, who was convicted in 1982 of rape and murder and was executed on Jan. 6, 2000.

At trial, the testifying chemist, Joyce Gilchrist, said six samples taken from the victim's bedroom showed semen consistent with Mr. Johnson's blood type. But a re-examination of those slides this July 30 showed that "spermatozoa is not present," says the memorandum, dated July 31, addressed to the city attorney's office and signed by Ms. Gilchrist's colleague Laura Schile.

Ms. Schile resigned from the city's embattled forensics laboratory on Aug. 2, citing a hostile work environment. But her memorandum said the laboratory's three other scientists ? aside from Ms. Gilchrist, who is suspended ? agreed with her that sperm was not present.

One of those chemists, Kyla Marshall, confirmed that when the slides were retested, they revealed no sperm, just a few fibers from the victim's bedspread and pillowcase. Sperm does not deteriorate for decades, Ms. Marshall said.

The memorandum is the latest turn in the events surrounding Ms. Gilchrist, who has been accused of repeatedly overstating courtroom testimony and performing shoddy forensic analysis. She has previously denied any wrongdoing, and her lawyer did not return calls seeking comment on Ms. Schile's memorandum.

 

[iamwiz82]

can you find another news source, that one requires me to register.

 

[Kosugi]

Different story, but same results, a man on death row conviction overturned due to Prosecutor misconduct:

Prosecutor hides evidence.

Registering is free for that. I haven't found it documented elsewhere.


2 "criminals" with death-penalty convictions either in doubt or overturned in two days. Too bad one isn't around anymore.

 

[Viper GTS]

Lack of sperm in the slides does not prove innocence, it proves nothing other than that Gilchrist needs to be fired & charged with enough things to keep her away from society for a while.

Viper GTS

 

[StageLeft]

I can only imagine what was going through this guy's head.

I'm against the death penalty because:

1) Doesn't save money (to save money the legal system would need a massive and not necessarily good overhaul)
2) Doesn't statistically dissuade criminals
3) Kills innocents.

Something just feels "wrong" to me about state sanctioned killing. The death penalty is for revenge only. If somebody cruelly murdered my own family I would want them put to death, but then nobody in my state of mind should be responsible for any such decision anyway.

 

[RossGr]

Things like this is in a nutshell why I cannot support the death penalty. Until a person with the resourses of OJ find themselves on death row there are deep problems. Why is that only poor people get the death penalty?

 

[rgwalt]

The death penalty was suspended in Illinois because 13 people on Death Row were found to be not guilty through DNA evidence.

I'm against the death penalty for this simple reason... we can't condem people to be executed who could be innocent. I think that if the prosecution intends to seek the death penalty, they need to provide ample evidence (including DNA evidence) to show that the person is guilty of the crime. If the jury deems the person guilty without solid proof, they shouldn't be allowed to send the guy to his death.

The only reason I support the death penalty is to protect the public in cases of serial murder, child molestation/murder, rape, etc. A person that commits such crimes is a threat to society, and probably won't change after being in prison. Though it is not likely that they could escape, if they did, more people would die.

Ryan

 

[Michael]

Skoorb - Can you back up your points 1-3? My wife (very liberal) did a paper on the death penalty a few months ago for one of her Masters in Public Health courses. I was able to rebute points 1 & 2 by examining the methodology used in the "studies" that were done to support the anti-death penalty activists' point of view. Note that reducing the cost of a capital trial too much increases the chance that your #3 happens more often.

Michael

 

[GL]

<< Lack of sperm in the slides does not prove innocence >>



The onus has always been on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove their innocense.

 

[StageLeft]

The only reason I support the death penalty is to protect the public in cases of serial murder, child molestation/murder, rape, etc. A person that commits such crimes is a threat to society, and probably won't change after being in prison.

Let them escape out of Pelican Bay - goodluck!

--

Note that reducing the cost of a capital trial too much increases the chance that your #3 happens more often.



Exactly - and we can't have that. In terms of points 1 & 2 I don't have any links or anything but I thought it was common knowledge that at least point #1 is valid (costs more money than putting guy in prison). #2 is up for debate a bit more but I believe that where the death penalty has been introduced/removed crime was not decreased with death penalty.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

<< Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson also ordered a review of all
death-penalty cases using Gilchrist's work, and the capital cases are a
priority in that OSBI investigation.


Edmondson had singled out the Johnson case for examination based on a
"one-paragraph synopsis" provided to him.


"I am relieved and satisfied that Malcolm Rent Johnson would have been
proven guilty even without the testimony of the forensic chemist," he said. >>

Some other background information can be found here.

BTW I am not saying the potential to put innocents to death does not exist, just that it appears it was not so in this case.

 

[351Cleveland]

They had other evidence that had him nailed too (he had many of her belongings to stat off), so don't think the case hinged on that evidence

 

[NesuD]

<< The onus has always been on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove their innocense. >>


I think what he meant was that the dna evidence did not show his guilt but at the same time it's lack of semen doesn't necessarily mean that the man was wrongly convicted. Without knowing the entire body of evidence presented at his trial we have no way of knowing if he was wrongly convicted or not. The dna evidence does not point to another man as the guilty party just as it doesn't point to him but there may have been other evidence that would have convicted the man anyway. The excerpt from the article posted here doesn't touch on that possibility at all.

 

[Elledan]

Over 186 people were proven to be innocent after they had been sentenced to death since 1976. They were all released from Death Row, including one man who's execution was scheduled within ten days.
The number of people being released from Death Row because later evidence showed that they were innocent has been on average 2.75 people per year between 1973 and 1993, after 1993 this number has increased to an average of 5 people a year.

How many innocent people are executed each year is not known.

 

[desy]

Which state was it New Hampshire? has imposed a moratorium on the DP cause it found of the 300 on death row %10 were cleared with new DNA evidence and 100 were blacks convicted by all white juries, not exactly "jury by peers" is it? disproportionatly poor blacks go to the chair more than others per capita, so justice is not blind.
I do feel though that 'before Mcvey gets brought up and in and over and over' that some crimes could justify it.
I just wouldn't want be the one to have to choose.

 

[Squisher]

Like I have said before you should need a much higher level of proof before you invoke the death penalty, but the death penalty is the only true and just response when a person has decided with malice and forethought to end the life of another.

 

[Michael]

Skoorb - The study that I saw that said the death penalty was more expensive than just putting someone in prison for life was riddled with accounting and assumption errors. They basically made allocation decisions that forced the cases with death penalties to be more "expensive". Using more a more neutral allocation methodology, I was able to show that the costs were roguhly the same and that the cost was justified if society wanted to have the most severe punishment available. My wife was surprised how much accounting and finance numbers change based on the assumptions used in cost allocation decisions.

Michael

 

[Elledan]

<< Like I have said before you should need a much higher level of proof before you invoke the death penalty, >>

Agreed. No doubt may remain.


<< but the death penalty is the only true and just response when a person has decided with malice and forethought to end the life of another. >>

Why is it the only true and just response? Because it's an act of revenge? I fail to see the logic in this statement. Please elaborate.

 

[GL]

NesuD,

What you have just explained is known as a reasonable doubt, and as far as I know, no defendant should be convicted of a crime if there exists a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

 

[StormRider]

I am generally for the death penalty. However, I am only for the death penalty when it is absolutely clear the guy is guilty. For example, that guy in Sacremento is clearly guilty.

For most situations, I think it's better to give life imprisonment. And in any situation, you should always allow new evidence in that might potentially prove the guy's innocence.

I can't stand it when I hear of how a judge or governor refuses to allow a new DNA test or something that might prove a guy's innocence -- for God's sake, a man's life is at stake so we should make absolutely sure that he is guilty.

 

[Miramonti]

that woman should get the death penalty for murder. illinois imposed the moratoreum and I believe it was appropriate becausea number of innocent people have been released from death row after evidence was reanalyzed to find that there was no dna from the suspect, or that it was someone elses. I do not believe that there should be ANY allowances for these kinds of life and death mistakes for innocent people...exept for that forensic psycho who falsified the evidence, she can 'go'...

 

[Viper GTS]

Which state was it New Hampshire? has imposed a moratorium on the DP cause it found of the 300 on death row %10 were cleared with new DNA evidence and 100 were blacks convicted by all white juries, not exactly "jury by peers" is it?

So you're saying that blacks aren't equal to whites?

Viper GTS

 

[StormRider]

<< << but the death penalty is the only true and just response when a person has decided with malice and forethought to end the life of another. >>

Why is it the only true and just response? Because it's an act of revenge? I fail to see the logic in this statement. Please elaborate.

>>



Well, I think of it as a measure of protecting society in case the criminal escapes.

For example, consider a case where a murderer/rapist is spared his life and gets put in prison. He later escapes and rapes and murders a little girl before he is caught again.

Now, had the state executed this man previously, the little girl would still be alive.

So, basically we have a choice. No matter what, someone will die and I would rather have the criminal die.

I'm not saying that all criminals should be put to death. Only the ones who commit really horrible crimes and who are clearly guilty. And it's not for revenge -- it's for the small chance that they could escape and commit more crimes.

 

[desy]

I am saying if you took 100 blacks convicted of murder where DP is a possible sentance and 100 whites same crime more black guys are going to die. Which is what that state found it ain't just me.

 

[Elledan]

<< I'm not saying that all criminals should be put to death. Only the ones who commit really horrible crimes and who are clearly guilty. And it's not for revenge -- it's for the small chance that they could escape and commit more crimes. >>

But why immediate execution? Just imagine what those persons could be used for, they could be used for various tests, research on the Human mind etc. They don't have a life anymore, so why not make them 'volunteers' for scientific research? That way they'll serve society after all.

I just can't help but seeing executing someone, no matter what that person did as a crime on itself. Why wasting valuable resources?