The Dallas County district attorney's office says it will ask a judge on Monday to release a 39-year-old deaf man who prosecutors believe was wrongly convicted of sexually assaulting a child.
Stephen Matthew Brodie pleaded guilty in 1993 to abducting a 5-year-old girl from her Richardson home and making her perform a sex act in September 1990. His attorney, Dallas County public defender Michelle Moore, said that Brodie was interrogated for 18 hours over eight days and only half of the time was there a sign language interpreter present. "We believe this is not a true confession," Moore said. "Stephen speaks an entirely differently language." Moore said Thursday that evidence now points to Brodie's innocence. She said the district attorney's office told her a fingerprint found at the scene matches that of 41-year-old Robert Warterfield, a convicted child rapist who in the mid-1990s was also named as a suspect in the "North Dallas rapist" attacks on nearly a dozen other children. Warterfield could not be reached for comment. He pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child in 1994 for abducting a teenage girl from her home and molesting her. He was given 10 years' probation in that case and never charged in the other attacks. Moore said Brodie falsely confessed to the abduction and sexual assault in exchange for a five-year sentence. She said his original defense attorney wasn't told about the fingerprint match before Brodie accepted the plea. Brodie has already served the five-year sentence. But he is currently serving time for failing to register as a sex offender in Lamar County. It is his third conviction, Moore said, for "stubbornly refusing to register for a crime he didn't commit." Moore says Brodie's confession was made at time when he was being questioned about other cases, too, and when there was no sign language interpreter present. She said tests performed before the original trial showed that a hair from a blanket the girl was forced to take with her when abducted did not belong to Brodie or anyone in the girl's family – and Brodie's defense attorney at the time was never told that, either. If State District Judge Lena Levario and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agree that Brodie was wrongly convicted, he could become the third man exonerated in Dallas County without the benefit of DNA testing to clear his name. The county also has 20 DNA exonerations – more than any other county in the nation since 2001 when Texas began allowing post-conviction DNA testing. It is unclear whether prosecutors knew about the information withheld from Brodie's attorney, or whether police failed to turn over the information to the district attorney's office. Information that could benefit a defendant is legally required to be handed over following a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brady vs. Maryland. Mike Ware, who oversees the conviction integrity unit at the district attorney's office, declined to discuss the investigation in detail. But he said there was "no reason" for Brodie to become a suspect in the first place. "I anticipate part of the proof will be that the person we believe to be the actual perpetrator has been identified," Ware said. Richardson police Sgt. Kevin Perlich, spokesman for the department that arrested Brodie, declined to comment other than to say that the department has been working with the district attorney's office. Moore said there was a previous hearing on the case in the mid-'90s after Brodie's attorneys learned about the fingerprint. But Moore said that then Levario ruled that because Brodie confessed, the confession outweighed the other information. According to a Dallas Morning News story at the time, Levario ruled that Brodie knew about the existence of the then-unidentified fingerprint before he pleaded guilty and he knew that prosecutors had shared their information about his false statements with his defense attorney. Moore said Thursday that the fingerprint match was made before the guilty plea, but added that Brodie and his attorneys only knew that a fingerprint other than Brodie's own existed. Levario said at the time that other evidence linked Brodie to the crime, including statements from the victim that indicated her attacker had an unusual voice and a drawing that resembled a giraffe on his arm. Brodie's attorney at the time conceded that he drew animals on his arms. Levario could not be reached for comment Thursday evening. Moore said that since the first ruling, more weight has been given to the possibility of false confessions. She said that since 2001, police manuals have routinely included information warning them about suspects falsely admitting to a crime. Moore became Brodie's attorney in February after the district attorney's office received a letter from Brodie's father asking prosecutors to look again at the case. For Brodie to be released, Lamar County would have to agree. That seems likely, Moore said. Lamar County and District Attorney Gary Young could not be reached for comment Thursday. After the sexual assault, the girl immediately told her parents about the molestation, and they called 911. Moore said the girl did not get a good look at the man but said "he had a low voice, he was fat, had a big stomach and he was white." Brodie became a suspect when he was arrested for breaking into a soft drink machine at a public swimming pool in Richardson not far from where the child was abducted. If Brodie is released Monday, Moore said, he will have the support of his father and friends. She also said the county's other exonerees will help him adjust. "The guys are very eager to meet him, and he's got some friends," she said. Moore said that Brodie, who could shoe horses for a living, is eager to get a job. "I think he's a little bit scared," she said. "But very anxious to get out." Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/092410dnmetexonerate.262e70b.html
Posts
21 comments:
Worth reading:
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume9/j9_3_6.htm
I wonder if SAFAR still exists, or what happened.
Less than 7% of prisoners are women, but feminists argue too many women are in prison:
http://www.prisonactivist.org/archive/women/women-and-imprisonment.html
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/journal/v70/n1/full/9400006a.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/knowbody/f04/web2/bbeery.html
Study Finds Hundreds of Cases of Prosecutorial Misconduct in California
By: Nsenga Burton | Posted: October 5, 2010
A law school study discovers 707 cases in which state, U.S. and appellate courts found misconduct in opinions between 1997 and 2009. The authors criticize the State Bar for disciplining only 6 prosecutors. Hundreds of prosecutors in California — including many in Los Angeles County — have committed misconduct with near impunity as authorities failed to either report or discipline them, according to a report released Monday.The misconduct ranged from asking witnesses improper questions during trial to failing to turn over evidence that could help a defendant and presenting false evidence in court, according to the report, which was issued by an innocence project at the Santa Clara University School of Law. The researchers discovered 707 cases in which state and federal courts and appellate courts found prosecutorial misconduct in opinions issued between 1997 and 2009.
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/study-finds-hundreds-cases-prosecutorial-misconduct-california
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prosecutorial-misconduct-20101005,0,6016828.story
Still happening Slwerner, you are a joke!
"Still happening Slwerner, you are a joke!"
Comments like this are against the stated policy of this blog, and should not be allowed here.
Anon,
There is a post set for monday (Can't take away from Connie over the weekend :) ), that will address this.
Arod99k,
Would you mind keeping posts on topic and relevant to the post at hand? Thank you.
Arod99k - "Still happening Slwerner, you are a joke!"
Well, I just consider the source.
You say that the women who make false reports are "not the problem", and yet you call me a joke?
You also thought that the case of Alan Newton was one of prosecutorial misconduct - event though the Innocence Project cited the aid of prosecutors as being fundamental in his exoneration - indicating that you either don't read the stories or that you have a very poor grasp of what the word mean.
You even brought up that clown Wendy Murphy, in the seeming misunderstanding that she agreed with you that the main issue is always the prosecutors (hint - her position is that her time as a prosecutor taught her that most prosecutors do not do near enough to see to that those accused of rape are prosecuted and convicted).
Bottom line - I'm quite pleased that YOU would consider me a joke. Again, I just consider the source.
[The study Arod99k cites is actually a good study of prosecutorial misconduct, which although - as the authors note - while quite rare, is never-the-less a serious issue in that the possible consequences are quite grave. However, what constitutes "prosecutorial" is not always serious and deliberate efforts to circumvent justice, and only a fraction of such allegations are found to have had an adverse effect on the outcomes of cases.
If I had like to discuss the study more, but for those interested, they can read it here]
That is a study in California. It would be interesting to see studies of others states.
How many women's prisons are "For Profit" compared, pound per pound, to male?
If I might ask an "off topic" question that is.
I think it's important.
Love ya, SL. but I agree with Arod on this topic.
Anonymous - ”Love ya, SL. but I agree with Arod on this topic.”
How so, if I might ask?
DO you agree with him that it isn’t the women who make FRA’s who are the problem, but rather just the prosecutors (even in those cases that they never have anything to do with)?
I’m fully aware that some prosecutorial misconduct occurs. I simply disagree with arod99k that they are “rampant”.
The authors of the study, even though they are highly motivated to find issues with the way in which people have been convicted of crimes, still acknowledge that actual prosecutorial misconduct is rare. Read both the story Arod links, and read the study. Out of hundered’s of thousands of cases handled by prosecutors in California between 1997 and 2009, only some 4,741 cases were referred to the state bar for allegation of prosecutorial misconduct. Of those, only 707 were found to be legitimate instance of misconduct, and only 159 were believed to have had any bearing on the outcome of a case.
As one who CAN do math, I an easily recognize that even researchers who set out to find as many instance of prosecutorial misconduct as possible are showing that it is fairly rare.
Now, I’m certainly not claiming that cases involving prosecutorial misconduct aren’t serious nor that they should be ignored (the idea that if something is not common, then it is irrelevant – the real motivation in Susan Browmiller’s choice of 2% as the estimated rate of false rape reports – is a feminist ploy).
I believe that where it occurs, severe punishments are in order.
[more Blogger issues, 2nd part to follow - I hope]
[2nd part]
But, I can also recognize that prosecutors are not always committing misconduct and hiding exculpatory evidence, as Arod keeps suggesting.
Prosecutors cannot “make” their careers out of a single rape conviction (as Arod has claimed), there are not millions of dollars given to DA’s for each rape prosecution (as Arod has claimed), and most cases are not rape cases, anyway. Arod is merely taking a few cases, and trying to project them as being demonstrative of ALL prosecutors and all prosecutions.
Of course, you’re free to agree with him that prosecutorial misconduct is “rampant”.
Anonymous - ”How many women's prisons are "For Profit" compared, pound per pound, to male?
If I might ask an "off topic" question that is.
I think it's important.”
I’m afraid I don’t understand how the existence of “For Profit” prisons does anything more than provide speculation that a profit motive exists for convicting men of crimes. But, given that there’s no way for DA’s to share in the such profiteering, and given the career-threatening potential for any dilate and serious misconduct on the part of prosecutors, it’s extremely difficult to imagine that they (prosecutors) would willingly play any role in trying to see innocent men convicted. Just too much to risk for no tangible reward coming to them.
There’s a graphic in the study I linked above that shows that some 30% of misdemeanor cases and 20% of felony cases which reach prosecutors are declined for prosecution or are dismissed. Now why would they do that if they’re just looking to convict everyone, as Arod claims?
Slwerner is on record as saying that police and prosecutorial corruption is rare.
Whenever there have been real inquiries, with serious powers and resources, into things like police corruption they have found the situation to be quite different. In my own country (Australia), there have been a few such inquiries. There was the Wood Royal Commission into the New South Wales police, established during the 1990s. A bit before that, there was the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland. Both these inquiries clearly showed that corruption and malpractice was widespread in much of the police. This, in turn, led to various reform attempts. Readers, don't take my word for it. Do some research and look up the findings for yourself.
The extent of corruption revealed was quite remarkable. In some police jurisdictions, the local cops were dividing up the drug trade among themselves and deciding who could operate in return for kickbacks to them. They were extracting large commissions from prostitutes to operate on their patch, effectively acting as pimps.
Of course, these kinds of inquiries don't happen all that often as governments don't want to undermine public confidence in law enforcement.
So when Slw says that police corruption is rare, I can only assume that:
a) he is somewhat naive and has lived a sheltered life
b) he lives in a part of the world where police and other authorities are more honest and diligent
c) he has some kind of personal interest in defending police and prosecutors.
Which is it?
From the Wikipedia entry on the Wood Royal Commission:
"Then Police Commissioner Tony Lauer stated that corruption in the New South Wales Police was not systemic or entrenched, however the Royal Commission uncovered hundreds of instances of bribery, money laundering, drug trafficking, and falsifying of evidence by police. Of particular note was the detective division of the Kings Cross patrol, of which almost all the senior ranks, including the chief detective, were involved in serious and organised corrupt activities, including taking regular bribes from major drug traffickers."
But don't worry. Slwerner keeps assuring us that police corruption is rare. So let's all hold hands and sing kumbayah.
Just an idea. I was thinking that instead of having every thread hijacked by this never-ending dispute about law enforcement and such, perhaps there could be an open thread on the subject set up every few days or so, where such comments could be directed.
I guess that Steve and Pierce are getting tired of having every thread derailed by the same squabbles among the same regulars. This debate could be quarantined to a certain portion of the blog.
For my part, I don't bring up this issue unless others have already raised it on a thread.
Nick s. - "In my own country (Australia)"
I don't know about how they break things up in Australia, but here the police and prosecutors ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Now, if you go back and read what I posted, you will find that I didn't make any mention of police corruption herein. I was addressing the study that Arod was referring to regarding PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, and pointing out that in that the authors, who were looking for such misconduct, only found it in 707 cases out of hundreds of thousands.
Now, maybe Australian math is different than the way we do it here, but something which occurs much less than one-tenth of one-percent of the time counts as rare.
And, had you actually bothered to read what I posted, you’d likely also have noticed that I specifically stated that I still consider prosecutorial corruption, when it occurs, to be a serious offense, which must be severely punished.
You are entirely incorrect that I stated that police corruption is rare. I have no idea about how frequently police corruption takes place, as unlike Arod’s claim of rampant Prosecutorial misconduct, for which he referred to a study proving himself wrong, he did not post a study of any police corruption. I know of that there is a significant amount of police misconduct, and there is also likely a good deal of police corruption – especially in that the policed are uniquely situated to actually be able to gain financially by interjecting themselves into such areas as drugs, guns, and prostitution. (of course, none of these are the same thing as rape and sexual assault, from which there just isn’t a means to profit).
So anyway, Nick, feel free to keep hating me for challenging silly notions such as that women who make FRA’s are not the problem, or that the entire FRA problem stems from either police of prosecutors (S. andArod99k’s respective pet theories). But, realize, that what ever lies you may chose to continue to post about what I’ve actually stated, I’m aware of both police corruption and prosecutorial misconduct, and I consider them both serious issues that can and do play a role in the overall FRA issue. And, yet, I would not wish to see the FRA degrade into just another anti-LE rant-blog (as Arod wishes), nor do I want to see the role that the women who make FRA’s completely ignored. I don’t buy the notion (that you also support?) that the issues of FRA’s can be dealt with simply by reforming or eliminating Law Enforcement. [when was the last time you saw either of your anti-LE cohort actually address instance of FRA’s or how individual cases are dealt with? Arod is conspicuously absent in those numerous stories in which police do nothing wrong. He has no issue with women making FRA’s – only with his belief that prosecutors are looking to convict any man accused by any means necessary. The only thing he ever (tries) to address is prosecutorial misconduct. He’s what we used to call a “one Trick Pony”]
But, again, feel free to keep up your hatred of me for pointing out inconvenient truths that challenge the notions of you anti-LE types.
STUDIES: USA Today Investigation Reveals Prosecutorial Misconduct in Federal CasesPosted: September 24, 2010
An in-depth investigation conducted by USA Today found 201 criminal cases in which federal judges determined that U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules, including the recent prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. The investigation looked at cases since 1997, when Congress enacted a law aimed at ending prosecutorial misconduct. Some of the violations reviewed by USA Today resulted in judges throwing out charges, overturning convictions or rebuking prosecutors. Of the 201 cases, 47 ended in the exoneration and release of the defendant after the violations surfaced. Nino Lyons, for example, was convicted of drug trafficking based on suspicious testimony by prison inmates who were promised early release in exchange for their cooperation. By luck, one of Lyons’s lawyers discovered a discrepancy in one of the witness’s testimony. This led him to hundreds of pages of reports that the prosecution never disclosed. Lyons’s conviction was overturned and he was declared innocent. In another case, federal courts blocked prosecutors from seeking the death penalty for a fatal robbery because prosecutors failed to turn over evidence. Bennett Gershman, an expert on prosecutorial misconduct, told USA Today that the abuses are becoming systemic and that the system is not able to control such behavior. With respect to consequences for prosecutors who break the rules, the paper could identify only one federal prosecutor who was barred even temporarily from practicing law for misconduct during the past 12 years.
(B. Heath and K. McCoy, “Prosecutors' conduct can tip justice scales,” USA Today, September 23, 2010). See Innocence and Federal Death Penalty.
Prosecutorial Misconduct Is Rarely Punished, Says New Study
Leigh Jones
The National Law Journal
October 05, 2010
Only a tiny percentage of prosecutors who engaged in misconduct were disciplined by the State Bar of California during a 12-year period, according to a report released Monday.
The report, issued by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law, found 707 cases between 1997 and 2009 in which courts explicitly determined that prosecutors had committed misconduct. It examined more than 4,000 cases.
Among the 707 cases, only six prosecutors -- 0.8% -- were disciplined by the State Bar of California. Only 10 of the 4,741 disciplinary actions by the state bar during the same period involved prosecutors.
"In the most populated state in the country, we have a legal system that does not hold prosecutors accountable who have abused public trust," said Kathleen "Cookie" Ridolfi, executive director of the Northern California Innocence Project, in a press release.
The project found that judges often failed to report misconduct to the state bar despite having a legal obligation to do so. Sixty-seven prosecutors committed misconduct more than once and some as many as five times. The majority of those prosecutors were never publicly disciplined, the project said.
"Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct 1997-2009," issued by the Innocence Project's Northern California chapter, was written by Ridolfi and Maurice Possley, a visiting research fellow at the project. Possley won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting at the Chicago Tribune. Ridolfi is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.
The report included recommendations for reform. It called for district attorneys to adopt internal policies that do not tolerate misconduct. It also called for the state bar to increase disciplinary transparency.
The State Bar of California issued a written statement in response to a request for comment.
"[P]rosecutorial misconduct as indicated in the Innocence Project report does not always equate with attorney misconduct for disciplinary purposes," the association said. "The State Bar believes that it is disciplining criminal prosecutors where appropriate and where the misconduct was willful and can be establish by clear and convincing evidence." It added that misconduct is a "serious issue" and that the bar association is looking into the assertions made by the Innocence Project.
The report also found that in 282 of the cases, the courts did not decide whether a prosecutor's actions were improper. Instead, they concluded that regardless of the alleged misconduct, the defendant received a fair trial. The Innocence Project reviewed only appellate court rulings and a few other cases.
Prosecutorial Misconduct Is Rarely Punished, Says New Study
Leigh Jones
The National Law Journal
October 05, 2010
Only a tiny percentage of prosecutors who engaged in misconduct were disciplined by the State Bar of California during a 12-year period, according to a report released Monday.
The report, issued by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law, found 707 cases between 1997 and 2009 in which courts explicitly determined that prosecutors had committed misconduct. It examined more than 4,000 cases.
Among the 707 cases, only six prosecutors -- 0.8% -- were disciplined by the State Bar of California. Only 10 of the 4,741 disciplinary actions by the state bar during the same period involved prosecutors.
"In the most populated state in the country, we have a legal system that does not hold prosecutors accountable who have abused public trust," said Kathleen "Cookie" Ridolfi, executive director of the Northern California Innocence Project, in a press release.
The project found that judges often failed to report misconduct to the state bar despite having a legal obligation to do so. Sixty-seven prosecutors committed misconduct more than once and some as many as five times. The majority of those prosecutors were never publicly disciplined, the project said.
"Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct 1997-2009," issued by the Innocence Project's Northern California chapter, was written by Ridolfi and Maurice Possley, a visiting research fellow at the project. Possley won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting at the Chicago Tribune. Ridolfi is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.
The report included recommendations for reform. It called for district attorneys to adopt internal policies that do not tolerate misconduct. It also called for the state bar to increase disciplinary transparency.
The State Bar of California issued a written statement in response to a request for comment.
"[P]rosecutorial misconduct as indicated in the Innocence Project report does not always equate with attorney misconduct for disciplinary purposes," the association said. "The State Bar believes that it is disciplining criminal prosecutors where appropriate and where the misconduct was willful and can be establish by clear and convincing evidence." It added that misconduct is a "serious issue" and that the bar association is looking into the assertions made by the Innocence Project.
The report also found that in 282 of the cases, the courts did not decide whether a prosecutor's actions were improper. Instead, they concluded that regardless of the alleged misconduct, the defendant received a fair trial. The Innocence Project reviewed only appellate court rulings and a few other cases.
Prosecutorial Misconduct Is Rarely Punished, Says New Study
Leigh Jones
The National Law Journal
October 05, 2010
Only a tiny percentage of prosecutors who engaged in misconduct were disciplined by the State Bar of California during a 12-year period, according to a report released Monday.
The report, issued by the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law, found 707 cases between 1997 and 2009 in which courts explicitly determined that prosecutors had committed misconduct. It examined more than 4,000 cases.
Among the 707 cases, only six prosecutors -- 0.8% -- were disciplined by the State Bar of California. Only 10 of the 4,741 disciplinary actions by the state bar during the same period involved prosecutors.
"In the most populated state in the country, we have a legal system that does not hold prosecutors accountable who have abused public trust," said Kathleen "Cookie" Ridolfi, executive director of the Northern California Innocence Project, in a press release.
The project found that judges often failed to report misconduct to the state bar despite having a legal obligation to do so. Sixty-seven prosecutors committed misconduct more than once and some as many as five times. The majority of those prosecutors were never publicly disciplined, the project said.
"Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct 1997-2009," issued by the Innocence Project's Northern California chapter, was written by Ridolfi and Maurice Possley, a visiting research fellow at the project. Possley won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting at the Chicago Tribune. Ridolfi is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.
The report included recommendations for reform. It called for district attorneys to adopt internal policies that do not tolerate misconduct. It also called for the state bar to increase disciplinary transparency.
The State Bar of California issued a written statement in response to a request for comment.
"[P]rosecutorial misconduct as indicated in the Innocence Project report does not always equate with attorney misconduct for disciplinary purposes," the association said. "The State Bar believes that it is disciplining criminal prosecutors where appropriate and where the misconduct was willful and can be establish by clear and convincing evidence." It added that misconduct is a "serious issue" and that the bar association is looking into the assertions made by the Innocence Project.
The report also found that in 282 of the cases, the courts did not decide whether a prosecutor's actions were improper. Instead, they concluded that regardless of the alleged misconduct, the defendant received a fair trial. The Innocence Project reviewed only appellate court rulings and a few other cases.
Slwerner, it is possible that I have misunderstood your position on some of these issues. I seem to recall you suggesting on some threads that both police and prosecutorial corruption is relatively rare. But I may have misunderstood your position somewhat. And I apologize if I have misrepresented you at all.
But one of the problems is that police corruption has the potential to compromise prosecutors. It is often the case that police are seldom charged for misconduct, because prosecutors rely on them to gather evidence for their own cases and don't want to get the police off side too much. And if evidence is gathered by corrupt cops and then passed on to prosecutors, there is potential for innocent people to be convicted. Even though in principle they are separate, the relationship between the two is somewhat dependent and compromised.
As for the situation in Australia, it is usually the case that police prosecute cases up to a certain level of seriousness, and more serious cases than that are handled by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Post a Comment