Tuesday, June 28, 2011

I Oppose the Impending Execution of Probable Scumbag Richard Bible

Richard Bible sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Arizona. I believe Richard Bible is in fact guilty of the brutal killing of a young girl. I nonetheless oppose his execution.

Those of you who follow this blog know that I seldom oppose an execution. Normally I find no chance of actual innocence and stand mute. I do not publicly oppose a death penalty because the person to be executed was underage at the time of the killing, or had a terrible childhood, or was mentally retarded, or was a foreign national who did not have an opportunity to coordinate with their consulate. I'm not necessarily arguing that such points are inconsequential. Instead I'm explicitly using a specific standard to decide whether I will publicly oppose an execution or stand mute while we put one of our own to death.

If I believe there is a chance that the person might be factually innocent, I oppose; otherwise, I stand mute.

That being said, I believe Richard Bible is almost certainly guilty of the crime, yet I oppose his execution. I'll allow you to read two summaries of his case and give you an opportunity to discern the cause of my objection before I explain it at the end of this post.

The first summary is from one of his appeals, State of Arizona v. Bible.  The summary provides relevant facts, but provides them in reverse order of significance. Hang in there to get to the DNA evidence.
In April 1988, the Coconino County Sheriff seized a dark green and white GMC "Jimmy" (or "Blazer-type") vehicle in Sedona, Arizona. The GMC had been used to deliver newspapers. A deputy who drove it to Flagstaff noticed rubber bands in the GMC, as well as damage to the left rear quarter panel. Another officer noticed the damaged quarter panel and saw bags of rubber bands in the vehicle. The Sheriff stored the vehicle in a fenced impound lot near Flagstaff, close to Sheep Hill. On June 5, 1988, Defendant stole the GMC from the impound lot. A police officer saw the vehicle parked in Flagstaff later that day.

The next day, June 6, 1988, shortly after 10:30 a.m., the victim, a nine year-old girl, began bicycling from where her family was staying in Flagstaff to a ranch a mile away. The victim's family passed her while driving to the ranch. When the child did not arrive at the ranch, her family began to search and found her bicycle by the side of the road. Unable to locate the girl, the victim's mother called the police at 11:21 a.m.

The Flagstaff police arrived within minutes; they called in a helicopter, set up roadblocks, and alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The victim's mother told the police that she saw two vehicles on her way to the ranch. One was a royal blue Blazer-type vehicle. While at the ranch, she saw this same vehicle going the opposite direction at a high rate of speed. She described the driver as a dark-haired, dark-complected Caucasian male, mid-to-late twenties, possibly wearing a white T-shirt. He had looked at her intently.

That same day, Defendant's brother was at his home near Sheep Hill. Defendant arrived there shortly before 1:00 p.m., driving a dark green or dark silver, white-top Blazer-type vehicle with a dented left bumper -- the vehicle Defendant had stolen. Defendant was wearing levi pants, a plaid shirt, a camouflage baseball-type cap, and boots. He told his brother that the Blazer belonged to a friend. After Defendant left, his brother --who thought that Defendant had been stealing from him -- called the police and described the vehicle.

Shortly thereafter, a detective realized that the victim's mother's description of the Blazer-type vehicle and its driver approximated Defendant and the GMC Jimmy. At about 5:00 p.m., the GMC was discovered missing from the impound lot. At 6:20 p.m., police officers saw Defendant driving the GMC -- although it had been painted a different color. The officers attempted to stop Defendant, and a high-speed chase began. When finally cornered, Defendant ran from the vehicle and hid.

Using a tracking dog, officers found Defendant hiding under a ledge, camouflaged with twigs, leaves, and branches. When arrested, Defendant was wearing a "levi-type" jacket, jeans, a plaid shirt, boots, but no underwear. Defendant also had wool gloves, and police found a baseball-type cap nearby. Police also found a large folding knife where Defendant was hiding and another knife in one of his pockets.

Within hours after his arrest, Defendant confessed to stealing the GMC the previous day and painting the vehicle two hours before his arrest, but denied being in the area of the abduction. Defendant had planned to drive the GMC to Phoenix, but a helicopter had him "pinned down." When Defendant was booked, the police confiscated his clothing. Defendant was incarcerated for the rest of the relevant time period.

In the GMC, police found a green blanket and numerous rubber bands but no rubber band bags. The steering column had been cut open and one piece of metal had fallen to the floorboard. The GMC contained a case of twenty 50-milliliter bottles of "Suntory" vodka with two bottles missing. In the console was a wrapped cigar broken in two places, a "Dutchmaster" cigar wrapper and band were in the ashtray, and Carnation "Rich" hot chocolate packets were in the vehicle. Investigators found blood smeared inside and under the GMC, although testing did not reveal whether the blood was human.

Following a large and unsuccessful police search, hikers accidentally found the victim's body near Sheep Hill nearly three weeks after her disappearance. Police secured the area and later videotaped the scene and processed evidence. The victim's naked body was hidden under a tree, mostly covered with branches, with her hands tied behind her back with a shoelace. Police found one of the victim's sneakers, without a shoelace, near the body. The victim's panties were in a tree nearby.

An unwrapped, unsmoked cigar with two distinctive breaks in the middle was on the ground near the body. The cigars near the body and in the GMC looked very similar, had consistent breaks, and had identical seals. Microscopic analysis showed that the cigars had similar thresh cuts and tobacco mixtures. The cigars also had similar sieve test results and pH values. Although the nicotine values and ash content were slightly different, the cigars were from the same lot and were similar to, and consistent with, tobacco residue found in Defendant's shirt pockets.

An empty ten-pack box of Carnation "Rich" hot chocolate — matching the packets in the GMC — was near the body. Also nearby were two empty 50-milliliter "Suntory" vodka bottles — one approximately fifty feet from the body. Testing, which revealed no fingerprints, washed away the lot numbers on these empty bottles. In all other respects, these bottles were identical to the full bottles found in the GMC.

Rubber bands were everywhere: on a path near the body; over, on, and under the body; in the tree where the panties were hanging; near the victim's other clothing; in the brush covering the body; in a tree above the body; and under a tree where one of the victim's shoes was found. Visual observation as well as testing revealed that the rubber bands in the GMC were round rather than oblong and were identical to those found near the body. A rubber band bag containing a few rubber bands was found five feet from the body.

A patch of blood-matted grass was near the body. Testing revealed that this blood was human and was phosphoglucomutase ("PGM") subtype 2+, the same subtype as the victim's blood. Luminol spraying revealed a faint blood trail leading from the blood-matted grass to the body. Testing showed blood on the top of the branches covering the body.

Near the body, police found a piece of metal that fit the GMC's steering column. In Flagstaff, at the location where the GMC was seen parked the day before the victim disappeared, police found another piece of metal from the vehicle's steering column. The three metal pieces (found inside the GMC, near the body, and where the GMC had been parked) fit together like jigsaw puzzle pieces. An investigator concluded that the three metal pieces were part of the GMC's steering column.

An autopsy revealed that portions of the body (including the head and genital area) were severely decomposed, consistent with having been on Sheep Hill for approximately three weeks. Multiple skull fractures and a broken jawbone indicated that blows to the head caused the victim's death. The blood-matted grass near the body was consistent with the blows being inflicted there. Although the body was naked with the hands tied, suggesting sexual molestation, no sperm or semen was found. The physician performing the autopsy took pubic hair and muscle samples.

Near the body were several clusters of golden brown hair approximately six to ten inches long. Although the hair found at the scene appeared to be lighter in color, it was microscopically similar to the victim's hair and could have come from her. In one of the locks of hair, an examiner found a pubic-type hair. This pubic-type hair was similar to Defendant's pubic hair samples. Long brown hair found on Defendant's jacket, shirt, and in his wallet were similar to the victim's hair and could have come from her. Investigators found hair similar to Defendant's on a sheet used to wrap the body, and hair found on the victim's T-shirt was similar to Defendant's. Hair on a blanket in the GMC was similar to the victim's, with a total of fifty-seven hairs in the GMC being similar to the victim's hair.

Some of the hair found near the body, as well as the hair on Defendant's shirt and in his wallet, was cut on one side and torn on the other. The investigator had never before seen such a cut/tear pattern but was able to duplicate the pattern by using the knives Defendant possessed when arrested as well as other sharp knives. Twenty-one of the twenty-two hairs on Defendant's jacket had similar cut/tears.

Fibers found at Sheep Hill were identical to the GMC's seat covers, and similar to fibers from Defendant's jacket lining and the green blanket in the GMC. Fibers in the lock of hair containing the pubic-type hair were similar to fibers from Defendant's jacket. Fibers similar to those from the green blanket in the GMC were located in the branches covering the body. Microscopically, a green fiber on the sheet used to wrap the body was similar to fibers from the green blanket. A blue or purple fiber on the shoelace tying the victim's hands was similar to the lining in Defendant's jacket.

Investigators found blood on Defendant's shirt, pants, and boots. The spatter pattern on the shirt was consistent with beating force. Testing could not determine whether the blood on his boots was human but revealed that the blood on Defendant's shirt was human and PGM 2+ subtype, the same subtype as the victim's blood. Less than three percent of the population has PGM 2+ subtype. Because Defendant is PGM 1+ subtype, the blood could not have been his. Testing performed by Cellmark Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc., showed that the deoxyribonucleic acid ("DNA") in the blood on Defendant's shirt and the victim's DNA were a "match." Cellmark concluded that the chances were one in fourteen billion or, more conservatively, one in sixty million that the blood on Defendant's shirt was not the victim's.

While still in jail for stealing the GMC, Defendant was charged with first degree murder, kidnapping, and molestation of a child under the age of fifteen.
Now I excerpt a story from an Associated Press story by Lee Meyers. I found this story in AZCapitolTimes.com:
Bible ... has said that he can't prove himself innocent because he didn't get a fair trial.
Prosecutors were "looking for an overkill and they had no one else to blame this crime on," he told a probation officer in 1990. "I didn't kill her. The real killer is still out there."
Daniel Maynard, Bible's attorney, told the board Monday that hairs found on Jennifer's T-shirt have never been tested, and that the execution shouldn't move forward until that happens.
"Mr. Bible has always contended that he was innocent," Maynard said. "This evidence needs to be tested."
He also insinuated that items including vodka bottles and cigars found with Jennifer's body, which matched items in Bible's car, could have been planted by police, saying that hundreds of people searching for her over a three-week period likely would have seen them if they had been there the whole time.
He also argued against the death penalty in general, saying that most of the world does not practice it, and that the other countries still using it are China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
"Is this the company we want to keep?" he said. "The rest of the world that we believe is civilized looks at us and finds that what we do in executions is barbaric."
Prosecutors focused their arguments Monday on the evidence in the case and Bible's criminal history.
"The evidence is abundant and overwhelming," Coconino County Attorney David Rozema said. "We wanted to remind you of the fact that the inmate is a very dangerous, depraved and sick individual ... (and) once again put some emphasis on the extent of the suffering endured by Jennifer Marie Wilson as a 9-year-old innocent child. The crime was especially cruel because of the extent of her suffering at the hands of the inmate."
Under questioning by Rozema, a detective who investigated Jennifer's murder said Bible was released from prison on rape charges less than a year before the murder. Bible was convicted of binding up his 17-year-old cousin's hands, stripping her, repeatedly raping her and torturing her in 1981. That crime occurred less than 3 miles from where Jennifer was killed, said Gerry Blair of the Coconino County Sheriff's Office.
Blair also said that when Bible was booked into jail in Jennifer's case on the day of the murder, blood found on his shirt matched the girl's. The blood was in a pattern that indicated it was caused by bludgeoning someone else, Blair said.
Additionally, Blair said that hair found at the crime scene and on Bible's jacket, in his wallet and in his vehicle were matches. He said it was cut in a unique way that a forensic analyst could not duplicate on separate hair samples until he used a pocket knife that Bible had when he was arrested.
He said investigators at the time didn't feel that DNA testing of the hair would further the case.
Finding her blood DNA on his shirt is pretty compelling evidence. A lot of the other evidence sets off klaxons in my skeptical head.

Item #1: "possibly wearing a white T-shirt." -- I'm guessing the witness initially gave the police an answer different than what the police expected and wanted to hear. This is some sort of compromise testimony. Not the truth, exactly, but not perjury either.

Item #2: "He had looked at her intently." -- I'm guessing the witness was initially uncertain of her identification, but quite positive when it came time to testify in court. Witnesses don't become less certain with time. They become more certain as they learn more about the case and as their favorable responses receive positive feedback from authorities. Incorrect eyewitness testimony is far and away the number one cause of wrongful convictions.

Item #3: "driving a dark green or dark silver, white-top Blazer-type vehicle" -- I'm guessing the witness  initially gave the police an answer different than what the police expected and wanted to hear. This is some sort of compromise testimony. Not the truth exactly, but not perjury either.

Item #4: "Investigators found blood smeared inside and under the GMC, although testing did not reveal whether the blood was human." -- Sophisticated testing can't determine whether or not this is human blood, but the jury is supposed to assume it is. In fact, the jury is supposed to assume it belonged to the victim.

Item #5: "Although the body was naked with the hands tied, suggesting sexual molestation, no sperm or semen was found." -- You know what suggests sexual molestation?  Sperm or semen. Alternatively, blood from a small girl violated by a grown man. The evidence is that the body was naked, the hands were tied, no sperm or semen was found.  "Suggesting sexual molestation" is not evidence. It's inflammatory oratory, but not evidence.

Item #6: "Although the nicotine values and ash content were slightly different, the cigars were from the same lot and were similar to, and consistent with, tobacco residue found in Defendant's shirt pockets." -- I would want someone to explain to me how cigars from the same lot have different nicotine values and ash content.

Item #7: "Testing, which revealed no fingerprints, washed away the lot numbers on these empty bottles." -- Here's a thought. Perhaps you should read the lot numbers before testing for fingerprints.

Item #8: "Near the body were several clusters of golden brown hair approximately six to ten inches long. Although the hair found at the scene appeared to be lighter in color, it was microscopically similar to the victim's hair and could have come from her."  -- This one needs no comment.

Item #9: "Some of the hair found near the body, as well as the hair on Defendant's shirt and in his wallet, was cut on one side and torn on the other. The investigator had never before seen such a cut/tear pattern but was able to duplicate the pattern by using the knives Defendant possessed when arrested ..." -- This is absolute crap. Hair evidence is now widely recognized as crap-shoot forensics, and this is terrible even by hair evidence standards. The guy had never, ever seen this type of cut before, but somehow every knife that defendant possessed made the same unusual cut.

Item #10: "... as well as other sharp knives." -- Holy cow! As well as other sharp knives owned by the defendant?  As well as other sharp knives purchased at K-Mart by Joe Doakes?  What is so remarkable about the cut hair fragments if any sharp knife can create it? As a juror, this type of testimony makes me wonder about the integrity of the prosecution.

Item #11: "In one of the locks of hair, an examiner found a pubic-type hair. This pubic-type hair was similar to Defendant's pubic hair samples." -- Is it also similar to pubic hair from every other person on the face of the earth?  How exclusive is pubic hair matching, assuming the pubic-type hair was indeed a pubic hair?

Item #12: "Testing could not determine whether the blood on his boots was human." -- Once again. Sophisticated testing can't determine whether or not this is human blood, but the jury is supposed to assume it is. In fact, the jury is supposed to assume it belonged to the victim.

Item #13: "Daniel Maynard, Bible's attorney, told the board Monday that hairs found on Jennifer's T-shirt have never been tested." Plus: "He [the prosecutor] said investigators at the time didn't feel that DNA testing of the hair would further the case." -- So the hairs found on the victim's T-shirt included the root. That's where the DNA is. The prosecutor concedes that hairs could have been tested for DNA, but weren't.  Why the hell not?  We should not be executing people in this country when DNA testable evidence lies around untested. This is what the entire Hank Skinner case is about. In that case, fingernail scrapings and a rape kit remain to be tested, yet Texas still wants to execute him as soon as possible.

Item #14: "He also insinuated that items including vodka bottles and cigars found with Jennifer's body, which matched items in Bible's car, could have been planted by police, saying that hundreds of people searching for her over a three-week period likely would have seen them if they had been there the whole time." -- Suddenly, I would like to hear more about the conditions under which objects were found near the body, and whether any searchers had covered that area but missed the body because "the victim's naked body was hidden under a tree, mostly covered with branches."

Item #15: "Police secured the area and later videotaped the scene and processed evidence." -- How much later?  Why not right away? Does the videotape show the items the defense attorney suggests may have been planted?  The defense attorney must have seen the videotape. Why would he suggest the police planted the evidence if the items were right there on the tape and the tape was taken soon after the body was discovered?

Conclusion

This seems to me like a really shoddy investigation and prosecution. I don't deny that it worked. It clearly did. As a juror, however, it would have given me the creeps. I wouldn't want to let such a man back on the streets, assuming he was guilty, and I would be suspicious of the prosecution.  Good thing the DNA evidence proved to be a match.

I still think Bible is factually guilty. However, I don't think we should be executing people when we still have potentially probative DNA evidence sitting in a box somewhere untested.

I therefore publicly oppose the execution of Richard Bible.

Monday, June 27, 2011

My Interview with Ace Foreman, Annotated

I previously presented an email interview with Will Foreman. If you will recall, (even if you won't), Will Foreman has received 40 automated speeding tickets from Forest Heights, Maryland. When Maryland eventually grants him his day in court, sometimes after more than a year's delay, he acquits himself so well that the judge has acquitted him each time. With five or more victories, Will Smith is now an ace at beating automated speeding tickets.

Will's defense consists of overlaying the two images of "his" car that are provided with each of his tickets, and showing that "he" could not have been speeding because of the distance covered in the time difference between the photographs. I put "his" and "he" in quotes since the cars typically are his Eastover Auto Supply company car and the drivers are his employees.

The tickets are clearly a state-sponsored bunko racket that suck millions of dollars out of the pockets of the Maryland citizenry while the city, state, and device manufacturer get rich. The authorities know (or absolutely should know) that the automated system fails frequently and egregiously. Out of the 40 tickets Will Foreman has received, for example, he believes he can successfully defend all 40 in court.  The photos will show that he was travelling near 35 when the laser system claimed he was travelling as fast as 70 mph.

Maryland will make Will Foreman pay for his insolence, one way or the other. Make no mistake about that. They will threaten to withhold the registration on his vehicles, since he has unpaid tickets, though they won't hear his case in court. They will make him go to court to fight one or two tickets at a time, losing at least one-half day's work each time. They will charge him court fees well beyond the cost of the ticket, assuming he was willing to simply pay the ticket by mail.

I've been interested in this situation since I first heard of it. To me, these small-time wrongful convictions are a microcosm of our country's big-time wrongful conviction problem.  While people can't envision themselves being wrongfully convicted of robbery, rape, or murder, they can envision themselves being ripped off by The Man for a speeding ticket.

I'm going to re-post the Will Foreman email interview below. This time, I'm going to interject my comments in italics. Hang on. Here we go.

TSJ: When you appear in court, who represents the State?
WF: They normally have just a Forest Heights Police Officer (the last time I was there they had 2 officers, and Optotraffic had 2 reps there as well.)

As an unqualified non-attorney, allow me to offer my broad assessment of Will Foreman's legal situation. Trust it at your own risk.

In this country, a person might have to defend himself in court against a civil suit (citizen against citizen) or against a criminal charge (state against citizen.) A traffic ticket is a criminal matter, albeit a minor one. The three types of criminal offences are citations, misdemeanors, and felonies. Your nomenclature may vary.

Given that Will is facing a criminal charge, or charges, each time he appears in court to fight a traffic ticket, or tickets, he is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of these United States. Let's take the time to read that Amendment. It might be relevant.
AMENDMENT VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
To start off, Will is certainly not getting a speedy trial. The State of Maryland is likely to disagree with me. The Supreme Court of these United States, however, might (not certainly but might) agree with me. (See Barker v. Wingo.) You readers, however, know I'm right. If you want to go to trial and defend yourself, and you are not allowed to do so even within a year, you are not getting a speedy trial.

Will is not getting a trial by an impartial jury, either. [Caution: Sentence fragment follows.] Not unless he wants to pay extra.

TSJ: How is the case against you presented to the judge?
WF: The officer reads the statement describing the location time place and speed.  He always explains how the machine "self checks itself daily"

So I guess the officer who says "the machine self-checks itself daily" constitutes the entirety of the State's case, the "witness" who Will Foreman could confront.

This question and response prompts me to present another fine Amendment to our Constitution. This time, it's the ever-popular Fifth.
AMENDMENT V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Since Will Foreman is charged with neither a capital offense nor an infamous crime (i.e. a felony), the State of Maryland can bring charges against Will without first going to a Grand Jury. Instead they simply mail him a ticket, instruct him to pay $40 (in which case they will drop the whole matter) or defend himself in court (in which case they will make matters as painful as possible.)  It's his decision.

If Will Foreman elects to go to court, he need not testify against himself, or so says Amendment V. He can testify if he so chooses, but he need not do so. Since Will Foreman (or any defendant) does not have to prove himself innocent (does not have to testify at all), the burden of proof falls on the slippery shoulders of The State. 

Apparently, explaining that a machine issued a ticket and the machine self-checks daily is sufficient proof in most cases.

TSJ: Would you be allowed to call witnesses?
WF: Sure

I thought I would ask, even though Will Foreman has a Sixth Amendment right to call witness. I'm glad the answer was affirmative.

What I'm thinking about here, as I ask this question, is the possibility of calling the fine folks at Optotraffic, makers of the piece of crap system responsible for taking from the innocent poor and lining the pockets of those who serve them.

TSJ: Would you be allowed to subpoena people or documents?
WF: In advance I believe.

Again, I thought I would ask, even though the Sixth Amendment gives Will Foreman the right to a "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."

In the first criminal case where I was working as a forensic data analyst, I was surprised to learn that defense attorneys could very easily, and without coordinating with anyone else, issue subpoenas to force testimony in court. I was wondering if Joe Q. "Will Foreman" Citizen could do the same thing.

During Will Foreman's last trial, the recording of which can be heard here, the Judge clearly informed Will Foreman he could subpoena the manufacturer.

TSJ: Would you be allowed to have an attorney?
WF: Yes, but why?

I asked this question because Will Foreman's trials don't seem quite like the real deal. Most obviously, he faces a judge, not a jury. In that regard, the court handling the cases seems more like a small claims court than a criminal court. Generally, you are not allowed to have an attorney appear with you in small claims court.

TSJ: Are all the cases being heard traffic ticket cases?
WF: Not all just traffic cases, the entire room is just Forest Heights / Optotraffic "offenders"

I didn't anticipate the answer to this question, but I shouldn't have been surprised. The Court system is trying to make it as easy as possible for the State, and as difficult as possible for the defendants. If the court dates had been scheduled for the convenience of each defendant, that would have caused Forest Heights to send someone to court over and over and over, as each case was being heard at the defendant's convenience. Forest Heights would suffer the same inconvenience if the cases were scheduled in the same sequence as the date/time of the tickets. The only way I can see to make it as easy as possible for the State to prosecute its cases is to have all the offenders (allegedly presumed innocent) show up at the same time.

If it is silly to suggest that a trial be scheduled at the convenience of the defendant, is it also silly to accept that trials should scheduled for the convenience of Forest Heights?

TSJ: About how long does each of your cases take?
WF: It varies.  Some judges have a problem grasping the matter.

Good one.

And a good point, as well. Nobody in that courtroom understands how that black box works. (That assumes knowledgeable folks from Optotraffic don't show up.)  Nonetheless, the machine is assumed to be telling the truth, even though it has been shown repeatedly to lie.  It is presumed to lie only in those few cases where people such as Will Foreman show up with pictures and analysis.  It is presumed to be truthful when Jane Doe shows up and says "I wasn't speeding."

The fact of the matter is that The State has relieved The State of its burden of proof.  Defendants must prove themselves innocent. 

TSJ Did you watch any of the other people present their case?
WF: That is the saddest part.  Forest Heights is not an affluent area.  Many of the people are there because they cannot afford to lose the 40 bucks.  At the risk of sounding like an elitist, there is a always a parade of poor uneducated people totally unprepared to defend themselves.  People argue their car cannot go that fast.  They claim there isn't a school near there.  I've even heard "I have lived here for x number of years, I know the camera is there, I always slow down there.  It is very, very sad.  And that's what makes me so upset!

Sad one.

TSJ: Can you elect to have a jury trial? 
WF: Yes. It costs $80.00 and it's elevated to circuit court.

So there you go. Will Foreman is protected by Amendment VI.  He does have a right to a jury trial, and it will only cost him twice the base rate of the ticket. (I assume, but do not know and foolishly did not ask, that the $80.00 fee is refunded if Will Foreman prevails.)

This makes me wonder even more about what cheesy kind of court is hearing these speeding ticket cases. It reminds me of Bette Midler, the kidnap victim in Ruthless People:
Bette Midler: So, when do I get out of here?
Helen Slater:
As soon as Mr. Stone pays the ransom.
Bette: What's the problem? What is the ransom?

Helen:
Well, we asked for $500,000.
Bette:
That should be no problem.
Helen:
He wouldn't pay.
Bette: He wouldn't pay?

Helen:
Then we asked him for $50,000.
Bette: Yeah?

Helen:
He still wouldn't pay. So now we're lowering our price to $10,000.
Bette: Do I understand this correctly? I'm being marked down?
[Starts crying] I've been kidnapped by K-Mart! 
Will Smith is being tried by the K-Mart of court systems.

TSJ: Can you appeal a guilty verdict?  If so, how?
WF: Yes, again it's elevated to circuit court.

What's going on here is that the State is increasing the transaction cost of fighting the ticket to a point where no rational person would fight the ticket. If it will cost you more to fight the ticket than to pay it by mail, why fight. Elsewhere, this is called extortion. Elsewhere, people are charged under the RICO act for such behavior.

TSJ: Are you told what time your case will be heard, or do you have to plan to be there the entire time?
WF: No you must arrive for the calling of the docket and remain there until your hearing.

Again, the emphasis is on making matters as efficient as possible for the court and the city (they are one in the same) and as costly (in terms of dollars, time, and inconvenience) for the defendants (allegedly presumed innocent.)

TSJ: What sort of defenses have been successful?
WF: I saw a scientist successfully make his case.  He was able to dispute the technology used by Optotraffic. I am requesting the transcript from the hearing because I want his name. The Judge heard our defenses simultaneously.  We had to wait until the end.  We never met, but it was apparent to the Judge that both of our arguments were thoughtful and coherent.  In an attempt to expedite he heard us together. Some have gotten off because they were ticketed long after school hours. The majority of the successful arguments have focused on distance traveled between images.

Who would have guessed math and science would have ever paid off?

TSJ: What sort of defenses have been unsuccessful?
WF: The most common is when the accused explains how long they have lived there.  That they are aware of the camera's presence.  That they make a conscious effort to slow down at the location.  Others have unsuccessfully argued that their cars cannot accelerate from the previous traffic light that quickly.  Many claim the camera isn't near a school.
 
TSJ: What is the nominal fine if you fight the case?
WF: It depends on the Judge.  My most recent session the Judge offers to everyone present that if they plead guilty he would reduce the fine to $2.00 plus court costs of $22.00.

The system survives only as long as the automated speed detector survives. They don't want people defending themselves successfully. They want people to pay by mail. If they come to court, they want people to plead guilty. The most expensive thing you can do is fight the system.

The court will go to great lengths to keep the machine from being proved wrong, or stupid, or perjurious. The court will delay Will's trials for more than a year. 

If you show up with a CarChip that had been plugged into your OBDII interface underneath your dashboard, and that CarChip logged your speed at the time the city said you were speeding, and the CarChip provides proof positive you were not, the court still won't declare the machine to be stupid. It will find you Not Guilty because the city used an "improper file document."  

If you show up a second time with your CarChip for another bullshit speeding ticket, the Court will declare you Not Guilty because the city refused to show up for the trial. The City will ticket you, and the City will prosecute you, and the City will subpoena you, and the City will force you to give up half a day of work, but if you have a CarChip, they won't show up to present their case. They don't want their piece of crap equipment being declared evil, wrong, and stupid.

They don't want justice. They want the money. They will not give up easily.

TSJ: What is the nominal fine if you plead guilty?  
WF: I don't know what normal is, just what I stated above. 

TSJ: Why might someone show up and plead guilty rather than just pay the ticket by mail? 
WF: They are intimidated by the prospect of appearing before the Judge as well as the police officer that patrols the very streets where they reside. 

Intimidate.  His word, not mine.  Sounds right to me, however.

TSJ: What are the conditions of payment? Do people have to pay on the spot? Must they pay cash? 
WF: You must pay on the spot.  They will accept cash or credit cards. 

The really want your money.

TSJ: What if people are unable to pay the penalty? 
WF: I don't know.

TSJ: What sorts of attitude do people generally assume? Are they angry? Are they subservient? Do they plead for mercy?
WF: All of the above.  Most are disgusted!  Many feel violated and absolutely helpless. Many won't return to fight because they feel it's not worth their time.

It is a serious, serious problem when people lose faith in their government. The true cost of wrongful convictions goes beyond the millions of dollars lifted from the pockets of the citizenry. It even goes beyond the lives of a quarter million people wrongfully behind bars today.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

The Impending Execution of Milton Mathis

Milton Wuzael Mathis sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Texas. The execution is scheduled for 21 June. Upon reviewing this case, I find no reasonable chance that Milton Mathis might be factually innocent of the crime for which he is to die.

I present below the summary of facts as presented in Mathis v. Texas.
On December 15, 1998, at approximately 8:00 or 8:30 a.m., Esmerelda Lester and her 15-year old daughter Melanie Almaguer went to Chris Lentsch's home. Lentsch rented rooms to Travis Brown and Daniel Hibbard. Brown and appellant were in Brown's room. While Lester, Almaguer and Hibbard sat in Lentsch's room, Lentsch went into the kitchen. Shortly thereafter, Lentsch heard gunshots from Brown's room and turned to see appellant exiting the room with a gun in his hand. Appellant claimed that Brown had just shot himself. Lentsch told appellant to put the gun down, but appellant ordered Lentsch and the other three back into Lentsch's room where he calmly walked up to Almaguer and shot her in the head, leaving her alive, but paralyzed from the neck down. Appellant then shot Hibbard in the head, causing his death. Appellant finally pointed the gun at Lester, whereupon he discovered that he was out of bullets. Appellant thereafter rummaged through the house, set fire to Brown's room, threatened Lester and Lentsch, and finally left in Brown's car.
The police identified appellant as the killer and went to arrest him. Upon being arrested, appellant became violent. Officers discovered that appellant had told his father to lie for him and had persuaded his girlfriend to give him an alibi, which she maintained until confronted by the police. A fellow inmate testified that appellant showed no remorse for the shootings and stated that he wished he had killed them all.
Appellant took the stand and at first testified that although he had been to the house earlier, he was not there on the morning of the shootings. After defense counsel requested a recess, appellant took the stand and stated that he had lied in his previous testimony. He then testified that he was at the house at the time of shootings, and admitted that he had shot all three people and taken Brown's car. Appellant claimed he shot Brown in self defense after Brown had threatened to shoot him.[2] He claimed that he shot the others because he panicked after shooting Brown.

[2] Appellant claimed Brown held the gun to appellant's head and threatened to kill him. Appellant testified he knocked the gun out of Brown's hand, and when Brown started walking toward him, appellant closed his eyes and pulled the trigger.
With regard to the execution of Milton Wuzael Mathis, I stand mute.
 

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The Impending Execution of Eddie Duval Powell

Eddie Duval Powell III is scheduled to be executed by the people of Alabama tomorrow, on 16 June 2011. After a three-week self-imposed break from blogging, I am once again attempting to review each death penalty case before the person is executed. Regarding Eddie Powell, I offer this summary from his appeal to the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals
(1) In the early morning hours before sunrise on March 25, 1995, the victim, [M.W.], was brutally attacked, raped, sodomized and shot to death. The victim was an elderly widow and was attacked in her home in Holt, Alabama, as she apparently attempted to escape her attacker.

(2) Defendant and a friend, Bobby Johnson, lived at the Johnson home across the street from the victim. Defendant and Bobby Johnson both worked at O'Charley's restaurant. Defendant borrowed Bobby Johnson's leather jacket and left the Johnson home in the early hours of March 25, 1995.

(3) The evidence plainly showed that the Defendant had been at the home of the victim, contrary to Defendant's statement. The Defendant's semen was found in the victim's mouth, rectum, and vagina. The victim's blood was found on the Defendant's pants and on Bobby Johnson's leather jacket, which was worn by the Defendant on this date. The Defendant's handprint was found on the window on the front of the victim's home, where a screen had been cut. A matchbook from O'Charley's restaurant was found in the unfinished basement under the victim's home immediately after the murder. The matchbook appeared to have been there only a short time since it had no dust on it, unlike most other things in the basement.

(4) The victim was shot about 5:25 A.M. on March 25, 1995, and the Defendant was first seen on videotape at the Shell Oil Station in Alberta City about an hour later at 6:27 A.M. This station was a walking distance of about forty-two minutes from the victim's home, considering a stop the Defendant made along the way, that was in evidence. The Shell Oil Station employee testified that the Defendant paid for wine mostly in nickels and had a lot of change in small coins. This was significant because the victim kept a container of small change in her purse for use in nickel and dime card games. The container of small change was missing, and the victim's handgun was missing also. The Defendant appeared at the Shell Oil Station wearing a leather jacket with a wet stain on it. The victim's blood was on the leather jacket worn by the Defendant on March 25, 1995. The Defendant wore this bloodstained jacket, which belonged to Bobby Johnson, to the residence of his friend, Jason Long, on the morning the victim was killed.

(5) Testimony showed that the contents of the leather jacket pockets included an O'Charley's matchbook, small change, and jewelry similar to jewelry owned by the victim. None of these items belonged to Bobby Johnson, who owned the jacket and stated that no bloodstain was on the jacket when the Defendant took it.

(6) The evidence showed that Defendant had a handgun after he arrived at the residence of Jason Long, which was about daybreak or between 6:30 and 7:00 A.M. on March 25, 1995. The Defendant asked Jason Long, who lived near the Shell Oil Station, to get rid of the handgun. Jason Long complied with this request, and the handgun was never found.

(7) On the morning of March 25, 1995, the Defendant had fresh scratches on the back of his neck. Lawrence Bunkley, an acquaintance of Defendant and a friend of Jason Long, testified that the Defendant told him on the day the victim was killed something to the effect that he did the bitch, she ran up on him and he shot her.
With respect to the execution of Eddie Duval Powell III, I stand mute.

The Impending Execution of Lee Taylor

Because of demands elsewhere, I removed myself from blogging for the last three weeks. During that period, one execution, that of Gaylord Bradford, was carried out though I had not reviewed it. Now late in this day, the 15th of June,  will review the cases of two people about to die.

I begin with the case of Lee Andrew Taylor of Texas. The case is, from my perspective, simple. He killed a fellow prisoner with malice and premeditation. Of that, there seems to be little dispute.  From his District Court appeal, I offer the following summary.
At the age of sixteen, Taylor was sentenced to life in prison for aggravated robbery. On April 1, 1999, while serving that sentence, he killed Donta Greene, another inmate. Greene had been involved in stealing property from inmate Daniel Richbourg, who was a friend of Taylor's. During the night of March 31, 1999, Taylor and Richbourg, communicating by note, planned a response to the theft. The next morning, Taylor fastened an ice-pick like weapon to his hand, and, when he encountered Greene, stabbed him some thirteen times. Richbourg, who had fastened a knife-like weapon to his hand, kept other inmates from breaking up the fight between Taylor and Greene. Eventually the guards gassed the room and ordered the inmates to lay down. Taylor did so, and then unfastened his weapon and threw it to the guards. As he was being led from the room, he shouted to Greene, "That's what you get for stealing, Bitch." Greene died shortly thereafter.
While I oppose the execution of anyone who might be factually innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced to death, I stand mute regarding the probity, wisdom, or morality of most executions.

In the case of Lee Taylor, I stand mute.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

I Interview Speeding Ticket Ace Will Foreman

Will Foreman has now beat another speeding ticket by relying on facts. That's a least six times, maybe more. That makes him aces in my book

Before I disappeared for a few weeks, I asked him a series of questions (via email) about his court appearances. He answered. I asked if he would mind if I posted his answers as an email interview. He didn't. I asked a few more questions. He answered.

Now through the magic of cut and paste (and some grammatical correction), I offer a first hand perspective of what it is like to go into a Maryland courtroom to fight a speeding ticket. I offer the interview without comment. I offer my thoughts on the interview in my next post.

For the extremely dense of you out there, TSJ will stand for The Skeptical Juror and WF will stand for Will Foreman.

TSJ: When you appear in court, who represents the State?
WF: They normally have just a Forest Heights Police Officer (the last time I was there they had 2 officers, and Optotraffic had 2 reps there as well.

TSJ: How is the case against you presented to the judge?
WF: The officer reads the statement describing the location time place and speed.  He always explains how the machine "self checks itself daily"

TSJ: Would you be allowed to call witnesses?
WF: Sure

TSJ: Would you be allowed to subpoena people or documents?
WF: In advance I believe.

TSJ: Would you be allowed to have an attorney?
WF: Yes, but why? 

TSJ: Are all the cases being heard traffic ticket cases?
WF: Not all just traffic cases, the entire room is just Forest Heights / Optotraffic "offenders"

TSJ: About how long does each of your cases take?
WF: It varies.  Some judges have a problem grasping the matter.

TSJ Did you watch any of the other people present their case?
WF: That is the saddest part.  Forest Heights is not an affluent area.  Many of the people are there because they cannot afford to lose the 40 bucks.  At the risk of sounding like an elitist, there is a always a parade of poor uneducated people totally unprepared to defend themselves.  People argue their car cannot go that fast.  They claim there isn't a school near there.  I've even heard "I have lived here for x number of years, I know the camera is there, I always slow down there.  It is very, very sad.  And that's what makes me so upset!

WF: btw: The Wednesday morning courtroom is dedicated to just Forest Heights / Optotraffic cases.

[End of first round of questioning. Beginning of second round of questioning.]

TSJ: Can you elect to have a jury trial? 
WF: Yes It costs $80.00 and it's elevated to circuit court.

TSJ: Can you appeal a guilty verdict?  If so, how?
WF: Yes, again it's elevated to circuit court.

TSJ: Are you told what time your case will be heard, or do you have to plan to be there the entire time?
WF: No you must arrive for the calling of the docket and remain there until your hearing.

TSJ: What sort of defenses have been successful?
WF: I saw a scientist successfully make his case.  He was able to dispute the technology used by Optotraffic. I am requesting the transcript from the hearing because I want his name.  The Judge heard our defenses simultaneously.  We had to wait until the end.  We never met, but it was apparent to the Judge that both of our arguments were thoughtful and coherent.  In an attempt to expedite he heard us together. Some have gotten off because they were ticketed long after school hours. The majority of the successful arguments have focused on distance traveled between images.

TSJ: What sort of defenses have been unsuccessful?
WF: The most common is when the accused explains how long they have lived there.  That they are aware of the camera's presence.  That they make a conscious effort to slow down at the location.  Others have unsuccessfully argued that their cars cannot accelerate from the previous traffic light that quickly.  Many claim the camera isn't near a school. 

Our store manager unsuccessfully argued on our behalf for about 6 tickets regarding the cameras violations regarding the camera's placement.  Several guidelines found in the state's brochure regarding placement were violated: the camera isn't supposed to be on an incline, it is; the camera isn't supposed to be near a red light camera, it is 350 ft; the camera isn't supposed to be in a speed reduction zone, it is; there was supposed to be a 30 day period when the camera is introduced to a community.  Forest Heights camera spent its introductory period on a side street, far off the path.  When the 30 days were up they moved the unit to a 4 lane highway with guardrails, State Highway 210, and began issuing citations immediately.
 
TSJ: What is the nominal fine if you fight the case?
WF: It depends on the Judge.  My most recent session the Judge offers to everyone present that if they plead guilty he would reduce the fine to $2.00 plus court costs of $22.00.


TSJ: What is the nominal fine if you plead guilty?  
WF: I don't know what normal is, just what I stated above. 

TSJ: Why might someone show up and plead guilty rather than just pay the ticket by mail? 
WF: They are intimidated by the prospect of appearing before the Judge as well as the police officer that patrols the very streets where they reside. 

TSJ: What are the conditions of payment? Do people have to pay on the spot? Must they pay cash? 
WF: You must pay on the spot.  They will accept cash or credit cards. 

TSJ: What if people are unable to pay the penalty? 
WF: I don't know.

TSJ: What sorts of attitude do people generally assume? Are they angry? Are they subservient? Do they plead for mercy?
WF: All of the above.  Most are disgusted!  Many feel violated and absolutely helpless. Many won't return to fight because they feel it's not worth their time.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Back With a Whimper

This is the way the blogging resumes,
This is the way the blogging resumes,
This is the way the blogging resumes,
Not with a bang but with a whimper.

(100 meaningless points to the person who can identify the cultural reference.)

A lot has happened since I went dark.

Jason Williams was executed by the people of Alabama.
Donald Beaty was executed by the people of Arizona
Gaylord Bradford was executed by the people of Texas

Robert Simon, Jr. was granted a stay of execution by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

The Texas Forensic Science Commission sidestepped a finding regarding Cameron Todd Willingham. Governor Rick Perry is going to celebrate the whitewash by running for president of the United States.

David Wayne Spence is back in the news, in a dead sort of way. I scored him as 94 out of 100 on my Actual Innocence Scorecard.

The Supreme Court overturned Delma Banks death penalty. I previously scored Delma Banks 57 out of 100 on my Actual Innocence Scorecard.

Judge Kevin Fine threw out a jury's murder conviction and his own sentence.

Antonin Scalia got wrapped up with math once again, and it didn't work out.

Unfortunately, you missed the details because I was off doing whatever.  I didn't even complete whatever, and I still have a hell of a lot of work to do on whatever, but I'm going to try to ease my way back into blogging.

With all the heavy duty stuff that I missed and I should now be writing about, I'm going to take the easy way out. I'm going to write about Will Foreman and his traffic tickets.

Did I mention he beat another automated ticket in court?

Stay tuned.