Image: Reuters
This week, the veil of respectability that clads the Judicial system in America was lifted abruptly when news surfaced that a 70 year old grandmother was fired because she helped a prisoner who sought to prove his innocence obtain DNA evidence in his case.
The prisoner's request had been denied twice on technicalities, such as the fact that he filled in his request on the wrong paperwork, or some such trifle.
The prisoner, Robert Nelson, had tried to overturn his rape conviction twice before, but the judge in his case, Hon. David Byrn twice denied his request in two separate appeals to gain access to the DNA evidence in the case, on the grounds that Nelson had not written or composed the motion for discovery in the correct fashion.
Nelson finally obtained permission to use the DNA evidence after showing Sharon Snyder, a court employee, a similar motion to his, used by a different prisoner in a separate case, which had been accepted by the judge.
That discovery allowed Nelson to finally present the evidence in a third appeal. Once that DNA was accepted, Nelson was found innocent. But the victims in this happy ending were both the accused and the court employee who helped him find his freedom: Sharon Snyder and Nelson.
Powerful people in America are often given immunity, even retroactively, when they break the law, either because there has been a good amount of deregulation or because they cite security concerns or similar governmental defense. But poor people, or people in small positions countrywide, cannot avail themselves of the same shield.
The judge in the Nelson case, even though he could claim he was following the law, will have to reckon with the fact that he doggedly and cruelly kept an innocent man in prison for three additional years, just because there was a minor error in form in the motion filed by the prisoner.
In many cases, innocent prisoners are stonewalled when they try to obtain DNA evidence to prove their innocence. The average time it takes a prisoner, if he even manages to do so, to exculpate him or her self, is about 14 years.
In many cases the prisoner does not have the means to present the DNA evidence. That's when organizations such as the Innocence Project step in. And in some states, it is not even mandatory to grant access to DNA testing. In some cases, even if the prisoner can afford or is aided in obtaining his own DNA evidence, say by the Innocence Project, the prisoner's motions are denied.
Another case, that of Willie Manning, is a searing example of the lack of democratic process in a country whose constitution is supposed to ensure the individual's right to a swift and fair trial. In the Manning case, state officials deemed that there should not be any DNA evidence or even fingerprint evidence offered a condemned man who maintains his innocence. This type of logic harkens back to the times of the Inquisition, when a heretic could only prove his innocence if he confessed to his sins. And that is exactly what it is in some cases: a process in which freedom sometime can only be obtained when guilt is admitted. One such appalling case is that of the Memphis three, also known as the Peter Pan murders suspects, in which three teens were railroaded into life and in one case death sentences that were only suspended when the three, 20 years on, admitted reluctantly to their guilt to obtain their freedom.
In many cases, justice is insignificant. It is much more important for the prosecutor's office, the justice department, the courts and even the police involved in the case, that the case not be reversed, even when overwhelming evidence is presented as to the innocence of the condemned. In some cases, the true perpetrator is forever shielded from prosecution by this dastardly refusal to admit culpability or error in prosecution. Such, again, is the case of the Memphis Three.
At fault then, are both the system and the judges who allow such travesties. Ultimately, the judges cannot serve only one master. They should serve two or even three, and that includes the law, themselves and the innocent man/woman.
One of the first things that could truly validate America's claim of democratic justice enforcement is to destroy all procedural bars to DNA testing, even going so far as to provide each and every prisoner with free DNA evidence to aid in their plight.
Another statute or provision which must be stricken is the so called 'sunset provision', which mandates expiration terms for post conviction DNA access.
Partial Source : the Atlantic/ 8.1.13
No comments:
Post a Comment