�
 |
|
 |
|
|
| A few exonerated from death row 2004/5 - |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
victims cry
 Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:47 am |
|
|
|
A few exonerated from death row 2004/5
2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
121. Derrick Jamison Ohio Conviction: 1985, Charges Dismissed: 2005
On February 28, 2005, Ohio Common Pleas Judge Richard Niehaus dismissed all charges against Derrick Jamison for the death of a Cincinnati bartender after prosecutors elected not to retry him in the case. (Associated Press, March 3, 2005). The prosecution had withheld critical eyewitness statements and other evidence from the defense resulting in the overturning of Jamison's conviction in 2002. Jamison was originally convicted and sentenced to death in 1985 based in part on the testimony of Charles Howell, a co-defendant who received a lesser sentence in exchange for his testimony against Jamison.
The prosecution withheld statements that contradicted Howell’s testimony and that would have undermined the prosecution’s theory of how the victim died, and would have pointed to other possible suspects for the murder. Two federal courts ruled that the prosecution's actions denied Jamison of a fair trial. (Jamison v. Collins, 291 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2002)).
One of the withheld statments involved James Suggs, an eyewitness to the robbery. Suggs testified at trial that he had been unable to make a positive identification when the police showed him a photo array of suspects. In fact, police records show that Suggs identified two suspects, neither of which was Derrick Jamison. Additional withheld evidence consisted of a series of discrepancies between Jamison’s physical characteristics and the descriptions of the perpetrators given to police investigators by eyewitnesses.
The co-defendant Howell recently testified that he could not remember anything about the crime, and state prosecutors decided not to proceed against Jamison. He remains incarcerated on other unrelated charges. (See also, K. Perry, "'85 Murder Conviction Dismissed," Cincinnati Post, Mar. 1, 2005).
122. Harold Wilson Pennslyvania Conviction: 1989, Acquitted: 2005
More than 16 years after a Pennsylvania jury returned three death sentences against Harold Wilson, new DNA evidence helped lead to his acquittal. During his 1989 capital trial, Wilson was prosecuted by former Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Jack McMahon, a man best known for his role in a training video that advised new Philadelphia prosecutors on how to use race in selecting death penalty juries.
In 1999, Wilson’s death sentence was overturned on state post-conviction review when a trial-level court determined that his defense counsel had failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence during his original trial. (Commonwealth v. Harold C. Wilson, Philadelphia Cnty. Com. PL.Nos. 3267-73, Aug.19, 1999). A later appeal led the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to remand for a new hearing because of evidence that McMahon used racially discriminatory practices in jury selection. In 2003, a trial court found that McMahon had improperly exercised his peremptory strikes to eliminate potential black jurors and granted Wilson a new trial, a decision that the District Attorney’s office did not appeal. The court stated that in the new trial the death penalty could not be sought. The new jury, which did not have to be "death-qualified" and which was chosen without the prior race bias, acquitted Wilson of all charges on November 15, 2005. New DNA evidence revealed that blood from the crime scene did not come from Wilson or any of the victims, thereby suggesting the involvement of another assailant. (Associated Press, Nov. 18, 2005).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
123. John Ballard Florida Conviction: 2003, Acquitted: 2006
The Florida Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of death row inmate John Robert Ballard (pictured) and ordered his acquittal in the 1999 murders of two of his acquaintances. The Court concluded that the evidence against Ballard was so weak that the trial judge should have dismissed the case immediately. The primary evidence presented against Ballard was a hair and a fingerprint, both of which he could have left during his many visits to the victims' apartment. Bloody fingerprints and 100 other hair samples were found associated with the crime scene, none of them belonging to Ballard, who has always maintained his innocence. One of the victims was a known drug dealer.
The state Attorney General's office said that it would not seek a rehearing in the case. At Ballard's trial, only 9 of the 12 jurors recommended a death sentence. The judge decided to sentence Ballard to death, commenting: "You have not only forfeited your right to live among us, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have forfeited your right to live at all." It is expected that Ballard will be released soon, after serving 3 years on death row.
(Associated Press, Feb. 23, 2006; Miami Herald, Feb. 24, 2006; Ballard v. Florida, No. SC03-1012, Feb. 23, 2006).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria for inclusion on the list:
The definition of innocence that DPIC uses in placing defendants on the list is that they had been convicted and sentenced to death, and subsequently either a) their conviction was overturned and they were acquitted at a re-trial, or all charges were dropped; or b) they were given an absolute pardon by the governor based on new evidence of innocence.
|
|
On Vacation!
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 9299
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| pax
Posted:
Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:00 pm |
|
|
|
Thanks for this thread, VC.
Fascinating information.
I hope more will post here.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16089
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| shirley
Posted:
Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:36 pm |
|
|
|
I wondered if anyone had any information on the convict John Grissom
wrote about in his book The Innocent Man. I will read the book eventually but would like some facts about the case. Thanks
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
�
Jasidogdotcom template v.1.0.4 © jasidog.com
Powered by phpBB
© 2001, 2004 phpBB Group
|
