Support NeoGAF

[Dead Man]

Source: News.com.au

A NEW York truck driver who spent nearly 19 years behind bars for a 1988 slaying he didn't commit has walked free after DNA testing exonerated him and instead pointed to another prison inmate.

The exonerated inmate, Frank Sterling, 46, was convicted of murder in 1992 based on a confession that he later recanted.

State Judge Thomas Van Strydonck vacated the conviction today after Monroe County prosecutors agreed with lawyers for the Innocence Project that DNA evidence obtained from the victim's clothing excluded him as the killer and pointed instead to Mark Christie, who was convicted of strangling a four-year-old girl in 1994.

Prosecutors who interviewed Christie earlier this month said he confessed to killing Viola Manville. He had been questioned about Manville's killing in 1988 but denied involvement and was discounted as a suspect.

After years of protesting his innocence, Sterling said he felt anger and relief when told he was being freed.

"Yeah, I'm mad," he said. "I'm glad he (Christie) finally did the right thing. Wish it was a little sooner."

Ms Manville, a 74-year-old grandmother, was attacked as she walked along a rural trail near her home in Hilton, a Rochester suburb, and was bludgeoned to death on November 29, 1988.

Sterling was serving 25 years to life. He confessed to the killing during an all-night interrogation in July 1991, but later claimed he had slipped into a hypnotic state and parroted details police gave him about the crime.

He unsuccessfully sought a new trial in 1997 after four former friends of Christie testified the teenager bragged about clubbing Manville with a BB gun on his walk to high school.

Christie, who is 36, was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for strangling a neighbour, Kali Ann Poulton, and hiding the body for two years before he finally blurted out the truth to his new bride.

The girl vanished while riding a tricycle outside her home in a suburban Rochester townhouse complex in 1994.

Horrible for the guy, glad he is finally free though.

 

[Shanadeus]

So what will the compensation be?

 

[Cep]

So what will the compensation be?

Knowing how the system works: Nothing.

 

[Jocchan]

I read this like "1988 murders" first, and went "what the fuck?".

 

[xbhaskarx]

There is a very important lesson to be learned here:

When suspected of murder and interrogated by the police, do not, i repeat, DO NOT slip into a hypnotic state and parrot details given to you about the murder. Confessing to a murder is never a good idea, and for some strange reason people tend to not believe you when you later recant.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

So what will the compensation be?

A pat on the back and an "oops, our bad".

 

[Stahsky]

I don't even want to imagine how he felt when they convicted him and nobody would believe him.

After all this time and finally being free, I'd probably hate the world.

 

[Cheeto]

There is a very important lesson to be learned here:

When suspected of murder and interrogated by the police, do GET A LAWYER

or this

 

[I <3 Memes]

There is a very important lesson to be learned here:

When suspected of murder and interrogated by the police, do not, i repeat, DO NOT slip into a hypnotic state and parrot details given to you about the murder. Confessing to a murder is never a good idea, and for some strange reason people tend to not believe you when you later recant.

You would be surprised what you will admit to after 10 straight hours of questioning. Eventually your brain just wants the questioning to stop.

 

[gofreak]

Knowing how the system works: Nothing.

21 states have compensation laws. I think there's a federal compensation also, although it may only apply where states have these laws.

But they all should. If the system that deals so fundamentally with peoples' lives messes up, then it should pay up where it makes mistakes.

fake edit - with regard to NY, it seems rather complex:

http://mediaworks.journalism.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=ua

Some people got compensation, to varying amounts, some got nothing.

 

[Walshicus]

Good thing he wasn't executed then, isn't it.

There is always room for wrongful conviction.

 

[2San]

You would be surprised what you will admit to after 10 straight hours of questioning. Eventually your brain just wants the questioning to stop.

Yeah, now we know though. Just ignore everything the police say. If you just block out everything I think you can cruise through the 10 hours.

Good thing he wasn't executed then, isn't it.

There is always room for wrongful conviction.

10% of the people are wrongfully executed. Makes you think what the real number is.

edit: On the flip side at least some mistakes are fixed.

 

[neorej]

You would be surprised what you will admit to after 10 straight hours of questioning. Eventually your brain just wants the questioning to stop.

After pulling an all-nighter with the cops mentally abusing me to get a confession, hell, I'd even say I've sold my mom to Somali-pirates...

 

[Az]

So what will the compensation be?

I think some states have compesation of 50k per year for wrong convictions.

 

[Mohonky]

I think some states have compesation of 50k per year for wrong convictions.

Not nearly enough.

 

[falconzss]

Not nearly enough.

as if any amount of money could compensate him for the lost years behind bars.

 

[Zaptruder]

You would be surprised what you will admit to after 10 straight hours of questioning. Eventually your brain just wants the questioning to stop.

You don't have to answer those questions if you don't want to.

In the legal system, people have the right to silence when accused of a crime.

 

[Barrett2]

I think some states have compesation of 50k per year for wrong convictions.

That is such a pitiful amount in return for locking you away. Damn.

 

[Zaptruder]

Not nearly enough.

It's not a bad amount either though.

Once exonerated, it's more money than most will see in their lifetimes... but more importantly, it allows the wrongfully convicted to reestablish what remaining life they have.

 

[Dead Man]

You don't have to answer those questions if you don't want to.

In the legal system, people have the right to silence when accused of a crime.

Good luck with that after 10 hours. That is why the first thing you say (at least in the US) should always be "I want a lawyer'.

 

[Des0lar]

And this is why capital punishment sucks. If they killed him by now, he would have died an innocent.

 

[Barrett2]

Good luck with that after 10 hours. That is why the first thing you say (at least in the US) should always be "I want a lawyer'.

This is so true. Even for mundane things. My sister was pulled over by cops last year, and she readily admitted to them drug use, etc., all during the traffic stop, then decided to call me the morning of her arraignment to ask advice. Since she gave away the farm during the police questioning, the prosecutor had zero motivation to cut her a deal. People gotta realize, if you are about to be arrested or are in custody, you NEVER voluntarily give up information.

 

[Zaptruder]

Good luck with that after 10 hours. That is why the first thing you say (at least in the US) should always be "I want a lawyer'.

Yes, that too. But if you're not answering questions from the beginning, I highly doubt that they'll persist for 10 hours of stonewalling.

 

[Az]

Not nearly enough.

Of course it's not enough, after that many years it will be nearly impossible to get used to normal life.

 

[spiderman123]

wow sad to hear stories about ppl being wrongfully convicted .....their life is ruined b/c of shit like this

 

[Jintor]

Yes, that too. But if you're not answering questions from the beginning, I highly doubt that they'll persist for 10 hours of stonewalling.

It was 1988.

I bet they would.

 

[Dead Man]

Yes, that too. But if you're not answering questions from the beginning, I highly doubt that they'll persist for 10 hours of stonewalling.

Don't underestimate the power of persistence. Police don't.

 

[levious]

You don't have to answer those questions if you don't want to.

In the legal system, people have the right to silence when accused of a crime.

this happened in 1988, maintaining your right to silence is difficult while being beaten with a phone book...

 

[reggieandTFE]

I don't know about New York, but the Chicago police department tortured thousands of false confessions in the 80s.

 

[FairyD]

You know with all these wrongful convictions of murders I'm starting to think its not hard to kill a person and to get away with it.

 

[WickedAngel]

You would be surprised what you will admit to after 10 straight hours of questioning. Eventually your brain just wants the questioning to stop.

That's why you immediately do as Chappelle did and "Plead The Fif". One, two, three, four, fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiif.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Sterling was serving 25 years to life. He confessed to the killing during an all-night interrogation in July 1991, but later claimed he had slipped into a hypnotic state and parroted details police gave him about the crime.

While this is certainly no case of torture, it highlights why torture fails; it's too easy to get a false confession or false information.

 

[Amory]

After pulling an all-nighter with the cops mentally abusing me to get a confession, hell, I'd even say I've sold my mom to Somali-pirates...

Knowing what would lay ahead of me if I were to confess, I can safely say it'd take way more than 10 hours of mental abuse for me to say I murdered someone.

Sad for this guy though. Glad he finally got out.

 

[KingDirk]

While this is certainly no case of torture, it highlights why torture fails; it's too easy to get a false confession or false information.

Bu-bu-bu 'Ticking time-bomb in DC!"

I completely agree with you, you just reminded me about some of the crazy 24-theories people asked Obama about when he was anti-torture during the last election.

On-topic, though, glad they rectified the mistake. Not all jurisdictions will do this; I saw something recently where the wrongfully-convicted clearly had DNA evidence (not collected on the state's dime, either) and the court system refused to open a new trial. There're also situations where they'll refuse to release unless the convicted basically agrees that they won't sue to hold the system liable.

Yay.

 

[Dead Man]

Knowing what would lay ahead of me if I were to confess, I can safely say it'd take way more than 10 hours of mental abuse for me to say I murdered someone.

Sad for this guy though. Glad he finally got out.

You might be surprised. A lot of people give incorrect information under long term interrogation.

 

[Aurora]

Completely broken justice system.

 

[Cep]

21 states have compensation laws. I think there's a federal compensation also, although it may only apply where states have these laws.

But they all should. If the system that deals so fundamentally with peoples' lives messes up, then it should pay up where it makes mistakes.

fake edit - with regard to NY, it seems rather complex:

http://mediaworks.journalism.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=ua

Some people got compensation, to varying amounts, some got nothing.

It absolutely boggles my mind that 'nothing' is a possible outcome.

It really does.

Completely broken justice system.

This is hyperbole at its worst. It has lots of issues, but it is hardly broken (nor are other systems so perfect).

 

[MadraptorMan]

Guy wouldn't be around any more if this happened in Texas, huh?

 

[red shoe paul]

Knowing how the system works: Nothing.

I'd straight up kick the shit out of the people involved when I got out.

 

[Gaborn]

This is why shit like THIS needs to stop.

In an age of advanced forensic science, the first step toward ending Kenneth Reed’s prolonged series of legal appeals should be simple and quick: a DNA test, for which he has offered to pay, on evidence from the 1991 rape of which he was convicted.

Louisiana, where Mr. Reed is in prison, is one of 46 states that have passed laws to enable inmates like him to get such a test. But in many jurisdictions, prosecutors are using new arguments to get around the intent of those laws, particularly in cases with multiple defendants, when it is not clear how many DNA profiles will be found in a sample.

The laws were enacted after DNA evidence exonerated a first wave of prisoners in the early 1990s, when law enforcement authorities strongly resisted reopening old cases. Continued resistance by prosecutors is causing years of delay and, in some cases, eliminating the chance to try other suspects because the statute of limitations has passed by the time the test is granted.

Mr. Reed has been seeking a DNA test for three years, saying it will prove his innocence. But prosecutors have refused, saying he was identified by witnesses, making his identification by DNA unnecessary.

A recent analysis of 225 DNA exonerations by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, found that prosecutors opposed DNA testing in almost one out of five cases. In many of the others, they initially opposed testing but ultimately agreed to it. In 98 of those 225 cases, the DNA test identified the real culprit.

In Illinois, prosecutors have opposed a DNA test for Johnnie Lee Savory, convicted of committing a double murder when he was 14, on the grounds that a jury was convinced of his guilt without DNA and that the 175 convicts already exonerated by DNA were “statistically insignificant.”

In the case of Robert Conway, a mentally incapacitated man convicted of stabbing a shopkeeper to death in 1986 in Pennsylvania, prosecutors have objected that DNA tests on evidence from the scene would not be enough to prove his innocence.

And in Tennessee, prosecutors withdrew their consent to DNA testing for Rudolph Powers, convicted of a 1980 rape, because the victim had an unidentified consensual sex partner shortly before the attack.

Such arguments, defense lawyers say, often ignore scientific advances like the ability to identify multiple DNA profiles in a single sample.

Defense lawyers also say the arguments ignore the proven power of DNA to refute almost every other type of evidence.

In a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, Lynne Abraham, the Philadelphia district attorney, argued that the defendant, Anthony Wright, was not entitled to DNA testing because of the overwhelming evidence presented at trial, including his confession, four witnesses and clothing stained with the victims’ blood that the police said was found at Mr. Wright’s home. The Pennsylvania DNA statute requires the courts to determine if there is a “reasonable possibility” that the test would prove innocence.

Prosecutors say they are concerned that convicts will seek DNA testing as a delay tactic or a fishing expedition, and that allowing DNA tests undermines hard-won jury verdicts and opens the floodgates to overwhelming requests.

“It’s definitely a matter of drawing the line somewhere,” said Peter Carr, the assistant district attorney who handled the case of Mr. Wright, who was accused of raping and killing a 77-year-old woman. The defendant did not request testing until 2005, three years after the statute was passed, Mr. Carr said, and in his view there was no possibility that the test would show innocence.

“There’s also the idea that you want finality for the victim’s sake,” Mr. Carr said. “If someone else’s semen was found at the crime scene, we’d have to talk to the victim’s family about whether the victim was sexually active.”

Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York legal advocacy group that uses DNA to help the wrongfully convicted, said that most prosecutors no longer resisted testing in cases like Mr. Wright’s, where there is one perpetrator. More obstacles arise, Mr. Scheck said, in cases with multiple defendants or cases where a test result might point to another suspect, even if it does not clearly prove the innocence of the defendant.

In one such case near Austin, Tex., a defendant who was convicted in the bludgeoning death of his wife requested a DNA test on a bloody bandanna found 100 feet from the house. On its own, a test of the bandanna would not prove the guilt or innocence of the defendant the same way testing semen in a rape case might. But if it matched DNA found at the scene of a similar crime in the same county, or DNA in a database of convicted felons, it would be significant evidence that someone else might be responsible — the kind of evidence that might plant a reasonable doubt in a juror’s mind or lead to a confession by a perpetrator.

Although such matches have been found in many cases, most state DNA statutes focus only on whether a test alone could prove innocence. The purpose of Tennessee’s DNA statute, a court there said, was “to establish the innocence of the petitioner and not to create conjecture or speculation that the act may have possibly been perpetrated by a phantom defendant.”

Law enforcement officials often say, “ ‘We’re not going to consider the possibility that a third party did it,’ ” Mr. Scheck said, adding, “which is completely crazy because you use the databank every day to make new criminal cases.”

In Mr. Reed’s case in East Baton Rouge Parish, the district attorney who first prosecuted the case and now his successor, Hillar C. Moore III, have appealed every DNA-related ruling in Mr. Reed’s favor and objected to even a hearing on the matter.

They have argued that Mr. Reed’s identity was not an issue in the trial because he was identified by the victim, even though DNA evidence has repeatedly contradicted eyewitness identifications. They have argued that there was no way of knowing whether the evidence would yield a usable DNA profile — a question that would be settled by testing it.

The victim testified that two attackers had sexual intercourse with her, but the prosecutors now argue that it might have been only one, Mr. Reed’s accomplice. Even if Mr. Reed’s DNA was nowhere to be found, said Prem Burns, the first assistant district attorney, he would still be guilty of aiding the rapist.

Mr. Reed’s lawyers have argued that a test on a rape kit and semen could prove his innocence if it shows two distinct profiles and neither is a match.

But Ms. Burns said that under her reading of the law, the mere possibility that the test would show two profiles is not enough — Mr. Reed has to demonstrate, in advance, that a favorable test result would resolve his innocence without question.

But the prosecutors also seem to believe that Mr. Reed’s arguments are far-fetched. “There are simply too many ‘ifs’ in this case,” Mr. Moore wrote in a recent appeal.

Prosecutors said much the same when Douglas Warney, convicted of murder in Rochester in 1997, argued that a DNA test could lead to the real killer. They called his assertion “a drawn-out kind of sequence of if, if, if.” Yet that is exactly what happened after Mr. Warney’s DNA test, and the killer, when he was identified, confessed.

Nina Morrison, a lawyer for Mr. Wright, said: “The one thing I’ve learned in doing this for seven years is there’s no reason to guess or speculate. You can just do the test.”

 

[EvilMario]

Confession, witnesses, and 'shaky' video evidence should always be accompanied by a DNA test whenever possible.. because DNA does lie

Spoiler

often

.

 

[Dead Man]

This is why shit like THIS needs to stop.

Ugh. Makes me sick.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

At least he wasn't executed.

 

[Jintor]

Just finished a legal ethics assignment.

Prosecution worries about DNA testing as a delay tactic are valid, but in any given ethical scenario the primary concern should be justice.

 

[Dead Man]

Just finished a legal ethics assignment.

Prosecution worries about DNA testing as a delay tactic are valid, but in any given ethical scenario the primary concern should be justice.

Exactly. So what if there is a delay, it's not like courts are speedy these days anyway.

 

[MCX]

Prosecutors are some of the lowest form of scum there is. They don't care who's really guilty or that they've ruined an innocent person's life, because in the end their conviction rate is all that matters. And to add insult to injury, they're fucking immune from litigation if they knowingly lie and/or fabricate evidence to lock away somebody who they know isn't guilty.

 

[chase]

If G*d had wanted us to use DNA he'd have given us the ability to see it with our own eyes.

I say kill him!

 

[Puddles]

We need a nationwide law that states that anyone wrongly convicted of a crime and later exonerated gets at least a million for each year of wrongful imprisonment.

 

[Amory]

We need a nationwide law that states that anyone wrongly convicted of a crime and later exonerated gets at least a million for each year of wrongful imprisonment.

No, no we don't. I'd definitely be for some sort of compensation though. Say, 50-60 grand per year falsely imprisoned. That'd be a nice way to at least get back on your feet, and it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

 

[Gaborn]

We need a nationwide law that states that anyone wrongly convicted of a crime and later exonerated gets at least a million for each year of wrongful imprisonment.

No, they should at LEAST get minimum wage as if they were working 40 hours a week every week they were in prison.