Back in 1972 the US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty in America was "cruel and unusual" because it was arbitrarily imposed and thus unconstitutional. The court laid down the law and said that although capital punishment itself was not per se unconstitutional if the individual states wanted to use the death penalty, it must be imposed fairly, with reasonable consistency. Forman v.. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) This ruling affectively vacated all death sentences then pending at the time and the individual states quickly began rewriting their death penalty laws in a rush to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.
Florida was the first state to pass its new laws re-enacting the death penalty. Within months these new laws, supposedly designed to "narrow" the imposition of the death penalty by establishing specific statutory aggravating circumstances that must be found to exist before any defendant can be condemned to death, and soon men began filling the cells on Florida's death row. That was over 33 years ago - many of those then sentenced to death then still remain locked away in solitary confinement even after all these years. (Jacob Dougan, Gary Alvord, William Ecledge, Raymond Merks, etc) (See also "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied")
Through the years many challenges have been pursued seeking to overturn the death penalty, but none have been successful. Recently, presumably because of the increasing high number of exonerations of those wrongfully convicted and condemned to death, (See 'Southern Injustice: Condemning an Innocent man'), support for the death penalty has consistently been following. A report issued by the Justice Department this month (December 2006)found that increasingly in recent years juries are not willing to impose the death penalty. Consistently, studies have shown that if given the choice of imposing the death penalty or imposing a sentence of life without parole, jurors will choose life without parole.
But Florida is a "red" state in which conservative republicans control the branches of state government by campaigning on get-tough-on-crime issues. In November 2006 the state elected republican "Chain gang Charlie" Crist as Governor and "Mad Dog" Mc Follum as Attorney General - both of whom build their political careers with their rabid support for the death penalty and undoubtedly will continue to do so.
However, the continued validity of Florida's death penalty is presently being challenged on numerous fronts and there is reason to believe that within the foreseeable future Florida's death penalty will be declared unconstitutional. If this happens, then all those presently under sentence of death will have their sentences reduced to "life" - many of those currently condemned to die will theoretically even be immediately eligible for parole, although it is unlikely parole would be granted.
There are presently three major constitutional challenges pending before the Courts that if successful, any one of them can affectively abolish the death penalty in Florida. The one issue that has received the most public attention this past year is whether the form of execution (lethal injection) constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" because of the manner in which it is administered.
This argument is based upon claims that the chemicals used to sedate the condemned may wear off before the second chemical is used to paralyze the inmate and the third one to cause death by cardiac arrest. Imagine if you can - being administered a drug that renders you incapable of expressing pain, then another drug that virtually burns your veins as it flows through your body and so for a prolonged period of time you're subjected to a physical pain equal to having acid poured into your guts eating its very out. Would that not be a form of excruciating torture that as a matter of moral conscience would offend any civilized society?
In 2005, the issue was raised in the case of Clarence Hill, a Florida inmate then under a death warrant and was litigated all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court See, Hill v. McDonough, 126 S.Ct. 2096 (2006) only to be remanded back to the lower federal court where the issue was disingenuously circumvented by finding that it was "untimely" raised and thus procedurally barred from review upon the merits. Shortly after that cowardly ruling Clarence Hill was executed. Subsequently, only a month later Florida executed decorated Vietnam veteran Arthur Rutherford, also by lethal injection. (See Another Day, Another Death)
This month brought about the Christmas sacrifice, the execution of Angel Diaz a Puerto Rican native who spoke little English yet was compelled to represent himself at trial - a pathetic pretense of justice that left many knowledgeable about his case questioning whether he was even guilty of the crime.The Puerto Rican government called upon Florida Governor Jeb Bush to grant Diaz a clemency but these pleas were ignored. Diaz lawyers attempted to again have both the Florida and Federal Courts grant a stay of execution until it could be determined whether Florida's method of administering lethal injection were adequate to ensure the condemned prisoner would not suffer a prolonged barbarically torturous death - but again these pleas for judicial review of the issue were denied without addressing the merits of the claims.
At 6:00 PM on Wednesday December 13, 2006 Angel Diaz lay strapped to a gurney at Florida State Prison. As witnesses watched from behind a glass wall, the warden gave the final instruction to administer that lethal cocktail of drugs. But it quickly became evident that something had gone wrong, horribly wrong. It then took 34 minutes before Angel Diaz was finally pronounced death....34 minutes to torturously inflict death upon a possibly innocent man as he lay helplessly strapped to a gurney.
True to the inherent nature of government, immediately after this obviously botched execution was carried out the Dept. of Corrections spokesperson attempted to claim that the administration of drugs proved temporarily inadequate to inflict quick death due to Angel Diaz pre existing liver problems. However in the days that followed pieces of the real truth began leaking out to the media...the prison had used unqualified medical technicians to insert the IV needle and administer the lethal drugs.The needle had been pushed through the vein into the soft tissue and so the drugs were not injected directly into the vein. He should have been unconscious after five minutes and dead within 15. Instead, he struggled and grimaced for 34 minutes while a second dose of lethal drugs was administered, again incorrectly. The county medical examiner who performed an autopsy after the execution found 12-inch chemical burns on the interior of both his arms.
On Friday December 15, 2006 Florida Governor Jeb Bush announced that he would immediately convene a commission to look into this execution and whether lethal injection itself was being administered without the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. Governor Bush declared that no more executions would be carried out in Florida until this issue was resolved. Additionally, lawyers for other death row prisoners are now preparing court challenges which will focus on Angel Diaz botched execution as proof that Florida's means of administering the death penalty by way of lethal injection is unconstitutional.
To those knowledgeable of Florida's death penalty system these latest challenges must seem like deja vu...it has only been a few years since Florida faced similar issues concerning the use of the electric chair. In may of 1990 Jesse Tafero was strapped into Florida's "Old Sparky". Witnesses watched in horror. As the electricity ripped through his body flames could be seen coming from his head. Although separated by a glass wall the witnesses were soon overwhelmed by the smell of burning flesh as a cloud of smoke hung over the room. Subsequently a campaign to end the use of the electric chair began but prison officials conveniently determined that Tafero's horrific execution was an isolated incident caused by the use of a synthetic sponge and could easily be remedied by going back to using only natural sponges in the headgear used to fasten the electric wires to the head of the prisoner.
But then it happened again....and again. Clearly the use of the electric chair was on it's last leg. The final execution by electrocution in Florida was the death of Allen "Tiny" Davis, a rather large man who also literally caught fire in front of the witnesses. No longer could Florida defend the use of the electric chair without risking having Florida's death penalty itself declared unconstitutional. At the time Florida did not have any alternative to the electric chair, if the courts found this method to be unconstitutional it would effectively vacate all existing death sentences. Like rabid dogs, hungry for more blood the conservative politicians in Florida called for an alternative to "Old Sparky" so that if the Courts did declare death by the electric chair unconstitutional no death sentences would be vacated. This politically inspired Machiavellian plot brought up statutory provisions adopting the use of lethal injection in Florida, and let it down the path to where it is today. But with both the use of the electric chair and now the use of lethal injection both now constitutionally questionable - and no other viable alternatives available to carry out executions in Florida - will Florida's death penalty now itself be declared unconstitutional? As this issue is now aggressively pursued through the Courts, at least two other major constitutional challenges are working their way through the Courts, either of which may very well end the use of the death penalty in Florida.
Recently in Coday v. State (Florida Supreme Court opinion released October 26 2006) at least three of the seven members expressed their opinion that Florida's death penalty is unconstitutional. In a concurring opinion, former Chief Justice Pariente spoke of how the Florida Supreme Court had previously instructed the state legislature to address Florida's capital sentencing scheme as Florida is now the only state that does not require a jury to impose a death sentence by unanimous vote, or even require jurors to identify the specific aggravating circumstances used to justify their recommendations of imposition of death. In State v.. Steele, 921 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2005), the Florida Supreme Court explicitly admonished the Florida legislature that if it did not immediately modify Florida's capital sentencing scheme to conform with the requirements that a sentence of death must be imposed only by unanimous jury vote, then in light of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) Florida's death penalty itself may soon be declared unconstitutional.
Subsequently, the Florida legislature did take up the issue - and with the conservative republican legislators leading the way, voted not to change Florida's capital sentencing scheme thus making the deliberate decision to allow Florida to remain the only state that allow a person to be sentenced to death without an unanimous jury vote - and leaving Florida open to having its entire death penalty declared to be unconstitutional. (See "Don't preach pro-life while practicing pro-death"). In light of this refusal to correct this constitutional infirmity in the state legislature, legal challenges, filed by condemned prisoners are now working their way up through the courts arguing that Florida's death penalty is unconstitutional. If successful, this decision will inevitably result in vacating all present death sentences in Florida.
Last, but not by no means least, yet another significant constitutional challenge to Florida's death penalty was initiated following the recent release of a comprehensive report by the American Bar Association that found Florida's death penalty system to be fundamentally flawed. This challenge is in form of an argument that the ABA report establishes the necessary new evidence to open the door to challenge the constitutionality of Florida's dysfunctional death penalty system. Because of politically created and judicially enforced procedural rules, such as challenge to an individual death sentence that has previously been affirmed on appellate review can only come if "new evidence" can be developed that allow the claim to be timely raised. For this reason most of those currently sentenced to death cannot initiate a challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty based upon recently empirical studies that question the validity of the manner in which that penalty has been previously imposed. However if that condemned prisoner can convince the courts that this comprehensive study constitutes newly discovered evidence that previously could not have been discovered, then a new appeal can be initiated. Alternatively under Florida law if any court does subsequently issue a ruling declaring Florida's death penalty to be unconstitutional in a manner that is considered to be a fundamental change of law, then that ruling can be retroactively applied to extend relief to all death sentenced prisoners.
The argument raised in context of this recently comprehensive ABA report is that in light of the individual and collective deficiencies Florida's present death penalty system is unconstitutional for the same reason the US Supreme Court had previously declared the death penalty itself was unconstitutional in Forman v Georgia that Florida's death penalty is arbitrary and capricious, and unnecessarily invites imposition of the death penalty when that most extreme punishment is not constitutionally appropriate.
As recognized in the comprehensive report Florida presently leads the country in the number of men and women wrongfully convicted and condemned to death. Since Florida reinstated the death penalty at least 22 men and women condemned to death have subsequently been exonerated. Additionally of the over 650 men and women originally sentenced to death in Florida since 1974, at least half subsequently had their sentences reduced when the courts found that the sentence of death was imposed improperly.
With an error rate so high one would think that as a matter of moral conscience government officials in Florida would follow Illinois' lead and impose a moratorium to study the system, identify its faults and integrate necessary reforms. But Florida won't. Even with the documented cases in which the actual execution itself was obviously botched Florida has refused to take the initiative to correct problems.
With the Florida Supreme Court advising the Florida legislature to address the capital sentencing scheme due to clear constitutional problems the legislature refused to do so. And when the American Bar Association issued its own report following a comprehensive study that identified the fundamental flaws in Florida's death penalty, the State refused to impose a moratorium until adequate corrections could be made. Collectively, the result is clear - Florida's death penalty should be declared unconstitutional and abolished permanently. With such a well documented history politically motivated corruption that has created an inherently unfair system, as a matter of moral conscience Florida should not be allowed to impose the death penalty as such a politically corrupted system simply cannot be trusted with carrying out this ultimate punishment that itself has no place in a civilized society.
Regardless of whether one philosophically supports the death penalty or not it is that element of moral conscience that whatever measure of justice might be administered, it is administered in a fundamentally fair and humane way, and with the compassion and constraint of a civilized society. To condemn a man to death is in itself a conscious decision to deliberately take a human life. Although it is convenient to justify capital punishment by blindly adopting that "eye for an eye"mentality it is not and cannot be that superficial or simplistic. The punishment is by its very nature absolutely irreversible - once carried out it cannot be undone. To tolerate a system that has proven not only its inherent imperfection, but its unwillingness to correct identifiable imperfections is to advocate imposing this ultimate punishment upon the absolutely innocent, to make victims of the innocent under the pretense of administrating "justice". Even if we are morally certain of guilt, to tolerate a process that inflicts that punishment in a torturous and barbaric manner makes barbarians out of all of us.
Whether Florida's death penalty is on its last leg or not remains to be seen. But knowing what we do know about Florida's death penalty system as a matter of conscience we individually - or as a collective society - continue to tolerate a system so fundamentally flawed? If Florida's death penalty survives these latest challenges then what will that say about us as a supposedly civilized society?
Michael Lambrix
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Anatomy of a Corrupt Florida Prosecutor
It’s a simple enough truth… when you play in the mud; you’re going to get dirty. This truth is especially applicable in the shadowy and often corrupt world of politics. Where money buys influence and favors at a relatively cheap price. Anyone with even minimal political acumen knows how to play the game – when a candidate is running for an elected office that campaign is financed by monetary contributions from those who want that particular individual elected. After they win that particular elected office, the unspoken doctrine of quid pro quo comes into effect… I scratched your back, now you scratch mine. When that same candidate --even elected judges and state attorneys – run for office numerous times with the same contributors consistently funding that campaign, then an obvious bond is forged.
If we truly value the concept that “justice is blind” then the marriage of politics and justice is a contemptuous abomination – an entity of evil that can only and ultimately bear evil fruit. However, in Florida each judicial circuit elects its top state attorney and circuit court judges locally. Thus, each time the same candidate runs for the same “office” they become inherently dependent upon the continuing support of local contributors. Thus, at least theoretically, of course, if a person wanted to corrupt locally elected state attorneys and judges to protect against any prosecution in the future, then they could simply become a generous campaign contributor – and call in the favor when trouble does inevitably arise. That’s how American democracy works – that’s the American way.
The Bible teaches us that “money is the root of all evil” and this truth is especially applicable in the shadowy and corrupt world of politics. Consider the case of the elected State Attorney Steve Russell in the 20th Judicial Circuit of Florida. Steve Russell has worked in that circuit for over 30 years, since graduating from Stetson University and passing the Florida Bar. When previously long-time elected State Attorney Joseph D’Alessandro retired, Russell ran for that job and took office in 2003.
During the 30 years that Steve Russell has worked in the 20th Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office (much of the time serving as the top prosecutor), although relatively small and comprised mostly of the rural farming communities of Southwest Florida, that office has established a record of having the highest number of wrongful convictions in capital cases in the entire country. Incredibly, just this one office has sent more innocent men to death row (subsequently released by the courts) than most other entire states, combined.
Steve Russell’s long-time personal friend and Stetson Law School alumnus Randall McGruther has worked alongside Russell for almost 30 years himself. But then a few years ago McGruther screwed up and attempted to go into private practice (which obviously pays more) only to shortly thereafter find himself under investigation for unethical misconduct after a witness in a criminal case alleged that Randy McGruther had attempted to coerce him into signing a false affidavit. Apparently, McGruther didn’t realize that although as a prosecutor he could get away with that, as a private lawyer he is not as protected. See, Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice?
Shortly after these allegations were publicly disclosed, his long time good buddy, Steve Russell, by then the elected State Attorney, abruptly called McGruther back into the flock (birds of a feather…), and even appointed McGruther as his new Chief Assistant State Attorney, making McGruther the top prosecutor in the office! Not surprisingly, shortly after this appointment the allegations of misconduct previously lodged against Randall McGruther conveniently disappeared.
Does that sound just a bit fishy? But it actually only gets better, as a search of public records shows that in recent years McGruther has personally contributed thousands of dollars to Steve Russell’s campaigns… quid pro quo, baby! In fact, these public records show that McGruther has personally contributed well over $4,000 in recent years, with these substantial monetary contributions being made by McGruther while he was going through a contentious divorce and facing allegations of professional misconduct… and all on the salary of a public servant?
Although most of that money went to Steve Russell’s political campaigns, public records also show that McGruther contributed to the campaigns of numerous locally elected Circuit Court Judges, which raises substantial questions of conflict of interest. Money buys influence and in the political world there is no such thing as a free favor. So why was McGruther contributing money to the campaigns of locally elected judges that he knew he would argue cases in front of? If you were a criminal defendant being tried before a judge who was elected to that bench by monetary contributions made by the prosecutor, do you think you’d get a fair trial?
These facts are a matter of public record and cannot be denied. But this is not the end of the story. In 2006 the Florida Supreme Court threw out the capital convictions and death sentences against John Ballard, ordering his immediate release from death row upon the finding that Randall McGruther’s prosecution against Ballard was unfounded… that no credible evidence existed to support the convictions. See, Ballard v. State, 923 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2006).
This Ballard case is an example of numerous other wholly circumstantial cases prosecuted by the 20th Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office that subsequently resulted in the appellate courts throwing the convictions out upon find that no sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions. (I.E. Delbert Tibbs, James Richardson, Bradley Scott, John Landry, john Ballard, etc.) Each of these cases was based upon specious -- and arguably fabricated – circumstantial evidence in which the person was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death only to be exonerated and released from death row by the Appellate Courts.
In another wholly circumstantial case prosecuted personally by Randall McGruther almost 24 years ago, newly discovered evidence has now come to light that shows that the State Attorney’s Office knowingly collaborated and conspired with a key witness to deliberately convict and condemn Michael Lambrix to death for a capital crime they knew he was innocent of.
In that case, Lambrix was charged with a double murder in a locally sensationalized case in Glades County, Florida in early 1983. There were no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, and no confessions. The entire case was built upon the testimony of Lambrix’s estranged ex-girlfriend’s testimony, who conveniently claimed that Lambrix told her he committed these murders, but only after she was charged with a another crime herself.
Lambrix pled not guilty and has consistently maintained his innocence. At trial the jury was not allowed to hear that this witness, Frances Smith-Ottinger, had actually told law enforcement officials numerous conflicting stories and had even failed a state administered polygraph test. Additionally, Lambrix was prohibited from personally testifying and virtually no defense was presented. Lambrix was convicted and condemned to death and has remained on Florida’s death row since March 1984. For a complete account of this case, please read, Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man
In recent years another witness has come forth stating that she was coerced into falsely testifying, Lambrix admitted killing the deceased, at trial by both the key witness and the state attorney’s lead investigator. An investigation into these allegations then revealed that at the same time Lambrix was prosecuted in this capital case, the key witness was engaged in a secret, illicit affair “of a sexual nature” with the State Attorney’s investigator, Robert Daniels – the very person who had sworn out the affidavit initiating the charges against Lambrix, then this same investigator personally supervised the development of the specious circumstantial evidence presented at trial.
Additionally Investigations revealed that the very evidence McGruther presented to the jury to convince them of Lambrix’s guilt was fabricated – and that McGruther knew this evidence was fabricated. More recently evidence has come to light that contrary to the key witness’ testimony at trial, she was given complete immunity from prosecution in exchange for her “cooperation” – all other charges against her were dropped shortly after Lambrix was convicted and condemned to death.
After almost 20 years of methodically stalking Lambrix’s wrongful execution, in 2004 McGruther was disqualified from the case due to the allegations of misconduct. However, no action has been taken against him – and under the protection of elected State Attorney Steve Russell, McGruther remains the top prosecutor in that Circuit.
Incredibly, McGruther now has bigger plans. With the history of alleged misconduct preventing McGruther from running for any publicly elected office, Randy McGruther is now posturing himself for political appointment to the bench. Public records reveal that McGruther became a substantial contributor to the most recent gubernatorial campaign of now governor “Chaingang Charlie” Crist. Once again, McGruther is spending money to manipulate the system. If Randall McGruther is successful in being appointed to the State Appellate Court bench by now Governor Crist, because of McGruther’s substantial contributions to his campaign, then with McGruther politically appointed for “life” without ever having to publicly campaign – his history of unethical misconduct will never have to be publicly debated.
All of these facts are a matter of public record and can easily be confirmed. The questions now is whether the public should allow someone like Randy McGruther to so brazenly manipulate the system to his advantage – do we really want someone like McGruther appointed to this bench for life?
If you have any information about prosecutorial misconduct in cases in the 20th Judicial Circuit (Southwest Florida) especially involving elected state Attorney Steve Russell, Chief Deputy Assistant Randall McGruther, or Assistant Attorney Cynthia Ross please contact us at info@southerninjustice.com or Southern Injustice PO Box 184, Wickliffe, OH 44092-0184.
I would encourage you to fully read the Southern Injustice website and blogs found at http://www.southerninjustice.com/ and contact both Florida Governor Charlie Crist and Florida Attorney General Bill McCullom imploring them to initiate an independent investigation into corruption within the 20th Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office at the below phone numbers and email addresses:
Governor Charlie Crist
Executive Office of the Governor
400 S. Monroe Street, The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
850.488.4441
charlie.crist@myflorida.com
Bill McCullom
Office of Attorney General
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
850.414.3300
bill.mccullom@myfloridia.com
If we truly value the concept that “justice is blind” then the marriage of politics and justice is a contemptuous abomination – an entity of evil that can only and ultimately bear evil fruit. However, in Florida each judicial circuit elects its top state attorney and circuit court judges locally. Thus, each time the same candidate runs for the same “office” they become inherently dependent upon the continuing support of local contributors. Thus, at least theoretically, of course, if a person wanted to corrupt locally elected state attorneys and judges to protect against any prosecution in the future, then they could simply become a generous campaign contributor – and call in the favor when trouble does inevitably arise. That’s how American democracy works – that’s the American way.
The Bible teaches us that “money is the root of all evil” and this truth is especially applicable in the shadowy and corrupt world of politics. Consider the case of the elected State Attorney Steve Russell in the 20th Judicial Circuit of Florida. Steve Russell has worked in that circuit for over 30 years, since graduating from Stetson University and passing the Florida Bar. When previously long-time elected State Attorney Joseph D’Alessandro retired, Russell ran for that job and took office in 2003.
During the 30 years that Steve Russell has worked in the 20th Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office (much of the time serving as the top prosecutor), although relatively small and comprised mostly of the rural farming communities of Southwest Florida, that office has established a record of having the highest number of wrongful convictions in capital cases in the entire country. Incredibly, just this one office has sent more innocent men to death row (subsequently released by the courts) than most other entire states, combined.
Steve Russell’s long-time personal friend and Stetson Law School alumnus Randall McGruther has worked alongside Russell for almost 30 years himself. But then a few years ago McGruther screwed up and attempted to go into private practice (which obviously pays more) only to shortly thereafter find himself under investigation for unethical misconduct after a witness in a criminal case alleged that Randy McGruther had attempted to coerce him into signing a false affidavit. Apparently, McGruther didn’t realize that although as a prosecutor he could get away with that, as a private lawyer he is not as protected. See, Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice?
Shortly after these allegations were publicly disclosed, his long time good buddy, Steve Russell, by then the elected State Attorney, abruptly called McGruther back into the flock (birds of a feather…), and even appointed McGruther as his new Chief Assistant State Attorney, making McGruther the top prosecutor in the office! Not surprisingly, shortly after this appointment the allegations of misconduct previously lodged against Randall McGruther conveniently disappeared.
Does that sound just a bit fishy? But it actually only gets better, as a search of public records shows that in recent years McGruther has personally contributed thousands of dollars to Steve Russell’s campaigns… quid pro quo, baby! In fact, these public records show that McGruther has personally contributed well over $4,000 in recent years, with these substantial monetary contributions being made by McGruther while he was going through a contentious divorce and facing allegations of professional misconduct… and all on the salary of a public servant?
Although most of that money went to Steve Russell’s political campaigns, public records also show that McGruther contributed to the campaigns of numerous locally elected Circuit Court Judges, which raises substantial questions of conflict of interest. Money buys influence and in the political world there is no such thing as a free favor. So why was McGruther contributing money to the campaigns of locally elected judges that he knew he would argue cases in front of? If you were a criminal defendant being tried before a judge who was elected to that bench by monetary contributions made by the prosecutor, do you think you’d get a fair trial?
These facts are a matter of public record and cannot be denied. But this is not the end of the story. In 2006 the Florida Supreme Court threw out the capital convictions and death sentences against John Ballard, ordering his immediate release from death row upon the finding that Randall McGruther’s prosecution against Ballard was unfounded… that no credible evidence existed to support the convictions. See, Ballard v. State, 923 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2006).
This Ballard case is an example of numerous other wholly circumstantial cases prosecuted by the 20th Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office that subsequently resulted in the appellate courts throwing the convictions out upon find that no sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions. (I.E. Delbert Tibbs, James Richardson, Bradley Scott, John Landry, john Ballard, etc.) Each of these cases was based upon specious -- and arguably fabricated – circumstantial evidence in which the person was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death only to be exonerated and released from death row by the Appellate Courts.
In another wholly circumstantial case prosecuted personally by Randall McGruther almost 24 years ago, newly discovered evidence has now come to light that shows that the State Attorney’s Office knowingly collaborated and conspired with a key witness to deliberately convict and condemn Michael Lambrix to death for a capital crime they knew he was innocent of.
In that case, Lambrix was charged with a double murder in a locally sensationalized case in Glades County, Florida in early 1983. There were no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, and no confessions. The entire case was built upon the testimony of Lambrix’s estranged ex-girlfriend’s testimony, who conveniently claimed that Lambrix told her he committed these murders, but only after she was charged with a another crime herself.
Lambrix pled not guilty and has consistently maintained his innocence. At trial the jury was not allowed to hear that this witness, Frances Smith-Ottinger, had actually told law enforcement officials numerous conflicting stories and had even failed a state administered polygraph test. Additionally, Lambrix was prohibited from personally testifying and virtually no defense was presented. Lambrix was convicted and condemned to death and has remained on Florida’s death row since March 1984. For a complete account of this case, please read, Southern Injustice: Condemning An Innocent Man
In recent years another witness has come forth stating that she was coerced into falsely testifying, Lambrix admitted killing the deceased, at trial by both the key witness and the state attorney’s lead investigator. An investigation into these allegations then revealed that at the same time Lambrix was prosecuted in this capital case, the key witness was engaged in a secret, illicit affair “of a sexual nature” with the State Attorney’s investigator, Robert Daniels – the very person who had sworn out the affidavit initiating the charges against Lambrix, then this same investigator personally supervised the development of the specious circumstantial evidence presented at trial.
Additionally Investigations revealed that the very evidence McGruther presented to the jury to convince them of Lambrix’s guilt was fabricated – and that McGruther knew this evidence was fabricated. More recently evidence has come to light that contrary to the key witness’ testimony at trial, she was given complete immunity from prosecution in exchange for her “cooperation” – all other charges against her were dropped shortly after Lambrix was convicted and condemned to death.
After almost 20 years of methodically stalking Lambrix’s wrongful execution, in 2004 McGruther was disqualified from the case due to the allegations of misconduct. However, no action has been taken against him – and under the protection of elected State Attorney Steve Russell, McGruther remains the top prosecutor in that Circuit.
Incredibly, McGruther now has bigger plans. With the history of alleged misconduct preventing McGruther from running for any publicly elected office, Randy McGruther is now posturing himself for political appointment to the bench. Public records reveal that McGruther became a substantial contributor to the most recent gubernatorial campaign of now governor “Chaingang Charlie” Crist. Once again, McGruther is spending money to manipulate the system. If Randall McGruther is successful in being appointed to the State Appellate Court bench by now Governor Crist, because of McGruther’s substantial contributions to his campaign, then with McGruther politically appointed for “life” without ever having to publicly campaign – his history of unethical misconduct will never have to be publicly debated.
All of these facts are a matter of public record and can easily be confirmed. The questions now is whether the public should allow someone like Randy McGruther to so brazenly manipulate the system to his advantage – do we really want someone like McGruther appointed to this bench for life?
If you have any information about prosecutorial misconduct in cases in the 20th Judicial Circuit (Southwest Florida) especially involving elected state Attorney Steve Russell, Chief Deputy Assistant Randall McGruther, or Assistant Attorney Cynthia Ross please contact us at info@southerninjustice.com or Southern Injustice PO Box 184, Wickliffe, OH 44092-0184.
I would encourage you to fully read the Southern Injustice website and blogs found at http://www.southerninjustice.com/ and contact both Florida Governor Charlie Crist and Florida Attorney General Bill McCullom imploring them to initiate an independent investigation into corruption within the 20th Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office at the below phone numbers and email addresses:
Governor Charlie Crist
Executive Office of the Governor
400 S. Monroe Street, The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
850.488.4441
charlie.crist@myflorida.com
Bill McCullom
Office of Attorney General
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
850.414.3300
bill.mccullom@myfloridia.com
Florida Courts caught Fabricating Records
Imagine being charged with a serious crime -- maybe even capital murder. You’re arrested and thrown in jail and placed in a cellblock with a dozen other prisoners. Word gets around what you’re charged with and anyone who has spent even a few weeks locked up knows how the system works.
Whether you’re innocent or not becomes irrelevant. Virtually every county jail in the country is infested with rats – “jailhouse snitches” who are often themselves career criminals and know only too well how to play the system. It’s all about giving up a bigger fish… turning “jailhouse snitch” to get out of your crime and the bigger the crime the other guy is charged with, the better.
Prosecutors not only know how the game is played, but actually encourage it. Prisons are full or inmates convicted at least partially upon jailhouse snitch testimony. Some courts have recognized that this self-serving testimony in which some form of biological toxic waste turns state on another prisoner, claimed “he told me he did it” is inherently unreliable. Clearly the snitch has a reason for turning state – this parasite is not coming forth out of civic duty but because he knows that by becoming a state witness he will be rewarded by the state with a significantly lesser sentence than he would have other wise received – maybe even have the charges against him dropped altogether if he becomes an important witness in a capital case.
Anyone charged with a major crime and thrown in jail to await trial becomes a target. Not surprisingly the use of jailhouse snitches by prosecutors is significantly higher in circuits that have a history of wrongful convictions, where morally and ethically corrupt prosecutors adopt a “win by any means necessary” mentality and encourage county jail inmates to turn snitch on each other. Prosecutors know they can knowingly use false testimony and cannot be charged themselves even if caught as prosecutors are protected by immunity. Please read, “Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice?.
The legal system attempts to protect against wrongful conviction of innocent men and women by establishing rules that require prosecutors to disclose any deals or agreements made to these parasitic jailhouse snitches so that when they do testify the jury will know that they have an interest and substantial incentive to testify against another inmate.
By law, the state must fully disclose all promises or deals made to any witness in exchange for their cooperation to the defense counsel. Thus, when a jailhouse snitch does testify the defendant’s lawyer can then subject the snitch to cross-examination and expose his personal motivations for testifying against another inmate.
As stated, most of these jailhouse snitches are actually career criminals themselves, and they have no problem falsely claiming another inmate confessed to them – it’s not like truth means a lot to a burnt out junky and career criminal out to save his own pathetic butt. If this snitch is actually testifying only because he (or she) stands to personally gain by turning snitch, then certainly the jury needs to know that before they can weigh the credibility of that crucial testimony.
But once again we see that the legal system itself is so inherently corrupt that now it is revealed that the judges themselves are secretly collaborating with state prosecutors to deliberately conceal deals made to snitches in criminal cases, intentionally hiding crucial information from the jury.
In an investigation conducted by the Miami Herald a few months ago, it was discovered that the Miami-Dade and Broward County Courts were working secretly with local prosecutors to fabricate false records to protect snitches. (Please read, “Dockets doctored to shield snitches,” Miami Herald, November 18, 2006). This investigation only looked into court records in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties – but what of Florida’s other 65 counties? If those records are deliberately concealed, then how can it be determined just how widespread this practice is?
Incredibly, the judges and state prosecutors caught collaborating together to fabricate these false records to protect snitches now claim that their conduct is justified as it actually serves a public interest to conceal the truth.
But what of those wrongfully convicted and even condemned to death because of the use of false testimony provided by a jailhouse snitch only because he was secretly awarded a deal for his “cooperation?” The truth is that there are literally hundreds of men and women presently on death row today because of testimony provided by a jailhouse snitch, an experienced criminal – who was rewarded for that testimony with favorable treatment in exchange for his “cooperation.” This favorable treatment has enabled may a career criminal to continue his criminal career and even end up back in jail numerous times to snitch and do it all over again and again.
How can it ever be within the public’s interest for the courts and the prosecutor to secretly collaborate together to conceal the very evidence necessary for exposing the truth and prevent an innocent person from being wrongfully convicted and often even condemned to death? If a jailhouse snitch’s testimony is for all purposes being bought and paid for by the state, then shouldn’t the jury know this so they can consider that when weighing the credibility of that snitches own self-serving testimony before possibly convicting an innocent person?
Consider this, too – almost without exception these parasitic jailhouse snitches are themselves career criminals, knowledgeable in how to manipulate the legal system to their own advantage. They know that by giving the state a bigger fish they will be rewarded with a substantially reduction in their own sentence, or even have their own charges dropped altogether, then are released back on the streets to then continue their own criminal career.
By “playing” the system. These snitches know that they have been granted what amounts to complete immunity to commit more crimes often even violent crimes – as even if arrested again and again they are protected by prosecutors and need only to find another innocent victim to turn upon in the jail to again buy their own freedom. In many cases jailhouse snitches have actually repeated this cycle many times over, which begs the question… how can it ever be in the public’s interest to release a career criminal back on to the streets with what amounts to complete immunity to commit more crimes and continue his own criminal career?
The real tragedy here is that the general public still continues to conveniently ignore the truth… Our contemporary judicial system is inherently corrupt and the corruption comes from within the system itself. Truth and justice no longer matter, as prosecutors today are politicians who climb their career ladders by winning convictions by any means necessary, and ethical constraint is a career liability.
Today’s judicial system accepts and even embraces that it is all right if a few innocent men and women are wrongfully convicted and even condemned to death. But maybe they wouldn’t see it that way if it were them (or their own child) who became a victim of today’s corrupt judicial system.
I would encourage you to fully read the website “Southern Injustice: Exposing Bigotry & Injustice in The South.” Only by recognizing the corruption within the judicial system is there any chance of correcting it.
Whether you’re innocent or not becomes irrelevant. Virtually every county jail in the country is infested with rats – “jailhouse snitches” who are often themselves career criminals and know only too well how to play the system. It’s all about giving up a bigger fish… turning “jailhouse snitch” to get out of your crime and the bigger the crime the other guy is charged with, the better.
Prosecutors not only know how the game is played, but actually encourage it. Prisons are full or inmates convicted at least partially upon jailhouse snitch testimony. Some courts have recognized that this self-serving testimony in which some form of biological toxic waste turns state on another prisoner, claimed “he told me he did it” is inherently unreliable. Clearly the snitch has a reason for turning state – this parasite is not coming forth out of civic duty but because he knows that by becoming a state witness he will be rewarded by the state with a significantly lesser sentence than he would have other wise received – maybe even have the charges against him dropped altogether if he becomes an important witness in a capital case.
Anyone charged with a major crime and thrown in jail to await trial becomes a target. Not surprisingly the use of jailhouse snitches by prosecutors is significantly higher in circuits that have a history of wrongful convictions, where morally and ethically corrupt prosecutors adopt a “win by any means necessary” mentality and encourage county jail inmates to turn snitch on each other. Prosecutors know they can knowingly use false testimony and cannot be charged themselves even if caught as prosecutors are protected by immunity. Please read, “Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice?.
The legal system attempts to protect against wrongful conviction of innocent men and women by establishing rules that require prosecutors to disclose any deals or agreements made to these parasitic jailhouse snitches so that when they do testify the jury will know that they have an interest and substantial incentive to testify against another inmate.
By law, the state must fully disclose all promises or deals made to any witness in exchange for their cooperation to the defense counsel. Thus, when a jailhouse snitch does testify the defendant’s lawyer can then subject the snitch to cross-examination and expose his personal motivations for testifying against another inmate.
As stated, most of these jailhouse snitches are actually career criminals themselves, and they have no problem falsely claiming another inmate confessed to them – it’s not like truth means a lot to a burnt out junky and career criminal out to save his own pathetic butt. If this snitch is actually testifying only because he (or she) stands to personally gain by turning snitch, then certainly the jury needs to know that before they can weigh the credibility of that crucial testimony.
But once again we see that the legal system itself is so inherently corrupt that now it is revealed that the judges themselves are secretly collaborating with state prosecutors to deliberately conceal deals made to snitches in criminal cases, intentionally hiding crucial information from the jury.
In an investigation conducted by the Miami Herald a few months ago, it was discovered that the Miami-Dade and Broward County Courts were working secretly with local prosecutors to fabricate false records to protect snitches. (Please read, “Dockets doctored to shield snitches,” Miami Herald, November 18, 2006). This investigation only looked into court records in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties – but what of Florida’s other 65 counties? If those records are deliberately concealed, then how can it be determined just how widespread this practice is?
Incredibly, the judges and state prosecutors caught collaborating together to fabricate these false records to protect snitches now claim that their conduct is justified as it actually serves a public interest to conceal the truth.
But what of those wrongfully convicted and even condemned to death because of the use of false testimony provided by a jailhouse snitch only because he was secretly awarded a deal for his “cooperation?” The truth is that there are literally hundreds of men and women presently on death row today because of testimony provided by a jailhouse snitch, an experienced criminal – who was rewarded for that testimony with favorable treatment in exchange for his “cooperation.” This favorable treatment has enabled may a career criminal to continue his criminal career and even end up back in jail numerous times to snitch and do it all over again and again.
How can it ever be within the public’s interest for the courts and the prosecutor to secretly collaborate together to conceal the very evidence necessary for exposing the truth and prevent an innocent person from being wrongfully convicted and often even condemned to death? If a jailhouse snitch’s testimony is for all purposes being bought and paid for by the state, then shouldn’t the jury know this so they can consider that when weighing the credibility of that snitches own self-serving testimony before possibly convicting an innocent person?
Consider this, too – almost without exception these parasitic jailhouse snitches are themselves career criminals, knowledgeable in how to manipulate the legal system to their own advantage. They know that by giving the state a bigger fish they will be rewarded with a substantially reduction in their own sentence, or even have their own charges dropped altogether, then are released back on the streets to then continue their own criminal career.
By “playing” the system. These snitches know that they have been granted what amounts to complete immunity to commit more crimes often even violent crimes – as even if arrested again and again they are protected by prosecutors and need only to find another innocent victim to turn upon in the jail to again buy their own freedom. In many cases jailhouse snitches have actually repeated this cycle many times over, which begs the question… how can it ever be in the public’s interest to release a career criminal back on to the streets with what amounts to complete immunity to commit more crimes and continue his own criminal career?
The real tragedy here is that the general public still continues to conveniently ignore the truth… Our contemporary judicial system is inherently corrupt and the corruption comes from within the system itself. Truth and justice no longer matter, as prosecutors today are politicians who climb their career ladders by winning convictions by any means necessary, and ethical constraint is a career liability.
Today’s judicial system accepts and even embraces that it is all right if a few innocent men and women are wrongfully convicted and even condemned to death. But maybe they wouldn’t see it that way if it were them (or their own child) who became a victim of today’s corrupt judicial system.
I would encourage you to fully read the website “Southern Injustice: Exposing Bigotry & Injustice in The South.” Only by recognizing the corruption within the judicial system is there any chance of correcting it.
Witness to a Botched Execution
Very rarely does the general public get a chance to witness the events and consequences of an execution, especially of a botched execution, as when a state puts a person to death the process is witnessed by only a few and almost always is so methodically sterilized that other then the resulting death of the intended victim there is nothing to report. Putting a person to death becomes a nonevent.
Recently however, the State of Florida attempted to put Angel Diaz to death by lethal injection on December 13th, 2006, but this “execution” did not go according to plan. Because of this botched execution Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued a moratorium on all further executions in Florida until a state commission can examine the circumstances of that botched execution.
Several other states have followed Florida’s lead in issuing indefinite moratoriums on any further executions until their own lethal injection process can be thoroughly examined. Numerous states are also the subject of pending legal actions directed at challenging that state’s protocol (methods and means) of carrying out lethal injection executions.
The following is an eyewitness account of the December 13th, 2006 botched execution of Angel Diaz. This is now provided verbatim from a transcript of a hearing held December 28th, 2006 in which witness Neil Dupree testified in the case of Corey Duane Hamilton, a death sentenced inmate in Oklahoma, challenging Oklahoma’s own process governing lethal injections. (See, Hamilton v. Jones, case # civ-06-1193F, U.S. Dist Ct., Western Dist. of Oklahoma).
This following testimony provides a graphic portrayal of an execution, witnessed firsthand by a lawyer sitting not more than ten feet away. Although somewhat lengthy, this unprecedented window allows each of us to witness the undeniably barbaric and torturous infliction of slow death of another human being at the hands of the state. Only by making this public can all others now have a view of the true impact and effect of capital punishment.
The following excerpt is quoted directly from the testimony of Neil Dupree, describing what he personally witnessed on December 13th, 2006.
“When you come into the execution viewing area there are several rows of seats. I was seated in the front row. There’s a window that opens up so that you can see into the execution chamber. That window was probably about 3 and a half feet high and 8 to 10 feet wide. I was in the front row on the far left seat.
When the curtains opened up – the curtains opened up promptly at six o’clock, I was able to see Mr. Diaz. He was strapped to a gurney. He had his right arm extended from one of the paddles that came out from the gurney itself. There was a leather strap that was over his forehead. There was a sheet that was covering his body. He still appeared to be wearing a white shirt.
There was a person – if you could picture the gurney, it was lengthwise to us. There was a Department of Correction’s guard at his head, there was another DOC guard next to where his waist would have been, and there was a third DOC guard that was set off by his feet, but further back, probably about 3 to 4 feet from the gurney.
There were two other people I later learned were the warden and the assistant warden. There were two phones that were by those two gentlemen.
…Like I said, I was no more than 6 or 7 feet from Mr. Diaz. I could see the I.V. insertion site in Mr. Diaz’s right arm, where you would bend your elbow, if you normally got blood taken out, you know, for just an annual physical, there was obviously a needle inserted there. It was very heavily taped, as was his right hand. His right hand was palms up and it was strapped to the paddle and it was heavily, heavily taped. And then there was also a leather strap above where the I.V. needle had been inserted into his arm. There was a strap above that.
…I was able to see the tubing running from the I.V. insertion site into some other portion of the room. There was an I.V. tube that ran from his arm – it was taped to the gurney itself and then loosely fell underneath the gurney and then it appeared to go into the wall. There were two I.V. tubes that appeared to be in the back of the wall in what looked like a little port that was, I don’t know, 6 inches by 5 inches.
…At some point in time during the execution procedure I was able to see fluid flowing through the IV tube – it was a sudden rush, but that was further into the procedure. It was well after the procedure initially appeared to start, right then, that’s when it became noticeable to me.”
(Question by Jones’s lawyer) “If you would, please describe for the court… what happened after the curtain was opened and the execution began?”
(Dupree) “As I said, it opened promptly at six o’clock. The warden came forward – a person I later learned to be the warden, and asked Mr. Diaz if he had any last words. Mr. Diaz turned his head towards the audience and spoke in Spanish very briefly. I’m not totally fluent in Spanish; I understood some of what he said. And that was it.
Then the guard that was at his head put the leather restraint across his head, which he held manually. The warden stepped back toward the two phones that were in the corner. And I expected that somebody was going to say something or give some kind of indication the procedure was going to start. I did not hear the warden say anything. I really didn’t notice him make any kind of signal.
I guess their protocol is they turn off the system once the execution starts. Once that occurred, within just a few minutes, I noticed that Mr. Diaz appeared to be mouthing words. I do not know what he was saying; I could not hear him. But he appeared to be speaking to the man that was holding the leather strap over his forehead. He was grimacing, his jaw was clenching, his Adams apple, which was pretty prominent, was bobbing up and down furiously, and he just appeared to be in a lot of pain. His body appeared to be rigid. And, again, he talked for at least a minute and maybe more, but he was obviously trying to communicate something to somebody; again. I just don’t know what he was saying (as they turned off the intercom in the death chamber).
Within a couple of minutes after that, his head started to slowly roll to the right, his right eye closed, his left eye remained open. He just appeared to be, you know, slowly – I don’t know if “going to sleep” is the right word, but he just appeared to slowly be a little bit more relaxed. And then I noticed that his Adam’s apple started bobbing even more furiously, his jaw became clenched again, and then he started gasping of air. And then the gasping for air took a good 10 to 12 minutes, where he was literally gasping.
And the only thing I could liken it to is my father died of lung cancer five years ago and the last minute of his life -- we were there for it, my family was there – and at the last minute, he was doing the same type of gasping, where he really appeared to be almost a fish out of water because he was gasping so heavily for air.
It appeared to me that Mr. Diaz – his body rigid at points in time. And that’s basically my observation through what I saw until I saw the warden go to the phone, there was an open line – there was a black gentleman and a white gentleman. The black gentleman was the assistant warden. And there was an open line on the wall. The warden took the phone, spoke into it, gave the phone back to the black gentleman, turned around, maybe for a moment of two, took the phone again, and then went to another phone and picked up that phone. I don’t know who he was speaking to, obviously. And then he went back to his place, where he was standing originally.
It appeared to me that the DOC personnel were extremely uncomfortable. Clearly something was not going right. Mr. Diaz continued to move, he continued to gasp. And you could see the DOC personnel were kind of – their eyes were going back and forth to each other.
Eventually what happened is that Mr. Diaz – slowly his pallor changed. He was a – being from Puerto Rico, he was more tanned, he appeared to get very grayish, his breathing got more and more shallow, his Adam’s apple stopped bobbing, and then, oddly enough, his right eye, which had been closed, opened during that time, so now both of his eyes were open.
They then had – there was a metal door. The metal door opened and a gentleman – I guess I couldn’t say gentlemen – but a person who was garbed in purple from head to toe, it looked almost that a HAZMAT suit with a beekeeper’s mask, almost, except for – I don’t know if anyone can picture a welder with a little slit for their eyes – it appeared to me to be – that the only thing you could see on this person was his eyes, because it was almost like a welder’s suit, where you have that little part where you can see through the eyes.
That person came in. He shined a light into Mr. Diaz’s eyes, took out a stethoscope and checked his heart rate, and nodded to the warden, went back in. And I thought it was the second person that came out, did the same thing, where they checked his pupils, checked with a stethoscope, and then walked back in the room. At that point in time, the warden came in and announced that Mr. Diaz had, in fact, expired. And that’s what I observed.”
(Question by Defense lawyer) “How long did the execution process take from the time that it began until that time Mr. Diaz was pronounced dead?”
(Answer by Dupree) “From the time he stopped speaking (gave his last words), it would be 34 minutes.” (end of testimony excerpt)
The above is a first hand account of the botched execution or Angel Diaz on December 13th, 2006 at Florida State Prison. Immediately after that prolonged and torturous death, the DOC spokesperson attempted to blame the problems on Diaz’s liver problems, which were proven false, and a deliberately fabricated attempt to cover up the incompetence of those responsible for carrying out the execution. The medical examiner conducting the autopsy on Diaz’s body determined that the I.V. needles inserted into Diaz’s arms had been improperly inserted, completely pushing beyond the veins and into the soft tissue, causing almost foot long chemical burns on each arm, and preventing the lethal chemicals from being properly administered. Thus, Mr. Diaz was slowly tortured to death.
Subsequently the Governor of Florida formed a commission to look into the cause of this botched execution and how it can be avoided in the future. Within the next week or so a new blog will be posted entitled “Why Florida’s Commission Examining Lethal Injection Is A Farce” that will show how politicians have corrupted fair reviews of this botched execution with a predisposition of covering the state. I hope that all of you will come back when it is posted and fully read this expose.
Mike Lambrix
Recently however, the State of Florida attempted to put Angel Diaz to death by lethal injection on December 13th, 2006, but this “execution” did not go according to plan. Because of this botched execution Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued a moratorium on all further executions in Florida until a state commission can examine the circumstances of that botched execution.
Several other states have followed Florida’s lead in issuing indefinite moratoriums on any further executions until their own lethal injection process can be thoroughly examined. Numerous states are also the subject of pending legal actions directed at challenging that state’s protocol (methods and means) of carrying out lethal injection executions.
The following is an eyewitness account of the December 13th, 2006 botched execution of Angel Diaz. This is now provided verbatim from a transcript of a hearing held December 28th, 2006 in which witness Neil Dupree testified in the case of Corey Duane Hamilton, a death sentenced inmate in Oklahoma, challenging Oklahoma’s own process governing lethal injections. (See, Hamilton v. Jones, case # civ-06-1193F, U.S. Dist Ct., Western Dist. of Oklahoma).
This following testimony provides a graphic portrayal of an execution, witnessed firsthand by a lawyer sitting not more than ten feet away. Although somewhat lengthy, this unprecedented window allows each of us to witness the undeniably barbaric and torturous infliction of slow death of another human being at the hands of the state. Only by making this public can all others now have a view of the true impact and effect of capital punishment.
The following excerpt is quoted directly from the testimony of Neil Dupree, describing what he personally witnessed on December 13th, 2006.
“When you come into the execution viewing area there are several rows of seats. I was seated in the front row. There’s a window that opens up so that you can see into the execution chamber. That window was probably about 3 and a half feet high and 8 to 10 feet wide. I was in the front row on the far left seat.
When the curtains opened up – the curtains opened up promptly at six o’clock, I was able to see Mr. Diaz. He was strapped to a gurney. He had his right arm extended from one of the paddles that came out from the gurney itself. There was a leather strap that was over his forehead. There was a sheet that was covering his body. He still appeared to be wearing a white shirt.
There was a person – if you could picture the gurney, it was lengthwise to us. There was a Department of Correction’s guard at his head, there was another DOC guard next to where his waist would have been, and there was a third DOC guard that was set off by his feet, but further back, probably about 3 to 4 feet from the gurney.
There were two other people I later learned were the warden and the assistant warden. There were two phones that were by those two gentlemen.
…Like I said, I was no more than 6 or 7 feet from Mr. Diaz. I could see the I.V. insertion site in Mr. Diaz’s right arm, where you would bend your elbow, if you normally got blood taken out, you know, for just an annual physical, there was obviously a needle inserted there. It was very heavily taped, as was his right hand. His right hand was palms up and it was strapped to the paddle and it was heavily, heavily taped. And then there was also a leather strap above where the I.V. needle had been inserted into his arm. There was a strap above that.
…I was able to see the tubing running from the I.V. insertion site into some other portion of the room. There was an I.V. tube that ran from his arm – it was taped to the gurney itself and then loosely fell underneath the gurney and then it appeared to go into the wall. There were two I.V. tubes that appeared to be in the back of the wall in what looked like a little port that was, I don’t know, 6 inches by 5 inches.
…At some point in time during the execution procedure I was able to see fluid flowing through the IV tube – it was a sudden rush, but that was further into the procedure. It was well after the procedure initially appeared to start, right then, that’s when it became noticeable to me.”
(Question by Jones’s lawyer) “If you would, please describe for the court… what happened after the curtain was opened and the execution began?”
(Dupree) “As I said, it opened promptly at six o’clock. The warden came forward – a person I later learned to be the warden, and asked Mr. Diaz if he had any last words. Mr. Diaz turned his head towards the audience and spoke in Spanish very briefly. I’m not totally fluent in Spanish; I understood some of what he said. And that was it.
Then the guard that was at his head put the leather restraint across his head, which he held manually. The warden stepped back toward the two phones that were in the corner. And I expected that somebody was going to say something or give some kind of indication the procedure was going to start. I did not hear the warden say anything. I really didn’t notice him make any kind of signal.
I guess their protocol is they turn off the system once the execution starts. Once that occurred, within just a few minutes, I noticed that Mr. Diaz appeared to be mouthing words. I do not know what he was saying; I could not hear him. But he appeared to be speaking to the man that was holding the leather strap over his forehead. He was grimacing, his jaw was clenching, his Adams apple, which was pretty prominent, was bobbing up and down furiously, and he just appeared to be in a lot of pain. His body appeared to be rigid. And, again, he talked for at least a minute and maybe more, but he was obviously trying to communicate something to somebody; again. I just don’t know what he was saying (as they turned off the intercom in the death chamber).
Within a couple of minutes after that, his head started to slowly roll to the right, his right eye closed, his left eye remained open. He just appeared to be, you know, slowly – I don’t know if “going to sleep” is the right word, but he just appeared to slowly be a little bit more relaxed. And then I noticed that his Adam’s apple started bobbing even more furiously, his jaw became clenched again, and then he started gasping of air. And then the gasping for air took a good 10 to 12 minutes, where he was literally gasping.
And the only thing I could liken it to is my father died of lung cancer five years ago and the last minute of his life -- we were there for it, my family was there – and at the last minute, he was doing the same type of gasping, where he really appeared to be almost a fish out of water because he was gasping so heavily for air.
It appeared to me that Mr. Diaz – his body rigid at points in time. And that’s basically my observation through what I saw until I saw the warden go to the phone, there was an open line – there was a black gentleman and a white gentleman. The black gentleman was the assistant warden. And there was an open line on the wall. The warden took the phone, spoke into it, gave the phone back to the black gentleman, turned around, maybe for a moment of two, took the phone again, and then went to another phone and picked up that phone. I don’t know who he was speaking to, obviously. And then he went back to his place, where he was standing originally.
It appeared to me that the DOC personnel were extremely uncomfortable. Clearly something was not going right. Mr. Diaz continued to move, he continued to gasp. And you could see the DOC personnel were kind of – their eyes were going back and forth to each other.
Eventually what happened is that Mr. Diaz – slowly his pallor changed. He was a – being from Puerto Rico, he was more tanned, he appeared to get very grayish, his breathing got more and more shallow, his Adam’s apple stopped bobbing, and then, oddly enough, his right eye, which had been closed, opened during that time, so now both of his eyes were open.
They then had – there was a metal door. The metal door opened and a gentleman – I guess I couldn’t say gentlemen – but a person who was garbed in purple from head to toe, it looked almost that a HAZMAT suit with a beekeeper’s mask, almost, except for – I don’t know if anyone can picture a welder with a little slit for their eyes – it appeared to me to be – that the only thing you could see on this person was his eyes, because it was almost like a welder’s suit, where you have that little part where you can see through the eyes.
That person came in. He shined a light into Mr. Diaz’s eyes, took out a stethoscope and checked his heart rate, and nodded to the warden, went back in. And I thought it was the second person that came out, did the same thing, where they checked his pupils, checked with a stethoscope, and then walked back in the room. At that point in time, the warden came in and announced that Mr. Diaz had, in fact, expired. And that’s what I observed.”
(Question by Defense lawyer) “How long did the execution process take from the time that it began until that time Mr. Diaz was pronounced dead?”
(Answer by Dupree) “From the time he stopped speaking (gave his last words), it would be 34 minutes.” (end of testimony excerpt)
The above is a first hand account of the botched execution or Angel Diaz on December 13th, 2006 at Florida State Prison. Immediately after that prolonged and torturous death, the DOC spokesperson attempted to blame the problems on Diaz’s liver problems, which were proven false, and a deliberately fabricated attempt to cover up the incompetence of those responsible for carrying out the execution. The medical examiner conducting the autopsy on Diaz’s body determined that the I.V. needles inserted into Diaz’s arms had been improperly inserted, completely pushing beyond the veins and into the soft tissue, causing almost foot long chemical burns on each arm, and preventing the lethal chemicals from being properly administered. Thus, Mr. Diaz was slowly tortured to death.
Subsequently the Governor of Florida formed a commission to look into the cause of this botched execution and how it can be avoided in the future. Within the next week or so a new blog will be posted entitled “Why Florida’s Commission Examining Lethal Injection Is A Farce” that will show how politicians have corrupted fair reviews of this botched execution with a predisposition of covering the state. I hope that all of you will come back when it is posted and fully read this expose.
Mike Lambrix
Justice Department seeks to speed up Executions
At a time when public support for capital punishment is declining even faster than President Bush’s popularity ratings, a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (N.I.J.), which is a branch of the Justice Department itself, has concluded that it takes far too long to carry out executions and that its time for the federal government to find ways to speed these executions up and make executions even more frequent.
This selective study completed by Professors Barry Latzer and James Cauthen at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York allegedly examined 1,676 death sentences in only 14 subjectively hand picked “representative” states involving only sentences imposed between 1992 and 2002. This N.I.J. study was intended to provide a federally sanctioned attack on an earlier comprehensive study done by Professor James Liebman of Columbia University, released in 2000, which concluded that the contemporary death penalty system is “fundamentally flawed.” In that study, Professor Liebman examined all death sentence capital cases from 1973 to 1995 and found that over 60% of all death sentences were overturned on appellate review.
In a desperate attempt to discredit that Liebman study, the present conservative controlled Justice Department attempts to manipulate the results of their own limited study. The N.I.J. study suggests that the Liebman study improperly examined all death sentences imposed since 1973 during a time that the U.S. Supreme Court was still rewriting applicable law governing death penalty cases, thereby resulting in a high rate of reversals. However, The N.I.J. study does not suggest that the Liebman study is inaccurate – it only suggests that by limiting reviews of capital cases to death sentences imposed from 1992 through 2002 the rate of reversals in only those 14 representative states are significantly less than the Liebman study suggests.
However, even in attempting to manipulate the results by selecting a much narrower pool of cases examined, the recent N.I.J. study still concedes that even in these hand picked “representative” cases, at least 26% of the death sentences imposed were subsequently overturned on appellate review, which means that even by this obviously biased study intended to promote faster and more frequent executions, these kill-em-all proponents concede that one out of every four people sentenced to death are wrongfully condemned.
Can you even imagine the trauma inflicted upon those wrongfully condemned to death -- the trauma they must endure because of that unjustified imposition of a sentence of death? See, “Bowels of the Beast: Condemned to a Fate Worse Than Death” at (www.southerninjustice.com/bowels.htm)If the conservative’s own study finds such an alarming rate of improperly imposed sentences of death, then how can any person of moral conscience still express support for the death penalty? Much less continue to advocate expediting executions – to push for faster and more frequent executions means even further limiting of appellate review, which will inevitably result in error not being corrected and innocent men executed.
The only too obvious true intent of this N.I.J. study is revealed in reading its expressed agenda – to find ways to speed up executions on the pretense that by not killing the condemned faster and more frequently, the victims families are traumatized and the states must bear the burden of millions of dollars in costs to unnecessarily house these condemned men and women while the pursue their appeals. But the study does not even mention the infliction of trauma on those one out of four men and women wrongly condemned to death, or their families.
Conveniently, this N.I.J. study does not mention that over 125 men and woman have been judicially exonerated and released from death rows across the country; after being found to have been wrongfully convicted and condemned to death. Nor does it address the fact that the leading cause of wrongful convictions in capital cases is prosecutorial misconduct – in too many cases prosecutors have deliberately concealed evidence that if exposed would have proven the person’s innocence. See,
Condemning An Innocent Man.
By now pushing to expedite executions by even further limiting appellate review it is clearly a pathetically disingenuous attempt to accomplish the conservatives true agenda – further limiting appellate review would mean that substantially fewer wrongful capital convictions will be revealed; that even legitimate claims of actual innocence will be procedurally barred from appellate review. See, Blessings of Liberty in the Land of the Free.
These rabid conservatives are concerned that with the escalating rate of wrongful convictions exposed the public’s confidence in the judicial system will suffer – they would rather have the innocent victims of the ultimate miscarriage of justice murdered by the state, than allow the judicial system and its inherent fallibility to be increasingly exposed.
Additionally, the N.I.J. study fails to recognize that the leading cause of substantial delays in reaching finality in capital cases is the campaign of politically motivated interference with the process itself, which is a direct result of politicians passing one law after another in an attempt to circumvent review. The capital post conviction process itself has become inherently complex, requiring specialized lawyers and lengthy judicial review of complex questions that often revolve around the applicability of statutorily created procedural rules before actual claims of error can even be addressed. It is this insidious political interference as politicians all but openly compete with each other to promote “bills” to expedite executions that cause substantial delays. Adopting even more procedural rules under the pretense of promoting faster executions will, in fact, only slow the process down even further.
If the Justice Department really wants to objectively expedite the finality of capital convictions, then perhaps it’s time to impose restrictions on the politically motivated interference and tell those parasitic politicians systematically engaging in Machiavellian type plots to maliciously circumvent full and fair review to crawl back under their rocks and leave the system alone. Politics and justice do not mix.
Incredibly, even with the alarming rate of wrongful convictions and the unjustified imposition of death sentences subsequently reversed, the Justice Department has yet to commission a study to examine why this error rate is so high and what can be done to reduce making victims of those wrongly convicted and condemned.
Perhaps if the “Justice” Department was truly interested in promoting and preserving justice, it would commission a comprehensive study on the cause of this unconscionably high rate of wrongful capital convictions and find ways to prevent innocent men and women from being sent to death row in the first place, thus restoring the public confidence in the judicial system itself. Certainly there must be someone within the Justice Department to realize that by disingenuously finding ways to cover up wrongful convictions, inevitably the public’s confidence will suffer even more than by simply admitting the present system’s imperfections and constructively trying to find ways to minimize the improper imposition of death sentences in the first place.
The bottom line is that the death penalty is about politicians, not justice. The primary reason that the death penalty continues to be practiced in this country is because politicians exploit it to win votes. Politicians shamelessly exploit the trauma inflicted upon the families of victims under the pretense of pursuing justice knowing full well that if they were truly interested in sparing the victim’s families prolonged trauma and instill a sense of finality in a timely manner, they would abolish the death penalty and replace it with a life sentence with no possibility of parole – as many states that do not have the death penalty already have done. The victim’s families have already suffered an immeasurable trauma – they deserve the expedited finality only abolishing the death penalty can provide, not being dragged through the courts for years reliving that trauma.
But if we truly do want to debate the inherent fundamental flaws within the present death penalty system; then let’s start by looking at the alarming rate of wrongful convictions as illustrated in “Southern Injustice: Exposing the New Face of Bigotry and Injustice in The South” at (www.southerninjustice.com), and take an even closer look at the leading cause for their unconscionably high rate of wrongful capital convictions – politically ambitious prosecutors manipulating the judicial system to unethically win at any cost must be held accountable, especially prosecutors who have a history of repeatedly violating laws to wrongfully convict and condemn innocent men for no other reason but to promote their own political ambitions. See, Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice? and "The Anatomy of A Corrupt Prosecutor".
If the Justice Department wants to actually promote justice, then they should look at and find constructive solutions to actually prevent miscarriages of justice, not use taxpayer money in a desperate attempt to manipulate the system in an obvious and insidious attempt to circumvent the judicial review necessary to exposed the innocence of those being victimized by the ultimate miscarriage of justice. Finding ways to execute innocent men and women before they can prove their innocence is not justice – expediting review in capital cases will only result in innocent men and women being executed -- and in our society, even the possibility of that inevitable result – should be intolerable.
Michael Lambrix
This selective study completed by Professors Barry Latzer and James Cauthen at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York allegedly examined 1,676 death sentences in only 14 subjectively hand picked “representative” states involving only sentences imposed between 1992 and 2002. This N.I.J. study was intended to provide a federally sanctioned attack on an earlier comprehensive study done by Professor James Liebman of Columbia University, released in 2000, which concluded that the contemporary death penalty system is “fundamentally flawed.” In that study, Professor Liebman examined all death sentence capital cases from 1973 to 1995 and found that over 60% of all death sentences were overturned on appellate review.
In a desperate attempt to discredit that Liebman study, the present conservative controlled Justice Department attempts to manipulate the results of their own limited study. The N.I.J. study suggests that the Liebman study improperly examined all death sentences imposed since 1973 during a time that the U.S. Supreme Court was still rewriting applicable law governing death penalty cases, thereby resulting in a high rate of reversals. However, The N.I.J. study does not suggest that the Liebman study is inaccurate – it only suggests that by limiting reviews of capital cases to death sentences imposed from 1992 through 2002 the rate of reversals in only those 14 representative states are significantly less than the Liebman study suggests.
However, even in attempting to manipulate the results by selecting a much narrower pool of cases examined, the recent N.I.J. study still concedes that even in these hand picked “representative” cases, at least 26% of the death sentences imposed were subsequently overturned on appellate review, which means that even by this obviously biased study intended to promote faster and more frequent executions, these kill-em-all proponents concede that one out of every four people sentenced to death are wrongfully condemned.
Can you even imagine the trauma inflicted upon those wrongfully condemned to death -- the trauma they must endure because of that unjustified imposition of a sentence of death? See, “Bowels of the Beast: Condemned to a Fate Worse Than Death” at (www.southerninjustice.com/bowels.htm)If the conservative’s own study finds such an alarming rate of improperly imposed sentences of death, then how can any person of moral conscience still express support for the death penalty? Much less continue to advocate expediting executions – to push for faster and more frequent executions means even further limiting of appellate review, which will inevitably result in error not being corrected and innocent men executed.
The only too obvious true intent of this N.I.J. study is revealed in reading its expressed agenda – to find ways to speed up executions on the pretense that by not killing the condemned faster and more frequently, the victims families are traumatized and the states must bear the burden of millions of dollars in costs to unnecessarily house these condemned men and women while the pursue their appeals. But the study does not even mention the infliction of trauma on those one out of four men and women wrongly condemned to death, or their families.
Conveniently, this N.I.J. study does not mention that over 125 men and woman have been judicially exonerated and released from death rows across the country; after being found to have been wrongfully convicted and condemned to death. Nor does it address the fact that the leading cause of wrongful convictions in capital cases is prosecutorial misconduct – in too many cases prosecutors have deliberately concealed evidence that if exposed would have proven the person’s innocence. See,
Condemning An Innocent Man.
By now pushing to expedite executions by even further limiting appellate review it is clearly a pathetically disingenuous attempt to accomplish the conservatives true agenda – further limiting appellate review would mean that substantially fewer wrongful capital convictions will be revealed; that even legitimate claims of actual innocence will be procedurally barred from appellate review. See, Blessings of Liberty in the Land of the Free.
These rabid conservatives are concerned that with the escalating rate of wrongful convictions exposed the public’s confidence in the judicial system will suffer – they would rather have the innocent victims of the ultimate miscarriage of justice murdered by the state, than allow the judicial system and its inherent fallibility to be increasingly exposed.
Additionally, the N.I.J. study fails to recognize that the leading cause of substantial delays in reaching finality in capital cases is the campaign of politically motivated interference with the process itself, which is a direct result of politicians passing one law after another in an attempt to circumvent review. The capital post conviction process itself has become inherently complex, requiring specialized lawyers and lengthy judicial review of complex questions that often revolve around the applicability of statutorily created procedural rules before actual claims of error can even be addressed. It is this insidious political interference as politicians all but openly compete with each other to promote “bills” to expedite executions that cause substantial delays. Adopting even more procedural rules under the pretense of promoting faster executions will, in fact, only slow the process down even further.
If the Justice Department really wants to objectively expedite the finality of capital convictions, then perhaps it’s time to impose restrictions on the politically motivated interference and tell those parasitic politicians systematically engaging in Machiavellian type plots to maliciously circumvent full and fair review to crawl back under their rocks and leave the system alone. Politics and justice do not mix.
Incredibly, even with the alarming rate of wrongful convictions and the unjustified imposition of death sentences subsequently reversed, the Justice Department has yet to commission a study to examine why this error rate is so high and what can be done to reduce making victims of those wrongly convicted and condemned.
Perhaps if the “Justice” Department was truly interested in promoting and preserving justice, it would commission a comprehensive study on the cause of this unconscionably high rate of wrongful capital convictions and find ways to prevent innocent men and women from being sent to death row in the first place, thus restoring the public confidence in the judicial system itself. Certainly there must be someone within the Justice Department to realize that by disingenuously finding ways to cover up wrongful convictions, inevitably the public’s confidence will suffer even more than by simply admitting the present system’s imperfections and constructively trying to find ways to minimize the improper imposition of death sentences in the first place.
The bottom line is that the death penalty is about politicians, not justice. The primary reason that the death penalty continues to be practiced in this country is because politicians exploit it to win votes. Politicians shamelessly exploit the trauma inflicted upon the families of victims under the pretense of pursuing justice knowing full well that if they were truly interested in sparing the victim’s families prolonged trauma and instill a sense of finality in a timely manner, they would abolish the death penalty and replace it with a life sentence with no possibility of parole – as many states that do not have the death penalty already have done. The victim’s families have already suffered an immeasurable trauma – they deserve the expedited finality only abolishing the death penalty can provide, not being dragged through the courts for years reliving that trauma.
But if we truly do want to debate the inherent fundamental flaws within the present death penalty system; then let’s start by looking at the alarming rate of wrongful convictions as illustrated in “Southern Injustice: Exposing the New Face of Bigotry and Injustice in The South” at (www.southerninjustice.com), and take an even closer look at the leading cause for their unconscionably high rate of wrongful capital convictions – politically ambitious prosecutors manipulating the judicial system to unethically win at any cost must be held accountable, especially prosecutors who have a history of repeatedly violating laws to wrongfully convict and condemn innocent men for no other reason but to promote their own political ambitions. See, Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice? and "The Anatomy of A Corrupt Prosecutor".
If the Justice Department wants to actually promote justice, then they should look at and find constructive solutions to actually prevent miscarriages of justice, not use taxpayer money in a desperate attempt to manipulate the system in an obvious and insidious attempt to circumvent the judicial review necessary to exposed the innocence of those being victimized by the ultimate miscarriage of justice. Finding ways to execute innocent men and women before they can prove their innocence is not justice – expediting review in capital cases will only result in innocent men and women being executed -- and in our society, even the possibility of that inevitable result – should be intolerable.
Michael Lambrix
Monday, 16 February 2009
A Laugh a Day keeps the Executioner Away
I’ve got some really great new that I’d like to share with those out there who are concerned that many, including myself, may face an unjustified execution at the state’s corrupt hands. We have the power to now effectively abolish the death penalty… honest. All we have to do is truly believe and za-sham, no more executioners.
As many of us know the latest feel-good fad sweeping America is a book by now best-selling author Rhonda Byrne, “The Secret.” Already dear Oprah has devoted two entire shows to this book and sales have gone into the millions as those looking for a quick fix run to their nearest bookstore and buy into this pseudo-scientific babble.
Basically the premise of this latest craze is a contemporary application of the long talked of “Law of Attraction,” which preaches that each of us can miraculously change any circumstance in our life by positive thinking – just ask and believe and it will be. It’s so simple kids can even do it. Then again, the blind and trusting faith of a child helps facilitate this concept.
Myself I think Rhonda Byrne is a genius – but not because she’s now sharing “The Secret” with the masses. Rather, after years as a rather unsuccessful television producer she realized her own true calling… a master thief. Her recent best selling book is really nothing more than glamorized theft of the thoughts and ideas if the renowned and respected Pentecostal minister Norman Vincent Peale, who during the dark days if the American Depression (early 1930’s) ministered to the less fortunate on the streets of New York city. He shared a message of hope and faith to the down trodden and depressed; listing them from their own circumstances.
Many years later Norman Vincent Peale wrote a book called “The Power of Positive Thinking” in which he provided the message that Rhonda Byrne now preaches as if her own. With the donations and profits derived form his inspirational messages Peale established the still open “center for Positive Thinking” about an hour North of New York City. This was and still remains the legacy of a man who was motivated by his selfless desire to help those less fortunate. Yet in just a few months Rhonda Byrne has now shanghaied his message and made millions of dollars with the help of apparently clueless Oprah Winfrey – and how much of that money will be going to help those less fortunate or establish a foundation intended to perpetuate the gift so free given to others.
But what of the message itself? Can there be any truth to this “Secret?” Can in be that all I’ve really got to do to hold the executioner at bay is believe that it won’t happen? Could it really be that simple?
I believe in the power of faith and the perseverance of hope. But I do not and I cannot believe in the American judicial system. If all it takes is believing then perhaps rather than beg so many to simply care enough to help expose my wrongful conviction I should instead stand at my death row cell door clicking my heels together, chanting repeatedly, “there’s no place like home.” That worked for Dorothy as I saw it myself on T.V. So I know it has to be true, right?
But as I read Rhonda Byrne’s twist on Norman Vincent Peale’s inspirational message, even if I could get beyond my belief that she’s stealing an idea that was intended to help those less fortunate and shamelessly exploiting it through mass market sensationalism – all for her own selfish profit, then how do I get over the even greater obstacle in my ability to have faith in this corrupt system? How do I overcome my knowledge of just how inherently corrupt our judicial system is?
Perhaps if I believe strong enough those prosecutors who are perpetuating this injustice against me will miraculously develop a moral conscience and bow their heads in shame and admit that they were wrong. But the problem with that is that these parasitic prosecutors are psychopaths that prey upon those unable to defend against the seemingly infinite resources of the state, targeting those socially and financially disadvantaged for wrongful prosecution – convicting and condemning innocent men and women for no reason but to advance their own careers by maintaining a high conviction rate. See, “Southern Injustice: Exposing the New Face of Bigotry and Injustice in The South.” at (www.southerninjustice.com) and rather than address why these state sanctioned serial killers simply have no conscience. My common sense tells me that you simply cannot appeal to the conscious of a person who by their very nature has no conscience.
What if these state prosecutors who are already personally responsible for innocent people having been wrongfully convicted and condemned to death now miraculously did develop a conscience? Would they admit they were wrong? The fact is that despite over 125 men and women being exonerated and released from death row across the country, I have yet to see even one prosecutor actually admit that maybe – just maybe they were wrong, which brings us back to my belief that these prosecutors are cold blooded psychopathic state sanctioned serial killers not at all unlike a blood crazed rabid dog – and we all watched “Ole Yeller” and know that there’s really only one way to cure a rabid dog.
The problem is there’s virtually no accountability… these prosecutors act with complete impunity, knowing that the judicial system will protect them from being held accountable even if they deliberately coerce witnesses to lie, fabricate evidence and deliberately send an innocent man to death row. See, Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice?
What has to be understood is the corruption that drives these parasites. Most prosecutors actually do follow the law and their own conscience – but it’s the relatively few who are corrupted by the power entrusted in them and rather than seek justice the job becomes a means in which to build their own career… by any means necessary. Not surprisingly when wrongful convictions are exposed a pattern begins to show that it’s the same state attorneys who break the law to wrongfully convict and condemn innocent men and women. That a relatively small group of corrupt state attorneys actually account for an alarming rate of wrongful convictions and yet the judicial system continues to protect them, even promoting them to higher office rather than tar and feather them as it should be. See, "The Anatomy of A Corrupt Prosecutor".
If only it were so simple as to just believe that an injustice could come to and end by believing in the power of positive thought. But then, how much faith could a person out into a message from a person who shamelessly stole the concept from someone who intended only good for it?
The good news is that a few weeks ago I read an article in the USA Today newspaper that I can believe in. (See, USA Today, March 12th, 2007 “A laugh a day may help keep death farther away.”) According to this scientific study conducted at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology having a sense of humor has now been proven to prolong a person’s life. And I’ve now got it in writing, conveniently taped to the space over the door of my death row cell. If the power of positive thought can move mountains and make miracles happen, then just imagine what I can accomplish with the power of a sense of humor! A laugh a day keeps the executioner away – bite me, you slimy bastard! Ha Ha Ha! See, now I know the true “Secret” – all I got to do is stand at my cell door clicking my heels together chanting “There’s no place like home” repeatedly while spontaneously laughing and I can escape the executioner… they can’t kill a crazy man, right? Beam me up, Scotty, the jokes on them. (And now I close with a big smile!)
Michael Lambrix
As many of us know the latest feel-good fad sweeping America is a book by now best-selling author Rhonda Byrne, “The Secret.” Already dear Oprah has devoted two entire shows to this book and sales have gone into the millions as those looking for a quick fix run to their nearest bookstore and buy into this pseudo-scientific babble.
Basically the premise of this latest craze is a contemporary application of the long talked of “Law of Attraction,” which preaches that each of us can miraculously change any circumstance in our life by positive thinking – just ask and believe and it will be. It’s so simple kids can even do it. Then again, the blind and trusting faith of a child helps facilitate this concept.
Myself I think Rhonda Byrne is a genius – but not because she’s now sharing “The Secret” with the masses. Rather, after years as a rather unsuccessful television producer she realized her own true calling… a master thief. Her recent best selling book is really nothing more than glamorized theft of the thoughts and ideas if the renowned and respected Pentecostal minister Norman Vincent Peale, who during the dark days if the American Depression (early 1930’s) ministered to the less fortunate on the streets of New York city. He shared a message of hope and faith to the down trodden and depressed; listing them from their own circumstances.
Many years later Norman Vincent Peale wrote a book called “The Power of Positive Thinking” in which he provided the message that Rhonda Byrne now preaches as if her own. With the donations and profits derived form his inspirational messages Peale established the still open “center for Positive Thinking” about an hour North of New York City. This was and still remains the legacy of a man who was motivated by his selfless desire to help those less fortunate. Yet in just a few months Rhonda Byrne has now shanghaied his message and made millions of dollars with the help of apparently clueless Oprah Winfrey – and how much of that money will be going to help those less fortunate or establish a foundation intended to perpetuate the gift so free given to others.
But what of the message itself? Can there be any truth to this “Secret?” Can in be that all I’ve really got to do to hold the executioner at bay is believe that it won’t happen? Could it really be that simple?
I believe in the power of faith and the perseverance of hope. But I do not and I cannot believe in the American judicial system. If all it takes is believing then perhaps rather than beg so many to simply care enough to help expose my wrongful conviction I should instead stand at my death row cell door clicking my heels together, chanting repeatedly, “there’s no place like home.” That worked for Dorothy as I saw it myself on T.V. So I know it has to be true, right?
But as I read Rhonda Byrne’s twist on Norman Vincent Peale’s inspirational message, even if I could get beyond my belief that she’s stealing an idea that was intended to help those less fortunate and shamelessly exploiting it through mass market sensationalism – all for her own selfish profit, then how do I get over the even greater obstacle in my ability to have faith in this corrupt system? How do I overcome my knowledge of just how inherently corrupt our judicial system is?
Perhaps if I believe strong enough those prosecutors who are perpetuating this injustice against me will miraculously develop a moral conscience and bow their heads in shame and admit that they were wrong. But the problem with that is that these parasitic prosecutors are psychopaths that prey upon those unable to defend against the seemingly infinite resources of the state, targeting those socially and financially disadvantaged for wrongful prosecution – convicting and condemning innocent men and women for no reason but to advance their own careers by maintaining a high conviction rate. See, “Southern Injustice: Exposing the New Face of Bigotry and Injustice in The South.” at (www.southerninjustice.com) and rather than address why these state sanctioned serial killers simply have no conscience. My common sense tells me that you simply cannot appeal to the conscious of a person who by their very nature has no conscience.
What if these state prosecutors who are already personally responsible for innocent people having been wrongfully convicted and condemned to death now miraculously did develop a conscience? Would they admit they were wrong? The fact is that despite over 125 men and women being exonerated and released from death row across the country, I have yet to see even one prosecutor actually admit that maybe – just maybe they were wrong, which brings us back to my belief that these prosecutors are cold blooded psychopathic state sanctioned serial killers not at all unlike a blood crazed rabid dog – and we all watched “Ole Yeller” and know that there’s really only one way to cure a rabid dog.
The problem is there’s virtually no accountability… these prosecutors act with complete impunity, knowing that the judicial system will protect them from being held accountable even if they deliberately coerce witnesses to lie, fabricate evidence and deliberately send an innocent man to death row. See, Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice?
What has to be understood is the corruption that drives these parasites. Most prosecutors actually do follow the law and their own conscience – but it’s the relatively few who are corrupted by the power entrusted in them and rather than seek justice the job becomes a means in which to build their own career… by any means necessary. Not surprisingly when wrongful convictions are exposed a pattern begins to show that it’s the same state attorneys who break the law to wrongfully convict and condemn innocent men and women. That a relatively small group of corrupt state attorneys actually account for an alarming rate of wrongful convictions and yet the judicial system continues to protect them, even promoting them to higher office rather than tar and feather them as it should be. See, "The Anatomy of A Corrupt Prosecutor".
If only it were so simple as to just believe that an injustice could come to and end by believing in the power of positive thought. But then, how much faith could a person out into a message from a person who shamelessly stole the concept from someone who intended only good for it?
The good news is that a few weeks ago I read an article in the USA Today newspaper that I can believe in. (See, USA Today, March 12th, 2007 “A laugh a day may help keep death farther away.”) According to this scientific study conducted at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology having a sense of humor has now been proven to prolong a person’s life. And I’ve now got it in writing, conveniently taped to the space over the door of my death row cell. If the power of positive thought can move mountains and make miracles happen, then just imagine what I can accomplish with the power of a sense of humor! A laugh a day keeps the executioner away – bite me, you slimy bastard! Ha Ha Ha! See, now I know the true “Secret” – all I got to do is stand at my cell door clicking my heels together chanting “There’s no place like home” repeatedly while spontaneously laughing and I can escape the executioner… they can’t kill a crazy man, right? Beam me up, Scotty, the jokes on them. (And now I close with a big smile!)
Michael Lambrix
Does the Supreme Court Suborn Perjury in Capital Cases?
Our Judicial system is the very foundation upon which our constitutional democracy stands – yet increasingly that foundation is becoming nothing more than shifting sands so easily manipulated by deliberate deception. The sacred concepts of truth and justice have given way to a system in which lawyers win at any cost. Without truth, there can be no hope for justice, and without justice there can be no hope in sustaining our constitutional democracy.
For several weeks now the headlines across the country have told the story of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales being “under the gun” for acts of misconduct within the Attorney General’s Office. Repeatedly it has been found that the Attorney General’s Office has deliberately deceived both Congress and the public in the matter of why numerous prosecutors were fired.
Confronted with this pattern of deceptions Congress has called for formal hearings to discern the truth only to have President Bush obstruct their proceedings by refusing to cooperate. Once again declaring that he has absolute confidence in a number of his inner circle, Bush blindly stands behind Attorney General Gonzales – just as he did for numerous other appointees when their integrity and competence were publicly questioned. One could even argue that the surest way to predict a soon to be announced resignation by one of Bush’s inner circle is to have Bush publicly declare his confidence in that individual.
The public is becoming increasingly familiar with this song and dance as those we place our trust in are subsequently exposed as corrupt. If our top prosecutors such as Alberto Gonzales will obstruct the truth from being revealed, then what does that say about the integrity of our judicial system itself?
Although the matter concerning Alberto Gonzales is played in the front page of most daily newspapers across the country, a far more insidious example of suborning deception and perjury can be found in a matter pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Is it possible that our Supreme Court itself actively encourages governmental lawyers to commit perjury and protects these lawyers by granting them absolute immunity from accountability?
What does it say about our American legal system when at the highest levels of our judiciary -- The Supreme Court Justices knowingly turn a blind eye to governmental lawyers who deliberately misrepresent facts with the intent to deceive the Court? The truth is that these state lawyers know that the courts will protect them even when they commit perjury, and that it has come to the point where truth and integrity mean so very little to our Supreme Court that material misrepresentations of for (or in simpler language, deliberate lies) have become a way of life… a way to deliberately circumvent the truth.
Several months ago death sentenced prisoner Michael Lambrix, unable to obtain legal counsel, filed a “pro se” (acting as his own lawyer) petition in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the State of Florida has denied him timely review of his pled and substantiated actual innocence claims. See, Lambrix v. Florida, U.S. Ct. Case #06-9634 (The full Petition can be read here) and also please read, “Condemning An Innocent Man” (Full length summary of the Lambrix case from the time of his arrest, through the trial, the appellate process, and finally the new evidence uncovered that substantiates his long pled claim of innocence.)
Mr. Lambrix argues that in January 19998 his state appointed lawyer filed an appeal in the lower state court arguing an actual innocence claim. Now, well over 9 years later that appeal remains pending despite Lambrix’s repeated and even relentless efforts to expedite review and reach a final disposition. At the time in which the Supreme Court aggressively pushes to expedite capital state post conviction proceedings, under what conceivable circumstance could any state post conviction appeal remain pending before a single court for over 9 years?
Quite simply, the evidence supporting Lambrix’s pled claims that the local state attorney’s office deliberately conspired and collaborated with the sole key witness to fabricate the entire wholly circumstantial case brought against Lambrix, is now, so overwhelming that it cannot be denied. See, Southern Injustice: The New face of Bigotry and Injustice in the South. Unable to discredit Lambrix's claims of innocence, the state has instead decided to deliberately perpetuate this injustice by obstructing and denying timely review -- effectively holding the case hostage in the lower state court, refusing to allow it to proceed. See, “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.”
Determined to bring an end to this nightmare of injustice, Lambrix filed a petition in the Florida Supreme Court attempting to compel that Court to take the action necessary to force the lower court to expedite review and make a ruling. However, Florida’s Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar convinced the Florida Supreme Court that Lambrix was prohibited from petitioning the Court for relief as only the state appointed supervised post conviction counsel could file any action in the case – Lambrix had no right to personally address the Court. The Florida Supreme Court blindly adopted this pathetically disingenuous argument in an unprecedented ruling, refusing to compel the lower state court to provide timely review. See, Florida Supreme Court Says, “No Right To Expedited Review of Actual Innocence Claim.”
Lambrix then initiated the now pending Petition in the U.S. Supreme Court. In a response to this petition submitted by Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar, the State of Florida again is attempting to manipulate the Court to circumvent review of the issue of whether a capital post conviction (death-sentenced) prisoner has any enforceable right to reasonably timely review of a pled and substantiated claim of actual innocence Once again Florida’s legal counsel Carol Dittmar has filed an action saturated with deliberate deceptions and factual misrepresentations intended to deceive the Supreme Court. (Both Ms. Dittmar’s response and Mr. Lambrix's reply to that response will be posted in their entirety on this site within the next week.)
Why has our contemporary judicial system become so inherently corrupted that even a capital defendant arguing a substantiated claim of actual innocence cannot even hope that truth and justice will prevail? Because those at the highest levels of our state and federal judiciaries refuse to take any action against these morally and ethically corrupt state prosecutors who repeatedly resort to deliberate misrepresentations and outright lies to defend against claims. See, “Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice?.”
What is even more tragic is that our courts themselves have lost their own moral compass – truth and integrity mean nothing in today’s judicial system. State lawyers such as Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar know that they can flagrantly commit perjury before even the highest Court as they know the Court will not even concern itself with discerning the truth, much less take any disciplinary action against corrupt state lawyers who do unethically perjure themselves with complete impunity.
Under the pretense of a “conservative judicial agenda,” today’s courts would rather deliberately put an innocent man to death than expose an injustice. Incredibly, many of these so-called conservatives adopt a philosophy that it is acceptable to execute an innocent man as the Constitution does not protect the innocent from being executed – it only protects the right to a fair trial. See, Blessings of Liberty in the Land of the Free. Unless a factually innocent man (or woman) can show that he was denied a “fair trial” and show it within the statutorily mandated time limits; innocence is irrelevant.
How can anyone have any confidence in such a system? In case after case we see that the corruption of the system itself is the product of corrupt state attorneys who will do anything to win at any cost. See,"The Anatomy of A Corrupt Prosecutor". Truth and integrity are no longer relevant… only winning matters and state prosecutors such as Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar knows that the only way to climb that politically controlled career ladder is to do whatever it takes to win – even put innocent men and women to death.
Is our own Supreme Court suborning perjury? Of course they are -- just watch as this case unfolds and you will see that the Supreme Court, even when it is brought to their attention that Ms. Dittmar has flagrantly misrepresenting material facts with the intent to deceive the Court, the Court will not make any attempt to discern the truth. To knowingly turn a blind eye when lawyers commit perjury is to encourage and invite unethical behaviors. By refusing to take action against parties that violate ethical standards; the Supreme Court does induce and suborn perjury.
Justice can never prevail when truth itself becomes irrelevant. In the words of President Abraham Lincoln, “Evil can only prevail when good men choose to do nothing!” There can be no greater within our judicial system than the deliberate disregard of the sacred concepts of truth and justice within our court system… justice can only hope to prevail when truth itself is religiously protected and preserved. The Supreme Court has a moral and ethical obligation to aggressively take action against any party who dares to misrepresent material facts before it – but today’s Supreme Court will do nothing.
When a state attorney general can appear before our Supreme Court and so blatantly defend against a state prisoners substantiated claim of actual innocence by presenting deliberate material misrepresentations intended to intentionally deceive the Court, and be so confident that they can do so with complete impunity, knowing full well that the Court will not take action against a state lawyer; then that itself provides a telling commentary on the integrity of today’s judicial system as a whole.
This is the greater tragedy… this unethical and contemptuous action by Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar will be rewarded by the court because the Supreme Court itself has become so corrupt by its own bias against capital (death sentenced) prisoners that truth and justice are irrelevant. But consider this… when the very least of our society can no longer come before our courts with any hope of having truth and justice prevail, then the very soul of our constitutional democracy itself has now been executed at the hands of these conservatives who adhere to the philosophy that it is far better to execute an innocent man than to expose an injustice that might embarrass the judicial system and undermine the public’s confidence.
Don’t these conservative justices get it? The greatest threat to undermining public confidence in the judicial system is not exposing injustices, but eroding the sacred concepts of truth and justice. The integrity of our judicial system is dependent upon the Court’s willingness to protect truth allowing anyone to appear before the court and deliberately deceive the Court with complete impunity is the greatest threat. Eliminate integrity and there can be no justice.
Mike Lambrix
For several weeks now the headlines across the country have told the story of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales being “under the gun” for acts of misconduct within the Attorney General’s Office. Repeatedly it has been found that the Attorney General’s Office has deliberately deceived both Congress and the public in the matter of why numerous prosecutors were fired.
Confronted with this pattern of deceptions Congress has called for formal hearings to discern the truth only to have President Bush obstruct their proceedings by refusing to cooperate. Once again declaring that he has absolute confidence in a number of his inner circle, Bush blindly stands behind Attorney General Gonzales – just as he did for numerous other appointees when their integrity and competence were publicly questioned. One could even argue that the surest way to predict a soon to be announced resignation by one of Bush’s inner circle is to have Bush publicly declare his confidence in that individual.
The public is becoming increasingly familiar with this song and dance as those we place our trust in are subsequently exposed as corrupt. If our top prosecutors such as Alberto Gonzales will obstruct the truth from being revealed, then what does that say about the integrity of our judicial system itself?
Although the matter concerning Alberto Gonzales is played in the front page of most daily newspapers across the country, a far more insidious example of suborning deception and perjury can be found in a matter pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Is it possible that our Supreme Court itself actively encourages governmental lawyers to commit perjury and protects these lawyers by granting them absolute immunity from accountability?
What does it say about our American legal system when at the highest levels of our judiciary -- The Supreme Court Justices knowingly turn a blind eye to governmental lawyers who deliberately misrepresent facts with the intent to deceive the Court? The truth is that these state lawyers know that the courts will protect them even when they commit perjury, and that it has come to the point where truth and integrity mean so very little to our Supreme Court that material misrepresentations of for (or in simpler language, deliberate lies) have become a way of life… a way to deliberately circumvent the truth.
Several months ago death sentenced prisoner Michael Lambrix, unable to obtain legal counsel, filed a “pro se” (acting as his own lawyer) petition in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the State of Florida has denied him timely review of his pled and substantiated actual innocence claims. See, Lambrix v. Florida, U.S. Ct. Case #06-9634 (The full Petition can be read here) and also please read, “Condemning An Innocent Man” (Full length summary of the Lambrix case from the time of his arrest, through the trial, the appellate process, and finally the new evidence uncovered that substantiates his long pled claim of innocence.)
Mr. Lambrix argues that in January 19998 his state appointed lawyer filed an appeal in the lower state court arguing an actual innocence claim. Now, well over 9 years later that appeal remains pending despite Lambrix’s repeated and even relentless efforts to expedite review and reach a final disposition. At the time in which the Supreme Court aggressively pushes to expedite capital state post conviction proceedings, under what conceivable circumstance could any state post conviction appeal remain pending before a single court for over 9 years?
Quite simply, the evidence supporting Lambrix’s pled claims that the local state attorney’s office deliberately conspired and collaborated with the sole key witness to fabricate the entire wholly circumstantial case brought against Lambrix, is now, so overwhelming that it cannot be denied. See, Southern Injustice: The New face of Bigotry and Injustice in the South. Unable to discredit Lambrix's claims of innocence, the state has instead decided to deliberately perpetuate this injustice by obstructing and denying timely review -- effectively holding the case hostage in the lower state court, refusing to allow it to proceed. See, “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.”
Determined to bring an end to this nightmare of injustice, Lambrix filed a petition in the Florida Supreme Court attempting to compel that Court to take the action necessary to force the lower court to expedite review and make a ruling. However, Florida’s Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar convinced the Florida Supreme Court that Lambrix was prohibited from petitioning the Court for relief as only the state appointed supervised post conviction counsel could file any action in the case – Lambrix had no right to personally address the Court. The Florida Supreme Court blindly adopted this pathetically disingenuous argument in an unprecedented ruling, refusing to compel the lower state court to provide timely review. See, Florida Supreme Court Says, “No Right To Expedited Review of Actual Innocence Claim.”
Lambrix then initiated the now pending Petition in the U.S. Supreme Court. In a response to this petition submitted by Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar, the State of Florida again is attempting to manipulate the Court to circumvent review of the issue of whether a capital post conviction (death-sentenced) prisoner has any enforceable right to reasonably timely review of a pled and substantiated claim of actual innocence Once again Florida’s legal counsel Carol Dittmar has filed an action saturated with deliberate deceptions and factual misrepresentations intended to deceive the Supreme Court. (Both Ms. Dittmar’s response and Mr. Lambrix's reply to that response will be posted in their entirety on this site within the next week.)
Why has our contemporary judicial system become so inherently corrupted that even a capital defendant arguing a substantiated claim of actual innocence cannot even hope that truth and justice will prevail? Because those at the highest levels of our state and federal judiciaries refuse to take any action against these morally and ethically corrupt state prosecutors who repeatedly resort to deliberate misrepresentations and outright lies to defend against claims. See, “Prosecutorial Misconduct: Does Immunity Invite Injustice?.”
What is even more tragic is that our courts themselves have lost their own moral compass – truth and integrity mean nothing in today’s judicial system. State lawyers such as Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar know that they can flagrantly commit perjury before even the highest Court as they know the Court will not even concern itself with discerning the truth, much less take any disciplinary action against corrupt state lawyers who do unethically perjure themselves with complete impunity.
Under the pretense of a “conservative judicial agenda,” today’s courts would rather deliberately put an innocent man to death than expose an injustice. Incredibly, many of these so-called conservatives adopt a philosophy that it is acceptable to execute an innocent man as the Constitution does not protect the innocent from being executed – it only protects the right to a fair trial. See, Blessings of Liberty in the Land of the Free. Unless a factually innocent man (or woman) can show that he was denied a “fair trial” and show it within the statutorily mandated time limits; innocence is irrelevant.
How can anyone have any confidence in such a system? In case after case we see that the corruption of the system itself is the product of corrupt state attorneys who will do anything to win at any cost. See,"The Anatomy of A Corrupt Prosecutor". Truth and integrity are no longer relevant… only winning matters and state prosecutors such as Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar knows that the only way to climb that politically controlled career ladder is to do whatever it takes to win – even put innocent men and women to death.
Is our own Supreme Court suborning perjury? Of course they are -- just watch as this case unfolds and you will see that the Supreme Court, even when it is brought to their attention that Ms. Dittmar has flagrantly misrepresenting material facts with the intent to deceive the Court, the Court will not make any attempt to discern the truth. To knowingly turn a blind eye when lawyers commit perjury is to encourage and invite unethical behaviors. By refusing to take action against parties that violate ethical standards; the Supreme Court does induce and suborn perjury.
Justice can never prevail when truth itself becomes irrelevant. In the words of President Abraham Lincoln, “Evil can only prevail when good men choose to do nothing!” There can be no greater within our judicial system than the deliberate disregard of the sacred concepts of truth and justice within our court system… justice can only hope to prevail when truth itself is religiously protected and preserved. The Supreme Court has a moral and ethical obligation to aggressively take action against any party who dares to misrepresent material facts before it – but today’s Supreme Court will do nothing.
When a state attorney general can appear before our Supreme Court and so blatantly defend against a state prisoners substantiated claim of actual innocence by presenting deliberate material misrepresentations intended to intentionally deceive the Court, and be so confident that they can do so with complete impunity, knowing full well that the Court will not take action against a state lawyer; then that itself provides a telling commentary on the integrity of today’s judicial system as a whole.
This is the greater tragedy… this unethical and contemptuous action by Senior Assistant Attorney General Carol Dittmar will be rewarded by the court because the Supreme Court itself has become so corrupt by its own bias against capital (death sentenced) prisoners that truth and justice are irrelevant. But consider this… when the very least of our society can no longer come before our courts with any hope of having truth and justice prevail, then the very soul of our constitutional democracy itself has now been executed at the hands of these conservatives who adhere to the philosophy that it is far better to execute an innocent man than to expose an injustice that might embarrass the judicial system and undermine the public’s confidence.
Don’t these conservative justices get it? The greatest threat to undermining public confidence in the judicial system is not exposing injustices, but eroding the sacred concepts of truth and justice. The integrity of our judicial system is dependent upon the Court’s willingness to protect truth allowing anyone to appear before the court and deliberately deceive the Court with complete impunity is the greatest threat. Eliminate integrity and there can be no justice.
Mike Lambrix
Obstructing Justice - An Injustice perpetuated by the Courts
Justice delayed is justice denied – this seems like a simple and self-evident truth, but in our politically corrupt contemporary judicial system this truth takes on two completely different and conflicting meanings. Those familiar with this blog are already aware of the case of Mike Lambrix, who has now been on Florida’s death row for over 23 years, (See, Condemning An Innocent Man) and his continuous fight to compel the courts to expidite review of his appeals. For over 9 years Lambrix’s now substantiated claim of actual innocence has been pending before the lower state court despite Lambrix’s own aggressive efforts to compel the court to provide timely review and reach a final disposition in his case.
Confronted with the lower court and the state prosecutors consistently obstructing timely review Lambrix petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to compel that lower state court to expedited review, but that court refused to take any action. Lambrix has now filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court arguing that his protected constitutional right to timely review of his capital post conviction appeals has been violated -- but will the Supreme Court intervene and hold the state as equally accountable for unnecessary delays as it so often does in holing death row prisoners who fail to “timely” file their appeals? Or is the Supreme Court’s push to expedite a “finality” in capital cases only applicable when its objective is to carry out an execution – and not applicable when the objective is to expedite justice? (The petition can be read in its entirety here.)
If the courts and politicians are so committed to expediting review of capital post conviction appeals under the pretense of promoting a timely “finality,” then why is it they only want to expedite review when their objective is to carry out executions – and not when the state itself deliberately obstructs timely review of a legitimately pled claim of actual innocence? If this is really about objectively expediting a finality in capital cases, then shouldn’t both the courts and politicians be as equally committed to expediting review when a claim of actual innocence is raised as they are when they seek to expedite an execution?
But again, it’s not about expediting justice – it’s about expediting executions. Think about it… the only time politicians and courts pass laws that they claim are intended to speed up death row appeals is when these laws are imposed exclusively against the condemned prisoner. Not even once has Congress or The Supreme Court ever passed a law that imposes any form of sanctions against the state if and when the state is the party responsible for deliberately delaying timely review.
The public remains conveniently oblivious to the insidious nature of these politically motivated campaigns to expedite review of capital post conviction appeals – what it is really about is devising insidious ways to deliberately circumvent a full and fair review of capital cases. (See, Supreme Court Slams Death Row Appeals.) But when confronted with a timely filed and legitimately pled claim of actual innocence, the politicians and the courts no longer have an interest in pushing for an expedited review as if the wrongfully convicted and condemned person is then exonerated that exoneration undermines their true objective of promoting more executions.
The simple truth is that allowing wrongfully convicted and condemned prisoners to fairly prove their innocence undermines public confidence in the judicial system and erodes public support for the death penalty itself. In recent years over 125 men and women have been judicially exonerated and released from death rows across the county. As the public has become aware of the inherent fallibility of our judicial system support for capital punishment itself has substantially declined.
Incredibly, confronted with this substantial decline, both conservative politicians and the conservative judicial activists on our courts have responded by pushing for even more limitations on death row appeals, especially limiting collateral post conviction appeals – the very type of appeal traditionally used to expose an injustice. By devising disingenuous means in which to effectively procedurally bar condemned prisoners from pursuing these appeals – thus eliminating any means in which to present the evidence necessary to prove their innocence; the embarrassment of having so many wrongful convictions exposed is circumvented.
But is this insidious practice of deliberately circumventing review of a legitimate claim of actual innocence only really painting our judicial system into a corner? Although it can be argued that most of these death row claims of innocence are specious, at best, many of these seemingly specious claims have proven to be substantiated upon full review.
Public confidence in our judicial system is dependent upon the perceived integrity of the courts themselves. Even with a marginal majority of our population still supporting the death penalty, no person of moral conscience supports a system that would inevitably result in executing innocent people. Advocating the execution of a guilty person can be called “justice.” but inevitably executing even one innocent person can only be called murder and in a constitutional democracy advocating the execution of even one innocent person makes murderers out of all of us.
Assume for a moment that a condemned prisoner does develop evidence to substantiate his long pled claim of innocence. Before our society carries out that execution, don’t we have a moral obligation to fully a fairly address that claim of innocence? Equally so, when a condemned prisoner properly presents a legitimately pled claim of actual innocence to the courts, then don’t the courts themselves have a moral obligation to ensure that timely review is provided? If justice delayed is justice denied, then isn’t the ultimate injustice that of deliberately delaying the probably exoneration of an innocent man?
Think about it for a moment… what conceivable purpose does the state (or the courts) have in deliberately obstructing timely review of a legitimate actual innocence claim? Being wrongfully convicted and condemned to death itself is an injustice of such extreme proportion that it can never truly be remedied. Even if the innocent person is ultimately exonerated and released from death row, the actual irreparable injury of being condemned to death; the many years of solitary confinement confronting that unjustified sentence of death; has already been irreversibly inflicted and cannot be undone. ( See, Bowels of the Beast: Condemned to a Fate Worse Than Death).
Lambrix has already been on Florida’s death row well over 23 years, with his substantiated claim of actual innocence based upon exculpatory evidence deliberately concealed by the prosecutor now pending before the lower state court for over 9 years. If Lambrix’s claim has no merit, then why is the lower court and the state deliberately delaying review? Is Lambrix’s case an exception? Or is this deliberate deprivation of timely review of a substantiated claim of actual innocence actually a policy and practice condoned by the courts? Do our courts collaborate with the state to deliberately obstruct and deny timely review in capital cases that present a legitimate claim of actual innocence?
Consider the case of Frank Lee Smith, a poor man convicted of allegedly raping and killing an 8 year old girl in Broward County, Florida. There were no witnesses to the crime, but a witness did allegedly see him leaving the house where the little girl’s body was later found. For many years Smith screamed he was innocent to anyone who would listen—but very few would. After many years on death row the science of DNA testing was introduced into the judicial system and finally Smith had hope of proving his innocence.
In 1991 Smith’s court appointed lawyers filed the necessary legal action to have the evidence recovered at the crime scene tested, only to then have the State of Florida obstruct any DNA testing of that evidence. Smith’s case dragged out in the lower state court for many years when finally --9 years later!-- testing was completed and concluded that Smith actually was innocent – and even identified the true perpetrator.
But the injustice deliberately perpetuated against Frank lee Smith by allowing the state to deliberately obstruct timely review of his claim of innocence could never be remedied and justice could never be served – several moths before the DNA test results finally were released, Frank Lee Smith died of cancer while still on Florida’s death row. (See, Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.)
By allowing the state to deliberately obstruct and delay timely review Smith’s exoneration was a hollow victory – Smith still died a wrongfully convicted and condemned man.
When our courts effectively collaborate with the state to deliberately obstruct and deny timely review of a legitimately pled claim of actual innocence then our courts themselves become responsible for perpetuating the ultimate injustice against an innocent man. The reality of it is that these same politicians and justices who relentlessly advocate expediting death row appeals under this pretense of promoting a timely “finality” actually only want to expedite executions – not justice.
If the Supreme Court is so willing to protect the states interest in expediting review of capital cases when the objective is to expedite executions, then why won’t the Supreme Court recognize the wrongfully convicted and condemned prisoner’s right to timely review of a legitimately pled claim of actual innocence?
When it comes down to it, our courts have a constitutional responsibility not only to enforce laws intended to punish the guilty but even more so, to protect the innocent from unjustified punishment. When our courts deliberately turn a blind eye when state prosecutors first wrongfully convict and condemn an innocent man, then when evidence of that prosecutorial misconduct is finally exposed, allows the state to deliberately deny timely review, effectively allowing the ultimate injustice to be indefinitely perpetuated against an innocent man, then our courts have failed to carry out their constitutional responsibility.
Equality and fairness are the cornerstones of justice. If our courts are willing to prohibit a condemned prisoner from filing a substantiated claim of innocence because he failed to timely file the claim (See, Herrara V. Collins 506 U.S. 390 (1993)), then equally so – when a condemned prisoner does timely file a legitimate claim of actual innocence and the state obstructs and denies timely review, then equality and fairness demand that the state be procedurally barred from any further defense, and relief summarily granted, as Lambrix now argues in his petition presently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. To hold otherwise would only encourage the states to obstruct justice and the resulting injustice, would be perpetuated as a result of and by our courts.
Michael Lambrix
Confronted with the lower court and the state prosecutors consistently obstructing timely review Lambrix petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to compel that lower state court to expedited review, but that court refused to take any action. Lambrix has now filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court arguing that his protected constitutional right to timely review of his capital post conviction appeals has been violated -- but will the Supreme Court intervene and hold the state as equally accountable for unnecessary delays as it so often does in holing death row prisoners who fail to “timely” file their appeals? Or is the Supreme Court’s push to expedite a “finality” in capital cases only applicable when its objective is to carry out an execution – and not applicable when the objective is to expedite justice? (The petition can be read in its entirety here.)
If the courts and politicians are so committed to expediting review of capital post conviction appeals under the pretense of promoting a timely “finality,” then why is it they only want to expedite review when their objective is to carry out executions – and not when the state itself deliberately obstructs timely review of a legitimately pled claim of actual innocence? If this is really about objectively expediting a finality in capital cases, then shouldn’t both the courts and politicians be as equally committed to expediting review when a claim of actual innocence is raised as they are when they seek to expedite an execution?
But again, it’s not about expediting justice – it’s about expediting executions. Think about it… the only time politicians and courts pass laws that they claim are intended to speed up death row appeals is when these laws are imposed exclusively against the condemned prisoner. Not even once has Congress or The Supreme Court ever passed a law that imposes any form of sanctions against the state if and when the state is the party responsible for deliberately delaying timely review.
The public remains conveniently oblivious to the insidious nature of these politically motivated campaigns to expedite review of capital post conviction appeals – what it is really about is devising insidious ways to deliberately circumvent a full and fair review of capital cases. (See, Supreme Court Slams Death Row Appeals.) But when confronted with a timely filed and legitimately pled claim of actual innocence, the politicians and the courts no longer have an interest in pushing for an expedited review as if the wrongfully convicted and condemned person is then exonerated that exoneration undermines their true objective of promoting more executions.
The simple truth is that allowing wrongfully convicted and condemned prisoners to fairly prove their innocence undermines public confidence in the judicial system and erodes public support for the death penalty itself. In recent years over 125 men and women have been judicially exonerated and released from death rows across the county. As the public has become aware of the inherent fallibility of our judicial system support for capital punishment itself has substantially declined.
Incredibly, confronted with this substantial decline, both conservative politicians and the conservative judicial activists on our courts have responded by pushing for even more limitations on death row appeals, especially limiting collateral post conviction appeals – the very type of appeal traditionally used to expose an injustice. By devising disingenuous means in which to effectively procedurally bar condemned prisoners from pursuing these appeals – thus eliminating any means in which to present the evidence necessary to prove their innocence; the embarrassment of having so many wrongful convictions exposed is circumvented.
But is this insidious practice of deliberately circumventing review of a legitimate claim of actual innocence only really painting our judicial system into a corner? Although it can be argued that most of these death row claims of innocence are specious, at best, many of these seemingly specious claims have proven to be substantiated upon full review.
Public confidence in our judicial system is dependent upon the perceived integrity of the courts themselves. Even with a marginal majority of our population still supporting the death penalty, no person of moral conscience supports a system that would inevitably result in executing innocent people. Advocating the execution of a guilty person can be called “justice.” but inevitably executing even one innocent person can only be called murder and in a constitutional democracy advocating the execution of even one innocent person makes murderers out of all of us.
Assume for a moment that a condemned prisoner does develop evidence to substantiate his long pled claim of innocence. Before our society carries out that execution, don’t we have a moral obligation to fully a fairly address that claim of innocence? Equally so, when a condemned prisoner properly presents a legitimately pled claim of actual innocence to the courts, then don’t the courts themselves have a moral obligation to ensure that timely review is provided? If justice delayed is justice denied, then isn’t the ultimate injustice that of deliberately delaying the probably exoneration of an innocent man?
Think about it for a moment… what conceivable purpose does the state (or the courts) have in deliberately obstructing timely review of a legitimate actual innocence claim? Being wrongfully convicted and condemned to death itself is an injustice of such extreme proportion that it can never truly be remedied. Even if the innocent person is ultimately exonerated and released from death row, the actual irreparable injury of being condemned to death; the many years of solitary confinement confronting that unjustified sentence of death; has already been irreversibly inflicted and cannot be undone. ( See, Bowels of the Beast: Condemned to a Fate Worse Than Death).
Lambrix has already been on Florida’s death row well over 23 years, with his substantiated claim of actual innocence based upon exculpatory evidence deliberately concealed by the prosecutor now pending before the lower state court for over 9 years. If Lambrix’s claim has no merit, then why is the lower court and the state deliberately delaying review? Is Lambrix’s case an exception? Or is this deliberate deprivation of timely review of a substantiated claim of actual innocence actually a policy and practice condoned by the courts? Do our courts collaborate with the state to deliberately obstruct and deny timely review in capital cases that present a legitimate claim of actual innocence?
Consider the case of Frank Lee Smith, a poor man convicted of allegedly raping and killing an 8 year old girl in Broward County, Florida. There were no witnesses to the crime, but a witness did allegedly see him leaving the house where the little girl’s body was later found. For many years Smith screamed he was innocent to anyone who would listen—but very few would. After many years on death row the science of DNA testing was introduced into the judicial system and finally Smith had hope of proving his innocence.
In 1991 Smith’s court appointed lawyers filed the necessary legal action to have the evidence recovered at the crime scene tested, only to then have the State of Florida obstruct any DNA testing of that evidence. Smith’s case dragged out in the lower state court for many years when finally --9 years later!-- testing was completed and concluded that Smith actually was innocent – and even identified the true perpetrator.
But the injustice deliberately perpetuated against Frank lee Smith by allowing the state to deliberately obstruct timely review of his claim of innocence could never be remedied and justice could never be served – several moths before the DNA test results finally were released, Frank Lee Smith died of cancer while still on Florida’s death row. (See, Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.)
By allowing the state to deliberately obstruct and delay timely review Smith’s exoneration was a hollow victory – Smith still died a wrongfully convicted and condemned man.
When our courts effectively collaborate with the state to deliberately obstruct and deny timely review of a legitimately pled claim of actual innocence then our courts themselves become responsible for perpetuating the ultimate injustice against an innocent man. The reality of it is that these same politicians and justices who relentlessly advocate expediting death row appeals under this pretense of promoting a timely “finality” actually only want to expedite executions – not justice.
If the Supreme Court is so willing to protect the states interest in expediting review of capital cases when the objective is to expedite executions, then why won’t the Supreme Court recognize the wrongfully convicted and condemned prisoner’s right to timely review of a legitimately pled claim of actual innocence?
When it comes down to it, our courts have a constitutional responsibility not only to enforce laws intended to punish the guilty but even more so, to protect the innocent from unjustified punishment. When our courts deliberately turn a blind eye when state prosecutors first wrongfully convict and condemn an innocent man, then when evidence of that prosecutorial misconduct is finally exposed, allows the state to deliberately deny timely review, effectively allowing the ultimate injustice to be indefinitely perpetuated against an innocent man, then our courts have failed to carry out their constitutional responsibility.
Equality and fairness are the cornerstones of justice. If our courts are willing to prohibit a condemned prisoner from filing a substantiated claim of innocence because he failed to timely file the claim (See, Herrara V. Collins 506 U.S. 390 (1993)), then equally so – when a condemned prisoner does timely file a legitimate claim of actual innocence and the state obstructs and denies timely review, then equality and fairness demand that the state be procedurally barred from any further defense, and relief summarily granted, as Lambrix now argues in his petition presently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. To hold otherwise would only encourage the states to obstruct justice and the resulting injustice, would be perpetuated as a result of and by our courts.
Michael Lambrix
Does DNA condemn the Innocent?
This past week the media reported that according to the Innocence Project, the 200th person has now been exonerated by DNA evidence. This sobering milestone was reached when Jerry Miller, a now 48-year old former Army cook was proven innocent by DNA. Evidence from a brutal kidnapping and rape that took place in Chicago in September of 1981 had sent Miller to prison. The victim never identified Miller as her assailant but two parking lot attendants did identify him.
Miller spent 25 years in several Illinois prisons insisting he was innocent before recently being paroled. Through these many years Miller filed numerous appeals challenging the validity of his wrongful convictions; to no avail. With no appeals left, about ten years ago Miller sought out the assistance of the New York based Innocence Project, co-founded in 1992 by renowned attorney Barry Scheck. Agreeing to take the case, Miller was released from prison on parole before the DNA testing was completed. Last week the Cook County Court granted a motion vacating Miller’s convictions and legally exonerating him.
But with all the attention focused on DNA testing, has exoneration by DNA evidence now become the new litmus test for proving innocence? If so, then could it be that DNA is now actually condemning more innocent people than it is exonerating? Through the past 30 years over 125 men and women have been legally exonerated and released from death row; after being found to have been wrongfully convicted and condemned to death. Of that number, only a handful, were exonerated by DNA evidence.
Of the 200 exonerations through DNA evidence, 54 of those were convicted of murder – with less than 10 also wrongfully sentenced to death. Like in the Miller case, the leading cause of the wrongful conviction was mistaken identity, followed closely by faulty scientific evidence. False confessions accounted for only about 25 percent.
There is no question that DNA testing has proven to be a valuable tool in exonerating the innocent. In fact, the very first criminal case in which DNA testing was used in an attempt to prove guilt actually resulted in an unexpected exoneration. The story of how DNA testing came to be utilized in criminal cases begins in Leicestershire, England. In November 1983 a local 15-year old Lynda Mann was raped and strangled to death with her body callously discarded in a field not far from her home. Although the local community searched for the killer, the case went unsolved.
Then almost three years later in August 1986 the body of another 15-year old girl (Dawn Ashworth) was found – she too had been raped and strangled in a manner remarkably similar to Lynda Mann. An investigation led local police to Richard Buckland, a porter at a nearby hospital. Buckland soon confessed to the Ashworth murder, but given the similarities and proximity of the earlier murder of Lynda Mann the police felt that Buckland had to also be responsible for that murder.
Anxious to close the books on both murders the police called upon Alec Jeffries, a professor at Leicestershire University, in England, who while attempting to identify the myoglobin producing gene, which governs the tissues that carry oxygen from the blood to the muscles discovered that DNA is unique to each individual.
The English police thought this new discovery could help them prove that Richard Buckland had also murdered Lynda Mann and Professor Jeffries collected blood samples from Buckland to compare against semen recovered from both of the young victims. The results shocked both Professor Jeffries and the police – contrary to his own confession; Buckland did not commit either murder! The semen taken from both Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth undoubtedly did come from the same man – the same man committed both crimes – but it wasn’t Buckland.
With this DNA evidence now able to identify the true killer, the police launched an extensive manhunt, collecting over 5,000 DNA samples from men living around the Leicestershire area – but no match was found, The cases seemed to be destined to remain unsolved and the killer free to kill again until the police unexpectedly received a call from an acquaintance of Ian Kelly, a baker who lived some distance from the area of the crime. He claimed that Kelly had told him that he had provided the DNA sample for a friend and information led the police to Colin Pitchfork . Pitchfork’s DNA was then proven to be a match for the semen found in both victims. Based on this evidence in January 1988 Pitchfork became the first ever person convicted based upon genetic fingerprinting and was then sentenced to life on both murders.
There can be no question that DNA’s genetic fingerprinting has proven to be an invaluable tool in both identifying the guilty and exonerating the innocent. And that those who are committed to fighting for justice by using DNA to exonerate the wrongfully convicted should be commended for their work. Barry Shack and the Innocence Project, as well as the many universities that now have similar projects, have brought hope to countless victims of injustice and have successfully brought justice to at least 200.
But the problem is that the success of of these numerous DNA exonerations have effectively stolen the limelight. Increasingly, because of all the attention on exonerations by DNA evidence, those who cannot prove their innocence by DNA – because it doesn’t exist or was lost by the state in their case – are ignored. Most of the Innocence Projects today will not even accept cases unless there is forensic evidence that can be subjected to DNA testing. Almost without exception, those exonerated by DNA evidence were convicted of sexual assaults, yet these crimes account for only a small percentage of those wrongfully convicted.
Historically most of those exonerated after being wrongfully convicted (and even condemned to death) never had any DNA evidence to prove their innocence – does this make them less innocent? If society and the judicial system place to much dependence upon DNA to prove a person’s innocence, then ultimately this dependence on DNA evidence as the litmus test of innocence will actually condemn far more innocent people that it will exonerate.
It is an unfortunate tragedy that there are very limited resources available to handle the many thousands of cases in which wrongfully convicted and even condemned prisoners allege innocence. Our judicial system generally has proven unwilling to provide legal support to the allegedly innocent and contemporary politics has resulted in Draconian procedural rules that actually make it almost impossible for a wrongfully convicted person to even argue – much less prove – his or her innocence.
Is it really fair that with all the attention on DNA and the vast majority if these limited resources available to the organization dedicated to fighting the injustices of wrongful convictions are now dedicated almost exclusively to cases where DNA evidence is an issue? What about the larger number of prisoners wrongfully convicted that do not have DNA evidence that are being deliberately ignored and forgotten?
Am I the only one troubled by the fact that in the numerous articles I read proclaiming the 200th person exonerated by DNA evidence this past week, not even one article mentioned that DNA exonerations actually account for only a small percentage of the cases in which the wrongfully convicted and condemned were subsequently exonerated and released? That in fact, DNA exonerations are almost exclusively limited to cases involving and alleged sexual assault and that of the now over 125 men and women exonerated and released from death row across the country in recent years, less than ten percent were exonerated by DNA evidence.
It is not my intent to negate the commendable job, Barry Scheck and many other dedicated lawyers associated with these Innocence Projects are doing. These are the hero’s of all those wrongfully convicted. But it is my belief that they have a responsibility to remind the public that DNA exonerations are actually only the more visible tip of the proverbial iceberg and that the greater mass if wrongful convictions cannot be so easily exposed by DNA testing. Without constantly reminding the public of this undeniable truth the greater injustice will be perpetuated by the very individuals so obviously and selflessly devoted to exposing injustice, as the general public becomes fixated on DNA evidence as the litmus test of innocence. As attention becomes increasingly focused on DNA exonerations inevitably overshadowing the significantly greater number of wrongful convictions that cannot be expose by DNA testing, then ultimately DNA will actually condemn far more innocent people than it will exonerate – and that would be the greater injustice.
Michael Lambric
Miller spent 25 years in several Illinois prisons insisting he was innocent before recently being paroled. Through these many years Miller filed numerous appeals challenging the validity of his wrongful convictions; to no avail. With no appeals left, about ten years ago Miller sought out the assistance of the New York based Innocence Project, co-founded in 1992 by renowned attorney Barry Scheck. Agreeing to take the case, Miller was released from prison on parole before the DNA testing was completed. Last week the Cook County Court granted a motion vacating Miller’s convictions and legally exonerating him.
But with all the attention focused on DNA testing, has exoneration by DNA evidence now become the new litmus test for proving innocence? If so, then could it be that DNA is now actually condemning more innocent people than it is exonerating? Through the past 30 years over 125 men and women have been legally exonerated and released from death row; after being found to have been wrongfully convicted and condemned to death. Of that number, only a handful, were exonerated by DNA evidence.
Of the 200 exonerations through DNA evidence, 54 of those were convicted of murder – with less than 10 also wrongfully sentenced to death. Like in the Miller case, the leading cause of the wrongful conviction was mistaken identity, followed closely by faulty scientific evidence. False confessions accounted for only about 25 percent.
There is no question that DNA testing has proven to be a valuable tool in exonerating the innocent. In fact, the very first criminal case in which DNA testing was used in an attempt to prove guilt actually resulted in an unexpected exoneration. The story of how DNA testing came to be utilized in criminal cases begins in Leicestershire, England. In November 1983 a local 15-year old Lynda Mann was raped and strangled to death with her body callously discarded in a field not far from her home. Although the local community searched for the killer, the case went unsolved.
Then almost three years later in August 1986 the body of another 15-year old girl (Dawn Ashworth) was found – she too had been raped and strangled in a manner remarkably similar to Lynda Mann. An investigation led local police to Richard Buckland, a porter at a nearby hospital. Buckland soon confessed to the Ashworth murder, but given the similarities and proximity of the earlier murder of Lynda Mann the police felt that Buckland had to also be responsible for that murder.
Anxious to close the books on both murders the police called upon Alec Jeffries, a professor at Leicestershire University, in England, who while attempting to identify the myoglobin producing gene, which governs the tissues that carry oxygen from the blood to the muscles discovered that DNA is unique to each individual.
The English police thought this new discovery could help them prove that Richard Buckland had also murdered Lynda Mann and Professor Jeffries collected blood samples from Buckland to compare against semen recovered from both of the young victims. The results shocked both Professor Jeffries and the police – contrary to his own confession; Buckland did not commit either murder! The semen taken from both Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth undoubtedly did come from the same man – the same man committed both crimes – but it wasn’t Buckland.
With this DNA evidence now able to identify the true killer, the police launched an extensive manhunt, collecting over 5,000 DNA samples from men living around the Leicestershire area – but no match was found, The cases seemed to be destined to remain unsolved and the killer free to kill again until the police unexpectedly received a call from an acquaintance of Ian Kelly, a baker who lived some distance from the area of the crime. He claimed that Kelly had told him that he had provided the DNA sample for a friend and information led the police to Colin Pitchfork . Pitchfork’s DNA was then proven to be a match for the semen found in both victims. Based on this evidence in January 1988 Pitchfork became the first ever person convicted based upon genetic fingerprinting and was then sentenced to life on both murders.
There can be no question that DNA’s genetic fingerprinting has proven to be an invaluable tool in both identifying the guilty and exonerating the innocent. And that those who are committed to fighting for justice by using DNA to exonerate the wrongfully convicted should be commended for their work. Barry Shack and the Innocence Project, as well as the many universities that now have similar projects, have brought hope to countless victims of injustice and have successfully brought justice to at least 200.
But the problem is that the success of of these numerous DNA exonerations have effectively stolen the limelight. Increasingly, because of all the attention on exonerations by DNA evidence, those who cannot prove their innocence by DNA – because it doesn’t exist or was lost by the state in their case – are ignored. Most of the Innocence Projects today will not even accept cases unless there is forensic evidence that can be subjected to DNA testing. Almost without exception, those exonerated by DNA evidence were convicted of sexual assaults, yet these crimes account for only a small percentage of those wrongfully convicted.
Historically most of those exonerated after being wrongfully convicted (and even condemned to death) never had any DNA evidence to prove their innocence – does this make them less innocent? If society and the judicial system place to much dependence upon DNA to prove a person’s innocence, then ultimately this dependence on DNA evidence as the litmus test of innocence will actually condemn far more innocent people that it will exonerate.
It is an unfortunate tragedy that there are very limited resources available to handle the many thousands of cases in which wrongfully convicted and even condemned prisoners allege innocence. Our judicial system generally has proven unwilling to provide legal support to the allegedly innocent and contemporary politics has resulted in Draconian procedural rules that actually make it almost impossible for a wrongfully convicted person to even argue – much less prove – his or her innocence.
Is it really fair that with all the attention on DNA and the vast majority if these limited resources available to the organization dedicated to fighting the injustices of wrongful convictions are now dedicated almost exclusively to cases where DNA evidence is an issue? What about the larger number of prisoners wrongfully convicted that do not have DNA evidence that are being deliberately ignored and forgotten?
Am I the only one troubled by the fact that in the numerous articles I read proclaiming the 200th person exonerated by DNA evidence this past week, not even one article mentioned that DNA exonerations actually account for only a small percentage of the cases in which the wrongfully convicted and condemned were subsequently exonerated and released? That in fact, DNA exonerations are almost exclusively limited to cases involving and alleged sexual assault and that of the now over 125 men and women exonerated and released from death row across the country in recent years, less than ten percent were exonerated by DNA evidence.
It is not my intent to negate the commendable job, Barry Scheck and many other dedicated lawyers associated with these Innocence Projects are doing. These are the hero’s of all those wrongfully convicted. But it is my belief that they have a responsibility to remind the public that DNA exonerations are actually only the more visible tip of the proverbial iceberg and that the greater mass if wrongful convictions cannot be so easily exposed by DNA testing. Without constantly reminding the public of this undeniable truth the greater injustice will be perpetuated by the very individuals so obviously and selflessly devoted to exposing injustice, as the general public becomes fixated on DNA evidence as the litmus test of innocence. As attention becomes increasingly focused on DNA exonerations inevitably overshadowing the significantly greater number of wrongful convictions that cannot be expose by DNA testing, then ultimately DNA will actually condemn far more innocent people than it will exonerate – and that would be the greater injustice.
Michael Lambric
Time to Impeach the Supreme Court
America has become a nation of brain dead punks – cowards incapable of thinking on their own. Just look around and you will see these yellow-bellied, pink-pantied wannabe’s all around you. And while you’re at it, look in the mirror – there’s another one. It’s no surprise we can’t win a war and even worse, let out elected leaders deliberately deceive us and get us into a war we had no business getting into in the first place. When other countries look at us they see our weakness – and they laugh at us. We are pathetic.
I grew up in the San Francisco Bay area in the late sixties and early seventies at the height of the Vietnam War and can vividly remember how so many stood their ground to protest government when they believed the government was wrong. These were the college kids across America that knew in their hearts that our country was heading in the wrong direction – and they were right. Just look at us today, only a generation later. The same generation that stood its ground against government when they believed in what they were doing has now raised a generation of spineless, self-centered, materialistic spoiled brats who are far more likely to whine when their Ipod batteries run low, than when their Constitutional rights as abrogated by parasitic politicians and conservative judicial activists.
Whatever happened to that generation that stood their ground even when Uncle Sam called out the National Guard and Mayor Daley sent in platoons of armed cops to beat them back at the Democratic Convention in Chicago? I’m not talking about the Height-Ashbury hippies that found peace at the end of a pot pipe, but the idealistic students that marched on Telegraph Avenue at the gates of Berkeley, and countless other colleges and universities across America. These were the educated, the idealistic cream of the crop, America’s future leaders who believed in a cause and were willing to stand their ground to make their voice heard. Where are they today?
I believe in America and I believe in a Constitutional Democracy and it makes me proud to be a citizen of a country that was founded not by rule of government, but by revolution of the people. But that democracy is dead and its battered body, decaying like an abandoned corpse callously thrown out with the trash. The America I believe in no longer exists and in its place is a contemptuous conservative theocracy, a beast that feeds off the individual to give power to this religious dictatorship. Am I the last true American – myself but a man condemned to death by an injustice deliberately perpetuated by the corruption of our judicial system?
I am also a Christian, believing without doubt in the resurrection of Christ as my only hope of salvation, believing in an eternity that can only come through salvation and faith in a God greater than myself. But I must hang my head in shame when I call myself a Christian as I know only too well that the right wing conservative Christians of America are by far the primary cause of the corruption of our Constitutional Democracy… and the cause of its probable if not inevitable death.
Our Constitutional forefathers knew of the evil of allowing religion to control government. The Constitutional mandate of separation of church and state was never intended to take God out of the country, but rather these founding fathers knew that to allow government to become one with any specific religion would ultimately be the destruction of our Constitutional Democracy. Only by separating religion and government could both survive in a balance that they fought to preserve.
But now the right wing conservative “Christians” control all three branches of our government. The beast has risen and taken control, and its evil tentacles have choked the life out of our democracy. The true “axis of evil” is the corruption of the three branches of government by those fanatically committed to instilling their own theocracy, to allow their own religion to rule our government.
Biblical prophesy speaks of the beast and warns that its power will come through the deception of the believers. The beast’s power comes from controlling those who call themselves Christians and blindly follow their leaders. But would a true man of God lead our nation into a modern day crusade against non-Christians? Think about it… What is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and before it’s over, the entire Middle East) really about? We already know the Bush Administration deliberately deceived our country. This past week former CIA Director George Tenet has come forth claiming that the Bush Administration also knew of an impending terrorist attack before 911, but deliberately took no action. Why? (Does anyone really ask?)
Is it really so hard to consider whether this contemporary conservative theocracy might have an insidious agenda? We all know that George W. Bush is nothing more than a puppet and the true power lies with the puppet masters that cower behind the scenes and call the shots. And they do have an agenda… they want America to be legislatively and judicially transformed into a theocratic apartheid – and they are winning!
Which brings us back to America becoming a nation of spineless cowards who today take their Constitutional rights for granted and have long forgotten the sacrifices so many made to preserve our Democracy.
What is it that makes America great? It’s not out government, but our people… it’s our 300 million diverse individuals, each with the inalienable Constitutional right to fundamental freedoms. But these freedoms are being methodically eroded. In today’s America, the individual person has become expendable as this conservative theocracy gives the power to government. How many of us have actually taken a moment to read the original “Bill of Rights,” the very foundation of our Constitutional Democracy? How many of us as parents have ever – even once – sat down with our children and talked about our Constitutional rights? When we do actually read the preamble of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we realize that virtually every right articulated in unquestionably intended to give the individual the power to protect against government – not even one of these rights were intended for the government or for the government to have power over at the expense of the individual. Think about that.
We call ourselves the land of the free and yet America today has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Our prison system has become a virtual industry of government. Equally so the quintessential American Dream is to own our own house, yet the conservation judicial activists on the Supreme Court have decreed that government can take your house and sell it to developers who want to build condo’s – why? Because condo units pay more taxes to the government than a single family home and the individual is expendable for the greater good of government. Where does it say that in the Constitution?
Growing up I watched with awe and reverence as masses of both men and women marched in the streets in anticipation of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe V. Wade and I believe it was their collective voice that made a difference. Growing up Catholic – even an alter boy at the time – I was indoctrinated to believe that abortion is murder… and maybe it is. But what right do I have to force my belief on another? Our constitution is about individuals’ rights.
Last month for t he first time since Roe v. Wade, the contemporary conservative cabal on our Supreme Court has finally succeeded in compromising Roe v. Wade when by a marginal majority the conservative judicial activists (Roberts, Saclia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy) ruled that “partial birth” abortions are unconstitutional. For the first time, since Roe v. Wade this case placed the perceived rights of the unborn fetus over the rights of the women – no exception was made for partial birth abortions necessitated by the health of the mother. Not surprisingly, conservative politicians in many states quickly introduced proposed new laws limiting abortions even further in anticipation of a legal fight in the Courts that they now feel they can win, with the objective of having all abortions ultimately declared illegal. And that will come if up to this court.
What offends me about this “right to life” movement is the blatant hypocrisy – when the Supreme Court conservatives ruled partial-birth abortions to be unconstitutional, they cited to their fundamental belief in the “sanctity of life.” But these very same conservative justices consistently are the ones who also slobber at the mouth like rabid dogs in their zeal to quickly kill condemned prisoners – even the innocent, See, Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390(1993). In Marsh v. Kansas, Justice Scalia even took the position that the claims of innocent people being wrongfully condemned to death is overblown – that there are very few truly innocent people convicted as the system works. And that although the system is not perfect, a few mistakes are acceptable in the interest of the greater good.
Why does the sanctity of life apply to an unborn child but not to an innocent man wrongfully convictred and condemned to death? Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that an unborn child has any rights? Our constitution says nothing about when, as a matter of law, life begins – this fantasy is created by the Supreme Court Justices to juetify their own agenda and that is the textbook definition of judical activism.
Recent polls show that President Bush’s popularity is about as low as any president’s popularity has ever sunk. Some are calling for the impeachment of President Bush. Which is arguably justified in you believe President Bush deliberately misled Congress and our country to it into a war… which I personally do.
But President Bush’s days are already numbered. Already the campaign for a new President is running. Although he can still inflict great harm to our country such as deliberately escalating Mideast tensions and perhaps even instigating a war with Iran and Syria, that conceivably could quickly evolve into World War III, one way or another in November 2008 we will elect a new President… thank God!
But the greater evil is the legacy he leaves behind. If we are truly tired of being force-fed this conservative hypocritical ideology and what to purge our country of its evil then perhaps the time has come to consider impeaching the conservative justices presently on the Supreme Court. These justices are appointed for life and will be around long after Bush is gone, and unless they too are removed from office this generation will see our Supreme Court transform America into a theocracy ruled by five men. The strength of a democracy is that we have the power to demand their impeachment in Congress – but are there enough people in America still willing to stand up for what they believe in? Or are we truly a nation of cowards, unwilling to confront this evil that threatens our constitutional democracy.
Michael Lambrix
I grew up in the San Francisco Bay area in the late sixties and early seventies at the height of the Vietnam War and can vividly remember how so many stood their ground to protest government when they believed the government was wrong. These were the college kids across America that knew in their hearts that our country was heading in the wrong direction – and they were right. Just look at us today, only a generation later. The same generation that stood its ground against government when they believed in what they were doing has now raised a generation of spineless, self-centered, materialistic spoiled brats who are far more likely to whine when their Ipod batteries run low, than when their Constitutional rights as abrogated by parasitic politicians and conservative judicial activists.
Whatever happened to that generation that stood their ground even when Uncle Sam called out the National Guard and Mayor Daley sent in platoons of armed cops to beat them back at the Democratic Convention in Chicago? I’m not talking about the Height-Ashbury hippies that found peace at the end of a pot pipe, but the idealistic students that marched on Telegraph Avenue at the gates of Berkeley, and countless other colleges and universities across America. These were the educated, the idealistic cream of the crop, America’s future leaders who believed in a cause and were willing to stand their ground to make their voice heard. Where are they today?
I believe in America and I believe in a Constitutional Democracy and it makes me proud to be a citizen of a country that was founded not by rule of government, but by revolution of the people. But that democracy is dead and its battered body, decaying like an abandoned corpse callously thrown out with the trash. The America I believe in no longer exists and in its place is a contemptuous conservative theocracy, a beast that feeds off the individual to give power to this religious dictatorship. Am I the last true American – myself but a man condemned to death by an injustice deliberately perpetuated by the corruption of our judicial system?
I am also a Christian, believing without doubt in the resurrection of Christ as my only hope of salvation, believing in an eternity that can only come through salvation and faith in a God greater than myself. But I must hang my head in shame when I call myself a Christian as I know only too well that the right wing conservative Christians of America are by far the primary cause of the corruption of our Constitutional Democracy… and the cause of its probable if not inevitable death.
Our Constitutional forefathers knew of the evil of allowing religion to control government. The Constitutional mandate of separation of church and state was never intended to take God out of the country, but rather these founding fathers knew that to allow government to become one with any specific religion would ultimately be the destruction of our Constitutional Democracy. Only by separating religion and government could both survive in a balance that they fought to preserve.
But now the right wing conservative “Christians” control all three branches of our government. The beast has risen and taken control, and its evil tentacles have choked the life out of our democracy. The true “axis of evil” is the corruption of the three branches of government by those fanatically committed to instilling their own theocracy, to allow their own religion to rule our government.
Biblical prophesy speaks of the beast and warns that its power will come through the deception of the believers. The beast’s power comes from controlling those who call themselves Christians and blindly follow their leaders. But would a true man of God lead our nation into a modern day crusade against non-Christians? Think about it… What is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and before it’s over, the entire Middle East) really about? We already know the Bush Administration deliberately deceived our country. This past week former CIA Director George Tenet has come forth claiming that the Bush Administration also knew of an impending terrorist attack before 911, but deliberately took no action. Why? (Does anyone really ask?)
Is it really so hard to consider whether this contemporary conservative theocracy might have an insidious agenda? We all know that George W. Bush is nothing more than a puppet and the true power lies with the puppet masters that cower behind the scenes and call the shots. And they do have an agenda… they want America to be legislatively and judicially transformed into a theocratic apartheid – and they are winning!
Which brings us back to America becoming a nation of spineless cowards who today take their Constitutional rights for granted and have long forgotten the sacrifices so many made to preserve our Democracy.
What is it that makes America great? It’s not out government, but our people… it’s our 300 million diverse individuals, each with the inalienable Constitutional right to fundamental freedoms. But these freedoms are being methodically eroded. In today’s America, the individual person has become expendable as this conservative theocracy gives the power to government. How many of us have actually taken a moment to read the original “Bill of Rights,” the very foundation of our Constitutional Democracy? How many of us as parents have ever – even once – sat down with our children and talked about our Constitutional rights? When we do actually read the preamble of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we realize that virtually every right articulated in unquestionably intended to give the individual the power to protect against government – not even one of these rights were intended for the government or for the government to have power over at the expense of the individual. Think about that.
We call ourselves the land of the free and yet America today has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Our prison system has become a virtual industry of government. Equally so the quintessential American Dream is to own our own house, yet the conservation judicial activists on the Supreme Court have decreed that government can take your house and sell it to developers who want to build condo’s – why? Because condo units pay more taxes to the government than a single family home and the individual is expendable for the greater good of government. Where does it say that in the Constitution?
Growing up I watched with awe and reverence as masses of both men and women marched in the streets in anticipation of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe V. Wade and I believe it was their collective voice that made a difference. Growing up Catholic – even an alter boy at the time – I was indoctrinated to believe that abortion is murder… and maybe it is. But what right do I have to force my belief on another? Our constitution is about individuals’ rights.
Last month for t he first time since Roe v. Wade, the contemporary conservative cabal on our Supreme Court has finally succeeded in compromising Roe v. Wade when by a marginal majority the conservative judicial activists (Roberts, Saclia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy) ruled that “partial birth” abortions are unconstitutional. For the first time, since Roe v. Wade this case placed the perceived rights of the unborn fetus over the rights of the women – no exception was made for partial birth abortions necessitated by the health of the mother. Not surprisingly, conservative politicians in many states quickly introduced proposed new laws limiting abortions even further in anticipation of a legal fight in the Courts that they now feel they can win, with the objective of having all abortions ultimately declared illegal. And that will come if up to this court.
What offends me about this “right to life” movement is the blatant hypocrisy – when the Supreme Court conservatives ruled partial-birth abortions to be unconstitutional, they cited to their fundamental belief in the “sanctity of life.” But these very same conservative justices consistently are the ones who also slobber at the mouth like rabid dogs in their zeal to quickly kill condemned prisoners – even the innocent, See, Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390(1993). In Marsh v. Kansas, Justice Scalia even took the position that the claims of innocent people being wrongfully condemned to death is overblown – that there are very few truly innocent people convicted as the system works. And that although the system is not perfect, a few mistakes are acceptable in the interest of the greater good.
Why does the sanctity of life apply to an unborn child but not to an innocent man wrongfully convictred and condemned to death? Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that an unborn child has any rights? Our constitution says nothing about when, as a matter of law, life begins – this fantasy is created by the Supreme Court Justices to juetify their own agenda and that is the textbook definition of judical activism.
Recent polls show that President Bush’s popularity is about as low as any president’s popularity has ever sunk. Some are calling for the impeachment of President Bush. Which is arguably justified in you believe President Bush deliberately misled Congress and our country to it into a war… which I personally do.
But President Bush’s days are already numbered. Already the campaign for a new President is running. Although he can still inflict great harm to our country such as deliberately escalating Mideast tensions and perhaps even instigating a war with Iran and Syria, that conceivably could quickly evolve into World War III, one way or another in November 2008 we will elect a new President… thank God!
But the greater evil is the legacy he leaves behind. If we are truly tired of being force-fed this conservative hypocritical ideology and what to purge our country of its evil then perhaps the time has come to consider impeaching the conservative justices presently on the Supreme Court. These justices are appointed for life and will be around long after Bush is gone, and unless they too are removed from office this generation will see our Supreme Court transform America into a theocracy ruled by five men. The strength of a democracy is that we have the power to demand their impeachment in Congress – but are there enough people in America still willing to stand up for what they believe in? Or are we truly a nation of cowards, unwilling to confront this evil that threatens our constitutional democracy.
Michael Lambrix
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
