Wrongful Convictions
How many innocent Americans are behind bars?
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Blogger
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
GoogleWhen Paul House was finally released from prison in 2008, he was a specter of the man who had been sentenced to death more than 22 years earlier. When I visit his home in Crossville, Tennessee, in March, House’s mother Joyce, who has cared for him since his release, points to a photo of House taken the day he was finally allowed to come home. In that photo and others from his last days in prison, House is all of 150 pounds, ashen and drawn, his fragile frame nearly consumed by his wheelchair. In most of the images he looks days away from death, although in one he wears the broad smile of a man finally escaping a long confinement.
When House’s aunt called to congratulate him on his first day back, his mother handed him her cell phone so he could chat. He inspected the phone, gave her a frustrated look, and asked her to find him one that worked. That kind of Rip Van Winkle moment is common among people freed after a long stint in prison. Dennis Fritz, one of the two wrongly convicted men profiled in John Grisham’s 2006 book The Innocent Man, talks about nearly calling the police upon seeing someone use an electronic key card the first time he found himself in a hotel after his release. He thought he’d witnessed a burglar use a credit card to jimmy open a door.
“Paul’s first meal when he got home was chili verde,” Joyce House says. “It’s his favorite. And I had been waiting a long time to make it for him.” And apparently quite a few meals after that. House, now 49, has put on 75 pounds since his release. More important, he has been getting proper treatment for his advanced-stage multiple sclerosis, treatment the Tennessee prison system hadn’t given him.
The years of inadequate care have taken a toll. House can’t walk, and he needs help with such basic tasks as bathing, feeding himself, and maneuvering around in his wheelchair. His once distinctively deep voice (which had allegedly been heard by a witness at the crime scene) is now wispy and high-pitched. He spends his time playing computer games and watching game shows.
In the hour or so that I visit with House, his mental facilities fade in and out. Communicating with him can be like trying to listen to a baseball game broadcast by a distant radio station. He will give a slurred but lucid answer to one question, then answer the next one with silence, or with the answer to a previous question, or just with a random assortment of words. He frequently falls back on the resigned refrain, “Oh, well,” delivered with a shrug. The gesture and phrasing are identical every time he uses them. It’s what House says to kill the expectation that he will be able to deliver the words others in the room are waiting for. It’s his signal to stop waiting for him and move on.
In 1986 House was convicted of murdering Carolyn Muncey in Union County, Tennessee, a rural part of the state that shoulders Appalachia. He was sentenced to death. His case is a textbook study in wrongful conviction. It includes mishandled evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, bad science, cops with tunnel vision, DNA testing, the near-execution of an innocent man, and an appellate court reluctant to reopen old cases even in the face of new evidence that strongly suggests the jury got it wrong.
House also embodies the tribulations and frustrations that the wrongly convicted encounter once they get out. According to the doctors treating him, his current condition is the direct result of the inadequate care he received in prison. If he is ever granted a formal exoneration—a process that can be as much political as it is judicial—he will be eligible for compensation for his years behind bars, but even then the money comes with vexing conditions and limitations.
Since 1989, DNA testing has freed 268 people who were convicted of crimes they did not commit. There are dozens of other cases, like House’s, where DNA strongly suggests innocence but does not conclusively prove it. Convicting and imprisoning an innocent person is arguably the worst thing a government can do to one of its citizens, short of mistakenly executing him. (There’s increasing evidence that this has happened too.) Just about everyone agrees that these are unfathomable tragedies. What is far less clear, and still hotly debated, is what these cases say about the way we administer justice in America, what we owe the wrongly convicted, and how the officials who send innocent people to prison should be held accountable.
How Many Are Innocent?
According to the Innocence Project, an advocacy group that provides legal aid to the wrongly convicted, the average DNA exoneree served 13 years in prison before he or she was freed. Seventeen had been sentenced to death. Remarkably, 67 percent of the exonerated were convicted after 2000, the year that marked the onset of modern DNA testing. Each new exoneration adds more urgency to the question that has hovered over these cases since the first convict was cleared by DNA in 1989: How many more innocent people are waiting to be freed?
Given the soundness of DNA testing, we can be nearly certain that the 268 cleared so far didn’t commit the crimes for which they were convicted. There are hundreds of other cases where no DNA evidence exists to definitively establish guilt or innocence, but a prisoner has been freed due to lack of evidence, recantation of eyewitness testimony, or police or prosecutorial misconduct. Those convictions were overturned because there was insufficient evidence to overcome reasonable doubt; it does not necessarily mean the defendant didn’t commit the crime. It’s unclear whether and how those cases should be factored into any attempt to estimate the number of innocent people in prison.
In a country where there are 15,000 to 20,000 homicides each year, 268 exonerations over two decades may seem like an acceptable margin of error. But reform advocates point out that DNA testing is conclusive only in a small percentage of criminal cases. Testing is helpful only in solving crimes where exchange of DNA is common and significant, mostly rape and murder. (And most murder exonerations have come about because the murder was preceded by a rape that produced testable DNA.) Even within this subset of cases, DNA evidence is not always preserved, nor is it always dispositive to the identity of the perpetrator.
Death penalty cases add urgency to this debate. In a 2007 study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, the Seton Hall law professor Michael Risinger looked at cases of exoneration for capital murder-rapes between 1982 and 1989, compared them to the total number of murder-rape cases over that period for which DNA would be a factor, and estimated from that data that 3 percent to 5 percent of the people convicted of capital crimes probably are innocent. If Risinger is right, it’s still unclear how to extrapolate figures for the larger prison population. Some criminologists argue that there is more pressure on prosecutors and jurors to convict someone, anyone, in high-profile murder cases. That would suggest a higher wrongful conviction rate in death penalty cases. But defendants also tend to have better representation in capital cases, and media interest can also mean more scrutiny for police and prosecutors. That could lead to fewer wrongful convictions.
In a study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 2005, a team led by University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross looked at 328 exonerations of people who had been convicted of rape, murder, and other felonies between 1989 and 2003. They found that while those who have been condemned to die make up just 1 percent of the prison population, they account for 22 percent of the exonerated. But does that mean capital cases are more likely to bring a wrongful conviction? Or does it mean the attention and scrutiny that death penalty cases get after conviction—particularly as an execution date nears—make it more likely that wrongful convictions in capital cases will be discovered?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
I thought Radley was at the Daily Kos now? Co-employment? Oh, snap!
-
Great article.
-
Not enough nuts to punch at Huffington? You have to come slumming back to us?
-
He's not back. This article is from the July issue which was, as he said, his last project before leaving.
-
Look,
If you don't want to be wrongly convicted- here are a few rules.
#1- be white- but not white trashy.
#2- Don't you dare ever, ever do drugs.
#3- Keep your head down.
#4- Don't live near or visit any locations where a crime is committed.That's all we ask of you.
-
#5-Be a police officer.
-
#6 - best bet, be a prosecutor.
-
Immunity For Life, bitchez!!
-
race has little, if nothing to do with it. see: OJ
class has a lot to do with it. iow, how good a defense team can you afford?
given a good enough defense team, not only are you less likely to get wrongfully convicted, you are also more likely to get acquitted even if you are guilty as fuck!
-
living by these 4 rules almost did not keep the Duke lacrosse players out of prison
-
they spent time in prison? news to me
otoh, the prosecutor who was convicted of lying (criminal contempt) for making false statements during the criminal proceedings got a whopping ONE DAY in jail
lol -
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.”
~ Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged -
The whole thing is a racket. Look at the Texas District Attorney's Association lobbying webpage. It's all about job creation and expanding the net of "crimes" to ridiculous lengths.
-
Just about everyone agrees that these are unfathomable tragedies.
Who the fuck thinks it's a great idea? Or, are you paid by the word now?
-
"Who the fuck thinks it's a great idea?"
Scalia, Kagan, Mississippi, Texas, Arpaio...
-
How about an article on rightful convictions? Jesus Christ, Reason! You sound like The Practice meets Boston Legal! Instead of asking how many are innocent, why not ask how many are guilty? After all, I've never been robbed by a man in prison.
-
Gregooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
You're such a statist asshole.
-
And you are such an anarchist.
-
"How about an article on rightful convictions?"
How about a justice system that doesn't make innocents suffer for the crimes of others?
The concept of freedom must be lost on you.
-
And what justice system would that be? In fact, in America you're presumed innocent before proven guilty, that means the DA has a burden to prove you guilty while the lawyers can get you off on a technicality or engage in jury nullification. Our system is great! Is it perfect? No, and if you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.
-
The DA doesn't have much of a burden if you can't afford a defense and the public defender system is broke and overloaded.
Expert witnesses, investigators, good lawyers: these things cost money. Maybe everyone should have to use the public defender system.
-
SoutherRob, who says life is fair? There are public defenders that are excellent and expensive lawyers that are terrible and viceversa. Forcing everyone to use public defenders is like forcing everyone to drive the same car. It's communism.
-
"And what justice system would that be?"
One where the prosecuting attorneys are held personally liable for any jury or evidence tampering. One where judges and DA's don't run on a political platform and don't use a conviction rate as a resume booster. One where cases against individuals should immediately be dismissed if evidence exists of any procedural misconduct.
-
Well Sy, jury tampering is a crime and attorneys have been disbarred for that. Procedural misconduct? It happens and if its proven, there are penalties. In fact, defendants might use that during the appeals process. As for DA's and judges don't running for office, what do you want? For liberal governors to appoint liberals who will destroy the second amendment? Or do you like judges legislating from the bench? Sy, everybody bitches about the system but the solutions you propose only create more problems.
-
IT is exceedingly rare for prosecutors to be held accountable for any of the felonies they routinely commit. If you or a loved one had ever been the one wrongly prosecuted, you would feel different about it. The criminal justice system in this country is itself a massive criminal enterprise. It is a beast that knows it must feed, and it is not that particular upon whom it feeds. there are hundreds of thousands of very high paying jobs at stake with generous benefit and pension packages. If the beast didn't have enough people to feed on, many of those jobs would be in jeopardy.
-
I thought the taxes that paid for prison cells were robbery?
-
So what should we do with people who steal? Cut their hands? Let them go free so they can steal some more?
Have you ever been a parent? Parents who don't punish their kids raised spoiled brats. Here in the south prison is hell, so if we don't shoot our criminals in flagrante delicto, we make sure they pay in prison.
-
So we should punish innocent people by stealing for them and giving it to the wrong-doers (food, shelter, clothing, etc.)?
-
Again, WHAT DO WE DO WITH CRIMINALS WHO STEAL? WHERE DO WE KEEP THEM? Really Zoltan, you're like those judges that give pedophiles probation and then are shocked when they molest again.
-
how the officials who send innocent people to prison should be held accountable.
I favor impalement. Beheading would also be acceptable, but not with one of them fancy-dancy guillotines; the executioner should use a dull saber.
-
Crucifixion ? Good. Top of the stairs, line on the left, one cross each.
-
i'm sorry, this is abuse. intelligent discussion is down the hall. crucifixion is two rooms over
-
innocent people will always (to a greater or lesser extent) occasionally be sent to prison. there is no perfect knowledge. it is not merely possible, it is inevitable.
however, when innocent people get sent to prison due to prosecutorial or police misconduct, THAT is another thing entirely.
or victim misconduct? did crystal mangum even get CHARGED for making the whole thing up?
nope.
-
It includes mishandled evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, bad science, cops with tunnel vision, DNA testing, the near-execution of an innocent man, and an appellate court reluctant to reopen old cases even in the face of new evidence that strongly suggests the jury got it wrong.
Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow....
But the question here is whether wrongful convictions are epidemic or episodic.
Isolated incident, isolated incident, isolated incident, isolated incident...
These odd, sometimes absurd predicaments aren’t intentionally cruel. They just work out that way.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow...
PS Some of your best work. Thanks again for what you do, although my nuts say, "Fuck you, Radley!"
-
wrongful convictions (innocents going to jail) are necessarily an inevitability. even given PERFECT conduct by prosecutors and cops
however, wrongful convictions due to process misfeasance - lying prosecturs, cops, etc. should be dealt with harshly
there is NO way around innocents occasionally going to prison given "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards.
that's simply inevitable. process should be improved to lessen the frequency and actual misconduct should be dealt with harshly. that goes also for "victims" who make false complaints and witnesses who lie
but even if everybody tells the truth and acts honorably, it is inevitable that occasionally innocents will get convicted, just like given sufficient "n", you will eventually inevitably flip 8 heads in a row in coin tossing
unlikely, but ultimately inevitable given sufficient # of trials.
-
to clarify, the 8 heads in a row doesn't imply a biased coin or process injustice, just that given sufficient "n" it is possible to get very unfair results (from a cosmic justice perspective) occasionally, even when everybody acts perfectly.
iow a perfectly innocent man/woman can and will be convicted even when everybody tells the truth and everybody acts honorably
just hope you aren't caught in that unlikely, but possible circumstance
-
however, wrongful convictions due to process misfeasance - lying prosecturs, cops, etc. should be dealt with harshly
All those even tangentially responsible should be lynched. -
Throw me out with the bathwater!
-
More prisoners than China.
-
Balko is on point as always, without being all touchy-feely emo about the entire topic. It's obvious that the occurance of this is rare enough that the percentages are miniscule - but this isn't simply a statistical math exercise - because the consequences of being fucked by the flaws of the system are irreversible, even IF they are detected. This fact alone makes such flaws utterly intolerable. At all.
The biggest shift that would go along way towards clearing a LOT of this shit up is the very attitude Balko highlights - that of 'winning' versus 'losing'. . .while we may have an adversarial system, this ain't a goddamned kick-ball game. If the point isn't ultimately the truth, then we're just setting ourselves up, all of us, to lose.
-
that goes for both sides. except it doesn't. the job of the defense is SUPPOSED to be winning (granted, w/in the rules - no subornation of perjury, for example
the job of the prosecution should not be "to win". it should be to seek justice w.in the law. too many prosecutors act like defense attorneys, caring more about winning than justice
-
I think Radley wrote this before he left Reason. Still, it is like a nut punch from the grave.
-
These past couple years of reading reason, and Balko in particular, have really opened my eyes and changed my views on the criminal justice system. Deep down inside I still want to be a harsh-on-crime-punish-the-guilty type of person, but I can't, in good conscience, support it because of how deeply flawed our criminal justice system is.
-
is there a better one out there?
-
For what it’s worth.
I was on a jury on a murder trial once. I followed the rules; don’t read any newspaper articles about the crime, don’t visit the scene, don’t talk to anyone about the trial, etc. After the trial I, of course, did all of the above. My opinion changed from “the suspect was guilty of something but I am not sure of what so we can’t convict him” to “he obviously did it, can we hang him here?”. I came away from the trial amazed that ANYONE ever is convicted of anything, at least in MI.
I find it hard to reconcile my experience with this article. -
that's because just like REASON will not write about positive outcomes from SWAT missions or articles like the one i linked to where a cop was shot, they didn't even return fire, etc. on a swat mission or won't write about the cop in Oneida who was just killed by a DV suspect w/a rifle but likely would have lived IF thye had used SWAT
REASON will only support its metanarrative.
they won't post stuff, like your real world experience, that shows how the justice system is sometimes immensely biased for the DEFENSE, but only stuff that shows misconduct by the prosecution or bias towards same
it's the kind of selection bias that feeds the bigotry of the ignorati who only WANT to hear stuff that reinforces their prejudices and about how the state (the MAN) is always fucking over the accused, etc. and how there is never any nuance or other biases present
intelligent, fair minded people see nuance. like you.
bigots see black and white
-
Right on. Moar SWAT for domestic violence cases. Fecking brilliant.
-
Are you saying Balko is a biggot? I would argue he is a racist in that he is against the human race.
-
no, i think balko writes great articles and is generally fair. i think that bigots feed off such articles and ignore the facts of selection bias, etc.
balko's JOB so to speak is to report one side of the story. he does a good job of that.
he doesn't report, for example about all the successful SWAT raids, the countless examples etc. he reports "when shit goes bad" generally speaking
the bigots are those who use such information without informing themselves of the other sides of the story.
balko is leagues ahead of most of his readers. a perfect example is the BART shooting,where he correctly used actual legal analysis (vs. frothing at the mouth hate) to come to the conclusion that the verdict of involuntary manslaughter was fair/correct.
-
Conviction rate of federal prosecutors = 90+%.
Conviction rate of state prosecutors = 80+%
And that doesn't include plea bargains, which innocent people are sometimes persuaded to take.
Those number hardly seem indicative of a system that's stacked in favor of the defense.
-
i wouldn't argue it's stacked in EITHER's favor. aspects of it are stacked either way.
but of course, you (as usual) fail to acknowledge selection bias.
prosecutors DECLINE cases all the frigging time. those don't count in those stats.
according to the ethical code, a prosecutor isn't even supposed to take a case unless he believes he can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
a VERY substantial %age of cases never make the docket because the prosecutors nolle pros it ... sometimes right off the bat, other times after some evidentiary hearings.
if a prosecutor thought there was only a 50% chance of conviction, he most likely wouldn't prosecute the case in the first place. he would either 1) give a super sweetheart plea bargain to avoid going to trial or 2) just say "fuck it" and dump the case.
pros' dump the cases all the frigging time.
those never make the docket and thus don't count in your stats.
this is what you are missing
-
in other words, one would expect a high conviction rate no matter how the "odds were stacked" in the respect that prosecutors are supposed to play, to borrow a poker term - tight aggressive. they will dump weak cases, and only go to trial on cases they are strongly confident there is enough evidence to win.
with the exact same system , they could just as easily have a 40% conviction rate, if they chose cases more loosely. that would, among other things, completely overload resources, as well as make them "look bad" (god forbid) so they don't do that.
-
If you're dealing with the problems of a system, you don't focus on the non-problems. By your reasoning, if I want to track down the source of an E. coli infection, I'd have to investigate all of the healthy farms or I'd just be reinforcing my meta-narrative.
Balko’s story is one drop in the bucket on the counter-narrative to the tough-on-crime narrative that is everywhere. It's not as if there is any shortage of material on the noble prosecutors and cops out there. You have to hunt to find anything like Balko’s writing.
Given that he was careful to try to give an idea of the scope of the problem in terms of numbers and was rather nuanced in trying to highlight causes and fixes, I’m wondering what, short of “you cops and prosecutors have a hell of a job and we support your every action,” would satisfy you.
-
but that ignores that balko doesn't deal with "the problems" in the system. he deals with the problems AS regard the state side of the equation. he does not deal with the sides that favor the defense, often unfairly, etc.
i have no problem with that. that's radley's schtick. he's an advocacy journalist. he concentrates on these things
the error comes when the ignorati uses such necessarily selective reporting to come to the conclusions about the system w/o considering other sources and a more holistic viewpoint
-
"that's because just like REASON will not write about positive outcomes from SWAT missions or articles like the one i linked to where a cop was shot, they didn't even return fire, etc. on a swat mission or won't write about the cop in Oneida who was just killed by a DV suspect w/a rifle but likely would have lived IF thye had used SWAT"
Do you expect a cookie every time you don't break the rules?
-
way to brilliantly miss the point
-
I missed the point? If you want to highlight flawlessly executed SWAT raids then go start a blog, but the issue at hand is that paid public officials are constantly fucking up and destroying innocent lives.
Tell me something, how close to one does the fuck-up to properly-handled SWAT raid ratio have to be before you notice a problem?
-
Last I checked, REASON caters to their readers, which do tend to be libertarians. So, I don't understand why you expect them to be a news outlet praising the supposed 'successes' of the State.
-
Tonight, men and women paid by stealing money from others broke into the house of a man suspected of drug possession. They didn't kill or injure his dog or his family. Property damage amounts to almost $200, accounting for a broken window through which a flash grenade was thrown and a door which was rammed down. The property owner is expected to pay this fee for the implementation of justice.
The dangerous criminal was handcuffed and forced to the ground along with the rest of his family while the brave men and women dutifully shouted, "Don't resist!" to his crying children. When a few marijuana plants were found, the dangerous man was hauled off and his children taken by CPS.
HUZZAH FOR THE STATE!
-
Luckily, none of our brave brownshirts were injured during this arduous siege.
-
What are you trying to reconcile? Generally, anecdotes are irreconcilable with statistics.
-
Hence, my first sentence; “For what it’s worth”.
I always try to reconcile my real world experience with what I read on a monitor where possible, don't you? -
If prosecutors had to defend the integrity of their own actions and not be protected regardless of what they do, this kind of thing would be trimmed way back.
Does anybody know if there's any kind of organized group that's pushing for laws to make prosecutors responsible for their actions?
-
prosecutors are not protected "regardless of what they do" . while they do have a form of immunity , it does not protect against, for example - lying in criminal proceedings
that's what Nifong was convicted of.
but the kicker was - he was sentenced to - a grand total of 1 day in jail
which is possibly the most unjust sentence ever laid down in his state
-
You just contradicted yourself. Perjury gets a prosecutor a slap on the hand.
-
Even in cases where prosecutors have been demonstrated to have suborned perjury, withheld evidence, or lied they are seldom punished in any way. And the victims of such misconduct are barred from bringing civil action against prosecutors as individuals. So, yep, prosecutors pretty much are protected regardless of what they do. Nifong was the exception, and if that was “the most unjust sentence ever laid down in his state” then the only reason the norm isn't an even more unjust sentence is because there is no sentence most of the time.
-
Even in cases where prosecutors have been demonstrated to have suborned perjury, withheld evidence, or lied they are seldom punished in any way.
No revenge killings?
No lynchings?
No OKC-style bombings?
There has to be at least one example of the above. -
Excellent article Radley. Our "criminal justice" system is flawed beyond compare. The concept and principles are acceptable, it's the sick people who make the rules and decisions that are dysfunctional.
-
So let us abolish the whole thing.
-
Even in cases where prosecutors have been demonstrated to have suborned perjury, withheld evidence, or lied they are seldom punished in any way.
-
Even in cases where prosecutors have been demonstrated to have suborned perjury, withheld evidence, or lied they are seldom punished in any way.
Nobody ever heard of vigilante justice?Was the formula for ammonium nitrate and fuel oil lost somewhere?
-
For eight years I was involved with a wrongful conviction case, quite provable through official transcripts of arrest and trial, with the usual script as outlined in this article. The cryptic upshot came in the actual guilt quotient since upon parole under auspices of Innocence minded advocacy the person returned immediately to his criminal proclivities, the final prognosis being psychopathy determined by the Dr. Hare Psychopathy Checklist and corroborating analyses. Such offsets to wrongful conviction - which process of disentangling still stands as relevant inasmuch as "one wrong does not all other wrongs make right" - add another dimension to this modulating forum. This full study of anomaly will be published soon under title "Shadow of the Raven".
-
Mike Pemberton is being way too charitable to Paul Phillips in characterizing him an "honorable man."
-
There are no perfect solutions to clearly systemic problems. Probably the best solutions are counter-balances to the systemic bias towards conviction.
As elected political persons, prosecutors have a bias towards conviction lest they lose the next election. To counter-balance, prosecutors (and their offices) should have only very limited immunity such that the fear of a wrongful convictions equals that of the fear of not convicting.
Trial judges are also (in 99% of jurisdictions) elected political persons with a bias towards conviction. To counter-balance this bias, (1)trial public defenders & their offices must be given all necessary funding, and (2) appellate courts must be required to examine the reasonableness of fact findings by juries and trial judges, and to review, de novo, all forensic evidence.
Presently, once charged, a criminal defendant has a 90% certainty of conviction. Some argue, incorrectly, this statistic suggests good prosecutorial decision making. It merely perpetuates the fiction that a prosecutors job is to obtain convictions. The reality is that the prosecutor's job is to seek justice. A prosecutor with a conviction rate greater than 51% is not seeking justice... they are playing politics.
-
is good
-
Here is a greate resource that resently luanched.
HiddenCaseFiles
or Http://hiddencasefiles.com The main case right now is Angelo Dipietro. Check it out. -
ThaNk u MaN
-
thank you
-
www.iphone-5-release.net | We Are The Top Source of Up To Date News, Information, and Rumors About the iPhone 5, iPhone 6. Our Team Updates You Hourly So You Are Always Informed.(http://iphone-5-release.net/) iphone 5
-
It is simply sad how many innocent people stay behind bars, simply sad folks.
-
Thanks