A Looming Exoneration in Houston
A jury convicted Gary Alvin Richard in a 1987 attack on a nursing student in a trial based largely on blood-typing evidence from the Houston Police Department crime lab. But, prosecutors and the defense attorney agree, new tests completed Friday show that an HPD analyst misled jurors at Richard's trial and failed to report evidence that may have helped him.
Based on the new tests, both sides will ask a judge next week to release Richard on bond while they sort out what happened in his case.
"This is a new chapter, among many, of mistakes that were made, of sloppy work at the crime lab," said Bob Wicoff, Richard's lawyer. "Most troubling are the results that were not passed on to people who needed them."
Richard's case abounds with issues common to wrongful convictions. Among them:
The victim identified him some seven months after the attack. HPD crime lab analysts came to conflicting conclusions about the evidence, but reported only the results favorable to the case. Physical evidence collected in what is known as a "rape kit" has been destroyed, a victim of poor evidence preservation practices, leaving nothing for DNA testing now.
"The real crime is that another rape kit has been destroyed or discarded," Wicoff said. "The standards for preserving evidence were less stringent in 1987, but that is no excuse."
Without the rape kit, analysts at a California lab tested Richard's body fluids and drew conclusions that Wicoff said establish his innocence.
"He could not have been the source of the semen at the crime scene," Wicoff said.
Prosecutors have agreed that Richard should be released for the time being, but aren't yet conceding that he's innocent.
Richard's case is one of more than 400 reviewed after investigators found evidence of corruption, mishandled evidence, and general incompetence in the Houston crime lab. So far, at least three other people have been wrongly convicted because of mistakes by the people working in it.
Roger Koppl and I on how to reform the forensics system here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
HPD crime lab analysts came to conflicting conclusions about the evidence, but reported only the results favorable to the case. Physical evidence collected in what is known as a "rape kit" has been destroyed,
Prosecutors have agreed that Richard should be released for the time being, but aren't yet conceding that he's innocent.
I don't know if he is innocent or not, but the fact that there were conflicting results, would lead me to believe that there is enough reasonable doubt for this guy to not be found guilty if a retrial were to occur.
Considering that he has already served 22 years, and that exculpatory evidence seems to have been withheld, re-trying this guy would be a pretty dickish thing to do.
Too bad many conservatives still won't bend with regards to convictions. When in the Hell did keeping innocent people behind bars become a core conservative value? As the old saying goes, a conservative is a liberal who got mugged, but a libertarian is a conservative who got busted.
"Too bad many conservatives still won't bend with regards to convictions."
It's got nothing to do with political affiliation: Prosecutors want to win and will almost never concede error even when it is evident.
Prosecutors want to win and will almost never concede error even when it is evident.
Also,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cgHEWG-BA&feature=channel_page
Wonder what they're like to live with | April 30, 2009, 8:53pm | #
Prosecutors want to win and will almost never concede error even when it is evident.
Like living with joe?
First of all, conflating how I handle you guys, many (but not all) of you practice psychological projection, with people who live with me because they see my greatness, is just stupid.
And keep my private life out of this. Which you all know about because I've told you. When it was relevant. Which it never is, but just to please you. Which is what civility consists in. A lot you'd know about that. Which is why I get along with people I live with. If you must know.
Secondly, what you libertarians call "evident" is often not - surprise, surprise! - evident to normal people. Decent ones, anyway. I'm one of those.
And who'd want to live with you anyway? Libertarians are selfish. Isn't it one of your "virtues"?
Well, now I really have more important things to do than sit here arguing. Bye. Stupids.
Since when is withholding exculpatory evidence a "mistake"?
It has some to do with political affiliation, because the "tough on crime" party (of which I am currently a member) will back prosecutors and police 110%, no questions asked. If a cop arrests you, then you must be guilty. Occasionally I'll still run across some old fart who thinks the Miranda ruling was a horrible liberal idea.
Far more than cultural rigidity, I think it's the Republican's blind trust of law enforcement that keeps them from becoming a "libertarian-lite" party.
If Chuck Rosenthal were still DA down here, they wouldn't even consider releasing the guy. They'd keep him lockeed up because (1) they want to appear tough on crime and (2) think of the victim!
95% of this "keep em locked up no matter what the evidence shows" crap is nothing more than victim-sucking pandering. For some reason, victims and their "need for closure" and "feelings" matter. And of course someone has to be punished. Once the cops get a victim to point to some (black) guy, nod at them and reinforce their accusation, from that point the victim has a vested interest in keeping that guy locked up for the longest extent permitted by law. No matter what happens, no matter what misconduct is proven or what evidence is falsified or unreliable, the victim's need to keep that guy in prison will be paramount to almost all prosecutors.
It's how they get elected, it's how they justify their actions, and it's how they feel good about themselves (because they have no legitimate reason to feel good about themselves they do it vicariously through a victim who is pacified via retribution).
It's horrible but it will never end. Especially in houston, the death penalty capital of the world.
It's horrible but it will never end. Especially in houston, the death penalty capital of the world.
It's too bad the Republicans rule the state!!! (Never mind that Harris' elected officials run 80+% Democrat. We're speaking truth to power over here, you racist.)
What's the minarchist way to avoid pandering by DAs, prosecutors, and other officials in sensitive positions? Appointment instead of election?
What's the minarchist way to avoid pandering by DAs, prosecutors, and other officials in sensitive positions? Appointment instead of election?
Well, in the event that the job becomes a center for attention, that just shifts the pandering to the indirect actor (the one making the appointment). You could go the other way: replace the guy by referendum, making the official even more sensitive to the sensitive post. You'd get all the benefits of feedback and all the costs of democracy.
Come to think of it, in a federal minarchy this is such a local issue that we could compare the performance of each district to see what really happens. In other words, while this is a structural issue, rather than of who to elect or how to proceed, I want the flexibility to not have to care about the form the court takes until I have reason to.
What's the minarchist way to avoid pandering by DAs, prosecutors, and other officials in sensitive positions? Appointment instead of election?
(1)A minarchist society wouldn't have 90% of the criminal laws that we now have on the books, greatly limiting the scope for prosecutorial misconduct.
(2) A minarchist society wouldn't be likely to fetishize law enforcement, providing additional cultural/political constraints on prosecutorial misconduct.
(3) I would suggest, as well, that prosecutorial misconduct be criminalized (as the unlawful use of force under color of law). You get into a qui custodiet situation, of course, but you can never really get away from that.
I've been thinking of getting myself one of these rape kit things.
I am NOT pleased to see that Detroit has company here.
What's the minarchist way to avoid pandering by DAs, prosecutors, and other officials in sensitive positions? Appointment instead of election?
It's the same bugaboo you have with cops. Those who seek the position are often tempermentally and pschologically unfit to have it. I think appointments to lengthy, not lifetime, terms (10 years?) would be an improvement over elections every four years. Not a cure-all by any means, an improvement.
I've been thinking of getting myself one of these rape kit things.
You realize that a rape kit is for evidence gathering, and does not consist of a jar of ether, a roll of duct tape and a ball gag, right?
You don't get to sign up to be a prosecutor, but just to be a lawyer-on-the-[city|county|state|federal]-payroll, and you get assigned to prosecution or public-defense on a strict queuing system?
Business opportunity?
Rape kit.