DNA Exonerates Man after 26 Years in Angola

[flashl]

A man who has been behind bars for 26 years for a rape he did not commit is a free man. Rickey Johnson was released today in Many after DNA results proved his innocence. He was 26 when he was arrested and is now 52.

The following is a press release from the Innocence Project, a group that works to exonerate wrongly convicted people through DNA testing.

“Rickey Johnson lost more than a quarter of a century, nearly his entire adult life, to a wrongful conviction. He had three young children when he was arrested, and a fourth was born shortly after he was incarcerated; all of those children are now adults, and he has grandchildren he’s never met,” said Vanessa Potkin, the Innocence Project Staff Attorney representing Johnson. “Rickey Johnson’s long nightmare will be in vain if we don’t learn from it and make sure other people in Louisiana have access to DNA testing that can prove their innocence.” In Baton Rouge tomorrow, Johnson will join other people exonerated by DNA testing in Louisiana to call for statewide access to DNA testing and policies to ensure that evidence is properly preserved so DNA testing can be conducted.

...

The Innocence Project today commended Burkett for quickly agreeing to conduct DNA testing in Johnson’s case. While Louisiana passed a state law allowing access to post-conviction DNA testing in 2001, East Baton Rouge District Attorney Doug Moreau has fought DNA testing for years in two Innocence Project cases. In Archie Williams’ case, Moreau has refused to conduct DNA testing for 13 years; a state appeals court finally ordered DNA testing in the case in August, but Moreau has appealed to the state Supreme Court. Just last week, the state Supreme Court rejected Moreau’s effort to continue blocking DNA testing for Kenneth Reed, who initially requested testing two years ago. In the two unrelated cases, Williams and Reed were convicted of raping women who did not know their attacker – making them the most straight-forward types of cases for DNA testing to prove guilt or innocence.

KALB

[bluestateguy]

1. Reparations

This man should never have to work again. The state should make him independently wealthy. It would be a shame if he had to go back to work doing some menial crap.

And the cops, DA, judges and other state conspirators must be held accountable for this outrage, and that includes the women who lied about being raped as well.

[flyingfysh]

2. the victims may not have been lying

They may have simply been mistaken. In a sudden, traumatic situation, it is very easy for eyewitness testimony to be completely wrong.

[varkam]

6. It doesn't even take a sudden, traumatic situation, either.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, even when it comes to rather mundane things. Throw a little adrenaline into the mix and things aren't likely to get any better.

[flashl]

3. Not sure about LA, but in most states the legislature must pass a special bill to pay ...

the wronged inmate. As for the DA and judges they have immunity.

[zonmoy]

4. that to me is just wrong.

if a da or other official causes an innocent to be convicted the da should be convicted of it and sentenced to the time that the innocent was sentenced too. also all cases that the da or other official had a hand in should be automatically either overturned or given a real hard look over and if there is even the slightest reason to believe the convictions in those cases are suspect they should be overturned.

[happyslug]

5. I once talked to a DA in such a situation...

He joked, he had to be a hell of an DA, any old DA could convict the Guilty, it takes and Great DA to convict the innocent.

Now, let me say he had apologized to the Defendant for the Conviction, he had worked to free the man once he saw the evidence that showed that the Defendant was innocent, and the joke was among fellow attorneys who understood what had happened. If I remember right, the case involved evidence that only later was found to be unreliable.

Remember in most cases the evidence is clear, the only argument is what crime was committed not that the defendant did it. In those cases where dependent on evidence that the Defendant did a crime often the evidence is NOT perfect. Eye wittiness testimony is the absolute worse, many people will remember what they want to remember NOT what actually happened, and until you have physical evidence that can be tested (Thus the DNA and the innocent project) most such crimes the only real evidence is eye witness testimony. As you an see in this case the Victim of the Crime remember the Defendant when his picture was shown to her (An old police trick to "refresh" a wittiness's memory).

Thus you had a victim, who had been raped. The only issue was did the Defendant do it? The Victim said yes on the stand do to the fact do to her best recollections it was the Defendant. The DA did his job, he presented his wittinesses and the Defendant had the right of Cross-examination and the Jury convicted him after hearing both sides. Thus such wrongful convictions are rarely the fault of the DA.

Now the Police tend to be more blameworthy, but they have a suspect for the crime and a wittiness who probably only saw the perpetrator once. The Police wanted to strengthen the Victim's testimony and left her look at three pictures and told her who most looked like the Rapist. She did that, but in the process her mind was exposed to the Defendant's face as the face of the attacker. Most people will internalized that. This is the sloppy Police work discussed in the case. It was sloppy, but does NOT look intentional, just some Police Officers wanted to make sure they had the right Defendant by strengthening the victim's mind of how the Rapist looked like.

Now I believe the Defendant should be compensated, as the cost of having a Criminal Justice System. When it makes a mistake, the state should pay (and in more than one way, if you the Article, the actual rapist, raped another person in the same Apartment complex nine months later, had he been caught after the first rape the second rape would have been avoided. This is one of the many side affects of convicting the wrong person). Compensation via the State Legislature is hard to get. A state legislator must introduce a private bill and must be approved by BOTH state houses and the Governor. This can be hard.

To get money can be hard. For example In Pittsburgh in the 1950s a Marine was accused by two police officers of abusing two teens. The teens were force to testify against the Marine when the Marine refused to pay the bribe demanded by the Police officers. The Marine was convicted and sentence to 20 plus years. He later meet one of his "victims" in jail, and learned why the "Victim" had accused him, the same Police Officers blackmailed the "Victim" to testify by telling the "Victim" if he did not the "Victim" would go to jail for other crime. This was brought in front of a Judge who dismissed the petition since it was two Prisoners vs Two Police Officers. Then about five years later the "Victim" was released and meet up with the Second "Victim". Who had become a successful businessman and was shocked the person he had testified against was still in jail. He offered to Testify, a new Petition went through the Courts. This time the Judge looked at the Wittinesses and seeing that the businessman was taking days off work to testify for someone who allegedly "abused" him as a teen, and that several other wittinesses testify that the officers involved had a long history of this type of Blackmail (The Businessman looked up other people from the neighborhood something the Marine could NOT do for he was in jail, thus the businessman took more than a few days off to correct the problem he had help caused, but like the first "victim" he had been blackmailed by the fear of going to jail). Given all this evidence, the Judge had to rule for the Marine, but it was after serving 20 years in jail and a dishonorable discharge from the Marine (Given to him while he was in Jail). This was in the 1970s. Under law he could sue the two Police officers who had set him up, but both were dead by the time the Marine was released. The Pennsylvania State Legislature just refused to give the Marine any money, this was a City of Pittsburgh problem. The City refused, saying they did not have the money and it was NOT they fault that the officers abused their positions. The last time I read about this was in the late 1980s when Senator Heinz was trying to get him some money since he had been in the Marines when it happened by having a private bill to give him some compensation from the Federal Government. This died when Senator Heinz died in his helicopter crush (Please note, they was enough Congressmen who opposed such payment for it was NOT a federal Crime nor a Federal Agency that had Railroaded the Marine).

The last time I read about him was in the late 1990s, he had gone on with his life, but lost over 25 years of it to Police Misconduct. Now in the case we are reviewing in this thread no such deliberate Police Misconduct is alleged, sloppy Police work, but not deliberate misconduct. I just bring up the case of the Marine about the difficulty of getting compensation for such miscarriage of Justice. In the case of the Pittsburgh Marine they was Police Misconduct, and the state legislature still Refused to provide compensation.