Convicted killer claiming innocence is spared death penalty in Ohio

[mike r]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/02/ohio.death.penalty.lifted/?hpt=T2

Convicted killer claiming innocence is spared death penalty in Ohio
By Bill Mears

(CNN) -- An Ohio death row inmate who has repeatedly claimed his innocence was spared execution, after the state's governor Thursday noted "legitimate questions" about evidence used to convict the man. Kevin Keith for now will spend the rest of his life in prison without parole. His legal appeals will continue, with lawyers claiming newly discovered evidence and discredited eyewitness testimony will ultimately exonerate him.

Keith was convicted of the 1994 killings of three females, including a child, in an apartment in Bucyrus, 60 miles north of Columbus. He was scheduled to die by lethal injection September 15, and had exhausted most of his federal and state court appeals. Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, issued his commutation this week after a number of civil liberties and innocence groups urged he step in to prevent a possibly innocent man from being executed by the state.

"Clearly, the careful exercise of a governor's executive clemency authority is appropriate in a case like this one, given the real and unanswered questions surrounding the murders for which Mr. Keith was convicted," said Strickland in a statement. "Mr. Keith still has appellate legal proceedings pending which, in theory, could ultimately result in his conviction being overturned altogether. The governor added, however, that he believes "it is far more likely that Mr. Keith committed these murders than it is likely that he did not." Strickland urged the courts to give a "full, fair analysis" of the issues raised in the appeal. He ignored the recommendations of the state's parole board, which last month unanimously recommended against clemency...

Prosecutors said the 46-year-old Keith had maliciously sprayed a home with gunfire, that left a four-year-old dead, along with her mother and aunt. Three others were wounded but survived, including a man who later testified against the main suspect. At trial, the state argued one of the victims was the brother of an undercover police informant who had implicated Keith as a drug dealer. But Keith's public defenders point to at least one other suspect, and say a detective in the case lied on the stand about how a survivor of the shooting identified Keith. His defense team also later presented alibi witnesses...

[Q3JR4]

1. I got called in for jury duty

and to prepare (as well as put a new article together for my science article in the local gay mag) I looked up various scientific articles on trial by jury.

It turns out that human memory is eminently mailable. A study was carried out in which they photoshoped pictures of various adults by placing a young version of them in an air balloon. The adults, when shown three real pictures and the fake, were asked if they remembered the activities in the pictures. Over the course of two weeks the subjects in the experiment were interviewed about the photos three times. At the end fully 50% of them remembered something about the non-existent balloon ride. It wasn't just, "Yeah I remember that." The people who allowed themselves to be swayed filled in vivid details, "The sun was high in the sky, but it was early in the morning so it was cold. My dad put me in the balloon because he thought I would like it, and the people below me looked like ants...etc."

So, given this and other memory studies, relying on only eyewitness testimony does not guarantee that someone is guilty. The Innocence Project documented one case of a woman who'd been raped who identified a suspect in the rape. The only problem is that on the way to the line up she stopped and checked out a board in which a want add with a picture of the man she ultimately identified as her rapist was posted. That was enough to twist her memories of what happened to her. In the end the man who spent years in prison based on her testimony was only exonerated for the crime via DNA evidence.

What about fingerprints? If I found fingerprints at a site should we close the case and head home? Well fingerprint analysis is not standardized so that while one "expert" will see a match another won't. Partial prints are even worse. This is why competing expert testimony can yield weird results.

Finally DNA evidence, the jewel in the crown of the justice system, is not completely foolproof. The science is ironclad but you're relying on humans to carry out that science. In certain rape cases they take DNA swabs of both the victim and suspect so that they can eliminate the victim's DNA to more effectively zero in on the suspects DNA. I've heard of rape cases where a lab told a court that the woman raped herself because the lab had mixed up the DNA. Since the prospect was preposterous, the test was rerun. In one county in Texas many DNA results were called into account when investigators discovered shoddy laboratory equipment, shoddy methodology, and grungy laboratories. Texas, it shouldn't have to be said, is responsible for the most death penalty convictions in the nation.

Does this all mean that everyone who commits a crime is innocent? No. Does it mean that everyone is guilty? Not in the least. We must give people a fair shake and present all the necessary evidence to a jury. Prosecutors and police officers who withhold evidence should be sued and made to pay for their crimes. Judges who incorrectly order that evidence be withheld should likewise be held accountable. Fingerprint analysis should be standardized so that everyone is in agreement about what a fingerprint means. Eyewitness testimony should be carefully done so that fragile memories can be preserved, and the results should be taped so that if the stories change that information can be presented to a jury. This is especially important when you're dealing with someone who is facing the death penalty.

If evidence exists that there were irregularities in the trial of Kevin Keith, I hope he gets the fair shake he deserves. I could definitely believe it if there was a gross miscarriage of justice, but I could also believe that he's a depraved criminal attempting to game the system. Either way I'm glad I don't have to decide the case.

I never got a chance to present my beliefs to a judge in Voir Dire, but I am curious as to how they would have taken my point of view.

Q3JR4.
_{http://pbr.psychonomic-journals.org/content/9/3/597.full.pdf">A Picture is Worth a Thousand Lies
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/06/60minutes/main4848039.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody">Eyewitness: How Accurate is Visible Memory?
http://truthinjustice.org/witness.htm">Truthinjustice.org
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/10/1070732280097.html?from=storyrhs">DNA Testing and Human Error
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI.pdf">The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing (and How That Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification)
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=1202813&page=1">Study: Fingerprint Evidence isn't Infallible}