Sander Leach was shot to death on March 12, 1983 in the van from which he was selling vegtables on Cleveland’s east side. In 1985 Arthur Tyler was convicted of murdering Leach and sentenced to death.

Yet the police knew within days of Leach’s death that his murderer is Leroy Head — from the statements of two friends, a statement by Leach’s mother to the police that Leach told her “he did it,” and an oral and written confession by Head. In the first of his many confessions, Head explained that he shot Leach when he got into a struggle with him while trying to rob him. Head wrote: “At the first shot I starting (sic) falling over towards hi, and that’s when the gun went off a second time.”

Within ten days of his first confession, Head confessed again and accepted full responsibility for the murder, writing: “I grabbed (the gun) and it went off — the old man fell back and I fell on top of him — the gun went off again.”

Then two-and-a-half months after the murder Head and his lawyer met with the prosecutor, and he suddenly claimed that Arthur Tyler was the shooter. Up to that point Head had without exception said that Tyler had nothing to do with the murder and that he didn’t know anything about it until afterwards. Tyler was charged with Leach’s murder, and at this 1985 trial Head was the prosecution’s star witness that the jury relied on to convict him. Tyler was sentenced to death.

After Tyler’s conviction Head once again began repeatedly stating that he was the lone murderer — and Tyler had nothing to do with the crime. Head wrote in April 1986, “I shot and killed him.” In May 1989 Head told Tyler’s lawyers that he had lied when he testified that Tyler shot Leach. Head said the prosecutors told him that if he did not testify against Tyler that he would be tried for capital murder, sent to a less secure prison, with the prosecutors making sure the other inmates knew he was a snitch. Then in July 1991 Head confirmed in an affidavit that he, and not Tyler, killed Leach, stating: “Leach pulled a gun out and he was shot while we scuffled.”

Head has made still other confessions to various people. During Tyler’s federal habeas corpus he was granted permission to take Head’s deposition. But Head refused to testify, citing his rights to avoid self-incrimination. Tyler’s counsel asked that the State grant immunity to Head so that his testimony could be obtained. The request was refused. The federal court sustained Head’s right not to testify and denied Tyler’s habeas corpus petition.

On September 20, 2005, Tyler’s attorney Rick Kerger first wrote to the Ohio Attorney Generals’ office asking that it take steps to assure that immunity be extended to Head. The AG’s office has never responded to Kerger’s request.

No one has ever offered a reasonable basis for Head’s recantation of his many confessions to friends, the police, lawyers, investigators, and even his own mother, other than that the prosecutors told him that if he did not point the finger at Tyler, they would seek the death penalty against him.

Tyler has appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court in what is likely to be his last chance to win a new trial. If it is denied, Tyler’s execution could be scheduled for later this year. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland can pardon Tyler or commute his sentence.

For more information about Arthur Tyler’s case, and a petition to Governor Strickland, see the following websites:

http://torley.org/Arthur-Tyler/Arthur-Tyler

http://justiceforarthurtyler.blogspot.com

This blog post is a condensation of an article written by Arthur Tyler’s attorney, Rick Kerger. Click here to read the full article.

Aaron L. Farmer was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted in April 2005 of raping a 22-year-old woman in Christchurch, New Zealand. The jury relied on the woman’s identification of Farmer as the man who jumped off his motorcycle and drug her into the bushes as she was walking to her brother’s house after a night out drinking with friends in September 2002.

There was no physical or forensic evidence suggesting the 32-year-old Farmer committed the crime. He insisted he had been mistakenly identified as the woman’s attacker, but he wasn’t helped by the inconclusive result of a pre-trial DNA test of semen on a cervical swab in the victim’s rape kit.

New Zealand’s Court of Appeal quashed Farmer’s conviction in June 2007 and ordered his retrial based on his trial lawyer’s failure to present alibi evidence that could have influenced the jury to acquit him. Farmer was released on bail after 26 months imprisonment to await his retrial.

There were DNA tests more sensitive than the ones available prior to Farmer’s 2005 trial, so Farmer’s new lawyer, Simon Shamy, pressed for testing of the cervical swab and the attacker’s skin recovered from under the victim’s fingernail. The tests were conducted, and in early April 2008 Farmer was excluded as the male whose DNA was detected.

Less than a week before Farmer’s retrial was scheduled to start on April 28, 2008, the rape charge was dismissed. After learning he had been exonerated of being a rapist, Farmer told reporters, “She was attacked –  I believe that – which means that someone who attacked her is out there walking free and I did the time for their crime. The police should put a proper effort into finding who did. They had a description back then and they should have done their job.”

Farmer is the first person in New Zealand whose exoneration is attributable to DNA evidence. Read the New Zealand Herald’s story about the case.

Cuba has been heavily criticized for its legal process that has been used to imprison a number of people who are claimed to be innocent. Prisoners on death row who may be innocent were spared execution by Cuban President Raul Castro: He announced on April 28, 2008 that all but three death sentences were being commuted to terms of 30 years to life in prison. The three death row prisoners whose sentences were not commuted, are all still on appeal from terrorism related convictions. The Cuban government’s official announcement said the commutations were taken for “humanitarian” reasons. However, it may have been to bring Cuba in conformance in spirit with two United Nations human rights agreements that Cuba signed in early March. Fidel Castro had opposed Cuba being a signatory to those agreements. See the Reuters story.

The lawyer for Guantanamo Bay detainee Salim Hamdan filed a motion on March 27, 2008 to dismiss the charges against Hamdan. The motion asserts that political influence over Hamdan’s prosecution deprives him of his right to a fair trial. The motion alleges that the Bush administration exercises “unlawful command influence” over the proceedings, and that White House officials are orchestrating Hamdan’s military commission trial for maximum political benefit. Republican candidates claiming to be tough on terrorism could be boosted by Hamdan’s conviction prior to the November 2008 elections.

In the motion Hamdan’s attorney, Navy Lt. Brian Mizer, quotes Bush appointee, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, telling the military prosecutors, “We need to think about charging some of the high-value detainees because there could be strategic political value to charging some of these detainees before the election.”

Former chief Guantanamo prosecutor Air Force Col. Morris Davis resigned in October 2007 because of political interference in the conduct of the military commission trials. He also said he was pressured to pursue weak “sexy” high-profile cases over those that were more solid cases, and that since convictions were expected, “I felt I was being pressured to do something less than full, fair and open.”

Davis is scheduled to be a pretrial witness for Hamdan Davis says he welcomes the “opportunity to tell the truth” about how the prosecutions are being conducted.

Prior to Davis’ resignation, three Guantanamo prosecutors were transferred in 2004 after they protested the military tribunal procedures, including that they were rigged to ensure convictions. One of the reassigned prosecutors, Air Force Captain John Carr, wrote to his superior: “When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused. Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganized effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged. You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel.”

Another of the reassigned prosecutors, Air Force Major Robert Preston, wrote to his superior: “I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people.”

The almost four years between those reassignments and Davis’ resignation suggests that nothing has fundamentally changed in the way the Guantanamo prosecutions are being handled.

Hamdan is one of the “low-level accused” that Carr was referring to. He is charged with conspiracy and supporting terrorism because he worked at one time as a driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan’s alleged crimes are the result of his proximity to bin Laden, because the government does not allege that he had any active role in planning or carrying out any attacks against the United States. Hamdan faces up to life in prison if convicted by the tribunal.

In a remarkable interview, Dallas County, Texas District Attorney Craig Watkins acknowledges that before his 2006 election a “conviction at all costs” mentality prevailed in Dallas County. Watkins also acknowledges that some prosecutors have the attitude that it is a badge of honor to convict a person known to be innocent. This is the first time that Justice Denied is aware of a sitting elected District Attorney publicly acknowledging what has long been believed by legal system observers — many wrongful convictions are not accidental, but they are the deliberate consequence of prosecutors that consider convicting an innocent person as a sport.

The interview can be read at,Is This America’s Best Prosecutor? - Meet Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins. Interview by Radley Balko, posted on Reason magazine’s website April 7, 2008.

Lynn DeJac was convicted in April 1994 of strangling her 13-year-old daughter, Crystallynn. She claimed she wasn’t home at the time of her daughter’s death. DeJac believed the murderer was an ex-boyfriend, Dennis Donohue, who had been stalking her the day her daughter died.

DNA tests of crime scene evidence performed in the fall of 2007 excluded DeJac, but directly linked Donohue to the crime scene. DeJac filed a motion to vacate her conviction, which was granted on November 28, 2008. DeJac was released the same day on bail pending her retrial. She had been imprisoned for more than 13-1/2 years.

In preparation for DeJac’s retrial the Erie County District Attorney hired nationally renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden to review the case’s evidence. He determined that Crystallynn had not been strangled, but she actually died from cocaine intoxication. The current Erie County ME decided after his own review that she died from a combination of cocaine intoxication and a blow to her head of unknown origin.

Based on the new forensic findings, the DA announced on February 13, 2008 that he no longer believed that Crystallynn had been murdered, so he wouldn’t retry DeJac. On February 28 the charges were formally dismissed against DeJac.

On March 28, 2008 DeJac filed a wrongful conviction compensation claim for $14.5 million with New York’s State Court of Claims. New York’s wrongful conviction compensation statute doesn’t have a cap on claims. Read The Buffalo News story.

In spite of Crystallynn’s new death certificate that leaves open the possibility of a future murder prosecution under a different DA for her death from her head injury, murder charges cannot be filed against Donohue. He was given transactional immunity from prosecution for his testimony before the grand jury that indicted DeJac in December 1993. Read defense attorney Scott Greenfield’s analysis of the tragic error of granting Donohue immunity in DeJac’s case, Inductive Reasoning Means Murderer Walks.

In April 2007 Anthony Capozzi was released from prison after serving almost 22 years for two rapes in Buffalo, New York that were actually committed by Altemio C. Sanchez, aka the Bike Path Killer. DNA tests in March 2007 excluded Capozzi, and matched Sanchez.

The Buffalo News reported on April 4, 2008 that Capozzi is filing a wrongful conviction compensation claim for $41 million with New York’s State Court of Claims. New York’s wrongful conviction compensation statute doesn’t have a cap on claims.

Troy Anthony Davis was convicted in 1993 and sentenced to death for the murder of Savannah, Georgia police officer Mark MacPhail. Davis professed his innocence, but his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and his federal habeas petition was denied.

Eight days before Davis’ scheduled execution on July 9, 2007, he filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial based on evidence supporting his innocence. The trial judge denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Georgia Supreme Court agreed to review the denial of Davis’ new trial motion and stayed his execution. On March 17, 2008 the Court affirmed the denial of a new trial by a majority 4 to 3 decision. (Davis v. The State, S07A1758, March 17, 2008) In rejecting the evidentiary value of the new evidence provided by the eleven witnesses cited in Davis’ motion, the Court stated, “At trial, the jury had the benefit of hearing from witnesses and investigators close to the time of the murder … We simply cannot disregard the jury’s verdict in this case.” (20)

The Court separately rejected Davis’ “claim that his execution should be barred because his execution would be unconstitutional in light of the evidence of his alleged innocence. Because this claim was not asserted distinctly in the trial court, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal.” (21)

Three justices dissented from the Court’s ruling, including Chief Justice Leah Sears, who wrote the dissent. The dissenters argued that Davis should be granted a hearing where the credibility of his eleven witnesses could be tested in open court, and their testimony subjected to cross-examination. Judge Sears wrote, “I believe that this case illustrates that this Court’s approach in extraordinary motions for new trials based on new evidence is overly rigid and fails to allow an adequate inquiry into the fundamental question, which is whether or not an innocent person might have been convicted or even, as in this case, might be put to death.” (Dissent 1)

Sears also wrote, “In this case, nearly every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably. Three persons have stated that Sylvester Coles confessed to being the shooter. Two witnesses have stated that Sylvester Coles, contrary to his trial testimony, possessed a handgun immediately after the murder. Another witness has provided a description of the crimes that might indicate that Sylvester Coles was the shooter. (Dissent 4) … But the collective effect of all of Davis’ new testimony, if it were to be found credible by the trial court in a hearing, would show the probability that a new jury would find reasonable doubt of Davis’ guilt or at least sufficient residual doubt to decline to impose the death penalty.” (Dissent 5)

One of Davis’ lawyers, Chris Adams, said after the ruling, “I was very surprised by the decision. We felt that the proper course was to hear all the witnesses … and then to make a judgment call.” Adams was troubled by the decision because this is an “actual innocence case. The kind of case you go to law school for. You would hope all your cases would have this kind of significance – or that none of them would.” (Alternet)

As of late March 2008 a new execution date for Troy Anthony Davis has not been set.

Liu Cuizhen and her ex-husband Jiang lived in Xinzhou, about 200 miles southeast of China’s capital of Beijing. In May 2003 she reported to the police that Jiang had died while visiting her home. She was arrested on suspicion of murdering him.

Liu was charged with murdering Jiang, and after her trial in early 2004 she was convicted and sentenced to death. Mitigating factors resulted in a modification of her sentence to a suspended death sentence, which meant that after two years of good behavior her sentence would be commuted to life imprisonment.

Liu’s conviction as overturned on appeal, but after a retrial in October 2004 she was again convicted of her husband’s murder and sentenced to death.

Liu appealed, and in July 2005 the Shanxi provincial high court overturned her conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence, and ordered the charges dismissed. Liu was released from death row after 26 months of wrongful imprisonment.

She filed a compensation claim of $74,400 (600,000 yuan) with the Xinzhou Intermediate Court and the Xinzhou prosecutor’s office. Her claim was denied. Liu appealed, and in January 2008 the Shanxi provincial high court ruled she was entitled to compensation. However, the Court decided her payment was to be based on the China’s average national wage in 2006. That was $11.56 (83.66 yuan) per day. So based on Liu’s 796 days of false imprisonment, the Xinzhou court and prosecutor’s office were jointly ordered to pay her  compensation of $9,200 (66,593 yuan). Read the Reuters article.

Japanese actress Serena Kozakura was convicted in July 2007 of willful destruction of property and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, suspended for three years conditioned on good behavior. Her conviction was based on the testimony of a male friend who alleged that in November 2006 she kicked a hole in his door that she crawled through into his Tokyo apartment because she thought he was with another woman.

Kozakura appealed to Tokyo’s High Court on the basis that she could not have committed the crime because with 44″ breasts she could not fit through the 8-1/2″ x 28-1/2″ hole in the door. Her lawyer conducted a demonstration for the appeals court judges to prove his argument, and he also argued that the clothes she wore on that day showed no signs of damage that would have occurred by trying to squeeze through the hole, and her shoes showed no signs of damage that would have been caused by kicking a hole in the door.

The appeals court judges agreed and overturned her conviction. The presiding judge stated, “There are considerable doubts about the man’s testimony.” Read the story in the Mainichi Daily News.

See a video on the Pinoyspy Reporter website of an interview with Kozakura and a filmed demonstration of her inability to fit through a hole the size that was in the door.