Criminal Defendants Wrongly Convicted by False Evidence—– More wrongdoings by Joyce Gilchrist

July 4, 2009

The ghost of Joyce Gilchrist remains with us.  Gilchrist is the forensic chemist who worked for the Oklahoma City Police Department who fudged, concocted, created and lied about evidence in order to help the prosecution wrongly convict several defendants.  One of her better known victims was Jeffrey Todd Pierce.  Gilchrist lied about microscopic evidence to get him convicted, and only after he had served 15 years in prison did Gilchrist’s wrongdoing come to light.  Gilchrist was fired, Pierce was released and received $4 million in damages from the City of Oklahoma City.

As the questions rose over the years about Gilchrist and her work, people continue to wonder:  Why did then-District Attorney Bob Macy continue to use Gilchrist as a witness to convict people, even after her fabrication of evidence and unsupported testimony had been called into question?  Why did Oklahoma County judges continue to allow Gilchrist to testify, even after Gilchrist’s employer, the City of Oklahoma City, was trying to fire her?

Of course Gilchrist has always denied all wrongdoing and claimed the City of Oklahoma City was racially prejudiced against her when the City fired her.  That accusation went nowhere in court.  Gilchrist has never admitted doing anything wrong despite a tsunami of evidence against her.

The latest case of Gilchrist’s malfeasance is the case of David Johns Bryson.  After serving 17 years in prison, Bryson has been released.  Gilchrist’s evidence against Bryson was reviewed by another expert, Brian Wraxall, chief forensic serologist at the Serological Research Institute in California.  Last November, he looked over Gilchrist’s lab notes from the Bryson trial and found serious flaws.  Gilchrist had received some of her training at the institute, and Gilchrist was as student of Wraxall.

Bryson was charged with rape.  Key evidence used to convict him were hair, blood and semen samples.  There was also other evidence linking Bryson to the crime, including eyewitness testimony and injuries to the attacker’s penis.   Gilchrist testified the hair, blood and semen were “consistent” with Bryson.  Better DNA techniques later developed showed the samples were not a match to Bryson, but other scientists concluded, based on a review of Gilchrist’s work done at the time, that Gilchrist should have excluded Bryson even before the 1983 trial if Gilchrist done her science correctly, regardless of DNA testing.

“Ms. Gilchrist failed to run a substrate or background control from the robe as she was taught in my laboratory, “Wraxall reported.

Gilchrist’s hair analysis was already discredited.  In 2001, the FBI conducted reviews of Gilchrist’s work and concluded the hair evidence did not match Bryson.  When asked about this finding, Gilchrist, in a deposition, said, “That happens all the time.  Hair examination is very subjective and experts may or may not agree on the conclusions that are reached.  So if someone else agrees or disagrees with my findings, I don’t put much weight in that, “she testified.  Do you think Gilchrist admitted at Bryson’s jury trial that hair testified was a “subjective” finding about which experts disagree all time?  More likely Gilchrist gave the jury the impression her findings carried the force of objective science, inexorable conclusions, undeniable fact.   But that was her testimony to get convictions.   Her later deposition was to save her own hide.

Whether Gilchrist was even qualified to conduct such tests was an issue in the lawsuit filed by Bryson.  Gilchrist’s college transcripts show she had some trouble performing academically in some of her courses.  She was placed on academic probation plural times and academic suspension.  She was questioned at her deposition about her sometimes sub-par performance at the FBI Academy as well.  For instance, she misidentified some hair samples on tests.  But she graduated from the Academy and from college.

Gilchrist at one point stated she regretted not expounding on her answers more in trials.  She did not specifically state she regretted putting so many innocent people in prison with her false testimony.

And, despite the criticism that was becoming more public, then-District Attorney Bob Macy backed her fully and continued to use as his expert witness.  She got convictions, so why quit?  Even after the Oklahoma City Police Department tried to can her, Mr. Macy wrote on her behalf and wanted to continue to use to get more convictions.  When he was asked about the falsification or tampering with evidence, he expressed indignation that anyone would question “law enforcement” or its motives.  In other words, just take our word for it and don’t ask any questions, exactly what the public did for too long.

It took the heroic act of U.S. District Judge Ralph Thompson to bring Gilchrist down.  Only someone so respected as Judge Thompson, when he ruled so unequivocally and extensively about her mistakes, could call attention to her wrongdoing and stop her.  No state judges had the courage or the understanding to do it;  they simply rubber-stamped the prosecution to assist in sending one after another innocent man to prison.

Advertisements

Injustice for sale — Judges jail children for money

February 24, 2009

Two judges pled guilty in Pennsylvania last week to putting children in jail for money. The Judges accepted more than $2.6 million from a private youth detention center in Pennsylvania in return for giving hundreds of youths and teenagers to unnecessarily long sentences.

Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, pled guilty in federal court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, pursuant to plea bargains with the United States Attorney’s office. They admitted that they had accepted payoffs from PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare between 2003 and 2006. They are each facing up to seven years in prison.

The scam worked like this: The judges sent juveniles to the detention center so the company running the facility received money from the county government to pay costs of the incarceration. Thus, as more children were sentenced to the detention center, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare received more money from the government.

The judges sentenced the children to more severe sentences that required incarceration in order to generate more money. Teenagers who were sentenced by Judge Ciavarella in juvenile court were sentenced to detention centers for minor offenses that ordinarily would have been classified as misdemeanors, according to the Juvenile Law Center, a Philadelphia nonprofit group. One seventeen-year-old boy was sentenced to three month’s detention for being in the company of another minor who was caught shoplifting. Others were given similar sentences for simple assault in which the charges stemmed form a scuffle in the school yard, and these would ordinarily merit only a warning.

Although the juveniles were guaranteed the right to a lawyer in court, many of them appeared before Ciavarella without an attorney because the probation service personnel told them that their charges were so minor that they didn’t need an attorney.

The chief counsel of the Juvenile Law Center, Marsha Levick, estimated that of approximately 5,000 juveniles who appeared before Judge Ciavarella from 2003 and 2006, between 1,000 and 2,000 received excessively harsh detention sentences. She said the center intends to sue the judges, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare to obtain money damages for their juveniles victims.

Prosecutors were quoted as saying “That judges would allow their greed to trump the rights of defendants is just obscene.” That is always so, but it is especially so here where the defendants were so young and vulnerable. This is an extremely vicious crime because it strikes at the integrity of the system, but it appears even more vicious when considering how young lives may have been damaged so severely, taken from school and parents, put into a detention center where there are likely young predators waiting for someone to prey on.

The judges tried to hide their ill-gotten income from this scheme by creating false records and rouging payments through intermediaries. “Your statement that I have disgraced my judgship is true,” Ciavarella wrote in a letter to the court. “My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame.” Conahan had no comment to make.

Ciavarella and Conahan were removed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as judges when the charges were filed in federal court, and the Supreme Court appointed a judge to review all the cases involved.

Again, we have an instance where innocent people are falsely persecuted. It certainly indicates the need for a defense lawyer who can be the legal advocate in protecting the rights of the accused, even for something that seems minor, at first blush. It’s very possible that many of these children sentenced did not have an attorney because it seemed their situation was such a minor offense but that just made it easier for the judges to get away with this injustice.

Consequently, it’s always advisable to seek advice from a competent criminal attorney, when you or your child is charged with any kind of criminal, even petty, act. Get educated on how to choose the best lawyer and discover how to avoid common mistakes by going to my website at http://www.oklahomacriminallawoffice.com


Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Judge De-frocked, What Goes Around Comes Around

February 20, 2009

When a jury trial results in a conviction, or for any reason one of the parties in a criminal case wants to seek reversal of the trial judge’s decision on a matter, the issue must be taken to and decided by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. That is the highest court, the court of last resort, for criminal matters in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is one of only two states in which appellate criminal matters are decided by court dedicated to criminal matters. Texas is the other state. In all other states, all issues of last resort are heard by the same court as the court that decides civil matters, usually called the state supreme court.

The five members of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals are appointed by the governor. Every four years of their term, their names appear on the retention ballot for decision by the voters. The voters of Oklahoma have never failed to retain a judge on the retention ballot.

For all these reasons, Judge Steve Lile had a job that was secure. He was one of the five judges who sat on the Court of Criminal Appeals. He could rule against every defense lawyer who brought a legal issue to the Court of Criminal Appeals for his decision. He could overrule every motion any lawyer urged on his defendant client’s behalf. He could rubber stamp practically every conviction brought to his court for review, and find no legal merit in any reason to overturn a conviction. And he did.

But then it was his turn.

Steve Lile traveled to attend project conferences, meetings of the Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) Program offered by the Department of Corrections. He routinely applied for mileage reimbursement for that travel and was paid. But there were no meetings on those dates. Lile was filing false claims to the state so he could visit his illegitimate son, Loran Michael Wilson, in prison. Lile made almost weekly trips between June and October, 2004.

Lile had gotten caught intervening on behalf of his then-loverr, Dawn Lukasik, to get out of drug charges in Lawton. The Lawton District Attorney there dismissed the drug charges for the flimsiest of reasons, obviously as a favor to Lile, and from that incident, the travel claims came to light. Dawn Lukasik is the mother of Loran Michael Wilson, and Lile is his father, Lile later said. Lile had not known Wilson was his son until recently.

When Lile’s behavior came to light a few years ago, Lile resigned rather than fight the efforts of the Attorney General to remove him. Since then, Lile has been a private lawyer, a lawyer representing people accused of crimes, the kind of lawyer for whom Lile had such contempt for so many years.

Now the matter of Lile’s license to practice law has been heard by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. It was an ethical violation for Lile to file those false travel claims, even if he has paid back $1523.64 for false travel claims and paid back $1560.40 for false claims Lukasik made for her personal use under the pretense of using the purchases to remodel Lile’s state judge’s office.

Lile told the Supreme Court that he was regretful and remorseful for his misconduct. He was just not thinking straight, he said. Giving the limpest of possible excuses, Lile urged the Supreme Court to forgive his misconduct, that his conduct merited only a private reprimand.

The Supreme Court found no merit in Lile’s excuses, denials, and minimizations. Lile had sought and accepted an office of the highest responsibility from the sovereign state of Oklahoma. He had taken an oath to follow the law. He should have known better. He betrayed all of these. He does not deserve to practice law in Oklahoma. So decided the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court listened to and considered all of Steve Lile’s arguments. The Court ruled against him, but he received full consideration of his position by the Court. That is all defense lawyers wanted when they appeared before Lile when he was sitting on the bench.


Police Go Overboard in Arrest & Kill Suspect Lying Face Down

January 29, 2009

Oscar Grant was shot on New Year’s Day by police in Oakland, California, on a Bay Area Transit train platform. The 22-year old butcher’s apprentice was lying face-down on the platform, ordered by police to lie there, when he was shot in the back. Grant was among several people who had been removed from the train by officers investigating a fight. Passengers captured cellphone videos of the shooting, which have been viewed thousands of times on Internet and news sites.

Johannes Mehserle, who resigned from the transit police force a week after the shooting, has been charged with the murder of Grant. He was arrested in Lake Tahoe, NV, where he had gone to avoid angry mobs. He was returned by Oakland Police. The District Attorney of Alameda County, Tom Orloff, said refused to speak to Oakland police or transit police investigators. Mr. Mehserle’s lawyer, Christopher Miller, said he expected his client to be cleared of all charges.

When no charges had been filed nine days later, the apparent execution nature of the shooting and, of course, the fact that the unarmed Grant was black, and Mehserle is white led to several days of demonstrations in Oakland. These turned in small riots, complete with police in riot gear, shooting tear gas and crowds running through the streets, setting cars on fire and smashing storefronts. Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums asked for calm asked the people to be patient as police conducted their investigation of the shooting.

Oscar Grant’s mother, Wanda Johnson, asked the people to use restraint. “I am begging the citizens not to use violent tactics, not to be angry. You’re hurting people that have nothing to do with the situation. Please stop it, just please stop, ” she said.

Police supporters later gave their version. They said Grant and the other young men on the platform were violently harassing other passengers, that Grant was struggling against the officers, that the officer who fired the shot believed he was firing a taser instead of a handgun.

It’s possible the officer thought he was firing a taser instead of a handgun. However, if tasers look just like handguns (which I’d be surprised at this) then this points out a serious problem with the equipment used by law enforcement, which probably would have produced other “accidents” before this. The other possible alternative is that the officer got caught up in an emotional situation and carried the “enforcement” too far.

If someone is on the ground, face down, it’s inconceivable that he could be considered uncooperative, or a threat…..so that leads us to the question of who can the accused look to for protection? Who will protect us from those who are supposed to protect us? After all, this is still America, where the accussed is presumed innocent, until proven guilty.


Another Corrupt District Attorney Makes Citizens Pay

January 17, 2009

Harry Connick, then the New Orleans District Attorney, wrongfully convicted a man named John Thompson in 1983. Thompson spent 18 years on death row but eventually was proved to have been wrongfully convicted. Then Thompson sought compensation in federal court for this injustice. The jury awarded Thompson $15 million, but the District Attorney’s Office is now making noises about taking bankruptcy because it cannot pay the judgment.

Harry F. Connick , now deceased, was no stranger to controversy. The father of the well known jazz singer, Harry Connick, Jr. Harry F. Connick had been put on trial in 1990 himself. The then-District Attorney since 1974, was tried in federal court for racketeering by aiding an illegal gambling operation. Connick was accused of returning to the big time gambler, Walton Aucoin, gambling records that had been seized in a 1988 raid. The trial was originally prosecuted by the local U.S. Attorney, who had worked for Connick, John Voltz, who then recused after accusations of his personal bias against Connick. Besides Aucoin, six other defendants included gamblers Wilson Abraham, a New Orleans businessman and customer of Aucoin, who lent Connick $15, 000 in a political campaign and actor Paul Burke, Palms Springs, California. Connick was acquitted, although all the other defendants were convicted.

Nor is the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office a stranger to controversy. In October, 2007, Eddie Jordan, the then-District Attorney resigned from office, pressed by a $3.7 million dollar race discrimination civil rights verdict against his office that threatened to shut down the office. Jordan had already faced criticism for dismissal of high-profile murder cases, mass resignations in the office, and failure to prosecute crimes n a city with the nation’s highest murder rate, especially the chaos following Hurricane Katrina. The race discrimination judgment came from the 2005 federal court case in which the jury found he had, as accused, discriminated against the 43 white employees whom he fired because of their race. Only after Eddie Jordan had resigned from office did state and city officials help pay the $3.7 million judgment. Ultimately, the State of Louisiana agreed to pay $1.6 million, the city of New Orleans agreed to pay $1.1 million, and the District Attorney’s Office pay $600,000 to satisfy the judgment.

Now the facts of the latest verdict against the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office for the wrongful conviction of John Thompson. Thompson had had his execution postponed half a dozen times until it was discovered he did not commit the armed robbery of which he was convicted. Then it was revealed prosecutors at his trial had hidden blood tests that proved he had not committed the robbery. Put on trial again for the murder of Raymond Liuzza, Jr. Thompson at this latter jury trial used all the evidence the District Attorney had hidden from the jury in the original trial, and the jury acquitted him after only a half-hour deliberation.

Now exonerated from having committed the crime yet imprisoned for 18 years by the wrongful acts of the District Attorney’s Office, Thompson filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court. The jury decided in favor of Thompson and award him $15 million. The present District Attorney, Leon Cannizzaro, defended that lawsuit and now must come up with a way to pay for it. Cannizzaro did not do himself proud when arguing to the appellate federal court that Thompson did not deserve this $15 million in the trial court. Canizzaro argued to the appellate court that death row wasn’t really all that bad, that Thompson had been allowed all that gotten to watch TV and play chess and all his medical care was taken care of as he waited for execution date after execution date to be re-set.

The appellate court remarked that the District Attorney presented a “misleading, rosy picture” of life on death row. The court knew that Thompson had spent nearly two decades of his life in the Angola prison in a six-by-nine foot cell without windows or air conditioning for 23 hours a day. The court heard evidence describing the prison with screaming out at all hours of the day and night, and with inmates who hurled human excrement and “the stench that permeated” the joint. Thompson received four visits a year from family members, but was otherwise left to himself to contemplate his impending execution. Experts testified that Thompson suffers from post-traumatic stress. No surprise there. So the District Attorney’s Office followed up the railroading of John Thompson with an attempt to cover up the extent of their wrongdoing.

Caught red handed now, with no where else to hid its crimes, the New Orleans District Attorney is now asking the State of Louisiana to grant his office permission to seek Chapter 9 bankruptcy.


Is the FBI Taking Away More Rights from Citizens and Becoming “Big Brother”?

October 17, 2008

The Attorney General of the United States has just released new guidelines governing FBI investigations. Attorney General Michael Mukasey signed the guidelines, which replace existing guidelines for five types of investigations: general criminal, national security, foreign intelligence, civil disorders and demonstrations. Immediately, the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for ignoring calls for more, not less, protection for Americans’ rights, citing both the FBI’s and Department of Justice’s records of internal abuses.

The new guidelines reduce standards required to begin “assessments”, that is precursors to investigations, for conducting surveillance and gathering evidence. Thus the threshold to begin investigations across the board will be lowered. Further, the new guidelines allow the FBI to use a person’s race or ethnic background as a factor in opening an investigation.

The Executive Director of the ACLU, Anthony D. Romero, said: “The new guidelines provide no safeguards against the FBI’s improperly using race and religion as grounds for suspicion. They also fail to sufficiently prevent the government from infiltrating groups whose view points it doesn’t like. The FBI has shown time and time again that it is incapable of policing itself and there is good reason to believe that these guidelines will lead to more abuse.”

In the 1970’s, the FBI adopted internal guidelines after investigations revealed widespread abuses and violations of constitutional rights by the FBI, including the clearly politically-motivated spying on public figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. Those guidelines governed very different types of investigations, and tearing down the walls between those different types of investigations, as the new guidelines do, means the new powers will be applied in new types of investigations where they never were before. Of course, the FBI claims the new guidelines would not give agents new authority.

The Washington office of the ACLU was quoted as saying: “It is naive to think these guidelines will not result in abuse….the DOJ and FBI…are only doomed to repeat the abuses of the past…the FBI will be given carte blanche to begin surveillance without factual evidence. The standard of suspicion is so low that the predicate for investigations so flimsy that it’s inevitable we will all become suspects.”

The FBI is focusing only on “the threat”, meaning the targets of their investigations. The FBI always wants more power to use against the bad guys, and there are always bad guys to get. There is always some excuse de jour for unleashing law enforcement’s powers. They forget that this is the very danger foreseen by our Founding Fathers, the danger to citizens from an overly-muscled law enforcement. Our Founding Fathers knew that a greater danger to citizens than criminals was from police without restraints.

Law enforcement will always continue to push, to find excuses in this and that particular, discover some excuse to suspend or diminish another small area of citizen protection until the protections of the Constitution will be whittled away little by little until gone. If we cannot keep government restraints, we cannot preserve our Constitution. Yes, the issue is about good guys vs. bad guys. But the long term, more fundamental issue is permitting some bad guys to get away, as they inevitably will, so that we preserve restraints on the police. The only sure way to get all the bad guys is to turn the United States into Nazi Germany. That was a very efficient government with absolutely no restraints to stand in the way of law enforcement.