29. July 2009 by Rev Young.

Colorado established a Juvenile Clemency Board 2 years ago and encouraged those offenders who had been sentenced to LWOP or long prison sentences to apply.  This was to answer the fact that Colorado reduced the length of sentence a juvenile offender could receive to 40 years but did not make this new law retroactive. 

Dietrick Mitchell applied for clemency.  He had received a sentence of LWOP for an accident that resulted in the death of another juvenile.  Dietrick was driving the car in an intoxicated state, hit a pedestrian and then left the scene of the accident.  He later turned himself in at the encouragement of his aunt.  One of the criteria for granting clemency is sentence disparity.  In researching cases that matched the circumstances in Dietrick’s case, we found that most juvenile offenders were sentenced to juvenile facilities and were treated and released within 10 to 15 years.  Adult cases were even more striking.  A case two years ago of a 40 year old man who committed the same crime, received a sentence of 8 years.  Dietrick’s request for clemency was denied.  Dietrick has served 15 years for his crime in an adult prison facility.  Where is justice?  Our hearts go out to Dietrick’s and his family.  Read on…….

Juvenile Clemency Betrayed

Colorado’s KCFR program, Colorado Matters interviewed people (the link is an audio segment) and broadcast it piece that KCFR describes as follows:

As Colorado’s much-touted Juvenile Clemency Board approaches its second anniversary, critics say it has fallen far short of expectations. Ryan Warner speaks with Mary Ellen Johnson of the Pendulum Foundation, which advocates for juvenile offenders; thenboard chairwoman Jeanne Smith, who is also head of the Division of Criminal Justice.

Jeanne Smith’s interview made clear that the Juvenile Clemency Board will not live up to the expectations that went into its establishment. In her view,clemency is basically a way of offering people “extra credit” for extraordinary post-conviction conduct and compassionate release to the ill, but has almost no role in addressing concerns that prosecutors abused their discretion, or that sentences within the scope of law at the time that they were imposed could be nonetheless unjust as applied.

Mary Ellen Johnson offered up the example of someone who was sentenced to life without parole for a fatal hit and run that happened while the driver was ajuvenile. The Juvenile Clemency Board found these circumstances to be insufficient and inappropriate for a grant of clemency and has rejected this application. The Juvenile Clemency Board has also categorically ruled out consideration of the fact that sentences imposes on particular juveniles could not be imposed prospectively. Not one juvenile has been recommended forclemency by the Board.

Some background here is relevant. The Juvenile Clemency Board was created by Governor Bill Ritter (a Democrat) in the wake of the debate of a legislative decision to abolish juvenile life without parole. The District Attorney’s association, of which Governor Ritter was once a member, argued strenuously that the legislature should not modify already imposed sentences retroactively, because that was the prerogative of the Governor who hasclemency and pardon powers. 

The Governor took the side of the District Attorney’s association but won over legislators who had sought retroactive application of the new maximum sentence for juveniles. The Governor won over legislators on the brink, however, by announcing that he would carefully examine the justice of existing sentences through a Juvenile Clemency Board created by executive order to review these cases. 

The Governor’s implied promise had been that in the sort of cases where a judge would appropriately have denied a district attorney permission to charge a child as an adult, and the juvenile was less culpable than stereotypical life without parole defendants, that the Governor would reduce their harsh sentences, after reviewing the cases in detail through the Juvenile ClemencyBoard.

The exact line wasn’t drawn and was left to the Governor. But, the expectation was that, in general, the Governor would show mercy in cases where subsequent prison conduct hadn’t shown the defendants to be problem inmates, and in general, where defendants were younger when the crime was committed, where defendants were not already career criminals at the time they were convicted, and where they had lower culpability because of the nature of the underlying offense (e.g., as an accomplice in a felony-murder case without an intent to kill, or in a hit and run case that was arguably an accident). There was an expectation that the Juvenille Clemency Board would take special notice of the reduced culpability and greater capacity for rehabilitation of younger offenders. There was also an expectation was that the Governorwould follow the lead of the legislature to shorten sentences to some middle ground between life without parole or near life sentences for long numbers of years, and the kind of sentence that could have been secured in the juvenilejustice system.

But, the people appointed to the Board by the Governor have taken a crabbed view of their mandate. They have taken a separation of powers view precisely the opposite of the view expressed by the District Attorneys making their case to the legislature; that dealing with retroactive change to criminal sentences that are now unavailable is the legislature’s job rather than theGovernor’s job. They have denied that district attorney’s could abuse their discretion or that the legislature could be wrong but leave the remedy of that wrong intentionally to the Governor. They have abdicated any ability to have an independent sense of what is just in a particular case.

Jeanne Smith, in particular, when interviewed, took a view of the clemencyprocess more appropriate for a parole board than a clemency board, focusing solely on post-conviction conduct, and was tone deaf to the history by which the board she chairs came into being.

Whether intentionally, or by poor judgment, Governor Ritter has betrayed the promises he made when the legislature took action on life without parole sentencing for juveniles, in the implementation of the Juvenile ClemencyBoard, by appointing the wrong kind of people to the Board.

Governor Ritter still has room to redeem himself. The Juvenile ClemencyBoard is advisory only. He can choose to ignore its recommendations and be more generous. He can change his mandate to the Board to get it one the right track. He can keep the faith with legislators of his own party who trusted him, and show that he has some common sense, and that he has an independent sense of justice which the criminal justice system imperfectly tries to replicate after his many years of experience in the trenches.

But, at this point, the future looks bleak. Governor Ritter has not been concerned about harmony with the legislative branch in the past, has not sought to honor his promises in both letter and spirit in the policy making process, and hasn’t shown much moral judgment himself. So, I’m not optimistic about the prospects of juveniles serving sentences that are unreasonably long, given their crimes and their personal culpability in those cases.

POSTED BY ANDREW OH-WILLEKE AT 7/27/2009 11:07:00 AM 

Posted in Legal News, Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »

29. July 2009 by Rev Young.

There has been much talk recently, concerning false confessions, coercion on the part of custodial officers and the practice of the interrogation of juveniles.  This is a large issue that has cost the future of many juveniles.  Before you read the article below, I am going to relate my own personal experience in this area. 

Most of you know that I have a son in prison serving 66 years and incarcerated at the age of 17.  What I am about to tell you should serve as a warning to parents and a request on the behalf of parents of juveniles to attorney’s and lawmakers to help us find a way to protect our children. 

The first time that my son was questioned concerning this specific crime was at the high school he was attending.  I was not notified that authorities wanted to ask questions, no adult was in the room with him (questioned in a private office at school) and as a result my son could not be properly advised concerning his response to authorities.  I want to tell you now, with emphasis, that my position on how we instruct our children has changed drastically.  The next time that my son was questioned is even more cunning.  They arrived at his work place (several plain closed investigators) and asked if he would come down to the police station.  They told him that they just needed clarification on some things and that they didn’t have enough officers on duty to warrant asking the questions right then, plus it would save him embarrassment at his work place.  They also asked if they could talk on the way to the station and asked my son to ride with them.  Another officer would drive his car to the station so that he would have transportation later.  My son complied believing that as long as he cooperated they would have no cause to mistreat him. 

A plain closed officer came to my workplace and met me in the parking lot as I was getting off work.  He had obviously been waiting for me to come out.  He told me that they had my son at the police station and they needed me to come down.  When I asked why, he would tell me nothing.  When I arrived at the police station, I was ushered in with the assistance of this officer through locked doors, inaccessible elevators and finally to the locked room where my son was held.  Remember this as it is important later. 

They questioned my son for 2 1/2 hours.  At one point, when the first set of officers had completed their questioning, I was going to take my son and leave.  They asked if I would give them a few more minutes as a couple of other officers needed answers to a few more questions.  I should have left but I didn’t.  They showed us a video of the confession of one of my sons friends.  I could tell by the video that this kid was saying what they wanted to hear.  It was not the confession of a young man who had killed anyone.  This young man believed what the officers had told him…..they would go easy on him if he would just confess. 

After we returned to the interrogation room, they arrested my son and charged him with 3 counts of first degree murder.  His last words were, “Mom, I don’t care what it takes, sell stuff, sell the house and get me a good attorney.  I don’t want to go down for something I didn’t do.”  Then he added, “Don’t worry mom, the truth always comes out.”

If you will notice, my son was never read his MIRANDA rights.  I, being a trusting citizen, did not suspect that I was being manipulated, and by cooperating, was putting my son in peril.  The issue of MIRANDA was raised and the district court ruled that his rights had been violated.  When the DA appealed the ruling, the appellate court ruled that it was not clear whether or not I understood if we were “free to leave at anytime”.  That brings up the security that I had to pass through in order to reach my son.  There was no way for me to leave that building without the assistance of an officer.

We are still trying to undo what was done.  Parents, do not advise your children to give any more information other than their name, address and the name of their parents.  Parents, do not allow your children to be questioned without the presence of  an attorney, EVER!

The final point….when the video of my sons interrogation was shown in court, it had been edited.  I remembered that night very well and I remembered the course of questioning and the resulting action.  The video presented in the court room did not show me trying to leave with my son.  It had been edited.   Read on………

False Confessions: What would it take to make you confess?

by John Terzano The Justice Project

Share this on Twitter - False Confessions: What would it take to make you confess?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:13:33 AM PDT

Why would anyone confess to a crime they did not commit? What would it take to get you to confess to a crime? For Christopher Ochoa, it took twenty hours of questioning and badgering and threats to get him to falsely confess to the murder of a woman in Austin, Texas. As a result, he spent twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Most people find it hard to understand how anyone could ever confess to a crime they did not commit. But it happens over and over again. False confessions are a well-documented reality, especially among vulnerable populations like juveniles and the mentally-impaired. Of all the DNA exonerations nationwide, false confessions occur in over 20 percent of them.

Last week, two major newspapers highlighted two different cases where the confessions of the defendants had been called into questions.

·                                 John Terzano The Justice Project’s diary :: ::

·                                  

As recently reported in the New York Times, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were released in late June after new DNA evidence from an unknown individual cast doubt on their confessions in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin, TX. Attorneys for both men claim the confessions were the result of police coercion and misconduct. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, Ronald Kitchen spent twenty-one years in prison following a confession he made about the murders of five people. After allegations of abuse and torture on behalf of the officer responsible for securing the confession surfaced, his case was turned over to the Attorney General’s office to re-investigate. Kitchen was released when prosecutors dropped all charges against him because they found no evidence he was involved in the crime.

To a jury or judge, a confession is an incredibly powerful piece of evidence. It can overwhelm evidence pointing to a defendant’s innocence, and judges and juries will sometimes convict an individual based on a confession alone. Given the weight of this evidence, special care must be taken to ensure that confessions are accurate.

How can we prevent against false confessions? States can adopt a policy that requires law enforcement officers to record custodial interrogations, from the delivery of a suspect’s Miranda rights to the end of the interview, without interruption. Electronic recording of custodial interrogations has emerged as a powerful innovation and fact-finding tool for both sides of the criminal justice system. It helps protect innocent suspects and helps convict the guilty.

When interrogations are recorded, officers are free to study the suspect’s reactions instead of scribbling notes. Judges and juries are able to see exactly what took place during the interrogation, allowing them to more effectively weigh the evidence. In addition, recording can protect officers from false claims of abuse or coercion and provide an excellent tool for training new officers on proper interrogation techniques. Ultimately, recording is in the best interest of all parties – the defense, the prosecution, and the public – that strong safeguards exist to protect against wrongful imprisonment and reduce the number of convictions overturned on appeal.

Many detectives and prosecutors enthusiastically embrace electronic recording. Over 450 police and sheriff’s departments across the country have independently adopted recording procedures. Unfortunately though, only ten states have statewide laws that require electronic recording. The virtue of electronic recording of custodial interrogations lies not only in its ability to help guard against false confessions, but also in its ability to develop the strongest evidence possible to help convict the guilty. Electronic recording incurs minimal costs to the state in terms of implementation, and when compared to the human and monetary costs of wrongful convictions, it is a sound policy. Every state has a responsibility to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. Electronic recording is a simple reform that can help states live up to that responsibility by helping to create a more fair and accurate criminal justice system.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Posted in Prison Reform Advocates, Juvenile Reform Advocates, From Families of Juvenile Offenders | Print | No Comments »

29. July 2009 by Rev Young.

Report wants life without parole abolished

7/22/2009 11:19 PM

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

A record 140,610 inmates in state and federal prisons are serving life sentences and nearly one-third of those have no possibility of parole, according to a criminal justice research group that supports alternatives to incarceration.

The Sentencing Project, whose reports are regularly cited in academic and government reviews examining criminal justice policy, concluded that the number of inmates sentenced to life without parole has more than tripled to 41,095 since 1992. The report, citing in part the rising cost of incarceration, urges that life without parole be abolished.

The recommendation was met with strong opposition from some law enforcement officials who said life sentences, including life without parole, help drive down violent crime.

Joseph Cassilly, past president of the National District Attorneys Association, acknowledged that long prison terms are a “huge drain on resources.”

He said life sentences are appropriate for violent offenders and even some repeat drug dealers.

“Sometimes there is no way of getting through to these (criminals,)” said Cassilly, who did not dispute the report’s statistical findings.

In the project’s review, titled “No Exit,” researchers also found “overwhelming” racial and ethnic disparities for those serving life terms: 66% are non-white and 77% of juveniles sentenced to life in prison are non-white.

“Life sentences imposed on juveniles represent a fundamental and unwise shift from the long-standing tradition that juveniles are less culpable than adults … and are capable of change,” said Ashley Nellis, a co-author of the report.

Among other findings:

In Alabama, California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York at least one in 6 prisoners is serving a life sentence.

California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania each have more than 3,000 people serving life without parole.

Pennsylvania leads the nation with 345 juveniles serving life without parole.

The costs of housing an aging prison population also are rising. States should expect to pay $1 million for each prisoner who spends at least 40 years incarcerated, the report concluded.

Todd Clear, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the cost of maintaining a permanent prison population is daunting. The total price tag to keep today’s “lifers” incarcerated for the rest of their lives could cost the nation tens of billions of dollars, he said.

Posted in Legal News, Juvenile Reform Advocates | Print | No Comments »