How long until they decide to outlaw trial by jury?

The backlash against the not guilty verdicts in the Casey Anthony case has reached Texas. State Sen. Chris Harris (R-Arlington) has let the world know that he intends to introduce a bill that would make it a felony to fail to report a missing child.

That's just what we need in the Lone Star State, another felony.

And, just so we can be reminded that bad facts made even worse laws - Sen. Harris said he will affix Caylee Anthony's name to the proposed legislation. Because we all know that that's what this knee jerk reaction to a jury verdict is all about.

Sen. Harris doesn't give a rat's ass about Caylee Anthony. He saw the opportunity to curry favor with the wing nuts in his district by slapping around the right wing's latest bogeyman -- Casey Anthony.

Don't blame Ms. Anthony for the jury's verdict, Mr. Harris. Take a closer look at the prosecutors. Did they overplay their hand by seeking the death penalty? Did they have one iota of actual physical evidence tying Ms. Anthony to the alleged crime?

While we're drafting legislation in response to a verdict in a Florida trial -- how about you draft legislation that would make it a felony for a prosecutor to withhold exculpatory evidence like a witness who recants his testimony the night before trial. We could call it the Anthony Graves Act.

We could draft legislation that would make it a felony for a prosecutor to hide forensic evidence in order to prevent the defense from running tests. We could call it the Clarence Brandley Act.

We could draft legislation that would make it a felony for prosecutors to put on scientific evidence that they know is nothing but pseudo-scientific junk. We could call it the Cameron Willingham Act.

But no. Wrongful convictions aren't on Sen. Harris' radar. He has no problem with folks being convicted as the result of prosecutorial misconduct and junk science. He has no problem with juries who convict people on less than proof beyond all reasonable doubt. He has no problem with judges who are more concerned with efficiency than justice.

Apparently Sen. Harris has a problem with juries who follow the law.

Texas denies compensation to Clarence Brandley

What is nine years worth to you?

What about nine years in prison?

Nine years without being able to hold your loved ones?

Nine years of your life lost because the state coerced witnesses and hid evidence?

The answer from the State of Texas is nothing.

Clarence Brandley was charged with a murder he didn't commit. He was tried and convicted for a murder he didn't commit. Even after witnesses came forward and said their testimony had been coerced by investigators, the Montgomery County (Texas) District Attorney's Office insisted that Mr. Brandley was guilty of the crime.

Even after an appeals court found that Mr. Brandley had been denied due process at trial, prosecutors continued to insist that he was guilty.

And now, twenty years after being released, the State of Texas has declared that Clarence Brandley is not entitled to compensation from a fund for the victims of false convictions because he never received a ruling from a court declaring him innocent.

Perhaps the comptroller has never heard of the presumption of innocence. Perhaps the comptroller doesn't realize that we are all innocent unless proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Perhaps the comptroller doesn't grasp the fact that Mr. Brandley's conviction was overturned as a result of the conduct of the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office.

Clarence Brandley spent nine years on death row because he was a black man accused of killing a white girl. He was convicted by an all-white jury. And now the state is sticking it to him again.

See also:

"The passing of a hero," The Defense Rests (Sept. 12, 2010)

The passing of a hero

About 30 years ago in Conroe a manager for the Bellville High School volleyball team was raped and killed in a bathroom at Conroe High School during a pre-season volleyball tournament. Police arrested Clarence Brandley, a black janitor, for the crime. I grew up in Conroe and while I don't remember all of the details (I was getting ready to start my 8th grade year at Travis Jr. High), I do remember the mood.

It was the classic southern crime story -- a black male accused of raping and killing a white girl. Mr. Brandley was portrayed as a monster and a predator while the victim, Cheryl Ferguson, was beatified. While there was some physical evidence, little of it was ever tested and, later, what there was turned up missing. I remember writing a letter to the editor of the Conroe paper stating that there was no evidence the linked Mr. Brandley to the crime and that he should be freed -- my mother was worried that someone might retaliate against me because of what I had written.

After a mistrial, a Montgomery County jury convicted Mr. Brandley of murder and sentenced him to die in 1981. Thus began years of furious appeals and writs before Mr. Brandley was exonerated in 1990. The only evidence linking Mr. Brandley to the murder was the testimony of two other janitors (who later recanted their testimony).

I bring this up because last week Don Brown, a longtime Conroe defense attorney died. I didn't realize until I read his obituary that he was the man who defended Mr. Brandley at trial. While he might have lost that trial, in the end, he, and his client, got the victory they deserved.

A response to Kelly Siegler

So Kelly Siegler, late of the Harris County District Attorney's Office (after a failed run for the office in the Republican primary) thinks prosecutors aren't trying to convict innocent citizens as much as they are just plain lazy.


"Too many prosecutors demand that the cases presented to them for the filing of charges come to them with all the questions answered and wrapped in a pretty, little bow...Maybe it's laziness that's the problem."


The problem isn't laziness -- God knows there are lazy prosecutors, lazy defense attorneys, lazy judges and lazy court staff. The problem is a basic disagreement of what the law says prosecutors must hand over to the defense in a criminal prosecution.



In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor is under a continuing duty to disclose all material that is exculpatory, or might be exculpatory, to the defendant. That could be anything from forensic evidence that points away from the defendant, to conflicting eyewitness statements, to the criminal backgrounds of witnesses, to inconsistent statements from an alleged victim, to whether or not the complaining witness is cooperating.


"I betcha if you could interview a group of experienced detectives and ask them what their number one pet peeve about their job was, the answer you would get would be having to present their cases to prosecutors who have no guts."


It's not laziness that keeps the prosecutor from handing over this type of evidence, it is, instead, a culture in a district attorney's office that winning is the only thing that matters -- and that leads to the attitude that if the material isn't disclosed, no one will ever know about it.


That's not laziness, that's contempt of the Constitution and the rights afforded to the citizens of this state and this country. That's the reason that The Innocence Project is still fighting to free those who were wrongly convicted. That's the reason people such as Clarence Brandley and Josiah Sutton sat in prison for years for crimes they didn't commit.