DNA clears man in prison for 26 years

Socrtease said:
I know that the Caucus is all we are talking about but at least some of youwill read this.

DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- -- Charles Chatman said throughout his 26 years in prison that he never raped the woman who lived five houses down from him.

Now 47, Chatman is expected to win his freedom Thursday on the basis of new DNA testing that lawyers say proves his innocence and adds to Dallas County's nationally unmatched number of wrongfully convicted inmates.

"I'm bitter. I'm angry," Chatman told The Associated Press during what was expected to be his last night in jail Wednesday. "But I'm not angry or bitter to the point where I want to hurt anyone or get revenge."

If released on bond at a Thursday court hearing as expected, Chatman will become the 15th inmate from Dallas County since 2001 to be freed by DNA testing. That is more than any other county nationwide, said Natalie Roetzel of the Innocence Project of Texas, an organization of volunteers who investigate claims of wrongful conviction.

Texas leads the country in prisoners freed by DNA testing. Including Chatman, the state will have released at least 30 wrongfully convicted inmates since 2001, according to the Innocence Project.

Mike Ware, who heads the Conviction Integrity Unit in the Dallas County District Attorney's office, said he expects that number to increase.

One of the biggest reasons for the large number of exonerations in Texas is the crime lab used by Dallas County, which accounts for about half the state's DNA cases. Unlike many jurisdictions, the lab used by police and prosecutors retains biological evidence, meaning DNA testing is a viable option for decades-old crimes.

District Attorney Craig Watkins also attributes the exonerations to a past culture of overly aggressive prosecutors seeking convictions at any cost.

Chatman's nearly 27 years in prison for aggravated sexual assault make him the longest-serving inmate in Texas to be freed by DNA evidence, Innocence Project lawyers said.

Chatman was 20 when the victim, a young woman in her 20s, picked him from a lineup. Chatman said he lived five houses down from the victim for 13 years but never knew her.

At the time the woman was assaulted, Chatman said he didn't have any front teeth; he had been certain that feature would set him apart from the real assailant.

"I'm not sure why he ended up on that photo spread to begin with," Ware said.

Chatman, who was convicted in 1981 and sentenced to life in prison, said his faith kept him from giving up.

Ware said Chatman would likely be released on a personal recognizance bond until the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes an official ruling.
Click to expand...

One of the best reasons to be against the death penalty.
 
Watermark said:
Why the hell is our incarceration rate so high?

I mean, compared to any other nation on the planet, it's just ridiculous. Something is up, and it smells bad, fo sho.
Click to expand...

5% of the world's population and 25% of all the world's prisoners.

Why? .. Because slavery is still legal in the US and the prisoner/slaves are toiling for Dell, Microsoft, Westinghouse, Victorias Secret, TWA, the US Army, and a variety of American corporations for about 25 cents an hour.

Businesses are closing, laying off their workers, then re-opening inside of a prison.

No OSHA requirements, no days off, no sick time, no pension .. just slave labor.
 
blackascoal said:
5% of the world's population and 25% of all the world's prisoners.

Why? .. Because slavery is still legal in the US and the prisoner/slaves are toiling for Dell, Microsoft, Westinghouse, Victorias Secret, TWA, the US Army, and a variety of American corporations for about 25 cents an hour.

Businesses are closing, laying off their workers, then re-opening inside of a prison.

No OSHA requirements, no days off, no sick time, no pension .. just slave labor.
Click to expand...

Here's Richard Pryor on prison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txp8B4ek_kk
 
blackascoal said:
Just another day in the "land of the free" .. which incarcerates more of its population than any nation on earth and perhaps more than any nation in history.

Prosecutors fight against the admission of DNA evidence not because it isn't conclusive, but because it is.

"land of the free"
Click to expand...

I think prosecutors shoudl be held personally liable for situations like this. I'm sure they'd act a little more cautiously when prosecuting people unfairly.
 
LadyT said:
I think prosecutors shoudl be held personally liable for situations like this. I'm sure they'd act a little more cautiously when prosecuting people unfairly.
Click to expand...

Good thought, but it will never happen.

Police should also be held responsible for their acts .. but again .. it'll never happen.

Crime, like war, is big business in America.
 
blackascoal said:
Good thought, but it will never happen.

Police should also be held responsible for their acts .. but again .. it'll never happen.

Crime, like war, is big business in America.
Click to expand...

Who would ever become a prosecutor if they were open to liability for being wrong? The pay already sucks.
 
LadyT said:
I think prosecutors shoudl be held personally liable for situations like this. I'm sure they'd act a little more cautiously when prosecuting people unfairly.
Click to expand...

Tiana, that's like holding parole boards responsible for crimes committed by people they let out, or holding judges responsible for innocents put in jail. They are there to make a decision. Putting them in jail for making the wrong one will result to arbitrary and capricious imprisonments, and suddenly no one will want to be on the parole board, be a DA, or be a judge. A bad decision could be made by any of them, even if they followed the rules.
 
Jarod said:
Who would ever become a prosecutor if they were open to liability for being wrong? The pay already sucks.
Click to expand...

Its one thing if innocent mistakes are made. Its another to blatenly disregard evidence and stonewall someone. You'll be left with people that really want the job and who want to make a difference and who will be a lot more just when pursuing people.

A friend of mine from college just became one for a Jersey county. At first she wanted to defend people such as the ones that are featured in project innocence. She says being a prosecutor gives you far more power in making sure that injustices like these don't go on.
 
Jarod said:
Who would ever become a prosecutor if they were open to liability for being wrong? The pay already sucks.
Click to expand...

We need prosecutors who want to serve the public interest, niot get paid large sums of money.

We need prosecutors who aren't trying to be judges by artificially uping their conviction rates.
 
Watermark said:
Tiana, that's like holding parole boards responsible for crimes committed by people they let out, or holding judges responsible for innocents put in jail. They are there to make a decision. Putting them in jail for making the wrong one will result to arbitrary and capricious imprisonments, and suddenly no one will want to be on the parole board, be a DA, or be a judge. A bad decision could be made by any of them, even if they followed the rules.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Parole is more of a judgement call that not all prisoners are entitled to. Purposefully bungling a case to put someone in prison for life for a crime he or she didn't commit is proactively destroying someone's life. Yes. They should be held personally liable in addition to the state.
 
I went to law school KNOWiNG I was going to be a public defender. It is one of the things I told law schools in my admissions packet when they wanted a brief statement about why I wanted to go to law school. I loved being a Public Defender and if New Mexico supported the PD's office better and made sure we got the experts we NEEDED and not the ones they could afford I would have never left. This was never about money for me. I walked John Wilkes Booth for the assassination of Lincoln in a mock trial in 8th grade. I was born to be a criminal litigator, it is in my blood.

I agree with the prosecutor in the article that says that in the past prosecutors were overzealous, shit when DNA first starting clearing people Prosecutors fought to keep it from overturning convictions by saying that the defendant had his day in court and had his appeals and finality was important. But not all prosecutors are this way and mistakes will be made. What I really want to happen to the system is for juries to be allowed to become more informed on how poorly eyewitnesses do in picking the right person. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable has hell and juries should KNOW that but judges are not letting experts testify as to the reliability of eyewitnesses. This is another case where the victim picked him out of a line up and was wrong. She improperly identified someone as a the person that was close enough to penetrate their body with part of his own. That is how unreliable it is.
 
It's a proven scientific fact that it's difficult for people to recongnize faces of races other than the ones of those they grew up around. I read that in a scientific article, and you can google it if you want.

I think that should be taken into consideration whenever white victims identify a man from a black lineup - I've seen to many cases of white people misidentifying black people whenever their faces are clearly different, no matter how close they had been to each other before.
 
Watermark said:
It's a proven scientific fact that it's difficult for people to recongnize faces of races other than the ones of those they grew up around. I read that in a scientific article, and you can google it if you want.

I think that should be taken into consideration whenever white victims identify a man from a black lineup - I've seen to many cases of white people misidentifying black people whenever their faces are clearly different, no matter how close they had been to each other before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that’s something no one wants to talk about Water, it’s too loaded. But you are right, and I would discount eyewitness testimony for exactly that reason. For me, if you want a guilty verdict, you better show me DNA.
 
Jarod said:
One of the best reasons to be against the death penalty.
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah, the death penalty. Fine.

But if someone told me today I face either 27 years in a federal penitentiary for a crime I did not commit, or the death penalty…what difference would it make?

This shit shouldn’t happen at all, period. Americans are morons. They’ll convict anyone. Someone’s got to pay. They don’t much care who. Hello, that’s why we’re in Iraq!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top