20 Dec 2015, 10:12 pm
Here is a death penalty case from California.
http://cases.justia.com/california/supr ... 1396114585
It's really unbelievable that someone could be sentenced to death on this evidence. Even worse, that the California Supreme Court would rationalize it.
The evidence linking defendant to the crime:
(a) vaginal swabs taken from the victims indicated that defendant had sex with the victim (to an extremely high degree of probability) within 48 hours prior to the murder:
(b) Testing from a blanket of a semen stain where the victim's body lay indicated it was defendant's to an extremely high degree of probability;
(c) There were notes indicating defendant called the victim three times that night. Defendant had been calling the victim in the last month or two;
(d) Defendant paged the victim's roommate at 4:00 a.m and she said that defendant sounded funny;
(e) Defendant asked a detective about where was blood found from the suspect;
He expressed concern about there being DNA evidence;
(f) Defendant changed his story regarding whether he had had sex with the victim;
Evidence pointing away from the defendant:
(a) Sperm on semen found on a comforter facing away from the victim's body came from the victim's boyfriend;
(b) no sign of forced entry.
(c) No fingerprints found at the scene. Nothing from victim's fingernails. Hair found in victim's hand was not consistent with the defendant.
(d) No sign of physical injury to defendant shortly after the body was found. No vaginal injury which occurs in 30-98% of rapes according to an expert;
(e) Defendant's girlfriend said his demeanor was fine at 11:00. Timeline indicates murder would have occurred at around 10:00 pm if he did it;
(f) Recording on videocassette from defendant said don't give page number of victim's roommate to defendant's girlfriend because she was tripping;
(g) Defendant's girlfriend threatened victim shortly before murder;
(h) Neighbor of victim said she saw boyfriend parking victim's car at 6:00 pm on the night of the on night of murder. Another neighbor said she thought she saw someone who looked like victim's boyfriend with a TV in front of victim's apartment at 10 pm on the night of the murder. Victim's boyfriend says he was at friend's house that day and night; he said there were 15-20 people who came to friend's house but friend only remembers victim's boyfriend;
(I) Victim and victim's boyfriend were having problems. Boyfriend claims he and victim were going to have sex on night before murder but he felt Ill;
(j) No (or slight--purse snatching) evidence of prior acts of violence by defendant.
(k) someone not looking by defendant kept asking about who set victim's car on fire.
In my opinion, this was not enough evidence to convict. There were two others reasonable suspects--the victim's boyfriend and defendant's girlfriend. And some evidence pointed towards defendant, but some did not. That's reasonable doubt. The first trial ended in a mistrial when the lone holdout juror was black. In the second trial there was a Batson/Wheeler challenge over the use of peremptory challenges by the prosecutor against two black juror . A concurring opinion by Justice Liu (who btw might wind up on the U.S. Supreme Court some day) discussed how of the California Supreme Court had sustained 1 out of the last 102 Batson/Wheeler challenges.
You may come to a different conclusion, but this case is interesting and informative as to the issues of whether juries can judge cases without being affected by racial bias, whether courts are properly making sure that prosecutors are not using peremptories to get black jurors off of cases , and whether court are (or even can) properly overseeing capital verdicts to ensure that innocent persons are not sentenced to death.
http://cases.justia.com/california/supr ... 1396114585
It's really unbelievable that someone could be sentenced to death on this evidence. Even worse, that the California Supreme Court would rationalize it.
The evidence linking defendant to the crime:
(a) vaginal swabs taken from the victims indicated that defendant had sex with the victim (to an extremely high degree of probability) within 48 hours prior to the murder:
(b) Testing from a blanket of a semen stain where the victim's body lay indicated it was defendant's to an extremely high degree of probability;
(c) There were notes indicating defendant called the victim three times that night. Defendant had been calling the victim in the last month or two;
(d) Defendant paged the victim's roommate at 4:00 a.m and she said that defendant sounded funny;
(e) Defendant asked a detective about where was blood found from the suspect;
He expressed concern about there being DNA evidence;
(f) Defendant changed his story regarding whether he had had sex with the victim;
Evidence pointing away from the defendant:
(a) Sperm on semen found on a comforter facing away from the victim's body came from the victim's boyfriend;
(b) no sign of forced entry.
(c) No fingerprints found at the scene. Nothing from victim's fingernails. Hair found in victim's hand was not consistent with the defendant.
(d) No sign of physical injury to defendant shortly after the body was found. No vaginal injury which occurs in 30-98% of rapes according to an expert;
(e) Defendant's girlfriend said his demeanor was fine at 11:00. Timeline indicates murder would have occurred at around 10:00 pm if he did it;
(f) Recording on videocassette from defendant said don't give page number of victim's roommate to defendant's girlfriend because she was tripping;
(g) Defendant's girlfriend threatened victim shortly before murder;
(h) Neighbor of victim said she saw boyfriend parking victim's car at 6:00 pm on the night of the on night of murder. Another neighbor said she thought she saw someone who looked like victim's boyfriend with a TV in front of victim's apartment at 10 pm on the night of the murder. Victim's boyfriend says he was at friend's house that day and night; he said there were 15-20 people who came to friend's house but friend only remembers victim's boyfriend;
(I) Victim and victim's boyfriend were having problems. Boyfriend claims he and victim were going to have sex on night before murder but he felt Ill;
(j) No (or slight--purse snatching) evidence of prior acts of violence by defendant.
(k) someone not looking by defendant kept asking about who set victim's car on fire.
In my opinion, this was not enough evidence to convict. There were two others reasonable suspects--the victim's boyfriend and defendant's girlfriend. And some evidence pointed towards defendant, but some did not. That's reasonable doubt. The first trial ended in a mistrial when the lone holdout juror was black. In the second trial there was a Batson/Wheeler challenge over the use of peremptory challenges by the prosecutor against two black juror . A concurring opinion by Justice Liu (who btw might wind up on the U.S. Supreme Court some day) discussed how of the California Supreme Court had sustained 1 out of the last 102 Batson/Wheeler challenges.
You may come to a different conclusion, but this case is interesting and informative as to the issues of whether juries can judge cases without being affected by racial bias, whether courts are properly making sure that prosecutors are not using peremptories to get black jurors off of cases , and whether court are (or even can) properly overseeing capital verdicts to ensure that innocent persons are not sentenced to death.
