anatomy of a wrongful conviction - f d of a... · anatomy of a wrongful conviction. recognize that...
TRANSCRIPT
THERESA NEWMA ND U K E L A W W R O N G F U L C O N V I C T I O N S C L I N I C
Anatomy of a Wrongful Conviction
NC’s State of Innocence
The Innocence Project®
Duke and UNC Innocence Projects
The NC Center on Actual InnocenceMumma
The Duke Wrongful Convictions Clinic Coleman, Newman, and Lau
The NC Chief Justice’s Commission on Actual Innocence
The NC Innocence Inquiry CommissionMontgomery-Blinn
The Innocence Network
Selected WCC Cases
Noe Moreno
The Charges
January 2006 Car Crash
Vehicular homicide
DUI
Enhanced Charges
2nd degree murder
Assault with a deadly weapon
Assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury
Driving while impaired
May 2007 Guilty Plea
As charged
A Game of “Telephone”
The Game Cont’d
State’s Accident Reconstruction Report
In summary, it is my professional opinion based primarily on the injuries sustained, the force vectors and the science of collision reconstruction, but also supported by the positions of the occupants as described by on-scene EMS providers, that Noel Moreno simply could not have been the driver of the 1995 Isuzu Rodeo involved in this collision. It is also my opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Jorge Moreno was the driver. I am happy to confirm this opinion either by telephone or through deposition or other legal proceedings.
Motion for Appropriate Relief
MR. MORENO’S TRIAL LAWYER SUFFERED UNDER AN IMPERMISSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
MR. MORENO’S TRIAL LAWYER CONDUCTED AN INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION
MR. MORENO’S TRIAL LAWYER DID NOT ADVISE HIM OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S PLEA OFFER
MR. MORENO’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT “KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY” AND SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN
MR. MORENO, BY SHOWING MANIFEST INJUSTICE, IS ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA
THE STATE ALLOWED MR. MORENO TO PLEAD GUILTY, KNOWING THAT THE CORE FACTUAL ISSUE IN
THE CASE WAS UNRESOLVED
HEARING SET FOR OCTOBER 2012
The Hearing (on August 31, 2012)
LaMonte Armstrong
The Crime
NC A&T Professor, Ernestine Compton
Murdered in her home (stabbing and strangulation)
No/too many leads at first
Crime Stoppers tip narrowed the field/investigation
Case went dormant for six years
Crime Stoppers caller visited, case renewed, and LA arrested.
The State’s Evidence
None of the physical evidence implicated LA
Only testimonial evidence from four incentivized witnesses
A Crime Stoppers caller (later co-defendant/principal witness)
Two jailhouse “fabricators”
A man who said he saw LA (and the CS caller) at the victim’s house
The First Recantation
The Second Recantation
The Third
Legal Claims and Hearing
New Evidence, Recantation
Brady v. Maryland (withheld evidence) Claims Evidence that principal witness was being paid by the police
Evidence of a viable alternate suspect
Surreptitious recordings of LA
Evidence about the time of death
Evidence about the purported motive
Giglio (false evidence) Claims
Evidentiary Hearing scheduled for September 4, 2012
Unexpected call in June
Another Suspect
The Other Suspect
The Hearing
Lawyer (Son)Lawyer (father)
father/son
law partners
SP’s Case and Representation:
DSS Defendant Alleged Victim
Lawyer (Son)Lawyer (father)
accuserstepfather/son
father/son
law partners
lawyer/client
DSS Defendant James, Alleged Victim
Lawyer (Son)Lawyer (father)
accuserstepfather/son
father/son
law partners
former
lawyer/client
DSS Defendant James, Alleged Victim
DSS Social WorkerLawyer (Son)
Lawyer (father)
accuserstepfather/son
wife/husbandfather/son
law partners
daughter/father-in-law
former
lawyer/client
DSS Defendant James, Alleged Victim
DSS Social Worker
Lawyer (Son)
Lawyer (father)
accuserstepfather/son
wife/husbandfather/son
law partners
daughter/father-in-law
former
lawyer/client
Recurring Features
Cursory police investigations
Brady and Giglio/Napue
IAC
Conflicts of interest (especially in more rural areas)
Over-reliance on testimonial evidence (and incentivized witnesses), w/no collaboration
Forensic science missteps and misunderstandings
Well-intentioned but half-hearted post-conviction efforts (e.g., recantation claims)
Decisional errors (from police to juries)
Post-conviction resistance from prosecution/judiciary
Indifference