Thursday, April 30, 2009

More Brady Violations

I've mentioned before that it's tough to write in the same area that Scott Henson does because you can't find a light post, tire, or fire hydrant in the neighborhood that he hasn't peed on already, and here's another excellent example.


I posted briefly on Gary Alvin Richard's case yesterday, but Scott's post takes it one step further.

It now appears that the crime lab had several conflicting results, but only reported results that they deemed favorabel to a conviction. Even based on technology existing at the time Richards could have been excluded based on the secreter/non-secreter results. But those were trashed until over 100 cases were recently dusted off to verify HPD crime lab results.

Now, if you're up on this subject you'll remember that Chuck Rosenthal adamantly opposed a review of these cases. So it's telling that we got a hit so early in the process, and today an innocent man has been freed. It's also telling that the DA's office is somewhat equivocating on whether or not this shows actual innocence. I guess they're still using the Roy Criner case as an example of what they think they can get away with at the CCA. To his credit, the defense lawyer praised the DA's office for their cooperation.

The real question: Who's the real bad guy in this one? Without a doubt the crime lab techs are, because they provided false evidence. BUT--did the crime lab tell the DA about all of the conflicting results back in '87? If so, and they withheld it, I think this case is one that gets a DA convicted for withholding Brady material and sending an innocent man to prison.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Only direct intervention by Lykos will make them admit that what they did was wrong. Unfortunately, none of the ADA's will agree and nobody will ever be prosecuted for hiding the true test results.

I hope Lykos follows up on her campaign promise to see whether or not Brady violations are worthy of prosecuting. This one sure is.

Anonymous said...

I notice that the Richard case is getting no play from the pro "old way of doing things" ADA blogs.

Rage Judicata said...

Of course it's not. Although I'd suspect that Murray has the stones to examine this one because it's unlikely to implicate current buddies.