Eugene Gilyard: Closer to Freedom?

Our client, Eugene Gilyard, filed a petition with the Court of Common Pleas back in March, 2011, when he learned who really killed Thomas Keal in 1995. Mr. Gilyard had been convicted of the murder of the Philadelphia store owner when the victim’s daughter, who saw her father gunned down, identified Mr. Gilyard from a photo array 2 years after the crime. For the past 15 years, Eugene has been telling anyone who would listen that he is an innocent man. When he finally learned that Mr. Keal’s murderer was ready to take responsibility for his own actions, Eugene regained hope for his release.

But justice would have to wait. After the Pennsylvania Innocence Project took on his case and developed even more evidence establishing Eugene’s innocence, we filed a new petition with new facts for the Court. That Petition, which you can read here with the exhibits here, told the story of a man who has been imprisoned for  15 years for a crime he had nothing to do with. Hoping for a quick resolution, justice for Eugene would have to wait some more.

After many missed deadlines for filing a response to Mr. Gilyard’s Petition, the Commonwealth finally filed its 8 page answer here. In essence, the Commonwealth seems to be arguing that even if Mr. Gilyard is innocent, because he should have filed his Petition earlier his claims “should be dismissed without a hearing.” Hoping for a quick resolution to his nearly 2-decade nightmare, we filed a response for Mr. Gilyard last week, which you can read here. In May, Mr. Gilyard has a hearing in the Court of Common Pleas where we will argue that since he has shown that there is strong evidence to show that another man got away with murder the Court should, at a minimum, give him a chance to have that evidence heard. Stay tuned.

Prisoners in Community Custody in Washington Now Allowed Government Funded DNA Test

Due to the collaborative work of students at the University of Washington School of Law Innocence Project Northwest, prisoners in limited community custody are now entitled to government funded DNA testing. Leading the case in State v. Slattum were students Jacob Dishion, Kelly Paradis, and Anna Tolin, the Innocence Project Northwest’s deputy director. Dishion served as the Project’s representative.

The case is critical for Washington state defendants accused of crimes they did not commit seeking to have evidence from their prosecutions submitted for DNA testing. Under the state’s law, only those serving “a term of imprisonment” are able to request DNA testing. Mr. Slattum was neither in prison nor serving a probationary sentence; he was, however, under “community custody” and was required to register as a sex-offender for the remainder of his life. The Washington Supreme Court held, following the students’ argument, that a strict interpretation of the word “imprisonment” would be unjust, and would mean that many people who should be able to get DNA testing would be denied.

Under the ruling, prisoners in community custody must first fill out a form claiming their innocence which has to be approved. Then they become eligible to receive the state funded DNA test. There are twice as many prisoners in community custody than those that are not, meaning this would undoubtedly cost the state more money. State v. Slattum was the first case in the state of Washington to address this law.  The Slattum case is the Project’s first victory in which a student served as a representative.

Case Study Pinpoints Elements of Wrongful Convictions

The Washington Institute for Public and International Affairs Research at American University has distinguished 10 of the most common components that lead to wrongful convictions. Lawyer, social scientist, and American University Professor Jon Gould conducting the three year study, “Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice.” The researchers used 460 cases from between 1980 and 2012 for their study. All the cases were either “near miss” cases — where a person was wrongly arrested by released before prosecution — or wrongful convictions. The researchers concluded the most common components of wrongful convictions are:

• State’s death penalty culture
• Strength of prosecution’s case
• Strength of defendant’s case
• Prosecution withholding evidence
• Forensic evidence errors
• Defendant’s age
• Defendant’s criminal history
• Intentional misidentification
• Dishonesty from non-eyewitnesses
• Family witnesses testifying for defendant

Gould believes the paths to wrongful convictions begin in the interrogation room and suggests police make checklists and be proactive with forensic testing. Several of these factors are obviously discriminatory such as the defendant’s age and criminal background.

Regrettably, this discrimination happens on a reoccurring basis and no one should have to be penalized for a crime they didn’t commit whether it is due to their past, perjury, or the hidden motives of a legal team. At the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, we are incessantly working to prevent and bring attention to these transgressions within the legal system.

Football Player Remains Optimistic After Exoneration

California Innocence Project Director Justin Brooks with Brian Banks the day of his exoneration

Following six years of incarceration for the false allegation of rape, Brian Banks has finally been acquainted with justice. Banks was imprisoned at Chino State Penitentiary after Wanetta Gibson, a female acquaintance of Banks in high school, accused him of raping and kidnapping her following the an afternoon in which the two consensually made out. Banks was a very promising football player at Polytechnic High School and football scouts paid a visit to Bank’s high school in his sophomore year to witness Bank’s talent. In 2002, Banks was robbed of the opportunity of a football scholarship and promising career in the NFL because Gibsons wanted to conceal the fact that she was sexually active from her mother. Gibson even received 1.5 million dollars from the school district she and Banks attended because they’d been declared guilty of not ensuring Banks’ safety.

Release after completion of 85 percent of his prison term didn’t necessarily indicate freedom for Banks. Not only did he know he’d missed the critical period for success in a football career, but Banks had to register as a sex offender and wear a parole bracelet on his ankle. A friend request from Gibson would allow Banks to become one step closer to truly being a freed man.

When Gibson initiated contact with Banks on Facebook and suggested they meet, Banks used this unexpected communication to officially establish his innocence. Banks was able to allow he and Gibson’s meeting to be recorded and Gibson eventually confessed to lying about the allegations she made and profited from over 10 years ago. Gibson also stated that she’d had no intentions of returning the money she was given. The video and audio of the meeting was presented at trial by the California Innocence Project and on May 24, 2012, Banks was finally deemed innocent and exonerated from the charges.

Banks was given an opportunity by the coach of the Seattle Seahawks whom Banks had met when he was 17. He was not drafted by the Seahawks following the tryouts nor was he drafted by other teams he’d tried out for. Banks’ knack for football declined in those 10 years and it is rather unlikely he’ll ever be able to possess the same athletic skill he had before his imprisonment. While Banks was able to play for the Las Vegas Locomotives, a team within the United Football League, the League was eventually forced to end operations due to insufficient funds. In his recent interview on 60 Minutes this past Sunday, it’s evident that Banks still maintains an admirably positive attitude and he expressed no desire for Gibson to face any consequences for the false accusations that denied Banks of his freedom and destroyed his future in the NFL. Although Banks is now a freed man, there are numerous cases such as his that are not retried and in which those that have been falsely accused are not exonerated. The Pennsylvania Innocence Project is dedicated to proving the innocence of men such as Banks that have been victims to false allegations.

Pa. Innocence Project is Headed West!

After four years of work developing the foundation for the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, we are now ready to begin reaching out across the entire state. This May, the Project will hold its first event in Pittsburgh, with the great assistance of Duquesne Law School professor John Rago and Project Board Membe Dave Fawcett. We will hold a day-long training for lawyers interested in working with the Project in litigating claims of innocence. Similar to other “boot camp” trainings we have done in the past, this day marks the first full program for lawyers who practice in and near Pittsburgh.

The Pennsylvania Innocence Project reviews cases from all over the Commonwealth (67 counties in all!). In the past cases near Pittsburgh were reviewed by the Innocence Institute at Point Park University, a journalism-based program run by investigative journalist Bill Moushey. However, the Institute closed last year, and the Project has been working hard to fill the great void left.

This training will feature many active in the Pittsburgh legal community, and is designed to provide lawyers not familiar with innocence or post-conviction work the full background and training they will need to join the Project in its mission of exonerating the innocent.

More on the Delaware County “Near Miss”

By Marissa Boyers Bluestine

The Philadelphia Inquirer ran the following opinion piece, written by Pennsylvania Innocence Project Legal Director Marissa Bluestine:

Last week, the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office withdrew murder charges against a man it determined to be innocent.

Tahmir Craig was charged with the Memorial Day killing of Devon Williams after several witnesses identified him as the man seen in a surveillance photo. Craig maintained his innocence, saying he was with his family at the time of the murder. This story could have easily ended in a conviction and life sentence for Craig. But District Attorney Jack Whelan, after prodding from Craig’s family and attorney, continued his investigation. An FBI analysis of the surveillance photos determined that Craig was innocent: The shooter stood about six inches taller than Craig. Responding quickly, Whelan dropped all charges against Craig and he was released from prison. The case remains under investigation, as police try to identify the murderer still on the loose.

Tahmir Craig had luck – both bad and good. Bad in being arrested for a crime another committed, but good in that police and prosecutors engaged in good law-enforcement work. They did not let Craig’s arrest serve as the end of the investigation. A manifest injustice was averted, and an innocent man freed. This is what we might call a “near miss.”

Social scientists have started to study these “near misses” and compare them with cases in which innocent people were wrongly convicted. The difference between the two is often continued investigation.

For example, once police get a confession from a suspect, they may not investigate further, believing strongly they have the right person. Or a forensic technician may determine that a fingerprint at the scene matches the suspect only after learning that the suspect confessed. Having that confession, and believing the suspect guilty, they view all information through that lens. It’s called “confirmatory bias,” and it’s how people make sense of multiple streams of data.

The key in law enforcement is to help police overcome this inherent bias and view evidence objectively. For example, forensic scientists should be shielded from unnecessary information – like a confession or eyewitness identification – before making comparisons against a given target. Police should be encouraged to continue investigating even after a confession or strong eyewitness identification.

As law-enforcement agencies grapple with the troubling fact that our justice systems sometimes ensnare innocent individuals, police and prosecutors are looking for ways to prevent these tragedies.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, for example, has been quietly overhauling the charging unit. Rather than accept cases for charging that depend on shaky, weak, or even questionable evidence, the experienced attorneys who decide whether charges should be approved insist on more. Prosecutors are working closely with police detectives, requiring more evidence, corroborative information, and confirming tests.

No one wants the wrong person arrested and convicted. Not the victim of the crime, not the prosecutor, and certainly not the police. But, many times, innocent people have been arrested and convicted when the true perpetrator’s identity was just an interview or forensic test away. The benefits of digging deeper are obvious: A strong case gets stronger, or information comes to light that shows the suspect to be innocent. Justice is served either way.