J.A. Released From Jail !

Here's an "Open Letter" from the founder, J.A., of this blog I received a couple weeks ago when he was in Co. Jail again on another parole violation. He has since been released and is once again forced into homelessness. Leave a message for him on in the comments section if you'd like.

   How are you my friends? Me? Well, I've been better. I'm back in Co. Jail on a parole violation. I forgot to go to my monthly meeting with the parole shrink and then forgot to charge up my GPS Shackle. I was sentenced to 140 days with 1/2 time for my "crimes". I have to serve 70 days at a cost to CA taxpayers of $116 a day according to CDCR. That's going to come to around $10,000 for my stay here. Where's the justice in that? $10,000 for missing an appointment and letting a battery die out? A regular crime wave. Thank God I was taken off the streets. I just may have Jay Walked or littered. Jessica's Law has become a huge money making machine for those who profit off of jails and prisons.These bastards have stolen 17+ years out of my life after being falsely accused in 1985. Again I find myself a commodity to this corrupt system. The Sex Crime Witch Hunt is very much alive in CA. This nightmare never ends. A nightmare 10,000 other S.O.'s on parole are going thru in CA.

   My troubles all started in 1985 in Salem, Oregon when I was falsely accused by a deranged, mentally ill, drug addict who accused me in order to file a million dollar lawsuit. Since my wrongful conviction I've broke out of prison in 1990, refused to register, jumped parole a 1/2 dozen times, and became an activist for Men's and prisoner's rights. Since April of this year my life has been going down hill. I lost my van, my home , and was forced to live on the streets like an animal. I have family and friends I could stay with, but with Jessica's Law's residential restrictions I am forced to be homeless. This is all so insane. This is just what CA needs. Thousands of S.O.'s on parole forced into homelessness walking around all night like zombies with no hope for a better life. Take away all hope from a man and what do you have? A very dangerous man with nothing to lose. Great job Jessica's Law.
   I was about to turn myself in and went to say goodbye to some friends and family. I had not cut off my GPS Shackle and went to a bar to have a couple drinks before jail. All of a sudden a 1/2 a dozen cops come in the bar and I'm busted. I was pissed and I guess I had a little bit of an attitude. First the cops beat the hell out of me at the station and then guards beat me at the main jail. Of course I was handcuffed. My police report said I did not have on my GPS Shackle. Damn liars! They were trying to get me another charge. Now the Parole Dept. expects me to pay $500 for the "lost" GPS Shackle. Good luck with that.

   You know what I've noticed being back in Co. Jail? S.O.'s on parole keep coming back over and over because Jessica's Law makes parole impossible to complete. It's a regular revolving door of S.O.'s here at a cost to CA taxpayers of $116 a day. Just how much money does Jessica's Law cost CA every year? This unconstitutional, insane, useless "law" is costing this state hundreds of million of dollars a year. Let's look at the facts. According to CDCR, there are 10,000 S.O. parolees that have GPS Shackles locked onto their ankles. These GPS Shackles alone costs this state 60 million dollars a year. Add this to all the jail time for petty parole violations S.O.'s must now endure due to Jessica's Law, parolees forced into homelessness due to residential restrictions that drain social services, the medical costs for the homeless, food stamps, ect... It is easy to see that Jessica's Law costs this bankrupt state hundreds of million of dollars a year. Why doesn't the medias report this outrage?

   I should be released soon ( I hope ). My plans? My options are very limited. I can't run anymore. I'm out of money and just too damn old now. I've spent years living underground and totally off the grid. Just can't do it anymore. This nightmare has been going on for 28 years now. I plan to do my 16 months left of parole and get the hell out of this Police State. Once CA was famous for having the best educational and University system in the world and social services for the poor, sick, and elderly second to none. Those are all things of the past. CA is now world famous for It's huge Prison Industry. This state alone locks up more people than most countries, except for China and Russia. How can you be proud of that? Makes me sick! I'm going back to Alaska in 16 months. Hopefully, The United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" still means something there. Seeing how I am Alaskan I just have one last thing to say. You fucking bastards have taken most of my life and I just have two words for ya all - FUCK OFF !!!Alaska or Bust in 2014! Take Care My Friends, J.A. 

San Diego Judge Rules Residential Restrictions Unreasonable

From: KBPS http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/sep/14/judge-rules-san-diego-sex-offender-residency-restr/

Judge Rules San Diego Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Unreasonable

Friday, September 14, 2012

By Lorraine Bailey, Courthouse News Service

It is "unreasonable" and "oppressive" to forbid registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, a California appeals court ruled.
California voters adopted Proposition 83, also known as Jessica's Law, in 2006 to impose strict regulations on registered sex offenders.
One provision in particular prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park.
In 2010, the California Supreme Court ruled that the housing restriction applies to all paroled sex offenders, regardless of when they committed their crime, but the court said it did not have enough evidence to rule on law's constitutionality.
Following this ruling, William Taylor, Jeffrey Glynn, Julie Briley and Stephen Todd, all registered sex offenders living in San Diego County, challenged the residency restriction in Superior Court.
All four parolees were unable to find housing after their release: Taylor and Briley lived in an alley behind the parole office on the advice of their parole agents, Todd lived in the San Diego riverbed with other registered sex offenders who had no place to live, and Glynn lived in his van.
In 2011, Judge Michael Wellington held an eight-day evidentiary hearing in which experts testified that 24.5 percent of San Diego residential properties comply with the Jessica's Law residency requirement, but most of these dwellings are single-family homes. Less than 3 percent of multifamily housing meets the requirement.
Wellington subsequently ruled that the parole condition was "unconstitutionally 'unreasonable'" because it "violated petitioners' right to intrastate travel, their right to establish a home and their right to privacy and was not narrowly drawn and specifically tailored to the individual circumstances of each sex offender parolee."
California's Fourth Appellate District affirmed Tuesday, finding that the law's "blanket enforcement as a parole condition in San Diego County has been unreasonable and constitutes arbitrary and oppressive official action."
San Diego's housing market for registered sex offenders is "grim," according to the ruling.
"Given the county's low vacancy rate, the petitioners' general inability to pay more than $850 to $1,000 per month for rent, and the unwillingness of many landlords to rent to petitioners with their criminal histories, significantly less than three percent of the county's multifamily residences are realistically available to registered sex offender parolees in the county," Justice Patricia Benke wrote for a three-member panel. "There are so few legal housing options in urban areas in the county that many offenders face the choice of living in rural areas or becoming homeless."
The panel also noted how the residency restriction limits parolees' access to rehabilitative and medical treatment services, which "are generally located in the densely populated areas of the county."
"Relegated to rural areas of the county, petitioners are cut off from access to employment, public transportation and medical care," Benke wrote.
"We find the blanket residency restriction, as applied in San Diego County, excessive and unduly broad in relation to its purpose - namely, to establish predator free zones around schools and parks where children gather," she concluded. "The statute limits the housing choices of all sex offenders identically, without regard to the type of victim or the risk of reoffending."

S.O.'s are People Too

From: The Daily Aztez http://www.thedailyaztec.com/2012/09/sex-offenders-are-people-too/

Sex offenders are people too

By Leonardo Castaneda,

The law has failed on sex offenders. Rather than preventing crime, the law makes crime inevitable. California’s Fourth Appellate District court recently ruled current laws regarding where sex offenders can live as “unreasonable.”

This is not an isolated case, but a pattern. California’s judicial system has slowly shifted away from prevention and rehabilitation toward punitive retaliation. Obviously, criminals are not the most pitiable people so it’s hard to feel bad for a registered sex offender, but one measure of a developed society is how well it treats its most despicable members. An advanced society tries to put an end to the cycle of crime by rehabilitating criminals so they can atone for what they did and then get back to their lives. A less advanced society is content with punishing transgressors by casting them off into a life where crime is the only viable path.
According to San Diego Superior Court Judge Michael Wellington, San Diego has been content with punishment and unconcerned with prevention and rehabilitation for too long. The stigma attached to criminals, especially those accused of sexual offences, make it extremely difficult for them to find a job. Voter-approved Proposition 83,
“Jessica’s Law,” prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Less than three percent of multifamily houses in San Diego would be eligible, assuming those landlords are willing to rent the residence to a sex offender.
In the end, sex offenders are pushed out of the city and into scarcely populated rural areas with other criminals. The examples given by KPBS of four individuals challenging the legality of the residency restrictions are indicative of the problem: two individuals lived in the alley behind the parole office, one in his van and one with other sex offenders in a San Diego riverbed.
The conditions other criminals face are equally inhumane. The level of overcrowding in California prisons forced a judge to take control of the penal system. The surplus will be shipped back to the counties because the system can no longer handle all the criminals it produces. Punitive rules such as the three strikes penalty, up for voter review in the upcoming election, turn repeat minor offenders into lifetime prisoners.
Forced to the edges of society, these people don’t have access to jobs, rehabilitation services or even basic housing. They are forced into a life where crime seems like their only logical path. Their crimes vary but they are often loathsome acts, making it easy to dismiss their perpetual punishment. But this is when it’s most important for us to take a stance for justice. The goal of our judicial system should be to prevent crime and rehabilitate criminals, regardless of their offenses.
Our commitment to justice is not tested with everyday thieves, but in the extremes of criminal activity. We don’t test our devotion to rehabilitation with the little old lady caught stealing a ham to feed her starving grandchildren. We test it with child molesters and rapists. We must be able to treat those individuals with fairness and attempt to rectify whatever made them act in a criminal way.
Of course, such an overhaul of our attitude toward crime won’t be easy. We are accustomed to harsh punishment to scare people into not being criminals. The goal instead should be to eliminate the conditions causing an individual to do something illegal. Crime prevention needs to stretch beyond the legal system. The best antidote for crime is more available jobs, not more police officers. And a judicial system concerned with getting criminals the help they need to avoid future crimes would benefit society the most.
Punishing criminals without giving them a chance to rectify their wrongs is inhumane and it should be illegal. It’s time we start acting as the advanced society we know we are.

If You Have a GPS Shackle - You'll Love This Video

If you are forced to wear a GPS Shackle you're going to love this video. I know I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_zWXlfYGS4

Innocents in Prison

From: The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/08/innocents-in-prison/6148/

Innocents in Prison

Many thousands of wrongly convicted people are rotting in prisons and jails around the country.

By Stuart Taylor Jr

As recently as 20 years ago, it was extraordinarily rare for a convicted prisoner to establish his or her innocence conclusively enough to get public attention. That changed with breakthroughs in DNA science.

The 205th DNA exoneration since 1989 was recorded earlier this month by the Innocence Project, a group of crack defense lawyers who have made such cases their mission. The exonerated prisoners—including 15 who had been sentenced to death—have been found innocent by courts, prosecutors, or governors based on post-conviction DNA testing.
But America has been too slow to appreciate that the DNA exonerations, and other evidence, suggest that many thousands of other wrongly convicted people are rotting in prisons and jails around the country. And our federal, state, and local governments and courts have done far too little to adopt proposed criminal justice reforms that could reduce the number of innocent people convicted while nailing more of the real criminals.
The case of the most recent DNA exonoree, Byron Halsey, was typical: Based on a confession full of obviously false details, extracted by high-pressure interrogation, he spent 19 years in prison in New Jersey for two heinous child murders committed by another man in 1985. Halsey was able to prove his innocence only after a 2002 New Jersey law forced reluctant prosecutors to give his counsel access to DNA evidence. In Halsey's and some 70 other DNA-exoneration cases, DNA also helped to establish the guilt of the real perpetrators. All or almost all had committed other violent crimes before being caught.
The kind of DNA evidence that can conclusively prove innocence or guilt is available only in a small fraction of cases, mainly rapes and rape-murders in which sperm is recovered. But these cases are the tip of the iceberg. Extrapolation from DNA and other exonerations suggests that the overall error rate in violent-crime prosecutions is probably much higher than the estimates of less than 1 percent offered by many criminal-justice officials.
In a stunning non-DNA case that shows how low law enforcement can go, a federal District judge in Boston ordered the government on July 26 to pay $102 million in damages to victims of the FBI's "outrageous" role in framing four men for a 1965 gangland murder. The four spent a combined total of 109 years in prison. Two died there.
"FBI officials up the line allowed their employees to break laws, violate rules, and ruin lives," wrote the judge, Nancy Gertner. She found that the FBI had known all along that a mob hit man named Joseph Barboza was lying when he claimed he saw the four men kill a mobster named Edward Deegan. Barboza and the FBI protected the real killer, Vincent Flemmi, because Barboza and Flemmi were FBI informants.

Although that was decades ago, the FBI (like most police agencies) still insists on a policy—its virtual prohibition of tape-recording interviews—that allows agents to conceal or distort what suspects and witnesses say. The usual motive is not to frame innocent people but to fit evidence to preconceived (and often mistaken) theories of the case.

The FBI has defended its policy on the grounds that taping might deter suspects from talking and that jurors might be offended to hear police using lawful but deceptive interrogation tricks such as lying to suspects and feigning sympathy. But the first concern seems far-fetched in most cases and the second is illegitimate. Refusing to tape interviews hides important evidence from juries as well as lending itself to abuse.
Police and/or prosecutorial misconduct appears to figure in more than half of the 205 convictions that DNA has proven false. Specific reasons for those convictions are catalogued in "Judging Innocence," a study by Brandon Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, slated for publication in January in the Columbia Law Review. Mistaken eyewitness identifications—often due to police subtly pointing witnesses toward the people the cops suspect—figured in 79 percent of these false convictions. Flawed or corrupt testimony by scientific "experts" (about hair, blood types, and the like) figured in 55 percent. False confessions, mostly by juvenile defendants, figured in 16 percent.
What percentage of the 2.2 million men and women locked up in state and federal prisons and local jails are actually innocent of the charged crimes? This is not knowable with any confidence. But we can extrapolate from a few data points.
Samuel Gross, a University of Michigan law professor, has calculated that 2.3 percent of all prisoners sentenced to death between 1973 and 1989 have been exonerated and freed. His research suggests that the vast majority in fact did not commit the crimes. And an unknown number of innocents have not been exonerated.

Another Sign of Our Own Cowardice

From: From The Editor, http://fromtheeditr.blogspot.com/2012/05/sex-offender-laws-another-sign-of-our.html

Sex Offender Laws: Another Sign of Our Own Cowardice

The NYTimes this morning has yet another sterling example of what a nation of irresponsible, hovering cowards we are becoming.

In its story about crackdowns on sex offenders across the nation, we are told that localities are passing "feel good" ordinances that remove citizenship rights from people convicted of crimes as serious as peeing in a park 25 years ago. That is a sex crime by definition ("public exposure"), it never goes away, and our citizens want to throw these pervs in the clank and toss away the key. Since the Constitution won't allow that, we simply forbid them to drop off their kids at school or take them to Little League games, fish from the local pier, go to the library or even work in some communities.

"Sex crime" is a broad term, so broad in fact that it is often misleading and sometimes a bald-assed lie. Localities have acted with a little more sense in stripping the rights from people who have already paid society for their crimes, but others haven't. Those localities equate a love affair between a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old that includes sex (and my guess is a hell of a lot of them do) with raping a three-year-old. "Sex crime." It's not pretty, even when it is.

Love between consenting teenagers is often a highlight of sweet emotion for many of us. But these paranoid parents who want the government to watch their kids, taking the potential blame burden from them, make me ill. If you take your kids to the park or the pool and don't watch them, whose fault is it if something bad happens?

According to investigative reporter Diane Diamond, "The sexual abuse of kids doesn’t usually come from outside their circle and murder is extremely rare ... Most often the perpetrator is a relative, a family friend or a trusted authority figure," and not likely a guy relieving himself on an oak tree in the park after his second beer at a company picnic or a woman who is sunbathing nude in her backyard.

So much of what is provocative and even "porn" is a matter of personal belief. I once had a woman give me a wonderful painting (on an animal skin) of a native Colombian, smoking a pipe and posing bare-breasted--which is how she lived her life--because it was "pornography." The only pornographic element was the attitude of the woman who gave me the painting.  She'd love these new sex crime laws.

Overzealous state legislators introduced more than 1,500 bills dealing with sex offenses during a recent year and 275 were passed. We're not even going into local ordinances here because the numbers aren't available. But they must be huge.


No wonder al-Qaeda laughs at us when all it has to do is threaten in order to send us into a blind, irrational panic and change a nation of eagles into one of chickens.

Constant Suspicion

From: Technically That's Illegal, http://technicallythatsillegal.com/tag/sex-offender-registry/

Constant Suspicion

One of the points I like to make on this blog and in public talks is that our societal impetus to create laws for everything has actually led to more paranoia instead of the safety that we covet. Unfortunately, people are no safer with the accumulation of more laws, we just think we are safer and that all accidents can be prevented.  Along with that is the constant paranoia that happens when we see something slightly suspicious or dangerous.
Today’s example of that is a man who was forced out of a Barnes and Noble store because he was committing the horrible crime of shopping in the children’s section.

Omar Amin, 73, said store worker Todd Voris told him that a female shopper had complained about him being in the children’s area May 4 in the store at Shea Boulevard and Loop 101 in Scottsdale.
Amin, who was alone at the time, said he was in Barnes & Noble to buy books for his two grandchildren who live in Wisconsin.
“Men alone cannot be by themselves in the children’s area,” Amin said he was told, adding that Voris said other bookstores had encountered problems with child molesters.

Being a man while shopping for kids’ books isn’t, technically, a crime.  But, it is somehow suspicious enough for someone to complain to management?  And somehow the management agreed that this was suspicious enough to ask him to leave?
We should keep our kids safe, no doubt.  We should do so by teaching them the difference between normal and abnormal human interaction with people you don’t know.  Evidently, the woman who complained has never been taught the difference because I think encountering a person browsing books would fall under the “normal” category.  Did this man attempt to lure kids into a secluded area of the store (a restroom or something) with the book?  No.  Did this man touch any children in any way?  No.  Did this man even speak to a child?  No.
I’m tired of all of this paranoia in society.  Personally, I would find it refreshing to see a man in a children’s section of a book store.  Similarly, I would find it refreshing if men started teaching elementary school from time to time.  Our kids need adult interaction from men and women.  But, some people will always be against this because they see every man as a potential molester even though the news is riddled with stories of female teachers having inappropriate relationships with male students.  I’m tired of it.  I’m tired of our society giving up our freedoms for some nebulous feeling of safety.  It has to stop before we’re all suspects.

Laws, Laws , and More Laws

From: Motion for Innocence, http://amotionforinnocence.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/laws-laws-and-more-laws/

Laws, Laws And More Laws

In off all places, Louisiana, Home of the bare breast, casual sex and Mardi Gras.  It’ll never fly.  Someone will deem this unconstitutional.  Perhaps the sex offender will now be required to wear a scarlet letter, have a micro-chip inserted or be forced to drink liquid that reduces the sex drive.  More fear based propaganda from the vote begging lawmakers.

Online, sex offenders must reveal past

Chris Miller Reporting

Louisiana lawmakers tried banning convicted sex offenders from joining online social media, like Facebook and Google+, but courts found it unconstitutional.  A new law takes a different approach.
Instead of an outright ban, this law requires sex offenders to mention their conviction in their online profiles.  State representative Jeff Thompson says it’s no different than requiring them to notify the neighborhood when they move in.

“In today’s society, people come into our homes via the Internet, whether it’s Facebook or Pinterest or Instagram,” Thompson said.  “We should have the same information available.”
Thompson says he knows anyone intending to do harm isn’t much for following rules, but there’s value in the new law.

“This provides prosecutors with another tool to make sure that those people which intend harm to our children are going to face the consequences,” he explained.
Penalties for failure to comply are the same as when convicted sex offenders fail to give notice in the real world — two to ten years in prison.

Group Accuses People of Molestation On-Line

From: WSMV - Nashville,
http://www.wsmv.com/story/18387940/nashville-based-group-accused-people-online-of-pedophilia

Nashville-based group accuses people online of pedophilia

NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) -

A Nashville-based citizen activist group is posting online the photographs and personal information of people whom the group accuses of being pedophiles.

Many of the people on the site have never been charged with a sex crime.

The underground group, which calls itself Evil Unveiled, does research in Internet chat rooms and forums often devoted to sinister, sexual fantasies such as pedophilia.

The group records that information, stores it and begins to track the people who are posting only using nicknames, waiting for them to reveal personal details.

"And you just keep collecting information until they accidentally post their email they didn't mean to post. And then it all falls together, and this is the real person behind the nickname," said Victoria, the creator of the group, who asked us to conceal her identity.

Victoria said she knows the website where the information is revealed, http://evilunveiled.com, is controversial. Members of the group aren't professional investigators or law enforcement officers, but they are making serious accusations for anyone to read.

Several people on the website are from Tennessee, including a realtor in Nashville and a man in Sevierville.

"Do you worry that some of this information might be wrong, that you're putting the wrong people on the Web?" asked Channel 4 I-Team chief investigative reporter Jeremy Finley.

"No, I don't. We have a lot of checks and balances, a lot of different ways to prove in a court of law that the information on the site is correct," Victoria said.

One person whom Evil Unveiled accused of being a pedophile called himself "Wolfy" in forums and chat rooms.

Victoria said after awhile, she began to see Wolfy was posting personal information and showing a picture of himself.

The first photo "Wolfy" posted was a picture that appeared in a local newspaper of Albert Rankin, a man once involved with Occupy Nashville and who did several interviews with the local media.

"I look like a boss. This was in the newspaper," said one chat room post by Wolfy.

Wolfy later posted another picture of himself, again showing a photo of Rankin.

A Channel 4 I-Team investigation found that Rankin's MySpace page, email address and Skype account all contain the word 'Wolfy.'

Rankin said "Wolfy" is his nickname, and he posts in forums and chat rooms using the name "Wolfy."

"Wolfy is a nickname I had as a kid and it just kind of stuck," Rankin said.

But Rankin said the "Wolfy" making the pedophilia statements isn't him, and he said Evil Unveiled has wrongly identified him.

"I'd have to say I'm a little confused. If they're targeting me specifically, I'm not sure why. I'll have to look into this. That's a really serious allegation," Rankin said.

Rankin agreed to speak with the Channel 4 I-Team via Skype from where he now lives in Oklahoma City.

The Channel 4 I-Team told Rankin we wanted to speak with him about his time spent with Occupy Nashville in order to confirm that the person on Skype was indeed the same person who was associated with Occupy Nashville.

The Channel 4 I-Team then told Rankin he was listed on the Evil Unveiled website.

Rankin said he'd never heard of the site, but he did answer our questions about "Wolfy."

Finley held up printed pictures of what Wolfy posted online.

"This person (Wolfy) actually posted pictures of himself. And these are they pictures that he posted. This is you," Finley said.

"Oh yeah, that's a picture of me," Rankin said.

"And that's you," Finley said, referencing another photograph. "So is this you posting in these chat rooms?"

"Uh, no. I've put my pictures out all over the Internet," Rankin said.

The Channel 4 I-Team also asked Rankin about the fact that Wolfy wrote about personal details in his life, including that he was in a military family, that he was in the Army and that he had spent 90 days in a tent for Occupy Nashville.

When Wolfy wrote that information, he also stated that he was a pedophile.

Rankin said while all the information about his military history and involvement with Occupy Nashville was accurate about his own life, he denied writing it in the forum and stated he never wrote that he was a pedophile.

Rankin said he had never visited the chat room where those statements were made.

"If this isn't you, then this person has a whole lot of personal information about you," Finley said.

"It's not hard to emulate somebody if you talk to them for a while," Rankin said.

On the day we interviewed Rankin, records from a chat room show Wolfy was posting again.

Wolfy made a disturbing statement about pedophilia, and then 30 minutes later, Wolfy posted that he had to get rest soon because he was doing an interview for NBC.

Rankin said when Wolfy was writing about his interview, that was indeed him posting.

But he said the other Wolfy talking about pedophilia just 30 minutes earlier wasn't him.

"I've told you before, I've used the name 'Wolfy' on various places, but I also use other names as well. There are plenty of places that I peruse on the Internet," Rankin said.

Rankin said he suspects someone is trying to slander him and that other members of Occupy Nashville have had their nicknames stolen in order to post on news websites in an effort to discredit the activists.

"Honestly, I guess if they're (Evil Unveiled) trying to make the Occupy movement look bad, that's one way to do it," Rankin said.

But Victoria, with Evil Unveiled, said she had no problem with Occupy Nashville. Victoria said her only battle is with people she believes are pedophiles and is ready to fight in the courtroom if need be.

"You know, at some point, you could be sued. You know someone could say, 'This isn't true,'" Finley said.

"Absolutely," Victoria said.

A representative for Occupy Nashville did confirm that as soon as members read the Evil Unveiled posting about Rankin, they went to speak with him about it, but Rankin was suddenly missing from Legislative Plaza and never returned.

That representative said they were told Rankin had left to take a job out of town.

The Channel 4 I-Team wanted to ask Rankin about that and if he planned to take any legal action against the website, but he did not respond to our follow-up email.

Victoria said the group has received no word from Rankin asking to remove his profile from the Evil Unveiled website.

Technically That's Illegal

From: Technically That's Illegal , http://technicallythatsillegal.com/2012/06/scarlet-letter.html/

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a politician. I'm just a mom from the Midwest trying to figure out how things operate around here. Click here for more information.

It’s no secret that I’m against sex offender registries. In fact, it’s one of the more controversial stands I’ve taken.
As a libertarian, I oppose sex offender registries because they intrinsically restrict freedom while not actually doing anything to protect anyone.
As a Christian, I oppose sex offender registries because they intrinsically assume nobody can change. I obviously believe that people can change through the power of Jesus Christ.
As a regular person with common sense, I already know that most sex crimes occur by someone who knows the victim. I also realize, using my brain, that these registries serve to increase paranoia. Additionally, the crimes listed on the registry may not correspond to what we think they do. We hear legal terms like “criminal sexual conduct” and we have no idea about the corresponding offense. I also know that people have no tolerance for anyone suspected of a sexual crime. They presume guilt because they don’t want to upset the person who is alleging the crime (see Duke lacrosse scandal). I’m not saying that all people on the sex offender registry are innocent. But, I at least reserve the option that some of them are due to our societal perception of sex crimes. And, that’s not all. There are people on the registry who have committed a “crime,” but the definition of crime is too strict (as I often point out). Here’s Lenore Skenazy’s take on the issue:

There are now commercially available mobile phone apps that map out their addresses. Looking at a map with lots of red dots makes people terrified of their neighbourhoods. It also ruins the lives of many of the ‘red dots’ – a lot of whom are no threat to children at all. They may be a 19-year-old who had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend (that’s considered statutory rape), or a guy who was convicted for peeing in public. So what we need is a law that identifies where DANGEROUS people are living, not just anyone who ran afoul of our increasingly draconian — and sometimes ridiculous — sex offender laws. Policy must change, and that begins (once again) with a reality check! (Source)

Instead of our society implying the common sense reasoning that I have detailed above, we continue to get more and more totalitarian about sex offender registries. Today, I found out that Louisiana passed a law mandating that all registered sex offenders have to list their status on social networking websites! Nevermind the fact that the Louisiana sex offender registry is already online. That’s not good enough for us anymore!  We need to see these people hanged.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the vast amassing of government for which it stands, one nation, under siege, with indignity and paranoia for all.

How RSO's can Challenge "Jessica's Law" Residential Restrictions

 Q. My brother is going to get out of jail soon, and we were planning on him moving in with me, but his parole officer told him he couldn’t because he has to register as a sex offender and I live too close to an elementary school, which is against “Megan’s Law” or “Jessica’s Law” or something like that. Isn’t there anything we can do? I’m afraid if he doesn’t live with me he will be homeless. Jerri
A. California’s Megan’s Law requires anyone convicted of a wide range of crimes, including forcible sex crimes involving non-consenting adults and most sex crimes involving children, prostitution, and child pornography, to register as a sex offender upon release on parole or probation or discharge from custody. California Penal Code § 290. Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, or “Jessica’s Law,” which amended Megan’s Law on November 8, 2006, forbids any registered sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather. California Penal Code § 3003.5(b).
Your brother is not alone in facing a very bleak prospect. According to the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit public interest law firm which engages in class action and other impact litigation on behalf of prisoners, these residency restrictions have forced many parolees to become homeless because they are unable to find affordable, compliant housing.
Jessica's law has been challenged in courts as being too restrictive. Your brother may wish to ask a court to review his case. The Prison Law Office, which has been involved in many of these challenges, has produced a packet of forms and instructions that parolees can use to ask for an immediate stay of the restrictions while their individual cases are being heard by the courts. The packet is available for free on the web at http://www.prisonlaw.com/pdfs/ModelHabeasFull,Dec10.pdf. An additional fill-in-the-blank form, required by all California state courts in this type of case, can be downloaded from the California Courts’ website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc275.pdf.
You should be aware that local cities, towns and counties are permitted to adopt ordinances which impose further restrictions on where you can live. If you are not in Sacramento and are unsure whether your residence is in compliance with local law, check with someone who is familiar with your community’s laws.
Good luck!
    

Nation of Criminals

From: CBN News, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/April/ONLY-ON-CBN-NEWS-Nation-of-Criminals1/

ONLY ON CBN NEWS: Nation of Criminals

Experts say practically anyone could be convicted of some sort of federal crime. And it’s all too easy for anyone to violate one of these laws and never know it. One congressman tells CBN News, “We have made it dangerous just to be alive in America.”

   

   
Selling Prisons 'for Profit'It's a $74 billion industry: private companies selling prisons for profit. Critics charge the practice only increases the incentive to put people in prison and keep them there.

Gibson’s Blues: Endless Laws Criminalizing Business
Thanks to an overcriminalization, anyone could be convicted of a federal crime. It's not only bad for individuals, it's bad for business like Gibson Guitars.

Web of Laws Creating Hosts of 'Accidental Criminals'
Imagine you've lived an honest life, and then without warning, you're arrested for a federal crime. That's what happened to racing legend Bobby Unser.

'Overcriminalization' Making Us a Nation of Felons?
Experts say anyone can fall prey to "overcriminalization." CBN News investigated the growing phenomenon and how it's making America a nation of criminals.

Video - Don't Talk to the Police

Here's a good video on why to never and I mean never to talk to the police. Especially when accused of a sex crime. Check out, , Don't Talk to the Police, at http://truthinjustice.org/don%27t-talk.htm . You'll be glad you did.

Documentary - No Place for Kids

Here's a good documentary entitled, No Place for Kids, about the U.S. juvenile justice system , http://niastories.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/no-place-for-kids-documentary-available-on-vimeo/

Good Video - Sex Offender

Here's a good video called, Sex Offender, By Brookes Fortune, http://vimeo.com/43919309

Statutory Rape Laws

From: Find Law Blotter, http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/06/statutory-rape-laws-may-consider-many-factors.html

Statutory Rape Laws May Consider Many Factors

Sexual contact with a teenager can pose legal risks, and not just for adults. In some states, minors can also face prosecution for statutory rape, depending on a variety of factors.
Punishments for statutory rape can include probation, fines, mandatory prison time, and even a requirement to register as a sex offender. A key factor is where the alleged sex acts took place, because each state's laws are different.
In general, states consider four factors when it comes to statutory rape laws:

1. Age of Consent
Some states have what's called a "single age of consent" -- an age under which a minor cannot consent to sex, no matter what. This is the case in at least 12 states, according to a 2004 report for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Other states specify an "age of consent," but also consider other factors in prosecuting an alleged statutory rape.
2. Age of the Victim
Some states specify a "minimum age" for sexual intercourse, under which it is illegal for a minor to have sex at all.
In these states, if an alleged victim is under the age of consent, but above the minimum age for sex, prosecutors generally look to the age difference between the sex partners.
3. Age Difference
Under many statutory rape laws, even if a minor is under the age of consent, sexual contact may not be illegal if the sexual partner is close in age.
Often called "Romeo and Juliet" laws, these statutes can offer a defense to a statutory rape charge, or can reduce the punishment to just probation or a fine, or even eliminate the requirement to register as a sex offender.
4. Age of the Perpetrator
At least 16 states have "minimum age" thresholds for a defendant to face prosecution. If an alleged perpetrator is under the age threshold, he generally cannot be prosecuted. Other states also impose more serious charges and punishments on adults 21 and over.
Because statutory rape laws are complicated and differ by state, it's a good idea to consult a local attorney if you're ever charged with having sex with someone underage.

Claims of Innocence

“Claims of Innocence” Now Available For Downloading

“Claims of Innocence” by Michael Naughton with Gabe Tan

Claims of Innocence: An introduction to wrongful convictions and how they might be challenged, is an 80-page booklet by Michael Naughton with Gabe Tan. Published in 2010 by the University of Bristol, Claims of Innocence can now be downloaded for no charge by clicking here.
Michael Naughton is founder and director of the Innocence Network UK, and although Claims of Innocence is specific to the United Kingdom, much of its information, particularly in “Part 3: Proving your innocence,” is applicable to the United States and other countries.






By Hans Sherrer
Justice Denied

How Innocent People Land in Prison

From: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/12/151901/commentary-how-innocent-people.html
Commentary: How innocent people land in prison

David Quindt can't escape the 15 months he spent in Sacramento County jail for a murder he didn't commit.
He moved all the way to Hawaii for a fresh start, yet he doesn't want to completely forget. Each semester, he tells his story to law school students to "open their eyes" about how criminal justice in America can go terribly wrong.
Now, Quindt has his own little piece of the new National Registry of Exonerations, the most complete database of its kind ever, about 900 cases since 1989 – and counting.
These exonerations "point to a much larger number of tragedies that we do not know about" because there are many more people who are falsely convicted but aren't able to exonerate themselves, say those who compiled the registry at the University of Michigan and Northwestern University law schools.
The registry is a big deal to those who try to help wrongly convicted people, and rightly so. They say it documents that there are common problems that cause the vast majority of false convictions: mistaken identifications by eyewitnesses, unfounded accusations and misconduct by law enforcement.
"Here is proof," says Jeff Chinn, associate director of the California Innocence Project.
While this is an immensely complicated issue, he and other advocates argue convincingly that there are some relatively simple, inexpensive solutions that could prevent many wrongful convictions, such as videotaping interrogations, changing identification procedures and improving training for police and prosecutors. Many of the fixes have the support of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which plans a summit on the issue in August.
Those who unveiled the registry May 21 and issued a report analyzing the cases call for police, prosecutors and defense lawyers to work together to reduce false convictions. That doesn't seem too much to ask. Yes, we have an adversarial system of justice, but all sides should be able to agree that these miscarriages of justice are doubly devastating – innocent people lose years of their lives and the guilty go unpunished.
Not everyone, though, is convinced that the registry is a call to action.
National prosecutor groups are questioning whether the "exonerations" involve truly innocent people and argue that mistakes are rare and almost always unintentional.
District Attorney Jan Scully, Sacramento County's top prosecutor for 18 years, says while such efforts are "laudable," they are also misleading because the rate of wrongful convictions is "infinitesimal," given how many criminal cases are filed each year. She worries that such reports can undermine public confidence in the justice system's integrity.
In particular, she disputes that two of the three Sacramento County cases cited in the report are really exonerations, as the average person would understand the definition.
• Case No. 1: Among "group exonerations" – not counted in the registry total – the report mentions the 2010 dismissal of drunken driving and other charges against 79 defendants because former Sacramento Police Officer Brandon Mullock is alleged to have mishandled the DUI stops and falsified reports.
Scully, however, doesn't consider those drivers to be "exonerated" because they were in all likelihood guilty. She just couldn't make the charges stick without a credible witness.
• Case No. 2: Gloria Marie Killian was found guilty of first-degree murder in a 1981 home invasion in Rosemont. In 2002, after 16 years in prison, she was granted a new trial by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that a prosecutor used perjured testimony and withheld evidence.
Scully declined to put Killian on trial again, mainly because she was already eligible for parole and because key witnesses had died. But that doesn't mean she was innocent, the district attorney says.
• Case No. 3: Quindt was convicted and faced a life sentence in the 1998 shooting death of 18-year-old Patrick Riley Haeling. A 15-year-old girl inside the Fair Oaks home identified Quindt as one of the gunmen, but another man later confessed.
Scully agrees this is an exoneration. But she points out that Quindt was freed only through the efforts of one of her deputies, Mark Curry. He prosecuted Quindt, then after the trial, pursued an anonymous tip that led to the arrest of three new suspects, who were all later convicted or pleaded guilty.
"The system worked," Scully told me.
Reforms stymied in California
Questions about whether the system works well enough have percolated for years in California. The California Innocence Project, created in 1999 at California Western School of Law in San Diego, has helped exonerate 10 people, most recently Brian Banks, a Long Beach high school football star whose rape conviction was dismissed last month and who is now trying out for the NFL. The Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University's law school has 11 exonerees to its credit since starting in 2001.
In 2004, the Legislature created the state Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice to study wrongful convictions and find ways to prevent them. Before disbanding in 2008, it made a series of recommendations, but then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed bills to turn them into law. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed one reform suggested by the panel. Senate Bill 687 says a defendant can't be convicted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of jailhouse informants, who are often unreliable.
Some states and cities have reformed their eyewitness identification procedures, including "double-blind" lineups in which the officer conducting them doesn't know which of the photos or people is the suspect. But Scully, like some prosecutors, isn't convinced that such an overhaul would lead to a major improvement.
She does agree with another of the exoneration report's recommendations – video recording interrogations to prevent false confessions. Recordings are standard in serious cases, she says.
For more than a decade, Scully's office has worked with attorneys and the Innocence Project to do DNA testing when they present evidence casting doubt on a conviction. Since 2001, there have been 39 requests, but so far no exonerations.
Like some other district attorneys, Scully also keeps a confidential list of law enforcement officers whose credibility is in question because of past transgressions. Senior staffers decide what to do when a case involves an officer on the list, which now includes 46 current and former officers from nine different agencies. Depending how crucial that officer's testimony is, Scully's office can decline to file charges, dismiss a case or disclose the issue to the defense and proceed.
With those safeguards in place, Scully says she doesn't need a formal "conviction integrity unit" like those in some places, including Santa Clara County. "My whole office is an integrity unit," she says.
Virginia Hench, a University of Hawaii law professor who brings Quindt in to speak, credits Scully's office for admitting it made a mistake in his case. "They usually fight tooth and nail," she says. Hench, who helped start the Hawaii Innocence Project, says her students learn a lot from Quindt. "It's pretty powerful to meet someone who went through that experience," she told me.
After release from prison, then what?
Like many of those exonerated, Quindt did not live happily ever after.
The wrongly convicted often get less financial aid and other help than those who are guilty and paroled. That doesn't make sense. The fair justice commission called for more services to reintegrate them into society, including housing, clothing, job counseling and a cash allowance.
Some of those who are exonerated receive compensation from the state if they were wrongly imprisoned. Quindt collected $17,200 – $100 for each of the 172 days he spent in jail after his conviction. He wanted $45,800, which also included his time behind bars awaiting trial.
Some advocates for the exonerated say the maximum compensation ought to increase and claim the state Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board is too stingy in deciding these awards. Of 71 cases since 2000, the board has denied 48 claims and approved only 11, with payments totaling $3.6 million. Another 12 cases are pending.
Quindt quickly spent his award and could have used additional assistance. "It's been a tough road," he told me.
After twice attempting suicide while in custody, he walked out of jail in May 2000 and then had a bout with depression and had trouble finding work. Six months after his release, he walked into a robbery in progress at a Carmichael liquor store and was hit in the head with a beer bottle. Quindt testified and two men were convicted.
After marrying his childhood sweetheart, Christy, things started looking up when he got work as a roofer and a mechanic. But he hurt his back and says he has been on disability ever since.
In 2003, Quindt moved his family to Hawaii, where he just turned 35 and now has three children. "I just had to get away from all the trouble and all that happened to me," he told me.
But trouble followed him.
He says he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder from his jail time. In March, he was stabbed by a man he was trying to help in a drug outreach program and almost died.
"I have bad luck," Quindt says, in what seems to be a colossal understatement. "I'm not really bitter. … It's just really sad."
But wrongful convictions aren't a matter of mere bad luck. There are sensible steps that police and prosecutors across California ought to consider to avoid more David Quindts.
IN PURSUIT OF INNOCENCE
For more information about the National Registry of Exonerations, Innocence Projects in California and the administration of justice, go to:
• National Registry of Exonerations: www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration
• Northern California Innocence Project: http://law.scu.edu/ncip
• California Innocence Project: http://www.californiainnocenceproject.org/
• California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice: http://www.ccfaj.org/
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/12/151901/commentary-how-innocent-people.html#storylink=cpy

9th Circuit Court Rules Expanding Restristions on RSO's "Constitutionally Sound"

From: Courthouse News Service, http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/10/43788.htm 

Sex Offender Rules for Nevada Upheld by 9th

By TIM HULL

(CN) - Nevada can retroactively apply tough new registration rules for sex offenders, the 9th Circuit ruled Friday.
     The appeals court in San Francisco joined several of its sister circuits in finding that the retroactive application of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is "constitutionally sound."
     The Nevada Legislature passed its version of the federal child-protection legislation - which encourages states to adopt uniform, expanded rules for sex offenders, and withholds federal law-enforcement funds from those who don't - in 2007. But the state law exceeded Washington's mandate in a few areas.
     The Legislature supplemented the law by requiring police to provide public notice of the status of some sex offenders, and notify youth groups and religious organizations about some offenders. In other areas, the state provisions largely mimicked those in the federal law.
     Several anonymous sex offenders teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union Nevada to fight the legislation in Las Vegas. The federal complaint said retroactive application of the new rules would violate the ex-post facto and double jeopardy clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
     U.S. District Judge James Mahan agreed, and he permanently barred the state from applying the rules retroactively in 2008.
     A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed unanimously on Friday, joining the five other circuits (the 11th, 10th, 8th, 7th and 5th) that upheld retroactive application of the act's requirements against constitutional scrutiny.
     "We have not explicitly ruled on the constitutionality of retroactive application of SORNA-inspired requirements," Judge Stephen Trott wrote for the panel. "Many of our sister circuits, however, have considered this issue. Unanimously they have concluded that retroactive imposition of SORNA requirements is constitutional ... We join them in concluding that the requirements of [the law] do not constitute retroactive punishment in violation of the ex post facto clause or double jeopardy clause."
     The few differences in the Nevada law are not enough to disrupt such unanimity, the panel found.
     Nevada's law was intended not to impose further criminal punishment but "to create a civil regulatory regime with the purpose of enhancing public safety." Thus it can be applied retroactively under precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003's Smith v. Doe, which upheld Alaska's sex-offender law.
     But ACLU Nevada's general council Allen Lichtenstein told Courthouse News that there are "significant differences" between the Nevada law and those approved in other circuits. He said the group is still evaluating its next step.
     "We feel that there are some important distinctions between Nevada and those other jurisdictions," he said in a phone interview on Friday.
     ACLU Nevada had also challenged the retroactive application of a separate law passed by the state Legislature that puts tough new residency restrictions on sex offenders. The District Court enjoined that law as well, but the 9th Circuit found that the issue was moot on appeal. Nevada has already admitted in court filings that it "will not retroactively impose residency and movement restrictions," the panel said.
     The 9th Circuit remanded that portion of the case back to the lower court, urging a settlement. If that fails, however, the District Court injunction will remain in place.

From: USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-20/wrongful-convictions-exonerations/55098856/1

Wrongful convictions shine spotlight on judicial system

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

Perjury, faulty eyewitness identification and prosecutorial misconduct are the leading reasons for wrongful convictions, according to the first national registry of exonerations compiled by university researchers.

The database, assembled in a collaboration by the University of Michigan and Northwestern University, has identified 873 faulty convictions in the past 23 years that have been recognized by prosecutors, judges or governors.

The registry's founders say the numbers, which do not include many cases in which innocent suspects plead guilty to avoid the risk of more serious punishments or cases that have been dismissed because of legal error without new evidence of innocence, represent only a fraction of the problem in the nation's criminal justice system.

"What this shows is that the criminal justice system makes mistakes, and they are more common than people think," said University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, the registry's editor. "It is not the rule, but we won't learn to get better unless we pay attention to these cases."

Despite the data, the registry concluded that the "overwhelming majority of convicted defendants are guilty."

"Most never dispute their guilt and few ever present substantial post-conviction evidence of innocence," the registry found. "When that does happen, however, it should be taken seriously. …We cannot prevent all false convictions, but we must not compound these tragedies by stubbornness or arrogance or, worst of all, indifference."

Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, a national advocacy group for prosecutors, said prosecutors in the USA handled about 400 million non-traffic-related cases during the same period studied by the registry. Exonerations "give the gross perception that there is a serious problem with wrongful convictions in this country, and it is just not the case," Burns said.

The cases in the registry were identified from court documents and include catalogs of wrongful convictions maintained by advocates for the wrongfully convicted, including the The Innocence Project, a New York-based group that pursues exonerations through DNA testing.

Since 1989, DNA testing has been responsible for the exonerations of 289 people in the United States, including 17 who served time on death row, according to The Innocence Project.

Among the registry's major findings:

•Of the 416 homicide exonerations, 64% were attributed, at least in part, to perjury or false accusation. Official misconduct by either prosecutors or police, including the withholding of evidence favorable to the suspect, was a contributor in 56% of the cases.

•In the registry's 203 sexual assault cases, 80% involved mistaken eyewitness identification.

•Faulty witness identification was a factor in 81% of 47 robbery cases.

Gross said much of the misconduct involved the failure to disclose information or evidence that might have been helpful to the defendants.

Wrongful convictions represent "our worst nightmare," Burns said. "One is one too many. But I would argue the system is working quite well."

Prosecuters often Challlenge DNA Evidence for Wrongful Convictions

From: The Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-dna-era-20120613,0,5231219.story

Prosecutors often challenge DNA evidence that could clear the convicted

DNA is readily used to convict, but prosecutors often challenge results from convicts

• Alprentiss Nash, in a 2010 photo at Menard Correctional Center, is fighting his conviction. A DNA test showed someone else's DNA was on a hat at the crime scene. (Zbigniew Bzdak, Chicago Tribune / September 29, 2010)

By Steve Mills and Dan Hinkel, Chicago Tribune reporters

June 13, 2012

When Terrill Swift was released from prison after serving 15 years for rape and murder, he sought DNA testing because he wanted to prove his innocence. Cook County prosecutors opposed his efforts but relented last year after the Tribune made inquiries about Swift's request.

After the DNA from semen in the victim's body was matched to a convicted murderer and rapist, Swift went to court to get his conviction thrown out. But prosecutors opposed that effort, saying the DNA was meaningless, especially when considered against Swift's confession.
A judge turned aside prosecutors' arguments, saying the DNA was powerful evidence, and earlier this year the judge vacated Swift's conviction.
And last month, when Swift went to court to obtain a certificate of innocence to expunge the record of his arrest and conviction and clear the way for him to seek compensation from the state, prosecutors opposed that request, too, saying Swift's disputed confession outweighed the DNA.
Nearly a quarter-century into the DNA era, what has been called the gold standard of forensic evidence has fulfilled its promise to help police and prosecutors win convictions. Rare is the case in which DNA evidence, particularly in a rape or a murder, does not send a defendant to prison.
DNA's potential to free the innocent has been more elusive. That has been especially true in Cook and Lake counties, where prosecutors have opposed requests for DNA testing and then downplayed the results when they excluded their leading suspects or inmates trying to win their freedom.
"When we started doing this work 20 years ago, we received opposition on requests and motions to do post-conviction DNA testing in more than three-quarters of the cases," said Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of the New York-based Innocence Project. "Today … the overwhelming majority of prosecutors do not oppose motions for DNA testing."
What's more, Neufeld said, prosecutors rarely challenge DNA results that appear to indicate a suspect's innocence. Prosecutors in Cook and Lake counties are part of a tiny group that consistently do that, he said.
"That kind of consistent rejection of logic and common sense," Neufeld said, "is fairly unequaled around the country."

Prosecutors counter that DNA is not the "end all" of evidence, as Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez once said, and say they are bound to consider all evidence in a case, not just the DNA. In the cases where DNA has failed to persuade prosecutors, the opposition frequently has been supported by a suspect's confession. For decades a building block of murder cases, confessions remain remarkably potent in spite of what DNA has revealed about their frailties.

"Generally speaking, the significance of DNA evidence varies from case to case," said Sally Daly, a spokeswoman for Alvarez. "In some cases, it may be critically important to a criminal investigation or a prosecution. In others, it can be relatively unimportant. It is the state's attorney's opinion and the general policy of this office that DNA evidence cannot be viewed in a vacuum, but rather examined in light of all of the other facts and evidence known at the time.
"DNA evidence certainly establishes a link between the donor of the DNA and a location or a piece of evidence, but it does not always establish the identity of the criminal," Daly added. "The significance of DNA evidence is dependent upon all other facts available in the totality of the investigation."
A series of cases in Lake County illustrate that standoff.

On May 15, Lake County prosecutors issued news releases announcing new murder charges in two cases — the bludgeoning of Fred Reckling, 71, in Waukegan in 1994 and the stabbings of Laura Hobbs, 8, and Krystal Tobias, 9, in Zion in 2005.

Both announcements credited "newly developed leads and forensic findings … actively pursued by law enforcement." The releases did not mention that the new sets of charges resulted from DNA tests that prosecutors had dismissed as either unnecessary or meaningless.
In the Reckling case, prosecutors fought for years to block post-conviction testing sought by James Edwards, who had confessed and was sentenced to life in prison.
Edwards, often working as his own lawyer, claimed his innocence could be proved by testing blood found at the scene from a then-unidentified man. Prosecutors argued at trial that the blood in Reckling's appliance store and car did not clear Edwards because it could have come from a store employee. They aimed to block post-conviction testing by noting that jurors were presented with that theory, and they still found Edwards guilty.
"Testing of this showing us who specifically (the blood came from) is not going to exculpate the defendant," said then-Assistant State's Attorney Michael Mermel, according to a court transcript. "The defendant is wasting the time of the criminal justice system because he has nothing else to do but write these motions."

After Edwards had spent 14 years in prison, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered the DNA tests. Last month, prosecutors said forensic evidence had guided investigators toward Hezekiah Whitfield, 42, of Chicago, who is now charged with murder.

Prosecutors agreed to a new trial for Edwards and then immediately dropped the charges, though he remains jailed on separate convictions for armed robbery and murder.

Risk of Wrongful Convictions in Plea Bargaining

From: The Wrongful Convictions Blog, http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/06/13/new-study-significant-risk-of-wrongful-conviction-in-plea-bargaining/

 

False Confessions – How Can That Happen?? →

New Study: Significant Risk of Wrongful Conviction in Plea Bargaining

Posted on June 13, 2012 by Nancy Petro

The nation has been enthralled by the story of Brian Banks. A former blue-chip high school football athlete, Banks served five years in prison after a rape conviction, wore an ankle location bracelet, and was labeled a sex offender for five more years, before his victim admitted the rape never happened. When NFL teams lined up to give him a second chance, the nation reveled in the comeback story but also faced troublesome questions. Why would an innocent person take a plea deal that would send him to prison and  label him a sexual offender? How often does this happen? A new study suggests many are vulnerable to taking a deal even when innocent.
Lucien E. Dervan and Vanessa Edkins report here that over half of the participants in a research study were willing to falsely admit guilt in exchange for perceived benefits. For example, a college student was accused of cheating and presented with benefits in exchange for saving her university the trouble of pursuing disciplinary action against her. She decided to take the deal. Unknown to the student was the fact that she was part of a study to replicate the hard choices suspects face in criminal justice. The study authors, of course, knew that she was innocent of the charge.
Brian Banks agreed to an Alford Plea—he pleaded nolo contendere or no contest. As Mark Godsey explained here, this plea enables the defendant to neither admit nor dispute the charges against him. We all now know that Banks was innocent but, on the advice of counsel, decided not to risk a conviction and a draconian sentence.
The authors of this study cite the U.S. Supreme Court in opinions that acknowledge the potential risk of innocent persons agreeing to plea bargains and the importance of using plea bargaining only in cases in which evidence of guilt is very strong.
In Banks’s case, and in countless others, the testimony of the victim is considered strong evidence in a he-said, she-said crime. Eyewitness identification in stranger-to-stranger cases has often been considered virtually irrefutable evidence. But we’ve learned that a victim can lie, and that eyewitness identifications have been historically wrong 25 percent of the time in thousands of cases in which rape kit DNA has been compared with the DNA of the prime suspect, identified by the victim. These lessons cast doubt on the evidence that has often prompted a suspect to take a plea deal.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland acknowledged plea bargaining as a method of adjudicating justice, but it also recognized the potential need to reexamine this practice “if the encouragement of guilty pleas by offers of leniency substantially increased the likelihood that defendants, advised by competent counsel, would falsely condemn themselves.”
Most in the criminal justice system acknowledge that plea bargaining serves a purpose and often results in a fair resolution, saving the time and expense of going to trial presumably in cases in which evidence of guilty is strong or overwhelming. The system would collapse if all cases went to trial. But the case of Brian Banks, the lessons of DNA, and the results of research such as that noted here, suggest that new caution must be given to plea bargaining. We can never permit our need for expediency to trump the pursuit of true justice.

J.A. Update - Still Forced into Homelessness

   J.A., the founder of this blog, and the Society Against False Accusations of Rape (1990) and Californians Against Jessica's Law (2006) is still homeless. He is forced to live in one of CA's largest city's because it was there he refused to register as a sex offender in 2006 right after Jessica's Law was passed by CA voters. He was sentenced to 4 years in prison and 3 years of parole for his refusal. Released in 2010 he found that parole in CA was nearly impossible to complete, without being sent back to prison, due to Jessica's Law and It's insane restrictions on S.O. parolees. He's been homeless for almost 2 years now due to residential restrictions that makes over 75% of the county he is forced to live in off-limits to him. At first he was forced to live in several fleabag motels until his money ran out and now stays in a horrid homeless shelter where he is ravaged by bedbugs every night and has to deal with the mentally ill, drunks, and gang members. He also has a GPS Shackle locked onto his ankle where his every move is tracked. J.A. has about 16 more months of forced homelessness until he can return to his home state of Alaska. Where he was a successful commercial fisherman until he was falsely accused in 1985. Over a quarter century ago. Good luck my friend.

Refusing to Charge for Rape Lie

From: Cry Rape, http://cryrape.blogspot.com/

Cassandra Kennedy, 23

Does refusing to charge for rape lie that put innocent man away for nine years undermine public confidence in the way rape claims are handled?

Cassandra Kennedy, 23, admitted that she lied about her father raping her when she was 11. Her accusation put her father behind bars for nine years.

Ms. Kennedy will not be charged with a crime because prosecutors fear it could stop others from reporting sexual assaults.  Prosecutor Sue Baur said: "This is the kind of thing that shouldn't happen."  But she said that charging Kennedy might discourage victims from coming forward.

Kennedy admitted her lie because of a guilty conscience. "I did a horrible thing," she told detectives last January.  She was allegedly bitter following her parents' divorce ten years earlier."I wanted him to love me," Kennedy said, "and I didn't think he did at that time.  I took my own vengeance."

Kennedy told police she got the idea of setting up her father from a friend whose stepfather had been sent to prison for a child sex crime.  "I thought that is what I would do to make my dad go away." She told a teacher about the alleged abuse, and repeated the stories with consistency. The details seemed beyond the sexual knowledge of an 11-year-old. 

Her father denied the allegation but a jury convicted him of three counts of rape of a child and he was sentenced to more than 15 years in jail.

The father was released last week and the charges against him were dismissed. He told a reporter that he did not want to comment but is simply trying to get on with his life.

The decision not to prosecute this apparent crime is troubling.

First, the prosecutor's concern that charging Ms. Kennedy might deter others from reporting their sexual assaults is speculative and unsupported by any evidence of which we are aware.  Charging Ms. Kennedy would not send a signal that the prosecutor intends to charge any woman who makes a disputed rape claim that the police don't believe. The instant case caused grievous harm and is extreme. It involves an admitted rape lie that had a catastrophic effect on another person's life. Charging the author of such a lie would not likely deter anyone from reporting her own sexual assault.

Second, Ms. Baur's rationale for not prosecuting Ms. Kennedy sends a message that can only hurt the wrongly accused. The absence of any punishment for an apparent crime that caused a man to forfeit his liberty for almost a decade can only encourage similarly motivated persons to make false accusations.  According to Dr. Valerie Wright, research analyst at The Sentencing Project: "People who perceive that sanctions are more certain tend to be less likely to engage in criminal activity."And: "Research to date generally indicates that increases in the certainty of punishment, as opposed to the severity of punishment, are more likely to produce deterrent benefits."  If crimes such as this one are not deterred, society invites more abuse of the criminal justice system at the expense of the innocent.

Third, Ms. Bauer's rationale for not prosecuting Ms. Kennedy undermines public confidence in the way rape claims are handled. The prosecutor should want the public to regard rape as a serious crime deserving of serious penalties. Indeed, juries want to punish rapists but are loathe to risk punishing the innocent. Juries will be all the more wary of convicting men of rape, even those who deserve to be convicted, if they believe that prosecutors cavalierly allow accusers to tell rape lies with impunity.

Fourth, the victim should have a say in whether the false accuser is prosecuted. The victim in this case did not publicly express an opinion on the subject, and we are wondering if anyone bothered to ask him.

Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124170/Cassandra-Kennedy-Father-freed-decade-jail-daughter-admits-lied-raping-11.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.tbd.com/blogs/amanda-hess/2010/09/uninvestigated-rapes-live-blogging-senate-hearing-on-rape-in-the-u-s--1734.html