And the award for most inept(US) cops goes to...

[Lonestar]

Dallas!

DNA wins freedom for man after 26 years

DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- -- A man imprisoned since 1981 for sexual assault was freed after a judge recommended overturning his conviction.

Charles Chatman, 47, was released on his recognizance after serving nearly 27 years of a 99-year sentence. He was freed on the basis of new DNA testing that lawyers say proves his innocence and adds to Dallas County's nationally unmatched number of wrongfully convicted inmates.

Chatman became the 15th inmate from Dallas County since 2001 to be freed by DNA testing. That is more than any other county nationwide, said Natalie Roetzel of the Innocence Project of Texas, an organization of volunteers who investigate claims of wrongful conviction.

Texas leads the country in prisoners freed by DNA testing. Including Chatman, the state will have released at least 30 wrongfully convicted inmates since 2001, according to the Innocence Project.

Before his Thursday morning hearing, Chatman said throughout his 26 years in prison that he never raped the woman who lived five houses down from him.

"I'm bitter. I'm angry," Chatman told The Associated Press during what was his last night in jail Wednesday. "But I'm not angry or bitter to the point where I want to hurt anyone or get revenge."

Mike Ware, who heads the Conviction Integrity Unit in the Dallas County District Attorney's office, said he expects more inmates to be proven innocent.

One of the biggest reasons for the large number of exonerations in Texas is the crime lab used by Dallas County, which accounts for about half the state's DNA cases. Unlike many jurisdictions, the lab used by police and prosecutors retains biological evidence, meaning DNA testing is a viable option for decades-old crimes.

District Attorney Craig Watkins also attributes the exonerations to a past culture of overly aggressive prosecutors seeking convictions at any cost.

Chatman's nearly 27 years in prison for aggravated sexual assault make him the longest-serving inmate in Texas to be freed by DNA evidence, Innocence Project lawyers said.

Chatman was 20 when the victim, a young woman in her 20s, picked him from a lineup. Chatman said he lived five houses down from the victim for 13 years but never knew her.

At the time the woman was assaulted, Chatman said he didn't have any front teeth; he had been certain that feature would set him apart from the real assailant.

"I'm not sure why he ended up on that photo spread to begin with," Ware said.

Chatman, who was convicted in 1981 and sentenced to life in prison, said his faith kept him from giving up.

Ware said Chatman would likely be released on a personal recognizance bond until the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes an official ruling.

[Darth Wong]

How do we know the cops in this case were inept, as opposed to being a bunch of assholes?

[Edi]

It's a safe bet the prosecutor actively excluded any evidence that might have been beneficial to the accused. It seems as if that happens regularly in the US legal system.

[Darth Wong]

I found a picture of Charles Chatman and of course, he happens to be black, like so many wrongfully convicted people in America. Interesting that none of the major news organizations chose to make note of that fact in their news articles on this story.

[Aaron]

How do we know the cops in this case were inept, as opposed to being a bunch of assholes?

Probably both. Like the David Milgaard case.

[Darth Wong]

Can wrongfully convicted men sue the state for damages in cases like this? The guy was convicted using the "y'all look alike" and "grab the nearest black man" techniques favoured by southern US cops, after all.

[FSTargetDrone]

Can wrongfully convicted men sue the state for damages in cases like this? The guy was convicted using the "y'all look alike" and "grab the nearest black man" techniques favoured by southern US cops, after all.

Not sure about Texas, but such suits have been brought about before such as in Chicago and Boston

Nov 27, 2007 4:56 pm US/Central

Chicago, Police Sued For Wrongful Conviction

Chicago, Police Sued For Wrongful Conviction
Man Served Eight Years For Rape He Did Not Commit
Reporting
Mai Martinez
CHICAGO (CBS) ― A new lawsuit over a wrongful conviction could cost the city of Chicago millions of dollars.

As CBS 2's Mai Martinez reports, a man freed by DNA evidence claims police and the crime lab botched the case.

Marlon Pendleton has been a free man for almost a year now after serving eight years in prison for a 1992 rape he did not commit. In 2005, DNA tests proved Pendleton was not the attacker.

"My hands are clean. My hands were clean. My hands always will be clean of the crime of rape," Pendleton said Tuesday during a news conference called to announce his lawsuit.

Pendleton's legal team now wants those who helped convict him to compensate Pendleton for the years he spent behind bars.

Defendants named in the lawsuit include Chicago Police Detectives Jack Stewart and Steve Barnes, former Chicago police crime lab analyst Pamela Fish, and the city of Chicago.

The lawsuit claims Stewart and Barnes at Area 1 Police Headquarters manipulated the rape victim into wrongfully identifying Pendleton as her attacker.

Nov. 7, 2006
Boston Globe
By Shelley Murphy

A federal judge refused yesterday to dismiss a civil rights suit brought against the city of Lowell and newly named Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis by a man who spent 19 years in prison on a rape conviction before he was exonerated in 2003 by DNA testing.

After a lengthy hearing, US District Judge Richard G. Stearns said he was "not attempting to pre judge" the outcome of the case.

However, he found that Dennis Maher has a right to pursue his claim that he was wrongfully convicted of raping a woman and sexually assaulting another in Lowell in 1983, in part, he contends, because Davis, then a Lowell police officer, and his partner altered evidence and manipulated identification line ups.

[Flagg]

Can wrongfully convicted men sue the state for damages in cases like this? The guy was convicted using the "y'all look alike" and "grab the nearest black man" techniques favoured by southern US cops, after all.

Yes, but it's hard to prove since the people who you're suing are the ones who hold all of the evidence you need to win your case.

[Darth Wong]

Why does one have to prove deliberate manipulation in order to launch a lawsuit against these fuckers? Does the word "negligence" not apply to the government?

[Flagg]

Why does one have to prove deliberate manipulation in order to launch a lawsuit against these fuckers? Does the word "negligence" not apply to the government?

Yeah, but you have to prove negligence. Like if there were other leads they could have followed up on but didn't because they had a hardon for him. The cops have the case files, and things can disappear.

Usually these guys get money from the state legislature, IIRC.

[Darth Wong]

Why is it necessary to find evidence that they deliberately ignored other leads? Can't the plaintiff demand evidence of other leads that the cops did follow, rather than being asked to produce evidence of other leads that they didn't? Why should the department be assumed innocent until proven guilty here? It's a negligence lawsuit, not a criminal trial.

Moreover, this is a special kind of negligence case. Usually, in negligence cases the person failed to do his job properly, leading to some kind of harmful action. But the harmful action was usually inflicted by nature, thanks to inadequate preventive measures on the part of the defendant. In this case, the harmful action was deliberately inflicted by the defendant himself, for a period of 26 years.

When David Milgard's conviction was overturned, the government was forced to cough up $10 million. Dollars to donuts says that this black man in Texas won't get a fucking dime.

[Flagg]

Why is it necessary to find evidence that they deliberately ignored other leads? Can't the plaintiff demand evidence of other leads that the cops did follow, rather than being asked to produce evidence of other leads that they didn't? Why should the department be assumed innocent until proven guilty here? It's a negligence lawsuit, not a criminal trial.

Yeah, he can demand evidence. He might even get it. But then it might have been 'lost'. 26 years is a long time, after all. But it could very well turn out that they went by the book every step of the way. Just because the guy is innocent doesn;t mean there wasn't enough evidence to charge and convict him. Which is a sad fucking commentary, but there it is.

Moreover, this is a special kind of negligence case. Usually, in negligence cases the person failed to do his job properly, leading to some kind of harmful action. But the harmful action was usually inflicted by nature, thanks to inadequate preventive measures on the part of the defendant. In this case, the harmful action was deliberately inflicted by the defendant himself, for a period of 26 years.

And if everyone did their jobs correctly and within the law, would there even be negligence? I find that thought scary.

When David Milgard's conviction was overturned, the government was forced to cough up $10 million. Dollars to donuts says that this black man in Texas won't get a fucking dime.

I dunno, alot of times the state legislature will pay out something. I'd give the guy $26,000,000 myself.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, he can demand evidence. He might even get it. But then it might have been 'lost'.

The kind of evidence I'm talking about would harm the state's case if it was "lost".

[Flagg]

Yeah, he can demand evidence. He might even get it. But then it might have been 'lost'.

The kind of evidence I'm talking about would harm the state's case if it was "lost".

I must be having a retard moment because I'm totally lost. Are you talking about evidence that the police followed up on other leads?

[Patrick Degan]

This is more a case of asshole prosecutors rather than asshole or inept cops. Inept cops are the sort who couldn't catch a cold, much less a perp. Or ones who are not only crooked and vicious but stupid enough to order a hit on somebody using their celphone —even knowing that somebody (like, say, the FBI) could be tapping in on the signal.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, he can demand evidence. He might even get it. But then it might have been 'lost'.

The kind of evidence I'm talking about would harm the state's case if it was "lost".

I must be having a retard moment because I'm totally lost. Are you talking about evidence that the police followed up on other leads?

Basically yes. If the police can't produce evidence that they did any kind of investigative work other than nailing this guy, then that pretty much proves that they didn't do their jobs.

[Flagg]

The kind of evidence I'm talking about would harm the state's case if it was "lost".

I must be having a retard moment because I'm totally lost. Are you talking about evidence that the police followed up on other leads?

Basically yes. If the police can't produce evidence that they did any kind of investigative work other than nailing this guy, then that pretty much proves that they didn't do their jobs.

I imagine he'd need enough evidence to get that far, though. The standard of evidence for civil cases is much lower than for criminal cases, but you still need enough to get your foot in the door.

[Darth Wong]

I must be having a retard moment because I'm totally lost. Are you talking about evidence that the police followed up on other leads?

Basically yes. If the police can't produce evidence that they did any kind of investigative work other than nailing this guy, then that pretty much proves that they didn't do their jobs.

I imagine he'd need enough evidence to get that far, though. The standard of evidence for civil cases is much lower than for criminal cases, but you still need enough to get your foot in the door.

What the fuck are you talking about? The guy was wrongfully convicted; in any sane world, that alone would be enough justification to launch a suit claiming police negligence.

[Flagg]

This is more a case of asshole prosecutors rather than asshole or inept cops. Inept cops are the sort who couldn't catch a cold, much less a perp. Or ones who are not only crooked and vicious but stupid enough to order a hit on somebody using their celphone —even knowing that somebody (like, say, the FBI) could be tapping in on the signal.

It could be, but I think things like this tend to work in tandem. You have cops who basically just focus in on one person and get tunnel vision on a case, ignoring other evidence because they just "know" that's their guy. Then you have lazy asshole cops who just pin it on the firt person they can to close a case. Then there are the racist cops whose method of solving a crime are finding the nearest black guy and saying "Well boy, you're the nigger, you've just been elected" (True Story).

[Flagg]

Basically yes. If the police can't produce evidence that they did any kind of investigative work other than nailing this guy, then that pretty much proves that they didn't do their jobs.

I imagine he'd need enough evidence to get that far, though. The standard of evidence for civil cases is much lower than for criminal cases, but you still need enough to get your foot in the door.

What the fuck are you talking about? The guy was wrongfully convicted; in any sane world, that alone would be enough justification to launch a suit claiming police negligence.

It's fucked up, but I don't know that that's all it takes. You can be wrongfully convicted with everyone doing everything perfectly by the book and ethically.

I don't know that simply saying "I was convicted of a crime I didn't commit" would be enough to get through a motion to dismiss the case. I think you need some kind of evidence that negligence was involved.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I readily admit I could be talking out my ass.

[Darth Wong]

It's fucked up, but I don't know that that's all it takes. You can be wrongfully convicted with everyone doing everything perfectly by the book and ethically.

It's possible, but that would be something to determine in trial. The idea of not even allowing such cases to come to trial is absurd.

I don't know that simply saying "I was convicted of a crime I didn't commit" would be enough to get through a motion to dismiss the case. I think you need some kind of evidence that negligence was involved.

I don't really care what would realistically work in an American court. American courts are fucked up. I'm talking about what should be the case.

[Flagg]

It's fucked up, but I don't know that that's all it takes. You can be wrongfully convicted with everyone doing everything perfectly by the book and ethically.

It's possible, but that would be something to determine in trial. The idea of not even allowing such cases to come to trial is absurd.

I don't know that simply saying "I was convicted of a crime I didn't commit" would be enough to get through a motion to dismiss the case. I think you need some kind of evidence that negligence was involved.

I don't really care what would realistically work in an American court. American courts are fucked up. I'm talking about what should be the case.

Oh, what should be the case is that anyone found to have been wrongfully convicted of a crime should be exempt from paying state taxes for life, and given $200,000 for every year they spent in prison, or what they would have earned had they not been incarcerated, whichever is greater with the state paying the federal income tax. All of that money should also be considered to have been deposited into an account on the date of conviction with all of the interest that would have been generated also being paid out to the injured party. Also there should be additional monetary payments for every prison related injury that occured, amount increasing with the severity.

And all of this should be done without the stipulation that a civil case cannot be filed against the local government where the wrongful conviction occurred.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'd like to read the police report, and see why they decided to arrest him, and I'd like to see the court files to see why they decided to convict him

Restitution is certainly an option for this man, and the state should do the right thing and just pay up without making him go through the civil suit process. I think he has an excellent case unless there is some rare extraordinary thing that gave the police probable cause to arrest...which I doubt it.

[Death from the Sea]

I'd like to read the police report, and see why they decided to arrest him, and I'd like to see the court files to see why they decided to convict him

Restitution is certainly an option for this man, and the state should do the right thing and just pay up without making him go through the civil suit process. I think he has an excellent case unless there is some rare extraordinary thing that gave the police probable cause to arrest...which I doubt it.

from what the article says, and it could be wrong, but he was picked out of a line up. Which means he may have just been asked to come in for the line up like every other guy in the area and the victim just wrongly identified him as the suspect.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'd like to read the police report, and see why they decided to arrest him, and I'd like to see the court files to see why they decided to convict him

Restitution is certainly an option for this man, and the state should do the right thing and just pay up without making him go through the civil suit process. I think he has an excellent case unless there is some rare extraordinary thing that gave the police probable cause to arrest...which I doubt it.

from what the article says, and it could be wrong, but he was picked out of a line up. Which means he may have just been asked to come in for the line up like every other guy in the area and the victim just wrongly identified him as the suspect.

That's what I mean. I'd like to read the report and see what other people were in the line up with him. Were they all black, or was he the only black man?