The following is the Citizens For Justice Newsletter for September, 1995:
WHY?
(For our new Readers)
Citizens for Justice was organized in March of 1983 by a group of people
who had witnessed a grave injustice in the outcome of a trial in Whatcom
County.  Steve Carey was wrongfully convicted of arson and aggravated
murder in connection with a trailer fire in which his wife and child
died.  Experts disagreed as to the cause of the fire, and Steve received
a sentence of life imprisonment with no parole.  It seemed to us at the
time that if this could happen once it just might occur more frequently
than we could imagine.  Our research and correspondence since then has
shown this to be true.  And we have learned how extremely difficult it
is to right such an injustice.  Once a person is convicted, rightly or
wrongly, everything is stacked against him.
About three years ago we paid a retaining fee to James Lobsenz of
Seattle.  However, Mr. Lobsenz is unable to get to this case and has
returned our retainer.  During the summer Steve has been working
diligently to find another attorney and we are hoping this will come
about soon.  It seems that nothing goes smoothly in the search for
justice and we understand a little more rully what others have gone
through in their struggles for vindication.
Throughout the summer we have continued to receive letters from
prisoners who detail their stories of wrongful conviction and ask for
help.  There simply aren't enough attorneys to handle these cases for
indigents, so the "victims" of injustice learn to write their own briefs
and try to find their way through the maze of rules for getting through
our Appeals system.  One prisoner writes us that the Department of
Justice estimates that one-half of one percent of those convicted are
innocent, while James McClosky of Centurion Ministries estimates 10% are
innocent.  Either way, that accounts for thousands each year
nation-wide.
THE FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
by Steve Carey
The criminal justice system in the United States is a complex network
of agencies at several levels that share power with each other and over
specific jurisdictions. The system is designed so that there is a
balance of power, with checks and balances, which preclused any one
group or branch of government from accumulating too much power.  The
nature of this system is such that procedures are complex, sometimes
ambiguous, and subject to influences from numerous sources but resistant
to excessive influence from any one source.
the primary foundation of all criminal justice practice in the United
States is the U.S. Constitution.  the Constitution is considered to be
a living document that is subject to court interpretations regarding
specific requirements at any given time. State constitutions also form
a significant part of the foundation for practice.  A state constitution
can provide more, but not fewer, rights than those provided for in the
U.S. constitution.  These state and federal constitutions and laws are
(or were) made by the public through elected legislatures, are enforced
by elected or appointed officials of the executive branch, and are
interpreted by elected or appointed judges in local, state and federal
courts.
The two basic principles upon which the representative democracy in the
United States is based are federalism and separation of powers.
Federalism simply means that there are various jurisdictions --
national, state and local -- that function to provide different rights,
privileges, and services to the citizens of their jurisdictions.
Separation of powers means that each government -- national, state, and
local -- is further divided into three branches -- executive,
legislative, and judicial -- which have separate powers regarding
governmental matters and serve as a system of checks and balances in
regard to the power exercised by each of the other branches.
Each branch of government has its unique duties, rights, and powers; the
system is designed to ensure that no one branch gains excessive power
and influence.  Because each branch is responsible to different
political constituencies, and members serve different leangth of terms
in some cases and share powers with other branches, there is a
consistency to governmental procedures that allows for slow,
deliberate, and appropriate change.  radical shifts in public policy and
governmental process are rare.  One consequence of the separation of
powers -- which some people view as negative -- is that government tends
to act slowly and its actions are the result of compromises.
WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS CONTINUE
We have received from Peter Adlem of Saanichton, B.C., a copy of an
atricle on Wrongful Conviction which appeared in the May 21 issue of the
Times Colonist.  the article was written by Mark Clayton for the
Christian Science Monitor.  It discusses at length the case of Guy Paul
Morin, Canadian prisoner who was freed after nearly 10 years as the
result of DNA testing.  Also mentioned are David Milgaard, freed after
23 years, Rubin Carter after 18 years, and Ed Honaker of Virginia after
11 years.  He points out that this is a problem in Britain as well as
Canada and the U.S.  We wish we could print the whole article, but it's
very lengthy.  So we will content ourselves with the insert which lists
some common elements of wrongful convictions.  they are:
*THE OFFENCE.*  Henous crimes and violence against women and children
generate large-scale news media coverage and charge public emotions.
Pressure is intense on prosecutors and police to find and convict
someone of the crime.
*ZEROING IN.*  Under pressure, police latch onto something, perhaps a
quirk of behavior, that causes them to target an innocent person as the
prime suspect.  Only then do police begin building a case, often
minimizing or ignoring evidence that points to other suspects while
exaggerating the importance of other clues.
*SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE.*  Prosecutors or police hide from the defence
and the jury certain evidence or testimony that contradicts or undercuts
their claim the defendant is guilty.
*SLOPPY POLICE WORK.*  Crucial evidence, usually supportive of the
defendant, is lost, overlooked misconstrued, suppressed.  Other
evidence supportive of the prosecution is exaggerated or falsified.
*SLOPPY DEFENCE LAWYERS.*  Low paid, overworked public defenders often
fail to point out flawed prosecution arguments.
*JAIL-HOUSE CONFESSIONS.*  Alleged confessions of guilt that are
allegedly witnessed by undercover officers or inmates who are offered a
deal by prosecutors in exchange for their testimony.  Not infrequently
the existence of the deal is unknown to a defendant's attorney and to
the jury.
*MISIDENTIFICATION BY EYE WITNESSES.*  Many times eyewitnesses who did
not get a good look at an attacker are encouraged or even coached by
police to identify a particular person.
*SPURIOUS "SCIENTIFIC" EVIDENCE"  Forensic evidence subject to wide
interpretation is offered by "expert" witnesses as conclusive.
*BIASED JUDGES.*  A judge may bias a jury by his comments or orders.
Lawyers for falsely convicted Canadian Guy Paul Morin charge that the
judge tilted toward the prosecution in numerous instances.
The author goes on to say that Prime Minister John Major's government
has agreed to create a new independent review board to examine alleged
miscarriages of justice.  such a board was formed in Massachusetts after
a case in which two men thought innocent by many were executed in 1927.
that board failed because its decisions were not accepted by the courts.
This is a problem with several proposed solutions, such as outlawing
convictions based on jail-house confessions or circumstantial evidence
alone.
>>> Continued to next message
- JetMail v1.20*6 - Unregistered QWK Mail Door for Spitfire
--- FreeMail 1.10 alpha-3
---------------