Time Magazine’s investigation and the rest of the story about wrongful convictions
The current issue of Time magazine contains a six-page (long by Time’s standards) investigation by Nathan Thornburgh about a rural Texas case that might have led to the execution of somebody who did not commit the murder of a liquor store owner.
The dead liquor store owner is Allen Hilzandager, murdered in 1989. The dead convicted murderer is Claude Jones, executed by the state of Texas in 2000.
The context of the Time investigation is that testable DNA evidence (a hair from the crime scene) might prove Jones’ innocence. The Innocence Project based in New York City and Texas Observer magazine are advocating the testing. The prosecutor in San Jacinto County is opposing the testing.
Lawyers, journalists (including me) and others affiliated with the five dozen or so innocence projects across the United States believe executions of defendants who had nothing to do with a specific crime have occurred. Prosecutors, judges and others involved in the criminal justice system believe no such faulty execution has occurred. Passionate individuals on each side of the debate are motivated primarily by their opposition to or support of the death penalty. (I am not motivated primarily by a stance on the death penalty.)
The Jones case is not the first to revolve around whether states have executed innocent individuals. Because state officials (usually a combination of the local prosecutor, attorney general and governor) have resisted posthumous testing of evidence), some of the disputed cases might never be resolved. In Virginia, a long disagreement about the execution of Roger Coleman eventually led to testing of DNA evidence. Although some experienced, wise innocence project advocates felt certain the testing would prove Coleman’s innocence, they were mistaken. Virginia had indeed executed the actual murderer.
For those reading the Time investigation, or reading about the Time investigation, I think it’s vital to emphasize these points, which are not emphasized by Thornburgh. (I am not criticizing Thornburgh, who like almost all journalists is captive to a maximum word count set by editors.)
*Prosecutors who resist responsible testing of all credible evidence in death penalty cases–and non-death penalty cases–are bending/breaking their professional oath to place justice over winning convictions. Those prosecutors can dress up the reasons for their opposition all they want, but the high-minded statements cannot alter the immorality of that opposition.
*Prosecutors who state the system works so well that wrongful conviction cases almost never occur either know better or are devoid of common sense. Yes, the system works well in many of the 2300-plus prosecutor jurisdictions across the United States. But in other jurisdictions, wrongful convictions occur over and over. To use percentages as an advertisement for the rightness of the system is akin to the airline industry (hypothetically) saying a fatal crash right of “only” one percent means all is well in the skies.
*In most jurisdictions, most cases do not yield testable DNA evidence. That means proving actual innocence is usually extremely time consuming and expensive. Most innocence projects have tiny staffs and inadequate budgets. I believe big-picture studies of wrongful convictions based on mistaken eyewitness testimony, lying jailhouse informants, false confessions by coerced or mentally ill defendants and other factors convicingly suggest an alarming statistic: that in some jurisdictions, as many as five percent of all inmates are innocent.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Steve – Thanks for calling attention to the piece. It’s a big topic, and one that doesn’t get enough service, in my opinion.
As you said, TIME ran the piece long for its standards and I give them a lot of credit for that. To the additional emphases you bring up:
1) I wouldn’t necessarily characterize even Bill Burnett’s position as “immoral”. I think he’s wrong, and I think it does the system a disservice, but it’s important for me to understand the mindset of the prosecutors. I mentioned in the piece that his pride is likely at stake, which it shouldn’t be. But prosecutors also are wary of admitting or allowing for mistakes because they are always thinking about the next case, and wouldn’t want juries to start seeing them too skeptically. Unfortunately for them, juries have already begun treating cops and prosecutors alike with much more wariness. One argument that prosecutors like to make, which I don’t think applies to the Jones case, is that the system demands finality, that cases can’t be litigated ad infinitum. In many small cases, I think that might be true. But not in death cases.
2) Great point about the difference between jurisdictions. If we had more space, as you suggest, this definitely would have been a big issue.
3) I hope that we can follow-up at some point with stories about the fallibility of non-DNA cases. Being a consumer of TV procedurals just like everyone else, I was surprised at how few real-life cases, even homicides, involve DNA. That these exonerations were DNA-centric but also involved coerced testimony, faulty eyewitnesses, etc., should concern everyone.
Thanks again for writing about the topic. Cheers, Nathan
This is a thoughtful reply about a case that will help define the integrity of the criminal justice system. Truly, I look forward to reading more from you, Nathan, about the Jones case and the overall topic of wrongful convictions.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Time Magazine's investigation and the rest of the story about … [...]
The innocence projects are great causes to help individuals, but what is being done to correct the system?
Do any jurisdictions have serious criminal penalties for police, investigator, or prosecutor misconduct in wrongful convictions? Has anyone ever been found guilty or done time?
What is a man’s life worth, other than a notation in a personnel file–assuming the culprit is still employed in the same position.
What few rules there are regarding the withholding of evidence are either apparently not enforced or have no teeth. Courts are even more reluctant to apply them to prosecutors (et al) after they have moved on to other positions, which is usually the case when investigating years-old cases.
[...] Time Magazine’s investigation and the rest of the story about wrongful convictions – Steve W… [...]
Steve — Thought you might be interested to see that there’s been a ruling in the Jones case: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996809,00.html
Staying current on disputes about whether states have executed wrongfully convicted inmates can be time consuming and mind bending. I appreciate, Nathan Thornburgh, that you are taking your coverage for Time magazine so seriously. I don’t know whether the new DNA testing in he Jones case will demonstrate conclusively that the state of Texas executed an innocent man.
What I do know is this: Prosecutors, judges, police detectives and others inside law enforcement who speak with certainty that no innocent inmate has ever been executed by the state are almost surely wrong, based on research by me and other investigators. But even if they turned out to be correct (a state of knowledge that can never be achieved), I would call them fools for ignoring the possibility of the obvious.
In response to another comment. See in context »Steve – That is exactly what’s at stake here. On the surface, the Jones case isn’t that attractive, because he had been a thief and a murderer, and as someone told me on another story, “in Texas, it ain’t against the law to kill a sonofabitch.”
In response to another comment. See in context »HOWEVER, the power of the Jones case is the possibility that you allude to: of getting scientific proof that a man was executed for a crime he didn’t commit. It’s a slim chance: the only outcome that does that conclusively is to have the hair not exclude Danny Dixon. But it’s a chance. Let’s see how long the appeals drag out (if indeed they appeal). And thanks for your passion and work on the subject. I, by necessity, just come in and out as I’m not working on other things, so it’s great that there are committed journalists out there really holding people accountable week in, week out.
Best,
Nathan
So many journalists fail to keep track of new developments on important sagas. You should not apologize, Nathan, for “coming in and out” of the Jones case. I’m impressed that you are so vigilant covering the case while trying to keep track of numerous other stories for the magazine.
In response to another comment. See in context »Please take look at my fiance’s case. He is wrongfully convicted in Tennessee. He has spent 15 years from a prison cell collecting documentation to prove his innocence. I created this page so that Bill has a voice to the world. After finding Bill Thurlby, my high school sweetheart, in prison after 30 years, I have reviewed his case for years now. I believe and so do many others, that Bill was not provided a first fair trial nor was he given the NEW trial ordered by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2001, after condemning the jury instructions issued by the presiding judge. Bill’s public defender MISSED the ONE year filing deadline for the new trial. Please take a look at Bill’s case. Thank you.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Bill-Thurlby-DESERVES-Clemency/116230781726327?ref=ts
When I receive requests to look into alleged wrongful convictions, I react with a conflicted mind. On the positive side, I am pleased that individual citizens care enough about any case–not just the abstract issues–to push for a more complete investigation. On the negative side, I feel sad that I must say no 99 percent of the time.
Why? Because learning something akin to the truth in any case can take months of non-stop research. I am already so overwhelmed by Missouri cases that I’ll say no to a Tennessee case automatically.
So many investigations needing attention, but so few investigators (volunteer or paid). Not even the growing number of innocence projects can make a significant difference given the increasing number of pleas for a new look at old evidence.
In response to another comment. See in context »I send all articles like this in to Morgan County Correctional Complex in Wartburg Tennessee. The inmates are thrilled to know that someone is finally looking into all the cases of wrongful convictions. These articles give them hope. I know one thing for certain, even if there is guilt, MOST had their constitutional rights violated somewhere in the process. Tennessee was recently declared the most corrupt state in the nation by The Beast Magazine. I know why …