NEWS AROUND PRISON AND LAW  /  USA  /  2006

30 July 2006

der supreme court in colorado hat ein gesetz nachdem menschen, die bewährungsstrafen haben, nicht wählen dürfen ,einstimmig bestätigt.

Court rules Colorado can keep felons from voting while on parole

DENVER If you do the crime, you do the time. And even after you've done the time you still may not be able to vote in Colorado. That state's Supreme Court is upholding a law that keeps convicted felons from voting while they're on parole. In a unanimous ruling, the judges say parole has to be considered part of a sentence. And since state law keeps felons from voting while serving their sentences, it's legal. The court rejected arguments from a civil liberties group, which went to bat for a man paroled on drug and theft charges. About six-thousand people in Colorado won't be able to vote this year under the decision.

[  wane.com

28 July 2006

laut berichten plant die regierung jetzt mit einem gesetz die letzten monat vom supreme court für illegal erklärten militärtribunale erneut zu etablieren. laut menschenrechtsgruppen und juristischen experten würde damit den miltärgerichten us bürgerinnen ohne anklage inhaftieren und vor diesen als "feindliche kombatanden" anklagen. somit würden diese die regulären juristischen wege verwehrt werden. besondere probleme macht die einordnung als "feindliche kämpferinnen" da der begriff laut expertinnen sehr schwammig definiert sei.

Draft legislation establishing military tribunals shows up on blog

U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill. A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.

Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made. Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute." Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda. "That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court _ and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony. Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.

The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status. "In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.

The draft proposal contends that an existing law _ passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. _ that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.

[  tkb.org

Bill permits indefinite detention
Critics call language too broad

25. juli 2006

WASHINGTON - U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill. A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court. Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made. Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute." Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda. "That's the big question ? the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court - and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony. Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[  .charleston.net

21 July 2006

Chicago: Folter von Schwarzen bei Polizei bleibt ohne Folgen

Foltermethoden bei Verhören bestätigt aber Ermittler können wegen Verjährung keine Anklage erheben

Chicago - Sonderermittlungen bei der Polizei in Chicago haben nach Angaben der Staatsanwaltschaft Mutmaßungen über Foltermethoden bei Verhören von Schwarzen bestätigt. Die untersuchten Vergehen lägen aber schon zu lange zurück, als dass sie noch strafrechtlich verfolgt werden könnten, heißt es in dem am Mittwoch veröffentlichten Bericht der Anwälte Robert Boyle und Edward Egan. Sie waren vier Jahre lang Vorwürfen von Folteranwendung in der siebziger und achtziger Jahren nachgegangen.

"Es gibt Fälle, in denen es nach unserer Auffassung gerechtfertigt wäre, gegen Polizeibeamte von Chicago Anklage wegen Gefangenenmisshandlung zu erheben", heißt es in der Studie. "Nach unserer Einschätzung würde das Beweismaterial in diesen Fällen ausreichen, um die Schuld der Betroffenen praktisch ohne jeden Zweifel festzustellen." Konkret handele es sich dabei um mindestens drei Vorkommnisse. Dazu gehört dem Bericht zufolge auch der Fall eines Verdächtigen, dessen Schilderungen von Schlägen und Elektroschocks schließlich zur Entlassung des zuständigen Polizeikommandeurs führten. Boyle and Egan erklärten ferner, dass sie noch in weiteren Fällen persönlich von der Richtigkeit der vorgetragenen Vorwürfe überzeugt seien. Hier sei das Beweismaterial allerdings nicht eindeutig genug. Letztlich aber seien alle Fälle bereits verjährt, so dass eine Anklage nicht möglich sei. (APA)

[  derstandard.at

Report: Police tortured suspects

19 July 2006

Many of the alleged victims are suing the city.

CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago police beat, kicked, shocked or otherwise tortured scores of black suspects in the 1970s and 1980s to try to extract confessions from them, prosecutors reported Wednesday. However, the prosecutors — appointed by a Cook County judge four years ago to look into torture allegations — said that the cases are too old or too weak to prosecute anyone now. Prosecutors Robert D. Boyle and Edward Egan said they found evidence that police abused at least half the 148 suspects whose cases were reviewed. Nearly all of the suspects were black.

Among other things, suspects claimed police beat them, played mock Russian roulette, administered electric shocks with a cattle prod-like device and a crank-operated "black box," and threw typewriter covers over their heads to make them gasp for air. The investigators were not able to substantiate all of the allegations, but made it clear they believed many of the claims, including the use of the black box on at least one man, and said that in the majority of cases, suspects were beaten with fists, feet or telephone books. Boyle and Egan said that in only three cases involving a total of five former officers was there enough evidence to prosecute, but the three-year statute of limitations has run out.

"We only wish that we could indict on these three cases," Boyle said, after a $6.1 million investigation that involved more than 33,300 documents, the issuance of 217 grand jury subpoenas and interviews of more than 700 people. Among those five officers was Jon Burge, a lieutenant who commanded a violent-crimes unit and the so-called "midnight crew" that allegedly participated in most of the alleged torture. Neither Burge nor anyone else has ever been charged, but Burge was fired in 1991 after a police board found that a murder suspect was abused while in custody. Burge's attorney has said that Burge never tortured anyone.

Report

In their 300-page report, the prosecutors accused then-police Superintendent Richard Brzeczek of dereliction of duty and said he and a former top official at the Cook County State's Attorney's office, William Kunkle, failed to pursue an investigation into allegations of torture."They can blame me for whatever they want to blame me for," Brzeczek said. "I know what I did was correct. It was not dereliction of duty."Kunkle, now a Cook County circuit judge, was not available for comment, his staff said. Mayor Richard M. Daley was the state's attorney during part of the period investigated, but Boyle dismissed any notion that Daley knew about the torture. Daley delegated responsibilities to people in his office, and his only mistake was "perhaps relying on the judgment of others," Boyle said.

The Daley administration had no immediate comment.The report goes into graphic detail about the torture of Andrew Wilson, the convicted murderer of two Chicago police officers. Wilson said that he was beaten and kicked during his interrogation, and that officers put a plastic bag over his head and burned his arm with a cigarette.Then, he said, an officer pulled from a grocery bag a black box that had a crank on it. He said alligator clips were attached to his left ear and left nostril and he received a shock when an officer cranked the box. Burge, he said, also cranked the box and then put a gun in Wilson's mouth and clicked it.The report said no black box was ever recovered. But the report makes it clear that there is ample evidence — including burn marks on Wilson's nostril and ear — that such a device was used.

[  vindy.com

Chicago inquiry: Police tortured black suspects
'Guilt beyond reasonable doubt,' but crimes too old to prosecute

CHICAGO - Special prosecutors investigating allegations that police tortured nearly 150 black suspects in the 1970s and ’80s said Wednesday they found evidence of abuse, but any crimes are now too old to prosecute.In three of the cases, the prosecutors said the evidence was strong enough to have warranted indictments and convictions.“It is our judgment that the evidence in those cases would be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” Robert D. Boyle and Edward J. Egan wrote. Story continues below ?

The four-year investigation focused on allegations that 148 black men were tortured in Chicago police interrogation rooms in the 1970s and ’80s. The men claimed detectives under the command of Lt. Jon Burge beat them, used electric shocks, played mock Russian roulette and started to smother at least one to elicit confessions.No one has ever been charged, but Burge was fired after a police board found he had abused a suspect in custody. His attorney has said Burge never tortured anyone.In about half the cases reviewed, Boyle and Egan said they found evidence of abuse.Their report concluded that then-police Superintendent Richard J. Brzeczek was guilty of “dereliction of duty” and did not act in good faith in an investigation into claims of torture involving Burge.

State Attorney procedures faulted

They also faulted procedures followed by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office and the police department at the time, saying the procedures were “inadequate in some respects” but had since improved.

Mayor Richard M. Daley was the state’s attorney during part of the period investigated, but Boyle dismissed any notion that Daley knew about the torture. Daley delegated responsibilities to other people in his office and that his only mistake was “perhaps relying on the judgment of others,” Boyle said.Daley’s office and a police spokeswoman did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday.Boyle and Egan said they found three cases with enough evidence for convictions, including one involving the man whose abuse allegations led to Burge’s firing. Andrew Wilson, who was convicted of killing two police officers in 1982, claimed Burge and two detectives beat and tortured him with electric shocks.“Regrettably, we have concluded that the statute of limitations would bar any prosecution of any offenses our investigation has disclosed,” the prosecutors said.The statute of limitations for criminal charges from the allegations is three years.

Lawsuits in the works

Several people who claimed to have been abused by Chicago detectives have sued the city and the police department, and the report could bolster their cases. Attorney Locke Bowman of the MacArthur Justice Center said the City Council should pay for counseling for those who contend they were tortured.“That is not where this matter should rest. That is not where it will rest,” Bowman said.There had also been a legal battle over the release of the report. The Illinois Supreme Court eventually denied a request from a former prosecutor, listed in court documents only as “John Doe,” to block portions of the report from being released.In May, a United Nations anti-torture panel said the Chicago investigation needs to go farther than it has. The panel said the United States should ensure that law enforcement officials who mistreat suspects are punished.

[  msnbc.msn.com

18 July 2006

erneut hat der adc ( american-arab anti-discrimination committee ) eine rechtshilfe für arab americans veröffentlicht.laut medienberichte plant das fbi tausende menschen erneut zu verhören.

Know Your Rights Statement On Possible FBI Interviews

In the past few days, media reports have discussed a possible plan by the FBI to monitor and interview Arab Americans in an effort to identify potential threats to national security. [  For more information see

According to media reports, this plan may involve tracking and interviewing thousands of Arab nationals and Arab Americans in the United States. This would not be the first time that the FBI has engaged such tactics. Similar initiatives, in the form of voluntary interviews, were conducted by the FBI in 2001 and 2002. If media reports are correct, this proposed plan would ethnically profile thousands of individuals, including American citizens, which smacks of guilt by association and the criminalization of an entire ethnic population.

ADC emphasizes to members of the Arab-American and Arab immigrant communities that equal protection and due process rights are afforded to everyone, including non-citizens, in the United States. ADC would also like to advise anyone who is contacted by law enforcement authorities concerning this matter of:

1) Their absolute discretion whether to submit to any voluntary interview. This means it is their right to decide whether to submit to an interview.

2) Their right not to answer questions without the presence of an attorney. ADC highly recommends that individuals not participate in any interviews without an attorney.

3) The fact that the FBI cannot threaten to take away their green cards or otherwise interfere with their immigration status. If an FBI agent makes any such threats, the individual has the right to terminate the interview and retain an attorney. Individuals who face any such threats should contact the ADC Legal Department immediately by calling (202) 244-2990 or via email at: legal@adc.org

4) Their absolute discretion in selecting the date, time, and location of any voluntary interview as well as who may attend the interview including an interpreter if needed. Remember that the interview is voluntary.

5) Their absolute discretion in selecting what questions to answer during such a voluntary interview. For example, one may choose to answer questions about their neighborhood or activity they may deem suspicious and yet refuse to answer any questions regarding their immigration status, political views, or religious beliefs and practices.

Additional useful know your rights information may be obtained by reviewing the Legal Department section of the ADC website at www.adc.org/legal ADC urges anyone who is contacted by federal authorities or law enforcement concerning this matter to report the incident to the ADC Legal Department by calling (202) 244-2990 or via email at: legal@adc.org Upon request, ADC will do its best to provide third party observers, in cases where individuals would want such additional safeguards.

[  adc.org

17 July 2006

richterinnen in new york können in zukunft eine waffe mit in den gerichtssaal nehmen.

Here comes the judge, with a gun

They have the flowing black robes to lend them dignity and gravitas. They have gavels to command attention from the wise guys in court. Now judges in New York have been given permission to carry guns while carrying out their duties. "From an ethical standpoint, there is no prohibition ... barring you from carrying a firearm while performing your duties on the bench," the New York state advisory committee on judicial ethics said last week. The ruling was prompted by a query from one of New York state's 3 400 judges, who asked whether it was "ethically permissible" to carry a firearm in court. The committee also reminded judges of the decorum and seriousness of their office. "Be patient, dignified and courteous" to those appearing before the bench, it said, and behave in "a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary".

The ruling, reported in the New York Law Journal, dispensed some advice on how to achieve the difficult balance of being fair-minded while packing a piece. "This committee believes that keeping your firearm concealed and safeguarded on your person while you are on the bench is advisable," the ruling said. Anxieties about judges' safety have grown in recent months. In March last year an Atlanta judge and two others were killed when a suspect escaped from court. - Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

[  mg.co.za

8 July 2006

neue strengere vorschriften für die benutzung von flash-bang-granaten und anderen sog. nicht-tödliche waffen wurden jetzt im sacramento main knast erlassen. dort wurden durch den einsatz sog stun grenades zwei gefangene verletzt.

Main Jail restricting use of stun grenades

New rules that strictly curtail use of stun grenades at the Sacramento County Main Jail are the latest reverberation of its "flash-bang" incident, initially defended by the Sheriff's Department even though it left two inmates burned. The jail's revised policy also requires video documentation of incidents involving the use of force or resulting in injuries. And it instructs deputies to always consider nonviolent tactics such as negotiating with inmates, or simply waiting until a situation simmers down.

The Dec. 1 flash-bang episode was an eye-opener for the Sheriff's Department, Lt. Scott Jones said Friday. Following an inmate protest, deputies tossed the grenades into six cells as inmates lay prone on the floor. One exploded between a prisoner's legs, another between the inmate's arm and chest. "The December incident made us take a really critical look at how these things are used and how we want them to be used," said Jones, the sheriff's legal adviser. "The policy was not as well-defined as we wanted it to be. We had all assumed common sense would prevail."

The revisions came in two waves -- the first in January and the latest in June, said Jones, who cited a legal maxim about the flash-bangs: "Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do it." Shortly after the December incident, which began with inmates flooding their cells, sheriff's officials defended the use of the flash-bangs, saying the grenades reduced "the risk of injuries to all involved." At that time, Chief Deputy Bill Kelly, who oversees the jail, said this about using a flash-bang: "Policy is they can use it whenever they need, to distract someone." A Bee story, published Jan. 15, found that the use of stun grenades in such circumstances is virtually unheard of. Flash-bangs -- louder than a jet at takeoff and brighter than 6 million candles -- typically are used as distractions in riot or hostage situations.

Corrections expert Jeffrey Schwartz characterized the deputies' use of flash-bangs in the cells as "ludicrous and dangerous." On Friday, he said the sheriff's revised use-of-force policy is a step in the right direction. "With that said, however, these changes may be more limited than what is called for," said Schwartz, who monitors troubled jails for the federal government. "First, it is unlikely that just addressing the question of flash-bangs will fix an inadequate use-of-force policy. "Second, if there is a new policy, there should be required training for all jail staff on what that new policy entails." Jones said no specific training has been held, but watch commanders and sergeants were told to impress upon the line staff to stop using flash-bangs and to institute the other policy changes.

On Dec. 1, riot-clad jail deputies threw the grenades into six cells even though the flooding -- caused when inmates clogged their toilets -- had already been halted by turning off the water. The flash-bangs were deployed with scant warning and without giving the prisoners a chance to leave their cells voluntarily, a district attorney's investigation found.

The district attorney declined, however, to file criminal charges against Donald Black, the probationary sergeant in charge of the jail that night. Black was placed on administrative leave and later demoted, according to court documents. Under the sheriff's new policy, flash-bangs and other combustible devices "are not to be used within the confine of an inmate's cell absent clear evidence that the inmate has armed himself with some type of weapon" or when someone is in imminent danger. Except in a bona fide emergency, the rules say, use of these devices must be approved in advance by the jail's watch commander.

The previous use-of-force policy, in place in December, did not specifically mention stun grenades nor did it suggest non-forceful alternatives. The new orders also require that a supervisor be notified if use of force results in an injury, or if it involves a firearm, chemical weapon, Taser, carotid control hold or strapping an inmate into a prostraint chair. That supervisor will forward the reports and video from the incident to his own superior, under the new policy. In all instances where significant force is used, officers shall try to videotape the entire event.

Lt. Jones drafted these changes, he said, to provide a conduit for the information up the chain of command. Otherwise, the information might stop at the sergeant of the day. "Each day, the assistant commander of the jail gets his morning cup of coffee and takes a look at uses of force from the proceeding day," Jones said. "That means no surprises for him on down the line." Deputies also must report to their supervisor whenever they place a prisoner in an isolation cell while cuffed and shackled.

After the flash-bangs were deployed Dec. 1, all six inmates were tightly strapped into prostraint chairs for more than two hours -- including the two who were burned and another whose nose and teeth were broken in a scuffle with guards. That inmate, Michael Toro, was then shackled to a toilet grate in an isolation cell. Twelve hours after the incident, Toro was transported to the hospital for treatment, according to jail records. Toro and three other inmates have filed claims with the county over the incident, the first step toward civil lawsuits.

[  sacbee.com

6 July 2006

artikel über die schwierigkeiten von gefangenen in new york anhand von dna analysen ihre verurteilungen anzufechten. als aufhänger dient der fall eines 44 jährigen der seit 1994 verlangte daß ein dna test gemacht wird. bisher hatte die polizei immer behauptet die beweise aus dem jahr 1984 seien verschwunden. damals wurde der mann wegen kidnapping und vergewaltigung verurteilt. das opfer hatte ihn aus bildern ausgesucht und bei einer gegenüberstellung erst identifiziert. obwohl sie später sagte sie sei sich nicht sicher, war ihre aussage sowie eine "flüchtige identifizierung" durch einen kellner die hauptgrundlage des urteils. das alibi das der beschuldigte hatte spielte keine rolle, ebensowenig die "biologischen beweise" ( fingerabdrücke, dna etc.) und er wurde 1985 verurteilt.

1994, 1997 und 1998 wurden die anträge des mannes nach dem sog. "rape kit" immer wieder mit der aussage die box sei verloren ,abgewiesen. nach einem erneuten antrag durch einen einflußreichen staatsanwalt, wurde im letzten jahr die box gefunden. sie war an dem ort, wo sie 1984 hinterlegt wurde, in einem lagerhaus der polizei das angebl. 3 x nach der box suchsucht wurde. insgesamt sind 17 weitere fälle bekannt bei denen die behörden ebenfalls behaupten sie hätten die beweise verloren bzw. vernichtet.

New York Fails at Finding Evidence to Help the Wrongfully Convicted

Alan Newton, a former bank teller from the Bronx, is due to leave prison today after serving 22 years for a rape he did not commit - a victim first of mistaken identification, then of a housekeeping problem of epic scope.

For more than a decade, Mr. Newton, 44, pleaded in state and federal courts for DNA testing that was not available when he was tried, but Police Department officials said they could not find the physical evidence from the case. That evidence, a rape kit taken from a woman who was kidnapped and assaulted, was located only after a special request was made last year by a senior Bronx prosecutor to a police inspector. The rape kit, it turned out, was in its original storage bin from 1984, Barrel No. 22, in the same police warehouse that the authorities said they had searched at least three times since Mr. Newton first asked in 1994.

The long-delayed DNA tests proved the innocence of Mr. Newton, who had refused to participate in a sex-offender treatment program in prison, ruining his chance for an earlier parole. He plans to come to court today dressed in one of the suits he wore to work half his lifetime ago.

At least 17 other people who have been convicted of serious crimes in New York City, and who maintain that they are innocent, have been unable to obtain DNA testing because the authorities say they cannot find the evidence, said Vanessa Potkin, a staff lawyer with the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in Manhattan, a legal clinic that helps convicts get DNA tests. By the Innocence Project's tally, the city has one of the worst records in the country for finding old evidence when it is sought by people seeking to clear their names: Of the New York City cases that the project has been unable to resolve, 50 percent involved DNA evidence that had been lost or destroyed, compared with an average of 32 percent nationally.

"It has been much more difficult for us to locate forensic evidence in New York City than any other jurisdiction," Ms. Potkin said. "Mr. Newton could have been proven innocent in 1994." A police official, Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne, said the department was investigating why the rape kit had not been found earlier. "Beginning five years ago," he said, "the Property Clerk's Office improved its procedures regarding DNA evidence, which includes approximately 17,000 rape kits, by segregating DNA evidence and storing it separately from all other evidence." With more people and more crime than any other American city, New York also stores more evidence ? over 1 million pieces in a central warehouse in Queens, and more in satellite facilities in each borough ? and until recently, its inventory system consisted of handwritten ledgers and index cards. Besides storerooms run by the Police Department, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner also keeps some biological evidence.

One man who, with a co-defendant, has unsuccessfully chased evidence through the criminal justice system, said he appreciated that vast amounts of material must be stored but said even tiny fractions of it could have the power to right lives. "I understand there's megatons of evidence all over the place," said the man, Reginald Connor, 38, who was paroled two years ago. "But these are people's lives that are being turned upside down because of stuff like this. Where is the stuff that can overturn our case and show we are innocent?"

Except for the outcome, Mr. Newton's case in the Bronx has a number of parallels to the case of Mr. Connor in Brooklyn, where he was convicted with another man, Everton Wagstaffe, of kidnapping a young woman in 1992. She was found murdered, but a judge dismissed homicide charges against them for lack of evidence. Both the Bronx and Brooklyn crimes took place late at night, on streets in high-crime neighborhoods, and the prosecution cases were based almost entirely on the testimony of a single eyewitness. Both show the high stakes and perplexing difficulties of tracking down old evidence.

In the Bronx case, a woman leaving a bodega around 4 a.m. was forced into a car by a man who sexually assaulted and robbed her in a park. After she walked away, the attacker struck again, this time taking her to an abandoned building, where he then severely cut her face. Mr. Newton, who had a criminal record from a fight as a teenager, was picked out of a photo array, then identified by the victim. Although she later said she was unsure if Mr. Newton was the assailant, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on her testimony and a fleeting identification by the bodega clerk; Mr. Newton offered an alibi, saying he had spent the night at the home of a woman in Queens. No biological evidence was presented at the trial, and he was convicted in 1985. In 1994, Mr. Newton filed the first of his own motions to seek DNA testing of the rape kit, which contained swabs taken from the victim's genitals immediately after the attack. In 1994, 1997 and 1998 he lost those motions because the evidence was not available.

"Currently there is no original voucher in the active file, therefore it must have been destroyed," Police Sgt. Patrick J. McGuire wrote in 1998. As for any record of the destruction of the evidence, Sergeant McGuire wrote: "Unfortunately there was a fire in our facility during the summer of 1995 which destroyed these files." In 2005, Ms. Potkin asked the chief prosecutor of sex crimes in the Bronx, Elisa Koenderman, to help. "Many district attorneys would have relied on the representations that officials in the past had already 'looked,' and the kit was lost or destroyed," Ms. Potkin said yesterday.

Ms. Koenderman wrote to Inspector John Trabitz, who is in charge of the police evidence facilities, sending along a copy of the original evidence voucher. The rape kit was found in Barrel 22, and tests by two laboratories reached the same result: The evidence "conclusively excludes Mr. Newton as the source of the sperm recovered" from the victim, according to a motion filed jointly by the Innocence Project and the Bronx district attorney's office. "I can't explain why the evidence wasn't found before," Ms. Koenderman said. "It's tragic. I don't know what else to say. This man did not commit this crime and has languished in jail this many years." In the Brooklyn case, the charges against Mr. Wagstaffe and Mr. Connor were based largely on a single eyewitness: a troubled drug addict who admitted during testimony that she continued to use drugs.

A young woman, Jennifer Negron, vanished from a street in East New York late one night in 1992, and her body was found the following morning. The witness came forward some hours later and told the police that she saw Mr. Wagstaffe and Mr. Connor drag Ms. Negron into a car. The case was investigated under the supervision of a detective in Brooklyn who was involved in three wrongful convictions and who said after he retired that the workload in his precinct was so high that he almost never had time to investigate serious crimes properly. Both Mr. Wagstaffe and Mr. Connor denied being involved and took polygraph tests, which they passed but which are not admissible as evidence. They were convicted and sentenced to 12 to 25 years.

From prison, Mr. Wagstaffe began to file motions seeking tests of the material recovered from Ms. Negron's body, but the evidence has not been found. During the autopsy, the medical examiner's office had prepared swabs of her genitals, clipped her fingernails, which had blood beneath them, and recovered a single black hair from the palm of one of her hands. A lawyer who represents Mr. Connor, Elizabeth Emmons of the Legal Aid Society, said she could not find the evidence in the medical examiner's office and has asked police property clerks to help in the search. None of it has been located. Mr. Connor said that when he appeared before the parole board, he refused to budge on his assertion of innocence. On his release in 2004, he was forced to register as a sex offender. He discovered that meant he could not live in the new home he and his wife had bought because it was too close to a school, so he is renting an apartment separately nearby to comply with the terms of his parole.

Mr. Wagstaffe, 37, who says he will not attend a parole hearing, remains in prison and continues to hunt for the missing evidence. "I have refused to go to the parole board and will continue to refuse," Mr. Wagstaffe wrote in a recent letter. "Because I would rather die inside here fighting to prove my innocence than to live on the street like my co-defendant and carry the title of, and register as, a sadistic murderer and rapist."

[  tinyurl.com

5 July 2006

artikel von corpwatch zu den 5 militärfirmen die sich um regierungsverträge bewerben die grenze zu den usa abzuschotten.

Border for Sale

Five major military contractors are competing to design a system to tackle up to two million undocumented immigrants a year in the United States. Boeing, Ericsson, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are working on proposals that focus on high technology rather than high fences, but ignoring some of the fundamental problems of immigration.

[  corpwatch.org

July 2006

Abuses In The Texas Prison System

[  Abuses In The Texas Prison System