|
Keeping people IN who should be OUT is a crime that our Criminal Justice System inflicts upon the society it is assigned to protect. Nick Yarris, released in 2004 after spending 22 years on death row, and Thomas Doswell, released in 2005 after spending 17 years in PA prisons, are among those proven innocent with DNA evidence. However, 90% of wrongly convicted cannot be helped with DNA evidence as the errors in their cases come from problems such as coerced confessions and witness errors.
Art for Justice acknowledges the establishment of an Innocence Commission, sponsored by Senator Stewart Greenleaf, (Republican, Montgomery County) approved by the Pennsylvania Legislature in 2007. The Innocence Commission will study the causes and circumstances that lead to wrongful convictions and report its findings and recommendations to the full Pennsylvania Legislature.
Cases of Individuals Claiming Wrongful Conviction
DNA evidence has made it possible to prove the innocence of some individuals who have been wrongly convicted. It is estimated that only 10% of those who are wrongly convicted can be assisted with DNA evidence. The other 90% of wrongful convictions result from various sources such as coerced confessions, faulty eye witness accounts and faulty information from informants.
The Pennsylvania Innocence Commission will study the causes and circumstances that lead to wrongful conviction and report its findings and recommendation to the full PA legislature.
Art for Justice is seeking to develop resources to assist individuals who claim wrongful conviction but cannot seek relief from DNA evidence. As a first step Art for Justice will present case studies of some offenders who claim such circumstances. The accounts are solely those of the offenders. Art for Justice offers this space to further the dialogue about this critical issue, but does not have the resources to make independent investigations to verify each and every detail that is presented.
top
A Brief History of My Case — by Charles H. Lawson (Zafir)
In 1974, at age 17, with only truancy on my record, I was beaten by police and forced to confess to a crime I did not commit. With no parent or attorney present, two statements were taken from me. After the first statement was taken I was allowed to see my step-father and sister for a few minutes. My stepfather saw inconsistencies in the statement which were that I had been in Wildwood, New Jersey that day when a fight broke out in Philadelphia. The murder was thought to be in retaliation for that earlier fight. I had no motivation to commit the crime. When the police became aware of the inconsistency they asked my family to leave the room and rewrote the confession. Without parent or attorney present, I then signed the second statement.
On the basis of the confession, with no other evidence against me, I was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to life in prison. I spent five years in prison for a crime I did not commit. The conviction was appealed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned it. The Court acknowledged that my rights were violated because there was no parent or attorney present during the interrogation.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court awarded me a new trial. Even though I had given the police the name of the person who committed the crime, there was no one else in custody to prosecute for the crime five years later when the retrial was granted. I was given two alternatives, accept a plea bargain to Involuntary Manslaughter with a deal for the five years I had already served, or they would take the case back to trial. They assured me that because I was now an adult, I would be convicted again to life.
Being in prison for five years for a crime I did not commit, was not a good education. After my release I was able to build a productive life, working as a pipe fitter and later as a draftsman, but I also had a drug addiction. In 1990 in an incident involving drugs I deeply regret that in self defense I shot a man and he died. All witnesses at the trial testified that prior to the incident a clear threat had been made on my life. However, my defense was poorly represented and I was found guilty of third degree murder. The life sentence was imposed because of the plea bargain made in 1979 ( for the crime I did not commit ). There is a law that states, "Anyone who was ever convicted of any degree of murder in this State and is once again convicted of murder of any degree except first degree, shall receive a sentence of life in prison regardless of any other law to the contrary." Had this been explained to me in 1979, I would not have accepted the plea bargain.
I have been imprisoned now for over 20 years total. I filed an appeal pro se (on my own) based on new information discovered from a witness. The information claims that there was tampering of evidence (a gun was removed from the scene of the crime). The witness was ill advised by the defense and did not come forward with complete information at the time of the trial.
In October, 2006 I heard back from the federal courts telling me that there is merit in the appeal. However, I had filed the case under the wrong petition and was required to re-file it with the Third Circuit of Appeals in May, 2007. In June, 2007 I heard back from the Third Circuit that the petition was denied.
Art for Justice acknowledges that Attorney Steve Dittmann has been working on Charles Lawson's legal case.
Download file here for the latest information on Charles Lawson's appeal.
top
Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett — A Brief Case History
On August 10, 1991 at the break of dawn, Mr. Robert Janke, was robbed and cruelly shot execution style by a lone stranger at the intersection of 17th and South Streets in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; he dies later that same day. The miscreant who robbed and shot him was later identified as Dwayne Bennett.
Although five people were with Dwayne Bennett on that fateful morning, none of the five was near him or in his immediate space when he robbed and shot Mr. Janke. 16-year-old Giovanni Reid along with his friends, brothers - Tyrone Mackey and Richard King - were all in the vicinity when it happened. Two of the murderer's cousins were there as well - Dajuan and Carlton Bennett.
Immediately after the incident, Mr. Tyrone Mackey reportedly stopped by a relative's home to report the crime. He would also be the one to later initiate contact with the police. All five young men identified Dwayne Bennett (his cousins included) as the lone culprit; just the same, Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett would end up being tried together as Dwayne Bennett's accomplices. The Government's key witness, who purportedly eyewitnessed the crime as it unfolded, testified in court that she saw three, dark-skinned Black males surround the victim before he was shot.
A death-qualified jury was seated. However, the day before the trial was to get underway, in a desperate attempt to escape the penalty of death, Mr. Dwayne Bennett accepted a plea bargain of life in prison without the possibility of parole. So, how did a then sixteen-year-old, visibly light-skinned Giovanni Reid end up in a courtroom seated at a defense table? And, how did he wind up receiving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole? Though Dwayne Bennett (the confessed murderer) has always maintained that no one else knew what he was contemplating, it seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Since Giovanni's conviction in 1993, new evidence continuously surfaces that proves his innocence. It has since been discovered that the district attorney paid hundreds of dollars to its witnesses that testified at trial. It was also discovered that a Commonwealth witness told the district attorney that Giovanni was innocent; yet the district attorney ordered him on the witness stand to testify to the contrary. In 2006, a new and untapped eyewitness came forward to say that he eyewitnessed the crime from a distance and testified via video deposition that Giovanni and his co-defendant Carlton Bennett are innocent.
Commonwealth v. Giovanni Reid & Carlton Bennett
On November 30, 2010, room 1007 of the Criminal Justice Center was packed with spectators as the defense team was able to finally procure their witness from Tennessee— Mr. Wayne Richman. When co-defendants Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett entered the courtroom, Mr. Richman began to weep. He testified for more than three hours about what he witnessed on the morning of August 10, 1991. He passionately relived how on that fateful morning he witnessed one man commit the assault and murder of his friend, Robert Janke, and that individual was neither Carlton Bennett nor Giovanni Reid.
Later, while still under direct examination by defense attorneys, Mr. Richman testified about the menacing and threatening visit he received in 2007 from Philadelphia homicide detectives Mike Cahill and Gerald Lynch. He also testified about how he was consumed with so much fear that he enlisted the assistance of his local police department who in turn asked the officers to leave Mr. Richman’s place of business. Next, Mr. Richman told of how he lived the next few years of his life in a state of anxious fear all as a result of the threats unleashed by Detectives Cahill and Lynch and that the only reason he was present in court is because he was compelled to do so under a Tennessee court order.
Under cross-examination, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence an audio tape of an interview with Mr. Richman conducted by AFJ board member and advocate for the wrongly convicted, Ms. La Tasha Williams, after the detectives’ 2007 visit with him. It seems as if the Commonwealth’s game plan is to call into question the veracity of Mr. Richman and Ms. Williams. The defense will rebut the Commonwealth’s assertions at the next evidentiary hearing which will take place at the Criminal Justice Center in Center City Philadelphia on July 25, 2011 before Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes.
Mr. Richman was the only defense witness who testified on 11/30/10. The defense plans to call several more witnesses who will help to bolster Mr. Richman’s credibility and substantiate Mr. Reid and Mr. Bennett’s long-lost claim of innocence. Fundraising is necessary to help pay for defense expert witness fees. Please visit www.GiovanniReid.com and www.facebook.com/GiovanniReid for future updates.
Please visit www.giovannireid.com for more details on Giovanni Reid / Carlton Bennett's case.
George Ivan Lopez
George Lopez has always maintained his innocence. In December, 2007 he was granted a new Evidentiary Hearing to review his case in the Pennsylvania Courts.
top
Carmen Woods
Greetings:
My name is Carmen Woods. In November 1982 I was wrongfully convicted of the murder of Chester Laws Jr. I was 19 at the time. My highest grade completed in school was the 9th grade. I had very little resources and knowledge of the law. I was no match for the criminal system.
I went into a criminal trial with an alcoholic lawyer (who was later dis-barred) and a District Attorney who wanted a win by all means necessary. I just did not have the money or resources to fight the criminal system. I was sentenced to "Life".
My innocence and all the evidence that supported that fact meant nothing to the District Attorney. The entire case was based on a statement made by Homer Lane saying that he saw me shoot the defendant. In 1986, Homer Lane (the DA's star witness) signed an affidavit recanting his testimony. He admitted that he did not see me shoot Chester Laws, Jr.
Commonwealth v. Carmen Woods
On July 9, 2009, Carmen Woods submitted a new Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) appeal regarding favorable new evidence unwittingly revealed by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office in a reply brief concerning an agreement entered into by the trial prosecutor and the state’s star witness, Homer Lane. This deal is something that the state has denied for the past 28 years.
To place things in perspective, on May 18, 1982, Homer Lane alleged that Carmen Woods and Michael Jones shot at him on Lansdowne Avenue because Carmen allegedly killed Chester Laws, Jr. a couple of days earlier and knew that Homer Lane was an eyewitness to that murder. Prior to this incident, Homer Lane had a big legal problem on his hands. He had been accused of stealing a car from the state of Florida. Homer agreed to speak to homicide detectives regarding his eye witness account of Mr. Laws’ murder, but before requesting immunity from any prosecution or extradition to Florida. The Philadelphia DA’s office acquiesced and Florida was never notified by Philadelphia authorities that Homer - the fugitive - was alive and well in Philadelphia.
On September 11, 1982, Homer Lane was stopped while driving the Florida car in the Mount Airy section of Philadelphia by a patrolman who knew nothing about any agreements Homer entered into with homicide detectives and the DA’s Office. The DA's office would step in on October 26, 1982 and drop the charges of car theft on Homer Lane; now they had to alert the Florida authorities about Homer’s capture. The defense has since discovered that Home Lane was rewarded for his fabricated testimony once the Philadelphia police permitted him to have the stolen Florida car back. This car should have remained in police possession for evidence purposes: 1) It was alleged that Carmen and Michael shot at Homer in this car while driving by the intersection of Edgewood & Lansdowne and 2) The car belonged to people in Florida, and not Homer.
On Feb 24, 2010, the District Attorney responded to Carmen’s new PCRA with a ridiculous response. They first asserted that Carmen is time barred because "Maybe the investigating detectives forgot to take the car from Homer Lane". They did not respond to the assertion of perjury by Homer Lane when he told the jury he was arrested for the car on May 18, 1982, nor did they respond to the fact that the DA misrepresented the evidence about when Homer was arrested. Furthermore, they did not explain the circumstances under which Homer received the car back. At Carmen’s trial, the DA stated "they took the car from Homer and took it to the police garage." The DA went so far as to say that it was a mistake for them to indicate that Homer had a deal prior to trial.
On March 2, 2010, Judge Shelly Robins New denied Carmen’s appeal. In her opinion which was finally issued on December 22, 2010, she invoked the time-bar statute. Furthermore, she stated that "the DA just did sloppy work on the appeal when they tried to summarize Homer Lane's recantation" even though Carmen argued in his PCRA appeal that Homer admitted that a deal was given to him and the DA stated that they were aware of this. The DA stated at Carmen’s trial that (paraphrasing) the only promise they gave Homer Lane was a promise to write a letter after the trial to Florida's Attorney General and explain how he helped them and if they can help him for that, great, if not too bad. Carmen Woods is now preparing an appeal to the Pa. Superior Court. Please visit www.freecarmenwoods.com for future updates and to sign Carmen’s petition.
top |
