Post by SoulTrainOz on Jun 18, 2006 5:48:47 GMT -5
BY STEVE SUROVIEC AND BRUCE P. BOUCHARD, The Patriot-News
A Virginia jury recently awarded $2.5 million to Earl Washington, a person with mild mental retardation, to compensate him for having been wrongfully incarcerated for 17 years, nine of them on death row.
The jury found that a Virginia state police investigator had fabricated the confession used to convict Washington.
This case shows the dangers of subjecting a person with mental retardation to a capital trial. Washington's false confession was presented to a "death-qualified" jury, one composed only of jurors who support the death penalty. Those jurors had no idea that Washington was a individual with mental retardation.
Washington was found guilty of raping and murdering a mother of two in Virginia in 1982. He was sentenced to death even though there was no forensic or physical evidence. The conviction was based on a confession in which his "recollection" of important details was completely wrong.
Washington's death sentence was commuted to life in 1994 when a DNA test raised the possibility that someone else was the killer. He was pardoned in 2000 when a more advanced DNA test failed to tie him to the crime. That test pointed to a serial rapist who was then serving a life sentence. Another DNA test in 2004 also indicated that the serial rapist was the killer.
The jury that awarded Washington $2.5 million found that the investigator had deliberately falsified evidence. The jury believed that evidence showed Washington, whose IQ is 69, had been wrongfully convicted thanks to the false confession.
Pennsylvanians should find Washington's story timely and relevant. For four years, the General Assembly has been debating how to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia that prohibits the execution of persons with mental retardation.
While there is a consensus as to how to define who is a person with mental retardation, there is split opinion on the procedure for making that determination in a death penalty case. Some argue that the determination should be made before the individual is tried for murder. Others argue that the determination should be made after the individual has been convicted of first-degree murder.
Washington's saga demonstrates why it makes sense to make this determination pre-trial. His case is one of many examples of a person with mental retardation being wrongly convicted on the basis of a false confession. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion in Atkins, noted cases of "mentally retarded defendants who unwittingly confessed to crimes they did not commit."
All around the country, there are individuals with mental retardation who have been exonerated despite a "confession." While the majority were not subjected to capital penalty trials, their cases show there is too great a risk of a citizen with mental retardation being convicted of a crime because jurors, not knowing of the person's status, may rely on a confession that is, in fact, false.
We should not put a person with mental retardation through a capital trial and risk a wrongful conviction. Doesn't it make more sense, in these life and death cases, where there is some evidence that a defendant is a person with mental retardation, to first determine whether that defendant should even be subjected to a death penalty trial?
Isn't it more humane to decide this question before subjecting the defendant and the victim's family to the trauma of a capital trial?
This is not just a Virginia problem. Here in Pennsylvania, we have the case of Barry Laughman, who spent 16 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Laughman is an individual with mental retardation who "confessed" to the murder. He sat in prison from 1987 to 2003 and was exonerated when DNA tests conclusively demonstrated he could not have been the murderer.
Laughman faced the death penalty. He was convicted of first-degree murder. His guilt was determined by a death-qualified jury that did not know he was a individual with mental retardation. Fortunately, he was not given a death sentence.
Laughman's case, like Washington's, is glaring evidence of the inherent danger in not deciding whether a defendant is a person with mental retardation before a capital trial. If a judge had been able to determine prior to trial that Laughman had mental retardation, he would not have faced a capital trial and may not have been wrongfully convicted.
Pennsylvania legislators can learn a lot from the cases of Earl Washington and Barry Laughman. By studying those cases, our legislators can better understand the risks involved in subjecting people with mental retardation to a death penalty trial.
Source : The Patriot-News
www.pennlive.com/columns/patriotnews/review/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1
150483266215660.xml&coll=1
A Virginia jury recently awarded $2.5 million to Earl Washington, a person with mild mental retardation, to compensate him for having been wrongfully incarcerated for 17 years, nine of them on death row.
The jury found that a Virginia state police investigator had fabricated the confession used to convict Washington.
This case shows the dangers of subjecting a person with mental retardation to a capital trial. Washington's false confession was presented to a "death-qualified" jury, one composed only of jurors who support the death penalty. Those jurors had no idea that Washington was a individual with mental retardation.
Washington was found guilty of raping and murdering a mother of two in Virginia in 1982. He was sentenced to death even though there was no forensic or physical evidence. The conviction was based on a confession in which his "recollection" of important details was completely wrong.
Washington's death sentence was commuted to life in 1994 when a DNA test raised the possibility that someone else was the killer. He was pardoned in 2000 when a more advanced DNA test failed to tie him to the crime. That test pointed to a serial rapist who was then serving a life sentence. Another DNA test in 2004 also indicated that the serial rapist was the killer.
The jury that awarded Washington $2.5 million found that the investigator had deliberately falsified evidence. The jury believed that evidence showed Washington, whose IQ is 69, had been wrongfully convicted thanks to the false confession.
Pennsylvanians should find Washington's story timely and relevant. For four years, the General Assembly has been debating how to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia that prohibits the execution of persons with mental retardation.
While there is a consensus as to how to define who is a person with mental retardation, there is split opinion on the procedure for making that determination in a death penalty case. Some argue that the determination should be made before the individual is tried for murder. Others argue that the determination should be made after the individual has been convicted of first-degree murder.
Washington's saga demonstrates why it makes sense to make this determination pre-trial. His case is one of many examples of a person with mental retardation being wrongly convicted on the basis of a false confession. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion in Atkins, noted cases of "mentally retarded defendants who unwittingly confessed to crimes they did not commit."
All around the country, there are individuals with mental retardation who have been exonerated despite a "confession." While the majority were not subjected to capital penalty trials, their cases show there is too great a risk of a citizen with mental retardation being convicted of a crime because jurors, not knowing of the person's status, may rely on a confession that is, in fact, false.
We should not put a person with mental retardation through a capital trial and risk a wrongful conviction. Doesn't it make more sense, in these life and death cases, where there is some evidence that a defendant is a person with mental retardation, to first determine whether that defendant should even be subjected to a death penalty trial?
Isn't it more humane to decide this question before subjecting the defendant and the victim's family to the trauma of a capital trial?
This is not just a Virginia problem. Here in Pennsylvania, we have the case of Barry Laughman, who spent 16 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Laughman is an individual with mental retardation who "confessed" to the murder. He sat in prison from 1987 to 2003 and was exonerated when DNA tests conclusively demonstrated he could not have been the murderer.
Laughman faced the death penalty. He was convicted of first-degree murder. His guilt was determined by a death-qualified jury that did not know he was a individual with mental retardation. Fortunately, he was not given a death sentence.
Laughman's case, like Washington's, is glaring evidence of the inherent danger in not deciding whether a defendant is a person with mental retardation before a capital trial. If a judge had been able to determine prior to trial that Laughman had mental retardation, he would not have faced a capital trial and may not have been wrongfully convicted.
Pennsylvania legislators can learn a lot from the cases of Earl Washington and Barry Laughman. By studying those cases, our legislators can better understand the risks involved in subjecting people with mental retardation to a death penalty trial.
Source : The Patriot-News
www.pennlive.com/columns/patriotnews/review/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1
150483266215660.xml&coll=1