Post by Anja on Jun 24, 2006 20:42:51 GMT -5
Ramifications of DA refusal
I was happy to read in Thursday's Houston Chronicle that the perpetrator
of the 1998 sexual assault for which Josiah Sutton was wrongly convicted
and imprisoned has been arrested. Despite the conclusiveness of the prior
DNA tests that showed Sutton could not have committed the crime, a cloud
of suspicion has remained over Sutton as a result of his wrongful
conviction and Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal's refusal
to acknowledge Sutton's innocence.
Sutton's mother expressed hope that with the news of the arrest of the
actual perpetrator would come both justice for the victim of the sexual
assault as well as closure for her son. But even in the face of the arrest
of one of the actual perpetrators of the offense, Rosenthal still refuses
to acknowledge Sutton's innocence, citing the victim's identification of
him as one of her assailants; this, despite it being well-known throughout
the legal criminal justice community that eyewitness identifications are
the least reliable form of evidence and the primary cause of wrongful\
convictions.
Rosenthal told the Chronicle that if Sutton were innocent, he would be
"the first to say he is." But Sutton is innocent, and everybody but
Rosenthal, including the governor and the judge that oversaw Sutton's
trial, has already said it. That makes Rosenthal the last - not the first
- to acknowledge Sutton's innocence, if he ever does so.
Rosenthal's obstinate refusal and/or inability to recognize the import of
evidence and to correctly assess its relevance and value to any given
crime has ramifications far beyond just this case and threatens the very
administration of justice in Harris County. If, even in the face of clear
evidence for which only one rational conclusion exists (as in Sutton's
case), Rosenthal still insists on getting it wrong, then not only are we
all at greater risk for being falsely accused, prosecuted and imprisoned,
but the perpetrators of crimes against us - such as the perpetrator of
this sexual assault - will continue to escape justice. For even after
identifying one of the actual perpetrators of the 1998 sexual assault,
Rosenthal's office will have difficulty prosecuting him while still
refusing to acknowledge Sutton's innocence. The defendant in that case can
easily exploit the resulting inconsistency in the state's theory of the
offense at trial.
Rosenthal's irrational refusal to unambiguously and without reservation
declare Josiah Sutton innocent denies Sutton the justice to which he is
entitled. It was Rosenthal's office that prosecuted and wrongfully
imprisoned Sutton; it is therefore incumbent upon the elected district
attorney to rectify this travesty of justice and help make Sutton whole by
removing the cloud of suspicion he has single-handedly maintained over him
since his definitive exoneration.
JARED TYLER deputy director of the Texas Innocence Network and attorney
for Josiah Sutton, Houston (source: Letter to the Editor, Houston
Chronicle, June 23)
I was happy to read in Thursday's Houston Chronicle that the perpetrator
of the 1998 sexual assault for which Josiah Sutton was wrongly convicted
and imprisoned has been arrested. Despite the conclusiveness of the prior
DNA tests that showed Sutton could not have committed the crime, a cloud
of suspicion has remained over Sutton as a result of his wrongful
conviction and Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal's refusal
to acknowledge Sutton's innocence.
Sutton's mother expressed hope that with the news of the arrest of the
actual perpetrator would come both justice for the victim of the sexual
assault as well as closure for her son. But even in the face of the arrest
of one of the actual perpetrators of the offense, Rosenthal still refuses
to acknowledge Sutton's innocence, citing the victim's identification of
him as one of her assailants; this, despite it being well-known throughout
the legal criminal justice community that eyewitness identifications are
the least reliable form of evidence and the primary cause of wrongful\
convictions.
Rosenthal told the Chronicle that if Sutton were innocent, he would be
"the first to say he is." But Sutton is innocent, and everybody but
Rosenthal, including the governor and the judge that oversaw Sutton's
trial, has already said it. That makes Rosenthal the last - not the first
- to acknowledge Sutton's innocence, if he ever does so.
Rosenthal's obstinate refusal and/or inability to recognize the import of
evidence and to correctly assess its relevance and value to any given
crime has ramifications far beyond just this case and threatens the very
administration of justice in Harris County. If, even in the face of clear
evidence for which only one rational conclusion exists (as in Sutton's
case), Rosenthal still insists on getting it wrong, then not only are we
all at greater risk for being falsely accused, prosecuted and imprisoned,
but the perpetrators of crimes against us - such as the perpetrator of
this sexual assault - will continue to escape justice. For even after
identifying one of the actual perpetrators of the 1998 sexual assault,
Rosenthal's office will have difficulty prosecuting him while still
refusing to acknowledge Sutton's innocence. The defendant in that case can
easily exploit the resulting inconsistency in the state's theory of the
offense at trial.
Rosenthal's irrational refusal to unambiguously and without reservation
declare Josiah Sutton innocent denies Sutton the justice to which he is
entitled. It was Rosenthal's office that prosecuted and wrongfully
imprisoned Sutton; it is therefore incumbent upon the elected district
attorney to rectify this travesty of justice and help make Sutton whole by
removing the cloud of suspicion he has single-handedly maintained over him
since his definitive exoneration.
JARED TYLER deputy director of the Texas Innocence Network and attorney
for Josiah Sutton, Houston (source: Letter to the Editor, Houston
Chronicle, June 23)