DNA test casts doubt on executed man's guilt
gimmesometruth27
St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
how appropriate that this was dated today....this is the absolute worst case scenario in the world of capital punishment and reflects what a majority of us stated in the now dead "death penalty" thread. do those of you that support capital punishment still think the death penalty works and that the system is perfect??? sure this guy was a man who did some terrible things in his life, but his conviction was not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. this dna test could have had his sentence or conviction overturned...
DNA test casts doubt on executed man's guilt
Single strand of hair was key evidence, but turns out it was not his
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40136990/ns ... nd_courts/
DALLAS — A DNA test on a strand of hair has cast doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed 10 years ago during George W. Bush's final months as governor for a liquor-store robbery and murder.
The single hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. But the DNA analysis found it did not belong to Jones and instead may have come from the murder victim.
Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York legal center that uses DNA to exonerate inmates and worked on Jones' case, acknowledged that the hair doesn't prove an innocent man was put to death. But he said the findings mean the evidence was insufficient under Texas law to convict Jones.
Jones, a career criminal who steadfastly denied killing the liquor store owner, was executed by injection on Dec. 7, 2000, in the middle of the turbulent recount dispute in Florida that ended with Bush elected president.
As the execution drew near, Jones was pressing the governor's office for permission to do a DNA test on the hair. But the briefing papers Bush was given by his staff didn't include the request for the testing, and Bush denied a reprieve, according to state documents obtained by the Innocence Project.
"It is absolutely outrageous that no one told him that Claude Jones was asking for a DNA test," Scheck said. "If you can't rely on the governor's staff to inform him, something is really wrong with the system."
A spokesman for Bush, who is on a book tour, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The other primary evidence against Jones came from one of two alleged accomplices: Timothy Jordan, who did not enter the liquor store but was believed to have planned the robbery and provided the gun. Jordan testified that Jones told him he was the triggerman. However, under Texas law, accomplice testimony isn't enough to convict someone and must be supported by other evidence. That other evidence was the hair.
"There was not enough evidence to convict, and he shouldn't have been executed," Scheck said.
The final determination of whether Jones was wrongly executed would be up to a judge.
Scheck, a death-penalty opponent, said the case shows that the risk of a tragic mistake by the legal system is just too high. "Reasonable people can disagree about the moral appropriateness of the death penalty. The issue that has arisen is the risk of executing the wrong person," he said.
San Jacinto County District Attorney Bill Burnett, who prosecuted the case, died earlier this year.
"I still think he was guilty," Joe Hilzendager, the murder victim's brother, said Thursday. "I think they executed the right man."
Former San Jacinto County Sheriff Lacy Rogers also said he is convinced Jones committed the crime — "without a doubt in my mind."
In the nearly 35 years since capital punishment was reinstated in the U.S., there has never been a case in which someone was definitively proven innocent after being executed. That would be an explosive finding, since it would corroborate what opponents of the death penalty have long argued: that the legal system is flawed and that capital punishment could result in a grave and irreversible error.
Jones was condemned to die for the 1989 killing of liquor store owner Allen Hilzendager, who was shot three times outside the town of Point Blank, population 559. Authorities said his getaway driver was Danny Dixon, previously convicted of shooting a girl between the eyes and burying her in a cemetery.
During the trial, a forensic expert testified that he examined the hair under a microscope and concluded that it could have come from Jones but not from Dixon or the store owner. No DNA test was performed for the trial.
Prosecutors also hammered on Jones' brutal past. While serving a 21-year prison sentence in Kansas, he poured a flammable liquid on his cellmate and set him on fire, killing him.
Jones was executed in December 2000 at age 60, the last person put to death during Bush's time as governor. In his final statement, Jones did not acknowledge guilt but told the Hilzendager family he hoped his death "can bring some closure to y'all. I am sorry for your loss and hey, I love all y'all. Let's go."
At the time, Jones was pressing the governor's office for permission to do a DNA test on the hair. But as the execution drew near, the briefing Bush got from his staff didn't include the request for the DNA test, and Bush denied a reprieve, according to state documents obtained by the Innocence Project.
Scheck said he believes "to a moral certainty" that Bush would have granted a 30-day reprieve had he known Jones was seeking DNA testing. A spokesman for Bush, who is on a book tour, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"It is absolutely outrageous that no one told him that Claude Jones was asking for a DNA test," Scheck said. "If you can't rely on the governor's staff to inform him, something is really wrong with the system."
Bush had previously shown a willingness to test DNA evidence that could prove guilt or innocence in death penalty cases. Earlier in 2000, he had granted a reprieve to a death row inmate so that Scheck and other attorneys could have evidence tested. The test confirmed the man's guilt and he was executed.
More than three years after the execution, Jordan recanted his claim that Jones admitted to being the triggerman. In an affidavit, Jordan said he was scared, and "I testified to what they told me to say."
Texas is far and away the No. 1 death penalty state, having executed 464 people over the past three decades.
The Jones case is second time this year that the guilt of an executed Texas inmate was thrown into doubt. Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death in 2004 after being convicted of setting the 1991 fire that killed his three daughters. But several renowned experts said earlier this year that the investigation of the fire was so flawed that the arson finding can't be supported.
The hair in the Jones case was tested 10 years after the execution at the request of his son Duane, along with the Innocence Project, other groups and The Texas Observer magazine. Prosecutors agreed to the testing.
"At the very least, if they had tested his DNA before he was executed, he could have gotten a new trial or his sentence overturned or changed," Duane Jones said Thursday. He said his father "told me that he had robbed banks, that he was a thief. But he wasn't a person who would go out and murder someone on the street."
DNA test casts doubt on executed man's guilt
Single strand of hair was key evidence, but turns out it was not his
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40136990/ns ... nd_courts/
DALLAS — A DNA test on a strand of hair has cast doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed 10 years ago during George W. Bush's final months as governor for a liquor-store robbery and murder.
The single hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. But the DNA analysis found it did not belong to Jones and instead may have come from the murder victim.
Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York legal center that uses DNA to exonerate inmates and worked on Jones' case, acknowledged that the hair doesn't prove an innocent man was put to death. But he said the findings mean the evidence was insufficient under Texas law to convict Jones.
Jones, a career criminal who steadfastly denied killing the liquor store owner, was executed by injection on Dec. 7, 2000, in the middle of the turbulent recount dispute in Florida that ended with Bush elected president.
As the execution drew near, Jones was pressing the governor's office for permission to do a DNA test on the hair. But the briefing papers Bush was given by his staff didn't include the request for the testing, and Bush denied a reprieve, according to state documents obtained by the Innocence Project.
"It is absolutely outrageous that no one told him that Claude Jones was asking for a DNA test," Scheck said. "If you can't rely on the governor's staff to inform him, something is really wrong with the system."
A spokesman for Bush, who is on a book tour, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The other primary evidence against Jones came from one of two alleged accomplices: Timothy Jordan, who did not enter the liquor store but was believed to have planned the robbery and provided the gun. Jordan testified that Jones told him he was the triggerman. However, under Texas law, accomplice testimony isn't enough to convict someone and must be supported by other evidence. That other evidence was the hair.
"There was not enough evidence to convict, and he shouldn't have been executed," Scheck said.
The final determination of whether Jones was wrongly executed would be up to a judge.
Scheck, a death-penalty opponent, said the case shows that the risk of a tragic mistake by the legal system is just too high. "Reasonable people can disagree about the moral appropriateness of the death penalty. The issue that has arisen is the risk of executing the wrong person," he said.
San Jacinto County District Attorney Bill Burnett, who prosecuted the case, died earlier this year.
"I still think he was guilty," Joe Hilzendager, the murder victim's brother, said Thursday. "I think they executed the right man."
Former San Jacinto County Sheriff Lacy Rogers also said he is convinced Jones committed the crime — "without a doubt in my mind."
In the nearly 35 years since capital punishment was reinstated in the U.S., there has never been a case in which someone was definitively proven innocent after being executed. That would be an explosive finding, since it would corroborate what opponents of the death penalty have long argued: that the legal system is flawed and that capital punishment could result in a grave and irreversible error.
Jones was condemned to die for the 1989 killing of liquor store owner Allen Hilzendager, who was shot three times outside the town of Point Blank, population 559. Authorities said his getaway driver was Danny Dixon, previously convicted of shooting a girl between the eyes and burying her in a cemetery.
During the trial, a forensic expert testified that he examined the hair under a microscope and concluded that it could have come from Jones but not from Dixon or the store owner. No DNA test was performed for the trial.
Prosecutors also hammered on Jones' brutal past. While serving a 21-year prison sentence in Kansas, he poured a flammable liquid on his cellmate and set him on fire, killing him.
Jones was executed in December 2000 at age 60, the last person put to death during Bush's time as governor. In his final statement, Jones did not acknowledge guilt but told the Hilzendager family he hoped his death "can bring some closure to y'all. I am sorry for your loss and hey, I love all y'all. Let's go."
At the time, Jones was pressing the governor's office for permission to do a DNA test on the hair. But as the execution drew near, the briefing Bush got from his staff didn't include the request for the DNA test, and Bush denied a reprieve, according to state documents obtained by the Innocence Project.
Scheck said he believes "to a moral certainty" that Bush would have granted a 30-day reprieve had he known Jones was seeking DNA testing. A spokesman for Bush, who is on a book tour, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"It is absolutely outrageous that no one told him that Claude Jones was asking for a DNA test," Scheck said. "If you can't rely on the governor's staff to inform him, something is really wrong with the system."
Bush had previously shown a willingness to test DNA evidence that could prove guilt or innocence in death penalty cases. Earlier in 2000, he had granted a reprieve to a death row inmate so that Scheck and other attorneys could have evidence tested. The test confirmed the man's guilt and he was executed.
More than three years after the execution, Jordan recanted his claim that Jones admitted to being the triggerman. In an affidavit, Jordan said he was scared, and "I testified to what they told me to say."
Texas is far and away the No. 1 death penalty state, having executed 464 people over the past three decades.
The Jones case is second time this year that the guilt of an executed Texas inmate was thrown into doubt. Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death in 2004 after being convicted of setting the 1991 fire that killed his three daughters. But several renowned experts said earlier this year that the investigation of the fire was so flawed that the arson finding can't be supported.
The hair in the Jones case was tested 10 years after the execution at the request of his son Duane, along with the Innocence Project, other groups and The Texas Observer magazine. Prosecutors agreed to the testing.
"At the very least, if they had tested his DNA before he was executed, he could have gotten a new trial or his sentence overturned or changed," Duane Jones said Thursday. He said his father "told me that he had robbed banks, that he was a thief. But he wasn't a person who would go out and murder someone on the street."
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
whatever helps you sleep at night.....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
nah, not barred. but as i've said (and many others have said in the past), if someone is guilty with absolutely no doubt, with evidence such as multiple eye witnesses, video, dna...i have no problem with the death penalty.
he might not be
he should not have been executed
simple
if they had found his dna there
then he should be executed
what is disgusting is gw bush sits there
waiting to pull the trigger
waiting for someone to ask for a dna test
and when no one does
he executes
the system sucks
dna test's aren't mandatory in a dp case?
nice system ya got there
free chadwick now
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
During the trial 20 years ago, prosecutors also outlined Jones' violent criminal past. He was described as a career criminal who spent most of his adult life in prison. While serving time in Kansas, he poured a flammable liquid on his prison cellmate and set him on fire, killing him, The Associated Press reported.
Source: http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/dn ... t/19713854
So, did this happen in jail after he was put in jail for killing the liquor store owner or before? I can't seem to find that out.
I think they execute like 5 times more than any other state.
They usually don't sentence someone to death if they're convicted based on "kinda sorta" evidence. For the most part, "kinda sorta" evidence doesn't even get you convicted of anything. The courts considered him absolutely guilty with no doubt at the time. It was only later they found out they were wrong.
on a brief tangent, here is the oj dna evidence if anyone is interested in seeing it....
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... on/Dna.htm
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
cops will manipulate evidence ... crown attorneys will withhold evidence ... and all this is left to a jury who basically gets manipulated by the justice system ...
"1st was convicted of robbery and imprisoned in 1959. Among his other multiple prison sentences was time in Kansas for robbery, murder and assault. While locked up there, he was convicted of killing a fellow inmate by throwing gasoline on him and setting him on fire. By 1984, however, he was out on parole despite a life term, records show."
Here: http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/dea ... nes682.htm
So, I'm not sure he's the best anti-death penalty poster boy. If he had been sentenced to death for earlier murders, never would have been around for the incident in question.
However, looking at this case on it's own merit, I think that the individuals that didn't share all the info with the governor took the decision into their own hands and should be held accountable.
the test did not say he was innocent
the test said the only piece of evidence was not his
he could have done it
he should not have been executed
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
ya ... no doubt this guy belongs in jail ...
in any case - my reasons against the death penalty are primarily based on my values as a human ... the prospective of killing an innocent man is secondary in my reasoning ...
this is why we cannot have the death penalty, I am all for punishments, but innocent men cannot be executed and until there is a foolproof way to tell, no one should be executed
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
He is not innocent. He is a convicted murderer, just might not have committed the murder in question.
But just think about how much has changed since the OJ case. If you were to create a similar plot based on his case and try to sell it to a TV show like law and order, they would laugh you right out of the studio for creating an implausible story.
But in the end, at least L.A. wasn't burned down to the ground . . . again.
believe me, if there was a way to do it, I would be for it, but there are also instances where people admit to things they didn't do. I don't know, if they admit to it and there is evidence proving it was them I am all for it, but having the exception like that is dangerous...I just don't know, and that is why I cannot back it at the moment.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I got memories. I got shit so much it don't show."
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
please explain
if executing the guilty accomplishes nothing
then what does locking them up do?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... newsletter
DNA Testing Casts Doubt on Texas Man's Execution
For over two decades, the hair was stored in a plastic evidence bag in the courthouse in Coldspring, Texas, cataloged as belonging to Claude Jones, who was convicted of murder in 1990 and executed 10 years later. Now, it can be relabeled: a court-ordered DNA test found Thursday that the hair actually belonged to the murder victim Allen Hilzendager. The result casts significant doubt on the validity of Jones' conviction and his execution.
That single 1-in. (2.5 cm) strand of hair was the key to Jones' original conviction. A truck carrying Jones and Danny Dixon did pull up in front of Hilzendager's liquor store that night. One man got out, went inside and gunned Hilzendager down, according to two eyewitnesses across the highway (neither could see the murderer's face). Both Jones and Dixon were certainly capable of the crime — both were on parole after serving time for murder. But there was little other firm evidence of which one had done it. Dixon accused Jones, and Jones accused Dixon. The prosecution's star witness against Jones was a friend of Dixon's who later said that prosecutors had coerced him into testifying.
And from the beginning, the evidence was handled questionably. The hair expert at the Texas crime lab originally thought the small sample was "unsuitable for comparison" using the microscopy technology available at the time, but eventually changed his mind and decided to test it after all. Using that outdated technology — which essentially has two hairs examined side by side under a microscope — the expert then determined that the hair belonged to Jones and not Dixon.
That dubious determination went on to haunt all of Jones' failed appeals as well. Time and again, lawyers and judges pointed to the physical evidence against Jones as a damning factor.
Except, in the end, it wasn't. The fact that the hair was actually Hilzendager's doesn't mean that Jones was necessarily innocent, but it does mean that the jury convicted him — and did so quickly — based largely on false evidence. "What's crucial to understand is that the hair was critical evidence in the case," says Barry Scheck, whose Innocence Project, along with the Texas Observer, led the lawsuit demanding that the hair be subjected to DNA testing. "I have no doubt the conviction would've been reversed with these results."
Scheck points out the most poignant aspect of the story: Jones came very close to having a chance for that reversal just before he was executed. At the time, then Governor George W. Bush was on record stating that he would delay executions if there were relevant new DNA tests that could be performed. Jones' case seemed to fit that bill — mitochondrial DNA testing was not available during his trial but was in wide use before his final appeals in 2000. Jones' attorney at the time warned the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles that without Bush's intervention, "the state of Texas runs the risk of executing a man despite the availability of modern technology that might exonerate him."
The four-page memo that Bush received from his legal advisers on Dec. 7, 2000, however, made no mention of a possible new DNA test. It ended with the assertion that Jones "has had full and fair access to judicial review of his case." Bush denied clemency, and Jones was executed that evening.
"What I'm really hoping is that when President Bush gets an opportunity to look at this," says Scheck, "that he would acknowledge that he was blindsided and that an error was made."
The new DNA results come during a rough patch for capital punishment in Texas. After 18 years in prison — 12 of those on death row — Anthony Graves was exonerated and walked free in October based on the opinion of a special independent prosecutor who found in favor of a 2006 reversal (stemming from a lack of evidence) of his conviction. That case, in which Graves was convicted of slaughtering a family he didn't know based on the testimony of informants and co-defendants, had one striking similarity with the Jones case: the original prosecutors fought fiercely against any suggestions that the convictions might be invalid. As doubts over the evidence that had convicted Graves swirled in 2009, prosecutor Charles Sebesta took out full-page ads in local papers calling Graves "cold-blooded."
In Jones' case, prosecutor Bill Burnett fought hard to destroy the hair before it could be tested, and he took his fight all the way to his grave. The pastor at his funeral in June assailed TIME's coverage of the Jones case, in which I had argued in favor of testing, and lauded Burnett for being someone who "took a stand against some powerful people."
After the evidence findings were revealed Thursday, Hilzendager's brother Joe told the Associated Press that he still thinks Jones was the shooter, staying true to what he had told me in his living room almost a year ago, as he argued against testing the hair: "There's no doubt they executed the right person."
But Jones' son Duane has always believed his father was wrongfully convicted. He says the results aren't a relief and that it's just "disappointing" to see the missed opportunities for justice.
"It saddens me because you know they spend all the taxpayers' money fighting DNA tests," he says. "If you're so confident in your convictions, do the testing. You might find out something new."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
So I understand those that are against the dealth penalty in all cases, but to worry about this known convicted murder...it's a bit of a stretch.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
That isn't what I meant.
What I mean is, this isn't the guy to use as the example for the death penalty, because if he had been sentenced to death after his first murder, none of this would have ever happened.
I'm surprised this isn't being used by death penalty supporters.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."