DOCSLIB.ORG

2012 Report by the National Registry of Exonerations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2012 Report by the National Registry of Exonerations Exonerations in the United States, 1989 – 2012 Report by the National Registry of Exonerations May, 2012 Samuel R. Gross Thomas & Mabel Long Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School Editor, National Registry of Exonerations 734-764-1519 [email protected] Michael Shaffer University of Michigan Law School, Class of 2011 [email protected] National Registry of Exonerations This is the first Report from the National Registry of Exonerations, a joint project of the University of Michigan Law School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The Registry can be found at exonerationregistry.org. It includes detailed information on the 873 individual exonerations in the United States from January, 1989, through the end of February, 2012, that are the main subject of the Report that follows. We will maintain this website on an ongoing basis, adding cases as we learn about them, both new exonerations that have not yet occurred and old ones that we do not now know about. Our current total is 891. We will issue periodic reports on the cases that are listed in the Registry. We welcome corrections and suggestions of any sort. We especially welcome information about exonerations that have not come to our attention. One important conclusion of the Report is that there are many more exonerations than we know about. We hope that readers and visitors to the web site will let us know about cases that we have missed, and about errors or omissions in cases that we do report. Samuel R. Gross Professor of Law University of Michigan Editor, National Registry of Exonerations Rob Warden Executive Director Center on Wrongful Convictions Northwestern University School of Law May 20, 2012 Exonerations in the U.S., 1989-2012 5/20/2012 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................. iii I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Cases ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1. The Definition of “Exoneration” .................................................................................................. 6 2. Who’s Exonerated, and by What Procedure ................................................................................. 7 3. Exonerations Found and Exonerations Missed ............................................................................. 9 4. Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 10 (i) Misclassification .................................................................................................................... 11 (a) Guilty defendants misclassified as innocent. ..................................................................... 11 (b) Innocent defendants misclassified as guilty. ..................................................................... 12 (ii) Underinclusion ...................................................................................................................... 14 III. Basic Patterns ............................................................................................................................. 18 1. Exonerations by Crime ............................................................................................................... 18 2. Exonerations over Time .............................................................................................................. 20 3. DNA and Non-DNA exonerations .............................................................................................. 22 4. Time to Exoneration ................................................................................................................... 24 5. Gender ......................................................................................................................................... 29 6. Race............................................................................................................................................. 30 7. Exonerations by Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................... 32 (i) Exonerations by state ............................................................................................................. 32 (ii) Exonerations by county ......................................................................................................... 35 IV. Some Causes of False Convictions ............................................................................................ 40 1. Overview .................................................................................................................................... 40 (i) Overall patterns ..................................................................................................................... 40 (ii) Missing data; ineffective legal defense ................................................................................ 41 2. Witnesses: Mistakes and Lies ..................................................................................................... 43 (i) Eyewitness errors ................................................................................................................... 43 (a) Suggestiveness. .................................................................................................................. 44 (b) Number of eyewitnesses. ................................................................................................... 46 (c) Initial suspicion. ................................................................................................................ 47 (d) Cross-racial identification. ................................................................................................ 48 (ii) Eyewitness lies ...................................................................................................................... 50 i Exonerations in the U.S., 1989-2012 5/20/2012 (iii) Lies in general ...................................................................................................................... 53 3. False Confessions........................................................................................................................ 57 (ii) False confessions by (possible or actual) co-defendants ...................................................... 58 (iii) False confessions by juveniles and the mentally disabled ................................................... 59 (iv) False confessions and guilty pleas ....................................................................................... 61 (v) False confessions and DNA .................................................................................................. 62 4. Bad Forensic Evidence ............................................................................................................... 63 5. Official misconduct ..................................................................................................................... 65 V. No-Crime Exonerations .............................................................................................................. 68 1. Mistakes ...................................................................................................................................... 69 (i) Shaken baby cases .................................................................................................................. 70 (ii) Arson cases ........................................................................................................................... 72 2. Fabricated Crimes ....................................................................................................................... 73 (i) Adult sexual assault................................................................................................................ 74 (ii) Child sex abuse .................................................................................................................... 75 (a) Child sex abuse hysteria cases. .......................................................................................... 75 (b) Other child sex abuse cases. .............................................................................................. 78 VI. Group Exonerations ................................................................................................................... 80 VII. Exonerations We Don’t Know About ..................................................................................... 91 VIII. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 102 ii Exonerations in the U.S., 1989-2012 5/20/2012 Acknowledgments This Report – and the Registry on which it’s based – would never have come into existence without the commitment and enthusiasm of Rob Warden and others at the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern School of Law, especially Dolores Kennedy, who oversaw the creation of the files that were the starting point, and Ron
Load more

Recommended publications
  • When Have They Paid Enough - the Taxability of Compensation Payments Made to Wrongfully Incarcerated Individuals
    SMU Law Review Volume 64 Issue 4 Article 10 2011 When Have They Paid Enough - The Taxability of Compensation Payments Made to Wrongfully Incarcerated Individuals Erin Tyler Brewster Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Erin Tyler Brewster, Comment, When Have They Paid Enough - The Taxability of Compensation Payments Made to Wrongfully Incarcerated Individuals, 64 SMU L. REV. 1405 (2011) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol64/iss4/10 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. WHEN HAVE THEY PAID ENOUGH? THE TAXABILITY OF COMPENSATION PAYMENTS MADE TO WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS Erin Tyler Brewster* I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1405 II. RIGHTING A WRONG: THE INNOCENCE PROJECT AND COMPENSATING THE WRONGFULLY INCARCERATED ....................................... 1407 A. AN INNOCENCE PROJECT .............................. 1407 B. THE FEDERAL STATUTE ............................... 1408 C. STATE COMPENSATION STATUTES ..................... 1410 III. DEFINING "PHYSICAL": STADNYK AND CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS SURROUNDING THE TAXABILITY OF WRONGFUL INCARCERATION PAYM ENTS .............................................. 1416 A. GROSS INCOME AND DAMAGES ....................... 1416 B. THE STADNYK APPROACH: FALSE IMPRISONMENT ISN'T "PHYSICAL"............................................
    [Show full text]
  • “I Want to Know What Freedom Is About.”
    THE INNOCENCE PROJECT 2014 ANNUAL REPORT Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University “I wANT TO KNOW WHAT FREEDOM IS ABOUT.” Page 1 Joseph Abbitt / Habib Wahir Abdal / Christopher Abernathy / Kenneth Adams / Gilbert Alejandro / Richard Alexander / Marvin Anderson / Randolph Arledge / Herman Atkins / Steven Avery / William D. Avery / David Ayers / James Bain / Bennett Barbour / Steven Barnes / Jonathan Barr / Chester Bauer / Antonio Beaver / Gene Bibbins / Phillip Bivens / Michael Blair / Kirk Bloodsworth / Donte Booker / Orlando Boquete / Larry Bostic / Marcellius Bradford / Ted Bradford / Mark Diaz Bravo / Kennedy Brewer / Johnny Briscoe / Dale Brison / Jimmy Ray Bromgard / Dennis Brown / Danny Brown / Leon Brown/ Nathan Brown / Roy Brown / Keith Brown / Patrick Brown / David Johns Bryson / Ronnie Bullock / Harold Buntin / Victor Burnette / A.B. Butler / Kevin Byrd / Dean Cage / Leonard Callace / David Camm / Anthony Capozzi / Anthony Caravella / Terry Chalmers / Anthony Chapparo / Clyde Charles / Ulysses Rodriguez Charles / Charles Chatman / Robert Clark / Allen Coco / Timothy Cole / Ronald Cotton / Sedrick Courtney / Uriah Courtney / Stephan Cowans / Roy Criner / McKinley Cromedy / Alan Crotzer / Rolando Cruz / Calvin Wayne Cunningham / Charles Dabbs / Dwayne Allen Dail / Richard Danziger / Willie Davidson / Donya Davis / Gerald Davis / Dewey Davis / Cody Davis / Larry W. Davis / Jeramie Davis / Frederick Daye / James Dean / Wilton Dedge / Jeff Deskovic / Robert Dewey / Garry Diamond / Luis Diaz / William Dillon / John Dixon / Bobby Ray Dixon / Alejandro Dominguez / Thomas Doswell / Gary Dotson / Cornelius Dupree / Timothy Durham / Douglas Echols / James Edwards / Clarence Elkins / Lonnie Erby / Michael Evans / Jerry Lee Evans / Charles Irvin Fain / Scott Fappiano / Joseph Fears Jr. / Wiley Fountain / Joseph Frey / Dennis Fritz / Larry Fuller / Donald Eugene Gates / James Curtis Giles / Larry Gillard / Bruce Godschalk / Angel Gonzalez / Hector Gonzalez / Kathy Gonzalez / Donald Wayne Good / Bruce Dallas Goodman / Andrew Gossett / David A.
    [Show full text]
  • Designating and Determining Issues on Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus
    Presented by: Gary A. Udashen Udashen | Anton 2311 Cedar Springs Rd., Suite 250 Dallas, Texas 75201 214-468-8100 214-468-8104 fax [email protected] Board President – Innocence Project of Texas Free Standing Actual Innocence Claim: Ex Parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (1996) Applicant must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that newly discovered or newly available evidence of actual innocence unquestionably established innocence. • Newly discovered evidence is evidence that was not known to the applicant at the time of trial and could not have been known to him even with the exercise of due diligence. Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538 • Newly available evidence is evidence that may have been known to the applicant but was not available for his use based on factors beyond his control. Calderon, 309 S.W.3d 64 Recantation affidavit that was presented in motion for new trial was not newly discovered or available when presented again in writ application. Ex Parte Calderon, 309 S.W.3d 64 (2010) • Child victim’s recantation was newly available when it was unavailable to applicant at time of no contest plea • Child’s recantation was made prior to plea but was not available to applicant at the time of the plea. • Court must examine the new evidence in light of the evidence presented at trial • To grant relief court must believe that no rational juror would have convicted in light of the newly discovered evidence. Applies to: • DNA • New Scientific Evidence • Recantations • New Witnesses • Other New Evidence Ex Parte Thompson, 153 S.W.3d 416 (2005) Complainant, daughter of Applicant, provided affidavit and testimony stating that sexual abuse never occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Designating and Determining Issues on Applications For
    Presented by: Gary A. Udashen Udashen | Anton 2311 Cedar Springs Rd., Suite 250 Dallas, Texas 75201 214-468-8100 214-468-8104 fax [email protected] Board President – Innocence Project of Texas Free Standing Actual Innocence Claim: Ex Parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (1996) Applicant must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that newly discovered or newly available evidence of actual innocence unquestionably established innocence. • Newly discovered evidence is evidence that was not known to the applicant at the time of trial and could not have been known to him even with the exercise of due diligence. Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538 • Newly available evidence is evidence that may have been known to the applicant but was not available for his use based on factors beyond his control. Calderon, 309 S.W.3d 64 Recantation affidavit that was presented in motion for new trial was not newly discovered or available when presented again in writ application. Ex Parte Calderon, 309 S.W.3d 64 (2010) • Child victim’s recantation was newly available when it was unavailable to applicant at time of no contest plea • Child’s recantation was made prior to plea but was not available to applicant at the time of the plea. • Court must examine the new evidence in light of the evidence presented at trial • To grant relief court must believe that no rational juror would have convicted in light of the newly discovered evidence. Applies to: • DNA • New Scientific Evidence • Recantations • New Witnesses • Other New Evidence Ex Parte Thompson, 153 S.W.3d 416 (2005) Complainant, daughter of Applicant, provided affidavit and testimony stating that sexual abuse never occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • 159566321.Pdf
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by KnowledgeBank at OSU What We Think, What We Know and What We Think We Know About False Convictions Samuel R. Gross “When one man dies it is a tragedy. When thousands die it’s statistics.” Joseph Stalin, 19451 Abstract False convictions are notoriously difficult to study because they can neither be observed when they occur nor identified after the fact by any plausible research strategy. Our best shot is to collect data on those that come to light in legal proceedings that result in the exoneration of the convicted defendants. In May 2012, the National Registry of Exonerations released its first report, covering 873 exonerations from January 1989 through February 2012. By October 15, 2016, we had added 1,027 cases: 599 exonerations since March 1, 2012, and 428 that had already happened when we issued our initial report but were not known to us. In this paper I discuss what can and cannot be learned from the exonerations that we have collected. The cases we find and list are not a complete set of all exonerations that occur—not nearly—but it’s clear from the patterns we see in known exonerations that false convictions outnumber exonerations by orders of magnitude. We cannot estimate the rate of false convictions or their distribution across crime categories. We can confidently say, however, that they are not rare events—and other research has estimated the rate of false convictions among death sentences at 4.1%, which provides an anchor for estimates Thomas & Mabel Long Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • WRONGFUL CONVICTION ESSAYS by Julius Wachtel
    WRONGFUL CONVICTION ESSAYS By Julius Wachtel As originally published in POLICEISSUES.ORG (c) 2007-2021 Julius Wachtel Permission to reproduce in part or in whole granted for non-commercial purposes only POLICEISSUES.ORG Posted 3/30/08 .027 RULES! How many wrongful convictions have there been? A lot more than what’s known! By Julius Wachtel, (c) 2010 “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Known to first- year law students as the “Blackstone ratio”, these words by legal scholar William Blackstone were intended to frame critical legal decisions within a moral context and remind prosecutors of the need to exercise restraint when invoking an admittedly imperfect process. Were he alive today Blackstone would be appalled that his numerical ratio has been turned on its head and used to justify serious miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happened. Consider, for example, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurring opinion in Kansas v. Marsh (no. 04-1170, 6/26/2006): Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect. One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly. That is a truism, not a revelation. But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum. Scalia was upset at an academic study on wrongful conviction authored by Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Examining 340 exonerations between 1989 and 2003, a number that they took pains to emphasize represented only a fraction of the wrongfully convicted, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • False Hope: How Parole Systems Fail Youth Serving Extreme Sentences 3 in 2015, the Parole Ga Grant Rate for Lifers in Georgia Was 11 Percent
    FALSE HOPE HOW PAROLE SYSTEMS FAIL YOUTH SERVING EXTREME SENTENCES November 2016 FALSEAt America’s Expense: HOPE The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly HOW PAROLE SYSTEMS FAIL YOUTH SERVING EXTREME SENTENCES ©June 2016 2012 ACLU Foundation American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 www.aclu.org Cover image credit: Tim Gruber Cover image: Raymond Thompson. Youth in a juvenile detention facility in Florida. Back cover image: Jenn Ackerman CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................... 2 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................................................11 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................................14 I. MASS INCARCERATION, EXTREME SENTENCES, AND HOW WE TREAT YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE U.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.................18 A. Long Sentences (Getting Longer) in the United States........................................................................................... 18 B. Longer for Some: Racial Disparities in Sentencing............................................................................................... 21 C. Youth and Long Sentences in the United States..................................................................................................... 25 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Innocence Project in Print Benjamin N
    James Lee Woodard 9/30/09 Jerry Lee Evans 10/21/09 Michael Marshall 12/14/09 James Bain 12/17/09 Donald Eugene Gates 12/18/09 Freddie Peacock 2/04/10 Ted Bradford 2/11/10 Curtis Jasper Moore 3/24/10 Anthony Caravella 3/25/10 Frank Sterling 4/28/10 Raymond Towler 5/05/10 Patrick Brown 6/17/10 Douglas Pacyon 6/21/10 Larry Davis 7/14/10 Alan Northrop 7/14/10 Anthony Johnson 9/15/10 William Avery 9/21/10 Maurice Patterson 10/8/10 Michael Anthony Green 10/20/10 John Watkins 12/13/10 Phillip Bivens 12/14/10 Bobby Ray Dixon 12/14/10 Larry Ruffin 12/14/10 Cornelius Dupree 3/03/11 Derrick Williams 4/04/11 Calvin Wayne Cunningham 4/12/11 THE INNOCENCE PROJECT IN PRINT BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW, YESHIVA UNIVERSITY VOLUME 7 ISSUE 1 SUMMER 2011 IN THIS ISSUE FEATURES BOARD OF DIRECTORS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY..............................................................4 Michelle Adams WHO WILL PROSECUTE THE PROSECUTORS?.......................................9 Laura Arnold STRENGTH IN NUMBERS........................................................................12 Gordon DuGan IN THEIR OWN WORDS: Senator Rodney Ellis Q & A WITH FALSE CONFESSION EXPERT Board Chair RICHARD LEO .................................................................................16 Jason Flom 9 John Grisham Calvin C. Johnson, Jr. DEPARTMENTS Dr. Eric S. Lander LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR..............................................3 Hon. Janet Reno EXONERATION NATION ..........................................................................18 Director Emeritus INNOCENCE PROJECT NEWS..................................................................20 Rossana Rosado Matthew Rothman INNOCENCE BY THE NUMBERS: INEFFECTIVE DEFENSE....................................................................22 Stephen Schulte Board Vice Chair Bonnie Steingart 16 Chief Darrel Stephens Andrew H. Tananbaum, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • What We Think, What We Know and What We Think We Know About False Convictions
    What We Think, What We Know and What We Think We Know About False Convictions Samuel R. Gross “When one man dies it is a tragedy. When thousands die it’s statistics.” Joseph Stalin, 19451 Abstract False convictions are notoriously difficult to study because they can neither be observed when they occur nor identified after the fact by any plausible research strategy. Our best shot is to collect data on those that come to light in legal proceedings that result in the exoneration of the convicted defendants. In May 2012, the National Registry of Exonerations released its first report, covering 873 exonerations from January 1989 through February 2012. By October 15, 2016, we had added 1,027 cases: 599 exonerations since March 1, 2012, and 428 that had already happened when we issued our initial report but were not known to us. In this paper I discuss what can and cannot be learned from the exonerations that we have collected. The cases we find and list are not a complete set of all exonerations that occur—not nearly—but it’s clear from the patterns we see in known exonerations that false convictions outnumber exonerations by orders of magnitude. We cannot estimate the rate of false convictions or their distribution across crime categories. We can confidently say, however, that they are not rare events—and other research has estimated the rate of false convictions among death sentences at 4.1%, which provides an anchor for estimates Thomas & Mabel Long Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School. This is a revised version of the 26th Annual Walter C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lives of Cornelius Dupree Jr. and Anthony Massingill
    Wrongfully Convicted, Rightfully Exonerated: The Lives of Cornelius Dupree Jr. and Anthony Massingill by William T. Hoston Associate Professor of Political Science University of Houston - Clear Lake [email protected] Anna A. Thomas [email protected] Randon R. Taylor [email protected] Debra E. Menconi Clark [email protected] & Atoya Eaden [email protected] Acknowledgements: We thank the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts. The authors are solely responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation that remain on this article. All correspondence should be addressed to William T. Hoston ([email protected]). 3 Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.10, no.5, July 2017 Abstract This article provides an exploratory qualitative examination of wrongful criminal convictions. Using the stories of Cornelius Dupree Jr. and Anthony Massingill as case studies, we explore the extent to which eyewitness misidentification has led to the racially disparate treatment of Black males from the criminal justice system. We find that post-conviction DNA evidence and testing has had a profound effect on the vacated sentence and exoneration of Black males. Finally, we conclude that the terms “Black male”, “criminal suspect”, and “racial injustice” are so interwoven that only definitive DNA evidence and testing can correct this miscarriage of justice. Keywords: Black males, Wrongful conviction, DNA evidence, Innocence Project, Criminal Justice Policy. Introduction “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” In a powerful 1963 letter titled, Letter from Birmingham Jail, written by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that contained the quote, he explained that if injustice affects one of us directly, it affects all of us indirectly.
    [Show full text]
  • What We Think, What We Know and What We Think We Know About False Convictions
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2017 What We Think, What We Know and What We Think eW Know about False Convictions Samuel Gross University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1882 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Law and Race Commons Recommended Citation Gross, Samuel R. "What We Think, What We Know and What We Think eW Know about False Convictions." Ohio J. of Crim. L 14, no. 2 (2017): 753-86. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What We Think, What We Know and What We Think We Know About False Convictions Samuel R. Gross “When one man dies it is a tragedy. When thousands die it’s statistics.” Joseph Stalin, 19451 Abstract False convictions are notoriously difficult to study because they can neither be observed when they occur nor identified after the fact by any plausible research strategy. Our best shot is to collect data on those that come to light in legal proceedings that result in the exoneration of the convicted defendants. In May 2012, the National Registry of Exonerations released its first report, covering 873 exonerations from January 1989 through February 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Time Jan 2014
    Don’t forget to Register for the Conference coming up in 2014!! The Property Times Helping Improve the Industry Since 1997 Bullet Discharges in Downtown Court- house Evidence Room An accidental bullet discharge Friday morning in the evidence room in the basement at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center has injured a county deputy. The incident occurred about 11:20 a.m. at 1201 Franklin. Authorities said a deputy was handling an evidence bag when she dropped it on the floor. A bullet in the bag was somehow discharged, injuring the deputy. Her injury is not serious, according to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. PLEASE be careful when you are handling weapons and ammunition Allen PD received a $500 grant at the 2013 as evidence. It only takes one mistake for a tragedy to happen! conference to purchase a storage cabinet for flammable items in their property room. The Property Times 1 The Property Times - January 2014 The Property Times - January 2014 Aborporro est Deputy Connie Welcome to the New Year from EFF to Texas High Court: A Cell Phoneaut aut atis Isn’t quiscia Jordan named President Szendrey! a Pair of Pants pro inimos que di dus conecuptas as Property Room Welcome to a new year! I hope everyone Board Member or Officer if you have any “Is a cell hone really a pair of trousers?” filed an amicus brief along with EFF-Austin, examination”max of an electronic device. Part of had a good holiday season. It seems like suggestions or ideas. We really do value the Texas Civil Rights Project and the ACLU the court’s justification was that although Person of the Year just a short amount of time since we your input.
    [Show full text]