DOCSLIB.ORG

The Right Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanctions for Destruction of DNA Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Right Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanctions for Destruction of DNA Evidence American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2009 The Right Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanctions for Destruction of DNA Evidence Cynthia E. Jones American University Washington College of Law, cejones@wcl.american.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Cynthia E., "The Right Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanctions for Destruction of DNA Evidence" (2009). Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals. 918. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/918 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Scholarship & Research at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact kclay@wcl.american.edu. The Right Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction for Destruction of DNA Evidence Cover Page Footnote Associate Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law; former Executive Director of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia; Vice President of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project Board of Directors; and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. I wish to thank my very dear friend and mentor, Professor Angela J. Davis, for her tremendous support and guidance. I also want to thank Associate Dean Mark Niles, Professor Adam Thurschwell, Professor Ira P. Robbins, and Professor Andy Taslitz for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. I would also like to thank my wonderful and resourceful research assistants for their work: Frank Piggott, Daniele Shiffman, Jackie Bliss, Laurita Denny, Alex Perlin, B. Cory Schwartz, Rebecca Walters, and Molly Bruder. I am indebted to Ashley C. Parrish for his contribution of materials on the Lovitt case, and both Judge Frank E. Schwelb and Judge Gerald Bruce Lee for their thoughts on judicial sanctions. Most importantly, I owe a great debt of gratitude to Dean Claudio Grossman for his ongoing support and assistance in advancing my scholarship. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol77/iss6/2 THE RIGHT REMEDY FOR THE WRONGLY CONVICTED: JUDICIAL SANCTIONS FOR DESTRUCTION OF DNA EVIDENCE Cynthia E. Jones* Many state innocence protection statutes give courts the power to impose appropriatesanctions when biological evidence needed for postconviction DNA testing is wrongly destroyed by the government. Constitutionalclaims based on wrongful evidence destruction are governed by the virtually insurmountable "bad faith" standard articulated in Arizona v. Youngblood. The wrongful destruction of DNA evidence in contravention of state innocence protection laws, however, should be governed by the standards used to adjudicate other "access to evidence" violations in criminal cases, including disclosures mandated by the rules of criminal procedure, the Jencks Act, and Brady v. Maryland. Under the "access to evidence" sanctions analysis, courts must balance the degree of government culpability in the destruction, the degree of prejudice to the defense, and the strength of the government's case. In applying this analysis to the wrongful destruction of evidence needed for postconviction DNA testing, courts should give due weight to the exclusive power of DNA evidence to discredit other forms of evidence and prove identity to a scientific certainty. Further,in evaluating the strength of the government's evidence at trial,courts must carefully scrutinize guilt determinationsbased largely or exclusively on evidence that has been the predominate cause of wrongful convictions, including stranger eyewitness identifications, non- DNA forensic evidence, uncorroborated confessions, and jailhouse informant testimony. Applying these criticallessons learnedfrom over 200 exonerations to the sanctions determination, appropriatesanctions for the * Associate Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law; former Executive Director of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia; Vice President of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project Board of Directors; and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. I wish to thank my very dear friend and mentor, Professor Angela J. Davis, for her tremendous support and guidance. I also want to thank Associate Dean Mark Niles, Professor Adam Thurschwell, Professor Ira P. Robbins, and Professor Andy Taslitz for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. I would also like to thank my wonderful and resourceful research assistants for their work: Frank Piggott, Daniele Shiffman, Jackie Bliss, Laurita Denny, Alex Perlin, B. Cory Schwartz, Rebecca Walters, and Molly Bruder. I am indebted to Ashley C. Parrish for his contribution of materials on the Lovitt case, and both Judge Frank E. Schwelb and Judge Gerald Bruce Lee for their thoughts on judicial sanctions. Most importantly, I owe a great debt of gratitude to Dean Claudio Grossman for his ongoing support and assistance in advancing my scholarship. 2893 2894 FORDHAM LAWREVIEW [Vol. 77 wrongful destruction of DNA evidence include a sentence reduction, a new trial, or dismissal. TABLE OF CONTENTS IN TRODU CTION ........................................................................................ 2894 I. THE ACCESS TO EVIDENCE DOCTRINE ................................................ 2899 A. CriminalDiscovery: Rule 16 of the FederalRules of Criminal Procedure.............................................................. 2907 B . The Jencks A ct ........................................................................ 2909 C . The Brady D octrine................................................................ 2913 II. FROM ACCESS TO EVIDENCE TO INNOCENCE PROTECTION ............... 2917 A. Circumstances Surroundingthe Destruction of Evidence ...... 2918 B. Prejudice Resultingfrom Destruction of Evidence ................ 2925 C. An Assessment of the Strength of the Government's Case ..... 2927 1. Eyewitness Identifications ............................................... 2929 2. Forensic Science Errors ................................................... 2932 3. Jailhouse Informant Testimony ........................................ 2936 4. False Confessions ............................................................. 2937 D . Sum m ary................................................................................. 2940 III. FROM ACCESS TO EVIDENCE TO THE CASE OF ROBIN LOVITT ....... 2940 A . The F acts ................................................................................2940 B. Access to Evidence Analysis ................................................... 2943 IV . APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS ................................................................ 2944 A . Sentence Reduction ................................................................ 2946 B . N ew Trial................................................................................ 2948 C. Vacating the Sentence/Dismissal............................................ 2949 C ON CLU SION ........................................................................................... 2954 INTRODUCTION Robin Lovitt was convicted of murder, sentenced to death, and scheduled to be executed on November 30, 2005.1 Mr. Lovitt would have had the dubious distinction of being the one thousandth condemned prisoner executed in the United States under the modem death penalty. 2 On the eve of Lovitt's scheduled execution, Virginia Governor Mark Warner commuted Lovitt's death sentence to a sentence of life in prison without the 1. See Lovitt v. True (Lovitt II1), 330 F. Supp. 2d 603, 606 (E.D. Va. 2004); Press Release, Death Penalty Info. Ctr., U.S. Death Penalty Continues Steady Decline as 1000th Execution Approaches 3 (Nov. 9, 2005), available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ documents/DPIC 1000thPR.pdf. 2. Press Release, Death Penalty Info. Ctr., supra note 1, at 3. 2009] SANCTIONS FOR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE 2895 possibility of parole. 3 Now Robin Lovitt will spend every day of his life in prison for a murder that he may have been able to prove he did not commit. We will never know for sure whether Mr. Lovitt is guilty because the only piece of credible evidence that could have established the true identity of the killer-blood left on the murder weapon-was destroyed before it could 4 be subjected to definitive DNA testing. Following his conviction and death sentence, Lovitt was entitled under the Virginia innocence protection statute to challenge his conviction by having the biological evidence in his case retested using more advanced forensic testing than was available at the time of his trial. 5 While Mr. Lovitt's case was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, the state trial court clerk's office intentionally destroyed all of the biological evidence needed for DNA testing "to create additional [storage] space" 6 in the courthouse evidence storage room. Moreover, the destruction was unlawful under a newly enacted Virginia statute that expressly requires preservation of biological evidence in death penalty cases until after the prisoner
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CNN.Com - 1,000Th Execution Slated for Next Week - Nov 24, 2005 11/24/2005 11:10 PM
    CNN.com - 1,000th execution slated for next week - Nov 24, 2005 11/24/2005 11:10 PM Powered by SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close 1,000th execution slated for next week An execution once every 10 days since moratorium lifted NEW YORK (AP) -- "Let's do it." With those last words, convicted killer Gary Gilmore ushered in the modern era of capital punishment in the United States, an age of busy death chambers that will likely see its 1,000th execution in the coming days. After a 10-year moratorium, Gilmore in 1977 became the first person executed following a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that validated state laws to reform the capital punishment system. Since then, 997 prisoners have been executed, and next week, the 998th, 999th and 1,000th are scheduled to die. Robin Lovitt, 41, will likely be the one to earn that macabre distinction next Wednesday. He was convicted of fatally stabbing a man with scissors during a 1998 pool hall robbery in Virginia. Ahead of Lovitt on death row are Eric Nance, scheduled to be executed Monday in Arkansas, and John Hicks, scheduled to be executed Tuesday in Ohio. Both executions appear likely to proceed. Gilmore was executed before a Utah firing squad, after a record of petty crime, killing of a motel manager and suicide attempts in prison. His life was the basis for a TV miniseries and Norman Mailer's book, "The Executioner's Song." While his case was well-known, most people today probably couldn't name even one of the more than 3,400 prisoners -- including 118 foreign nationals -- on death row in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction for Destruction of DNA Evidence
    Fordham Law Review Volume 77 Issue 6 Article 2 2009 The Right Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction for Destruction of DNA Evidence Cynthia E. Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Cynthia E. Jones, The Right Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction for Destruction of DNA Evidence, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2893 (2009). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol77/iss6/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu. The Right Remedy for the Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction for Destruction of DNA Evidence Cover Page Footnote Associate Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law; former Executive Director of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia; Vice President of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project Board of Directors; and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. I wish to thank my very dear friend and mentor, Professor Angela J. Davis, for her tremendous support and guidance. I also want to thank Associate Dean Mark Niles, Professor Adam Thurschwell, Professor Ira P. Robbins, and Professor Andy Taslitz for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. I would also like to thank my wonderful and resourceful research assistants for their work: Frank Piggott, Daniele Shiffman, Jackie Bliss, Laurita Denny, Alex Perlin, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Turning a Blind Eye to Misleading Scientific Testimony: Failure of Procedural Safeguards in a Capital Case
    THOMPSON_FORMAT.DOC 6/11/2008 1:49:05 PM TURNING A BLIND EYE TO MISLEADING SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY: FAILURE OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN A CAPITAL CASE William C. Thompson* & Rachel Dioso-Villa** ABSTRACT In September 1999, Robin Lovitt was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a pool hall manager in Arlington, Virginia. The DNA evidence that was a key part of the government’s case was presented in a misleading and unfair manner. In this case study, we first examine the way in which DNA evidence was misused. We then discuss the failure of the legal system at all levels to recognize and remedy this problem. Our goal is to explain how a system that supposedly leaves no stone unturned in capital trials managed to miss or ignore a crucial problem with the scientific evidence that supported the conviction. We argue that the Lovitt case is indicative of systemic problems with the use of scientific evidence that could affect the fairness of criminal trials nationwide, and we suggest legal and institutional reforms that may help minimize the risk of similar problems in the future. * Professor and Chair, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, J.D. University of California, Berkeley, 1982; Ph.D. Stanford University, 1984. ** Doctoral Student, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, M.A. University of Toronto, 2001. 151 THOMPSON_FORMAT.DOC 6/11/2008 1:49:05 PM 152 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. [Vol. 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ......................................................................................151 I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................153 II. ROBIN LOVITT V. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ...................155 A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court and the Politics of Death, 94 Va
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2008 The uprS eme Court and the Politics of Death Stephen F. Smith Notre Dame Law School, ssmith31@nd.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Stephen F. Smith, The Supreme Court and the Politics of Death, 94 Va. L. Rev. 283 (2008). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/360 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact lawdr@nd.edu. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 94 APRIL 2008 NUMBER 2 ARTICLES THE SUPREME COURT AND THE POLITICS OF DEATH Stephen F. Smith* INTRO DU CTION ................................................................................... 284 I. THE POLITICIZATION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ......................... 286 A. Visibility of CapitalPunishment ............................................ 287 B. Popularity of CapitalPunishment ......................................... 291 II. D EATH 'S POLITICS ......................................................................... 294 A . L egislative Incentives .............................................................. 295 1. Substantive Criminal Law ................................................ 295 2. Remedies and Funding.....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Faith in Action Resource Guidebook 2006
    FAITH IN ACTION RESOURCE GUIDEBOOK 2006 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA PROGRAM TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY WWW.AMNESTYUSA.ORG/FAITHINACTION/ Amnesty International Founded in London in 1961, Amnesty International (AI) is a Nobel Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with over one million members worldwide. Amnesty International undertakes research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights. AI is a worldwide campaigning movement that works to promote all the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international standards. With its International Secretariat headquartered in London, AI has members and supporters in 162 countries and territories. Activities range from public demonstrations to letter writing, from human rights education to fundraising concerts, from individual appeals on a particular case to global campaigns on a specific human rights issue. AI is impartial and independent of any government, political persuasion or religious creed. It is financed primarily by subscriptions and donations from its worldwide membership. Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) is the U.S. Section of Amnesty International. Amnesty International USA’s Program to Abolish the Death Penalty The Program to Abolish the Death Penalty (PADP) works toward the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. Collaborating with departments such as Communications, Government Relations, and others, the PADP supports the work of Amnesty International’s Regional Offices, Regional/State Death Penalty Abolition Coordinators (R/SDPACs), and grassroots activists throughout the country by serving as a facilitator and clearinghouse for information and resources on the death penalty.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright © the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
    “The Death Penalty Today: End It, Mend It, or Defend It?” July 21, 2006 Transcript Recent exonerations of people on death row have led to renewed debate about the constitutionality and application of capital punishment. The Constitution Project, together with the Federalist Society and the Pew Forum, held such a debate on July 21st at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. The panelists were: Hon. Sam Millsap, former District Attorney, Bexar County, Texas, who prosecuted the Ruben Cantu death penalty case; William G. Otis, former Special White House Counsel for President George H. W. Bush; former chief of the Appellate Division for the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia; Hon. Kenneth Starr, Dean and Professor of Law, Pepperdine University; who has represented death row inmates in Virginia and California; Bryan Stevenson, Executive Director, Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama; and Professor of Clinical Law at New York University School of Law. The moderator was Virginia Sloan, President, the Constitution Project. ________________________________________________________________________ VIRGINIA SLOAN: Good afternoon. I'm Virginia Sloan and I'm president of the Constitution Project. This is the fourth in a continuing series sponsored by the Constitution Project, the Federalist Society and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, and I'd like to welcome you on behalf of all three organizations. The Constitution Project is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization that conducts public education and research on controversial constitutional law and governance issues. These issues include our system of checks and balances, the balance between liberty and security after Sept. 11, judicial independence, war powers, criminal sentencing and the constitutional amendment process.
    [Show full text]