No idea if Lamar is guilty or innocent. Nor does this article detail the trial or evidence. If there is new evidence that is compelling, a new trial is warranted.
However, on the flip side, newly elected prosecuters around the country were the result of millions of dollars from Soros funded elections to favor the criminals in a bizarre attempt to have us believe it is the criminals that are wronged. The article states that we need to have confidence in our justice system, but from what I see in ATL when violent gang members do not even go to trial, my confidence in this new approach to criminals is not high.
Justice is too often sacrificed on the altar of "finality" in the legal system. Imagine if finality played such a role in other contexts, e.g., medicine. "Sorry that your original diagnosis turned out to be wrong, but we can't correct it now: it's final. We have to keep treating you for the wrong disease."
18
You have misnamed Eric Schmitt. Clearly his name is actually Javert.
1
Justice, I thought our judicial system was set up for achieving justice. But in this case, it certainly does not look like it. It looks to me like Missouri is more interested in punishment, rather than justice and innocence. And that my friends is not a christian value.
3
Might this case eventually make it to the U.S. Supreme Court? If so, perhaps a national resolution will occur that will effect every state. This type of case is exactly why "state's rights" are a problem in the areas involving justice. There needs to be a nation-wide set of rulings governing capital cases that have new and compelling evidence. They need to be retried and/or investigated for corruption. Leaving this to the individual states is problematic given the ownership of the justice system by the state's AG or prosecutors.
4
Mr. Johnson has at least two methods of contesting his conviction in Missouri - a writ of habeas corpus and a pardon by the governor. The issue is whether a prosecutor without sanction of any statute can create another method of review with no stated criteria other than the prosecutor wishes to grant relief. Essentially the prosecutor is a demanding that the pardon power that the state constitution grants to the governor be a power the prosecutor can exercise without any authority so stating.
It's quite obvious why attorneys general such as the one in this case fight so desperately against retrials. They know many defendants are imprisoned on false charges or by corrupt police and prosecutors, and they don't want the system exposed. People would be shocked if they knew how many crimes are actually not solved.
10
A few things trouble me:
1 ) We have an activist, leftist press presenting only ONE side of the argument. If the law is written to block challenges long after the fact, why is that so.
2 ) Was this man a Deacon of his church or someone with a rap sheet as long as your arm...someone who warred against his society from the age of 12...the sort of person who is brought to justice for only a tiny fraction of his crimes. I don't think real criminals deserve a meticulous functioning of the justice system. If this man, in fact, led a life marred by one crime after another against his society, then we owe him nothing. His destiny was nothing more than a twist of fate in a life badly lived.
3 ). I wish the press coverage detailed who had later admitted to the crime. Is it a couple of guys sitting in prison who are not eligible for early release on life sentanses. Is this someone fiddeling with a rightful conviction? Perhaps intimidating a witness to recant. This is what we expose the justice system to in many cases.
1
@Michael I can reply because I personally know Lamar. Lamar brought appeals to his case before several courts early on, only to have them summarily dismissed by the courts. Courts can do this and give no reason why they won't hear a case.
Lamar was in community college, working full-time and raising a young family. The police in St. Louis routinely arrested people without any evidence they committed said crimes, threatened them to tell on others or they'd be charged, planted drugs on them, etc. He did not live a life "marred by one crime after another". The people who admitted to the crime did so early on and continued to do so ever since 1995. Their statements have been videotaped as well as legally documented.
27
Amazing. We hear so much, from politicians and Hollywood, that the US is the best nation in the world. One would assume that such nation would work to correct these gross miscarriages of justice. But alas...
2
How can it be wrong for a prosecutor to state that a man was wrongly convicted and ask to have the verdict overturned? It should never be wrong to do the right thing. While a pardon is an option, it would not right the wrong of convicting a man who is not guilty of a crime.
23
l am a Swiss lawyer. l find it unbelievable that while the U.S. constantly lectures the whole world about human rights, U.S. criminal law does not allow retrial in case of new evidence. Every European jurisdiction does, following the inalienable, 2000 years old Roman law principle "nulla poena sine crimen" (no punishment without crime). It is Art. 1 of the Swiss Criminal Code.
13
Didn't know that the Swiss legal system is as good as Swiss cheese.
" “to act outside its authority and overturn the jury’s verdict, decades after it became final,”
I don't guess the AG in this state has ever heard of DNA and certainly never read about the number of people who have served decades for crimes they didn't commit are now being freed. Well, of course he has but most of these folks are black and he knows he'll never lose any election for keeping black people in jail innocent or not.
18
@Carlton James Missouri recognizes DNA testing after a conviction is final, but that remedy did not exist until a statute was passed authorizing it. The issue is not whether there should be a remedy, but who is authorized to establish one.
So, if Lamar were a white man and lived in Kenturky, perhaps former Governor Bevan could have pardoned him. Heck, he pardoned guilty pedophiles and rapists, why not an innocent man?
10
This is something prosecutors should be proud of... NOT!
I know zero about this individual. But if this story is accurate this gentleman deserves another trial.
Prosecutors make up stories; stories they presumably believe are accurate. But what if they're not? I do think a prosecutor has the same level of responsibility to find someone innocent as much as guilty.
This is a perfect example of why the government cannot be trusted any more than a criminal. You simply don't know if you're getting fed the truth or not.
3
I really hope I'm being unduly pessimistic but the way things are going in Missouri (where I was born, and where my family has been since the 1820s) I cannot see this man getting the justice he deserves.
And it really is justice that is being denied in my opinion....
I hope I'm wrong.
8
One of the particularly disturbing aspects of this case is the State's apparent argument that proof of actual innocence should not be enough to reverse a conviction.
22
Whose job is it, to make sure the innocent are given a new trial? The defense attorney, the prosecutor, the governor, the courts? It is everyone's job, and that includes every citizen. How can anyone in the justice system fight against demonstrable innocence for a jailed person? If Scalia was correct that actual innocence was not a reason to prevent execution under the Constitution, then we need to amend the Constitution. Actual innocence is not just a reason to prevent execution; it is a reason to get out of jail. As soon as possible.
19
There is a remedy available for someone innocent of a crime wrongly convicted. A governor's pardon.
The prosecutor is part of the executive branch. Although prosecutors do not report to the governor in most states, they remain part of the administrative branch. If the administrative branch makes a mistake, the appropriate response is for the prosecutor to inform the governor and for the governor to grant a pardon.
The criminal justice department relies upon a prosecutor to present a case to a judge and jury and argue for the people that a crime has been committed. The accused is represented by counsel who represents the interests of the accused. It is designed to be an adversarial process. It does make mistakes, which is what the appeals process is designed to address.
What the prosecutor is now proposing is that she be allowed to void the old prosecution, which she will re-prosecute, but will take a position that is not adverse to the defendant. In other words, it is waste of time.
The defendant should appeal his prosecution. If the appeals system grants his request for a new trial, the prosecutor would have discretion to not prosecute, whether the defendant actually committed the crime or not, if her judgement is that she could not get a conviction
The prosecutor does not have standing to challenge a prior prosecution, the defendant does. For the courts to decide otherwise would open the door to infinite waste of resources.
3
There should be a remedy readily available to anyone, not only the pardon which is discretionary.
3
Someone is strongly likely to have been wrongly accused, fellow inhabitants of Missouri, and the attempt to fix an injustice is denied? What kind of place are we living in?
15
In the Middleage indeed.
2
Wouldn't this be an appropriate use of a Governor's power to pardon?
6
From Amendment V of the US Constitution: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Seems to me (not a lawyer or constitutional scholar) that due process would have to include a new trial in these circumstances.
If witnesses have recanted and fellow defendants have said he didn't do it, Amendment VI may also apply. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right..to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,.."
The US Constitution beats Missouri state law.
12
That is beaten by the principle that a final decision rendered after due process cannot be appealed. What is mission from there is that new evidence does not allow a retrial.
I know that "finality" is often cited as a valuable reason why convictions cannot be revisited. This reason rings hollow in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of actual innocence, when any objective observer would agree. I would respectfully suggest that an innocent man (or woman) sitting in prison is experiencing cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution, even if the same punishment would be neither cruel nor unusual were the crime to have been actually committed by that same person.
6
The criminal justice system does not want to admit they made a mistake.
Article says conviction based on single witness.
To convict for treason using eyewitness testimony the Constitution requires testimony of at least two witnesses.
This criterion should be applied to all criminal cases.
@david In Lamar's case, they system did not make a "mistake" they knowingly lied, committed perjury, and withheld evidence from the defense attorneys. The "single witness" was paid over $4000 after he said he couldn't identify any of the people at the scene.....so the detective in charge told him who to pick out .....
4
It's remarkable that, in this country, this "experiment in democracy," that has existed for 243 years, many states have laws that simply don't allow the possibility of exoneration after many years, regardless of strong evidence of innocence. At least now some people with some authority are trying to change that. Let's be thankful for that and grateful to them.
26
@Thomas
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Johnson actually committed the crime, and the appeals court found some error in his original trial that caused them to call for a new trial. How easy would it be for a prosecutor to conduct a trial? Some evidence could be missing or damaged after 25 years. Eyewitnesses could have died, become incompetent or forget details. Or they could decide that after 25 years in jail, the defendant had been sufficiently punished and should be let go or could be pressured by public opinion to recant. The other two witnesses who are not claiming he wasn't involved could be responding to the reality that they are no longer at risk of additional penalties and are lying.
Not mentioned is whether or not the appeals court has already ruled that the asserted evidence of innocence is inadequate to justify a new trial.
What's missing here is any quote from anyone in the state legislature there. One would hope that an elected representative would have enough of a conscience to work up some legislation addressing this sort of obvious injustice. Are any of these prosecutors lobbying the legislature? Is anyone there paying attention?
37
Great point. They are probably too busy, accommodating the demands of their corporate owners.