This is why I do not believe in the Death Penalty. Too much can happen that can and has resulted in innocents being executed. I only wish this cop had been alive to see his life and reputation destroyed like the innocent man he sent to Death Row!

"Federal jury awards Earl Washington Jr. $2.25 million"

To see the Story:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=104053&ran=204985&tref=po

Sometimes there is justice in this world!

Patti

Thanks for the link Patti. I just read a similar article on this by CNN. What a terrible shame that he had to spend so much of his life in confinement based on outright LIES by supposed "credible" people . . makes me sick. This is exactly why I too am against the death penalty.

18 years.... A person who didn't do it was inside for 18 years... Our system needs to be changed. This is awful and no amount of money replaces time lost....

Deb

That gives me an utterly impractical idea: suppose states were required to pay some huge amount per year spent behind bars by someone who is eventually exonerated (a higher amount for death row inmates)--let's just say $500,000 for argument's sake. I wonder if defendants might truly begin to receive such niceties as "reasonable doubt", competent counsel, and a day in court that is not merely a political grandstand by a prosecutor with higher ambitions.

In effect, this would fine the State for criminal conduct--false imprisonment, the last time I checked, was a serious felony.

We cannot give the exonerated back the time they have lost, but the state that placed them behind bars just might consider the process of doing so in greater depth if it had to pay for its mistakes. There is nothing to get the attention of a governmental body better than a swift kick in the wallet.

Deb,
You are spot on about the money not being able to replace the time that Earl spent on DR!!!

Ness

Dave that is an excellent idea!

There is actually a very clear precedent for this in civil tort law. If an action for, say, libel/slander includes a false accusation of a felony, there is a presumption of damages by the court and no need to present evidence of "injury". Lawyers may well wish to split hairs over whether the same presumption exists in cases where someone has been falsely CONVICTED of a felony. To my mind, however, such instances merely mean that the proof of "injury" is entirely on record.

Remember, our government is supposed to be a servant of the people. As such, it is supposed to obey the same laws as the people. I dare say it is far past time it began to do so.

I couldn't agree more with your idea Dave. However, state immunity is very firmly entrenched in the law. The policy reasons that are always cited for this immunity are that the state would be impeded from performing its duties if it had to worry about potential liability for negligence.

So instead what we have is exactly what happened in Mr. Washington's case, the state is only liable for those acts that are done intentionally and are contrary to law or state policy ie-- making up evidence.

But I think the problem is, in the criminal justice realm the stakes are so high that the state should be held to a very high standard. After all we are taking people's lives, their families' lives away, changing them forever and in some instances literally taking their lives by executing them. I think that misconduct whether intentional or not at any stage in the proceedings in a criminal matter should ALWAYS result in liability.

Oh, I know, Suze....but I can dream. State immunity was not part of the original design of this country--indeed, there wasn't really supposed to be a "State", only a government providing mediation for disputes between individuals and individuals states, along with coordination of the military in case of invasion or "civil insurrection".

Of course, the idea of career politicians wasn't in the original scheme either. Perhaps if some were held liable for their misdeeds, more would enter other occupations and return the government to what it was originally supposed to be: the servant, not the master, of the people.

There is legal precedent for the idea that a governmental body should be held to a higher standard of conduct than an individual citizen (alas, I cannot cite specific case law). Given the power that the State now has over every aspect of an individual's life, that seems only proper.

There is legal precedent for the idea that a governmental body should be held to a higher standard of conduct than an individual citizen (alas, I cannot cite specific case law). Given the power that the State now has over every aspect of an individual's life, that seems only proper.
Do you recall Dave, whether this is state or federal law? I am unaware of this precednet, but would like to find it, if I can. Of course, the government is made up of people and they will be and are negligent, careless etc. But, for example the rules of ethical conduct that govern attorneys are much more stringent for prosecutors than others and I think that this ought to be so for our government as well.

Suze--to my knowledge there is no specific statute spelling this out in detail, though there may be in some states. The concept dates back, as does much of American law, to English common law and has been raised successfully in civil suits involving, for example, a car accident caused by an unrepaired pothole on a public street, etc. I believe it was also cited by Abe Fortas in his arguments before the Supreme Court on behalf of Clarence Earl Gideon (Gideon vs. Wainright) in a landmark case which affirmed the Constitutional guarantee of legal representation for any defendant.

In his contribution to the Opinion on this case, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law.

"This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him."

Not exactly the same topic, but a close reading of his words strongly suggests that Justice Black certainly had "levelling that playing field" by placing checks on the otherwise unlimited power of the state.

Justice William O. Douglas, in the same Opinion, wrote: "There can be no equal justice where the kind of appeal a man enjoys depends on the amount of money he has." Or, presumably, how much the state has.

A semi-followup to this. In a recent Texas DP case during which the defendant's attorney slept through portions of the trial, the Texas Criminal Court Of Appeals held that the Constitutional right to counsel is not a right to "competent counsel".

So watch yourselves in Texas, folks. If you get in trouble down there they can hang a sign that says "attorney" on a potted plant and consider you adequately represented. And of course they'll give you a nice fair trial before they hang you....

That is just awful!

18 years of this poor man's life can not get replaced. I hope with this he will get some sort of reason for all that has happened to him.

I'm already glad he walks out of DR, many others weren't that lucky....

I was just wondering WHY it took 6 years for him to be released after his conviction was set aside because of the DNA evidence? To me that is an even bigger injustice than the original sentence. They knew he was innocent, but kept him for 6 years because of red tape and useless officials needing to make their tee times and take the vacations that they earned all while his file sat in someones inbox. Our justice system makes me completely sick.

Mr. Washington was not kept on death row because of corrupt officials scheduling vacations and keeping tee times as the poster above declared. He was cleared by DNA on 10/2/00 and released from custody on 2/12/01: that's pretty quick for government work! The civil lawsuit for damages was just resolved. If you do a quick Google of his case, you'll see that it was a long, drawn out procedural nightmare: the initial appeals were litigated from 1983-1993, then the pardon and DNA process occurred from 1993-2001 when he was released and the CIVIL proceedings began. It looks like he had many, many days in court: I daresay more days were spent in court than on the golf course for all parties involved.

I am NOT a proponent of the death penalty. But once some one is convicted, be it correctly or wrongfully, it's like ringing a bell: it can't just be UNRUNG. There's a certain process that must be followed, and sadly it's often drawn out, time-consuming and painful. It's great when it works, as it did here, and justice prevails.

But please get the facts right before assuing that the evil system is at fault!

Just a note that this thread is a couple of years old.

Personally, I think that the moment it is realized that a person is innocent that person should be immediately released from prison - not one, two or three months down the road. Unfortunately, there is enough corruption and evil in the system to cause people to assume the worst.

Amen Crone!

Crone I also agree with you. Mr Washington should have been released the moment that the DNA results were found to show his innocence!! To be kept in prison a moment longer after you have been proven innocent of a crime that you didnt commit would be unbearable in my opinion!!

No amount of money can make up for those years of his life lost.