Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Follow Us

NHI Newsletter

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Chief Justice: Prove You Didn’t Do It

by Melissa Bailey | Feb 7, 2011 4:06 pm

(6) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Legal Writes

Melissa Bailey Photos HARTFORD—Nine months after they were exonerated of murder charges and freed from prison, two New Haven men met Monday with a new obstacle: In the eyes of the state Supreme Court justices now reviewing their case, they remain guilty until proven innocent.

Ronald Taylor and George Gould, who served over 16 years of 80-year sentences on murder convictions, were released from state custody last April after a judge found they were imprisoned for a crime they didn’t commit.

Now a free man, Gould walked Monday into state Supreme Court, where Assistant State’s Attorney Michael O’Hare asked a panel of justices to put him and Taylor back in prison. The justices’ questioning signaled the legal obstacles the men must overcome in order to remain free.

Taylor, 51 and Gould, 48, were convicted in 1995 of killing Fair Haven bodega owner Eugenio Deleon Vega two years earlier. After the state’s star witness recanted her testimony, Superior Court Judge Stanley Fuger last year overturned their convictions and ruled they were actually innocent and had suffered “manifest injustice” in the hands of the law. The state was not swayed by the recantation; it’s seeking to overturn Judge Fuger’s decision.

Wearing a white Yankees hat and a black leather jacket, Gould watched the hour-long proceedings Monday morning from the public gallery. He joined about 40 attorneys, reporters and supporters under the gold chandeliers and gilded ceiling of the 1910 courtroom. Taylor stayed home to recover from major surgery related to Stage IV colon cancer.

Because of the cancer that’s threatening Taylor’s life, the men had asked the Supreme Court to rule on their fate directly rather than letting the case pass first through Appellate Court, where it had been headed. State prosecutors seek to reverse Judge Fuger’s decision, arguing that despite the recantation of their star witness’s testimony, Taylor and Gould still need to prove they are innocent of the crime.

The unusual case, which began as a claim of actual innocence in habeas court, presents a reversal of the burden of proof: Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, as Taylor and Gould are considered guilty until proven innocent.

In his remarks to the panel of seven justices Monday, State Prosecutor O’Hare argued that Judge Fuger used the wrong standard of proof in granting Taylor and Gould’s claim of actual innocence. He said based on legal precedence, such a claim can be granted only if two “prongs” are proven: that there is “clear and convincing” evidence that the petitioners did not commit the crime, and that no reasonable jury would convict them.

Chief Justice Chase Rogers emphasized that standard of proof throughout the hearing. She brought it up after passionate speeches from Taylor and Gould’s attorneys about how the state had botched the case against their clients, and had failed to prove their guilt.

In the same line of argument and tone of outrage that Judge Fuger espoused in his decision exonerating the men, Peter Tsimbidaros, Taylor’s attorney, recited a quotation by former prosecutor James Clark.

“This case rises and falls on the testimony of Doreen Stiles,” Clark said during the trial.

Stiles, a drug-addicted police informant, was the only supposed eyewitness who placed the defendants at the murder scene. DNA evidence found at the murder scene did not match Gould or Taylor. Stiles came forward and recanted her statement in 2006, allowing the defendants to open a joint habeas corpus claim of actual innocence based on new evidence.

With Stiles’ recantation, Tsimbidaros told the justices Monday, all the state’s evidence against Taylor and Gould “is debunked.”

Gould’s attorney, Joseph Visone, made the same argument. His voice became so loud with outrage that Chief Rogers twice asked him to pull the microphone farther away from his face.

When you remove Stiles’ testimony, Visone charged, “what evidence do you have?”

Justice Rogers asserted that they had won on that point.

The prosecutor “conceded no reasonable jury could convict them,” Rogers said.

However, she said, “that’s not enough.”

Taylor and Gould need to know “not only that a jury wouldn’t convict them,” but that “they didn’t do it,” Rogers said.

O’Hare did not concede in court that the recantation “debunked” Stiles’ original testimony. But justices seemed to accept his main point, which was that “if you take that testimony away, it isn’t evidence that the petitioners didn’t do the crime.”

What then do the petitioners need to do to prove their innocence? Justice Chase asked O’Hare. He replied that they’d have two options: show that someone else did the crime, or give “clear and convincing evidence that they could not have committed the crime,” in other words, give a good alibi.

“They’d have to show impossibility,” O’Hare said.

Justice Richard Palmer (pictured) said that statement bothered him.

What if Taylor or Gould happened to be home alone, watching TV on the night of the crime? he asked.

“My concern is that if only an alibi or an impossibility defense would permit” a claim of innocence, then the “happenstance of where that person was on the night of the offense” might mean they couldn’t prove their own innocence. He asked why a judge couldn’t accept credible testimony from someone that they were, for example, home watching TV.

O’Hare replied that Taylor and Gould had had the chance to make that kind of argument during their trial in Superior Court, where they were innocent until proven guilty. In habeas court, the burden of proof is higher.

Asked how he has proved his client’s innocence, Tsimbidaros replied by turning to a line of reasoning he tried in habeas court—that the murder victim’s son, Carlos Deleon Vega, had the motive and the means to commit the murder.

Justice Flemming Norcott, Jr. (at right in photo) gave a skeptical reply.

“Can circumstantial evidence prove actual innocence?” he asked.

“Yes,” Tsimbidaros replied. “Yes, it can.”

Justice Dennis Eveleigh pointed out that the habeas court found that the only newly discovered evidence was the recantations of Stiles and another witness, Mary Boyd—not evidence that Deleon was the killer.

Justice Palmer, too, appeared skeptical of Tsimbidaros’ claim that he had proved the innocence of his client. He said the third-party information doesn’t do the trick.

“It seems like third-party evidence would be admissible,” Palmer said, “but it’s very difficult for me to see that Mr. Deleon is the perpetrator of this crime by clear and convincing evidence.”

“As strong as the recantation is,” Palmer said, it “doesn’t solve” the first prong of the burden of proof, that the men did not do the crime.

In closing remarks, O’Hare asked that their convictions be reversed and that they be returned to prison to carry out the rest of their 80-year sentences.

Taylor and Gould’s attorneys asked that Judge Fuger’s decision be upheld and that the men remain free. Court ended after 70 minutes. No decision was issued from the bench.

Outside the courtroom, Taylor’s wife Mary took a moment to confront the prosecutor.

“I’m saying a prayer for you, Mr. O’Hare, that you never suffer the pain that my husband suffered from the cancer that he has,” she said.

O’Hare replied with a simple “thank you.”

After court, he said he doesn’t agree with Justice Roger’s characterization that he “conceded” that a jury would fail to convict the men given the new evidence around Stiles’ recantation.

O’Hare said he remains confident that the petitioners failed to reach their burden of proof.

“There is no proof of actual innocence,” he said.

Mary Taylor left court with Tsimbidaros. The attorney said he wished Taylor were able to attend, but that he is confined to a bed after a major surgery. Taylor spent over two weeks at Yale-New Haven Hospital, where doctors cut him open with an 11-inch incision and removed a large tumor from his spine. Taylor’s cancer has reached Stage IV, he said.

Taylor “was encouraged that the Supreme Court accepted the case,” Tsimbidaros said. He said despite his medical condition, Taylor is staying strong.

“He’s a man of extremely strong spirit,” the attorney said.


Previous coverage of this case:

• Exonerated Prisoner Fights For His Life
• Exonerated Prisoners Walk Free
• State Won’t Block Prisoners’ Release
• Judge Orders Prisoners Freed
• Prosecutor Sticks To Guns
• Judge Delays Release In Wrongful Conviction Case
• Outraged Judge Reverses Murder Convictions

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Comments

posted by: Ellis Copeland on February 7, 2011  5:34pm

It sounds like our Chief Justice belongs to the Antonin Scalia school of judicial ineptitude.  In logic one cannot prove a negative and this is why we have adhered the principle of innocent until proven guilty.  The proof of guilt having been negated the presumption of innocence must be restored. If I stated, “Chase Rogers takes bribes,” how is she possibly going to refute that if I am not compelled to prove the assertion.  If it is shown that I’m lying by saying “Chase Rogers takes bribes” then it must be granted that she does not.  Same scenario.

posted by: Henry Berry on February 7, 2011  5:41pm

This is what the State gets into in relying on confidential informants in the first place. Actually, my use of “relying” is generous—law-enforcement people often coach or pressure informants to make certain statements or strongly imply what they should say. With the widespread use of confidential informants, for the State it’s like playing a game of joker’s wild where they are the dealer—and dealing themselves as many jokers as they want.

In my own case, state’s attorneys went to their underground accomplices to find a confidential informant in order to get an illegal wiretap on my phone after I filed a criminal complaint against lawyers at the Pullman and Comley law firm for theft of thousands of dollars of medical films of mine. This was the intial step in an elaborate scheme to frame me for drug/and or sex crimes; which was followed by threats after I managed to elude it and started exposing it.

In Connecticut, I was regarded by the State as a law-abiding citizen up until the time I filed a criminal complaint regarding theft supported by pages of incontrovertible evidence against favored corporate lawyers. At that moment, in the eyes of the State, I was a criminal. The State spent an incredible amount of resources in manpower and funds to try to complete their fabricated case against me—which waste continues.

I’ve said in posts before, I am available at any time for an affidavit, deposition, or trial testimony about what I know about the viscous law-enforcement practice of using confidential informants to fabricate cases. Or see my blog for more background on this.

posted by: Doug on February 7, 2011  6:01pm

Great story. I’d like to think that the chief justice of the CT Supreme Court has a good grasp of the law and appropriate procedure, but I can’t imagine anyone ever being exonerated with the standard set on proving innocence. It’s ridiculous.

posted by: The Professor on February 7, 2011  9:32pm

Here’s the interesting thing, it seems as though this doesn’t represent a flipped standard of proof, it seems as though the accused men have to meet a burden of proof that is actually HIGHER than the burden of proof that the initial prosecution had to meet.  This doesn’t seem right to me since ACTUAL innocence is nearly impossible, especially if the court is foreclosing the opportunity to introduce “credible third party testimony” on the grounds that the defendants didn’t raise the issue at the trial (which would be a lot more credible if the initial trial weren’t tainted by what may well be state-suborned perjury).  Ellis Copeland had a great example of the absurdity of the “actual innocence” standard if it’s taken to require definite proof of a negative.

Moreover, if the standard is that no “reasonable” jury could convict them, it seems that the standard should be closer to “reasonable” doubt.  Indeed, what is the point of even HAVING that prong once you’ve included the “actual innocence” prong?  After all, if someone proves “actual innocence,” it pretty much goes without saying that no “reasonable jury” would convict them.  So while I’m sure the justices know their doctrine, I can’t help but get the feeling that they’re not taking as critical a look at the doctrine as they probably should. 

It seems that given the “reasonable jury” prong, the standard ought to be something closer to “reasonable doubt” for the “actual innocence” prong.  And it seems to me—though I could be wrong here—that the defense has a case for innocence that is just as strong (if not stronger) than the initial prosecution’s case for guilt, given the recanted testimony and the lack of DNA evidence. 

There are several reasons I think this, but the two most important ones are the strong disincentives to recant testimony compared with the strong incentives that a witness has to go along with the prosecution in the initial trial, as well as the importance of a lack of any DNA evidence in 1995.  When a witness recants her testimony, she opens herself up to all kinds of scrutiny, and perhaps to perjury charges.  Of course, my guess is that any serious perjury probe would likely implicate prosecutors or law enforcement officials involved in the initial investigation, but at the end of the day, the point is that in recanting sworn testimony, one incurs a lot of risk to oneself.  Compare this to a situation that a drug addict might face when prosecutors are pushing a particular storyline on her in exchange for leniency.  Which situation do you think is likely to yield more credible testimony? 

Second, given that in 1995, it’s unlikely that street criminals would’ve been particularly sensitive to the possibility that they could leave DNA evidence behind (it’s not as though they’re particularly sensitive to that in 2011), it seems incredibly unlikely that they’d have been at the scene of the crime and left no physical evidence tying them to it, especially in light of the fairly drawn conclusion that the scene hadn’t been wiped down/cleaned (fairly drawn because investigators were able to recover DNA evidence from other people).  This would seem to cut against the State’s case and could be seen as another “circumstance” pointing to actual innocence.

I can’t let this go without taking one last shot at what the Court might do here.  It is jurisprudential cowardice of the highest form to hide behind procedure while making judgments on the substantive merits of the case, and it seems like that’s what some of the justices want to do.  They’re saying, “we’re bound by this standard of proof,” and yet since the lower court didn’t say whether that particular standard of proof had been met, the Supremes are positioning themselves to judge the facts themselves!  If they’re really honestly more concerned about procedure and standards of proof, the proper action would be to explicitly state a standard of proof, then remand the case to the lower court for a new hearing based on the new standard of proof.  If, however, they hide behind a procedural decision but work in a substantive judgment, they’re confirming some pretty negative premonitions that some of us observers have.

posted by: Jenna Grandis on February 8, 2011  7:42am

Typical for a lawyer, “We are not wrong, everyone else is” We should be ashamed of the legal system for actions such as this.

posted by: William Kurtz on February 8, 2011  8:12am

Why stop there?  Perhaps Chief Justice Rogers should prove she didn’t do it, either.

get ANDI

Events Calendar

loading…

SeeClickFix »

no right on red traffic sign to turn right on to to Brewery ST.
May 24, 2012 9:04 pm
Address: Intersection Of Brewery St And Sargent Drive New Haven, CT
Rating: 1

There is a no turn on red sigh=n. for the right hand turn on to...

more »
Burnt out or shorting bulb
May 24, 2012 7:33 pm
Address: 158 Porter St. New Haven, CT
Rating: 2

Street lamp doesn't come on at night.

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design