I want to tell you a story about what happened when an assistant DA, Sunny Eaton, tried to undo a decades-old conviction—one that her own office had prosecuted.
The conviction rested on a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome.
An appeals court recently called SBS “junk science.”🧵
Russell Maze’s son, Alex, was a preemie with a raft of health problems.
When the baby arrived at the ER with internal bleeding and bruises, a doctor said that he’d been violently shaken. Alex later died.
In 2004, Russell was convicted of murder and sent to prison for life. 2/
Nearly 20 years later, Eaton and her team began digging into Russell’s case.
Eaton is the director of the conviction-review unit in the Nashville D.A.’s office.
Her job is to investigate past cases and identify convictions for which there is new evidence of innocence. 3/
Eaton talked to experts in pathology, radiology, neonatology, genetics and ophthalmology.
Physicians who looked at Alex’s medical records independently of one another came to the same conclusion: His symptoms were not consistent with abuse. 4/
After a lengthy investigation, Eaton recommended that the court vacate Russell’s conviction. His lawyers at the Tennessee Innocence Project asked that the case be reopened.
But they would first need to convince the very judge who had sentenced Russell decades earlier. 5/
At a hearing in March, Russell and his wife, Kaye, with Tennessee Innocence Project attorney Jason Gichner, looked on as seven medical experts from around the country testified before Judge Steve Dozier that Alex’s symptoms resulted from natural causes, not abuse. 6/
But their testimony wasn’t enough, the judge found. He decided to let Russell's original conviction stand. Judge Dozier leaned heavily on the findings in the case that were presented in court in 2004. /7
“The court does not find an injustice nor that the petitioner is actually innocent based on new scientific evidence,” he wrote. 8/
Russell’s case is currently before the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, which must decide whether to grant him permission to appeal the ruling. In the meantime, he remains in prison.
Eaton is left to wonder: If the D.A.’s office could not fix this, who could? 9/
Eaton’s powerlessness, as an assistant D.A., to rectify what she sees as a wrongful conviction felt more crushing than any failure, as a public defender, to prevent a client from facing an unjust punishment.
“The weight is heavier,” she says. 10/
Published in partnership with @propublica and @NYTMag 11/
Michael Morton, whose wrongful conviction I chronicled in my 2012 story "The Innocent Man," criticizes the new Showtime doc #Outcry for elevating several prosecutors--including one who sought to keep him in prison--while maligning an attorney who helped secure his freedom. 👇 1/x
The documentary, which examines another troubled Texas case, "portrays D.A. Shawn Dick and his First Assistant, Lindsey Roberts, as 'truth seekers' who were supposedly inspired by my exoneration to bring real change to Williamson County," writes Morton." 2/x
Morton: "Yet the film never mentions that they played key roles in seeking to obstruct an inquiry into the prosecutorial misconduct that caused my wrongful conviction and (in Mr. Roberts’s case) fought to keep me in prison even after DNA identified my wife’s real killer." 3/x
In Florida, death row inmate James Dailey faces imminent execution. No physical or forensic evidence ties him to the crime. Prosecutors won a conviction with the help of a prolific conman-turned-jailhouse-snitch named Paul Skalnik. 1/ propublica.org/article/hes-a-…
My investigation into Skalnik shows he lied about most everything, even his own name. He passed himself off as a decorated fighter pilot, a college football star, an airline executive, a Homeland Security agent, a real estate developer, a terminally ill cancer patient. 2/
Skalnik was criminally charged 30+ times, usually for crimes that involved fraud. When he got caught, he often used his get-out-of-jail-free card: he’d tell cops and prosecutors that he’d heard other inmates in the jail, who were awaiting trial, confess to their crimes. 3/
BREAKING: Leading legal scholars file amicus brief in Joe Bryan's case, which is before Texas' highest criminal court. New scientific research on the reliability of blood pattern analysis "indisputably contradicts the evidence relied upon to convict him." sites.law.duke.edu/forensicsforum…
This remarkable amicus brief originated at the Duke Center for Science and Justice, in a class taught by @brandonlgarrett and @NitaFarahany, and represents many, many hours of hard work by law students at @DukeLaw@DukeCSJ@DukeSci_Soc and pro bono counsel at @proskauer.