Post by Anja Nieser on Oct 1, 2006 6:56:39 GMT -5
State high court denies new trial----Conviction, death sentence upheld
A defense attorney's failure to put on testimony to debunk bite-mark
evidence against a death-row inmate was wrong, but the error wasn't bad
enough to support a new trial for Eddie Lee Howard Jr., says the
Mississippi Supreme Court.
Howard raised questions about his attorney's performance in a
post-conviction motion. Inmates use post-conviction motions to claim
they've found new evidence to justify a new trial.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected all of Howard's arguments.
Howard was tried twice for the 1992 stabbing death and rape of 82-year-old
Georgia Kemp of Columbus. Part of the evidence against Howard were bite
marks on the woman's body that a dentist testified matched impressions of
Howard's teeth.
His 1994 capital-murder conviction and death sentence were thrown out by
the Supreme Court, which ruled prosecutors' reliance on the bite marks was
unsound.
Howard was retried in 2000 and again was sentenced to death. The Supreme
Court upheld his conviction in 2003.
In his post-conviction claim, Howard said his attorney should have hired
an expert to counter the testimony of Dr. Michael West. West, a forensic
odontologist, testified his examination of a cast of Howard's teeth could
not exclude Howard as the biter, and he could not state with any certainty
Howard was the biter.
Presiding Justice Bill Waller Jr., writing for the Supreme Court, said the
court record showed defense attorneys in both trials consulted with an
expert but decided not to call him as a witness amid concerns he might
agree with West.
Waller said the "failure to call an expert witness was deficient
performance."
However, Waller said Howard did not prove that his trial would have turned
out differently had an expert testified on his behalf.
Waller said Howard offered numerous expert affidavits and other documents
that attack West, West's testimony and bite-mark evidence in general.
Waller said Howard had nothing from an expert witness who rebutted West's
testimony.
"For example, the expert might opine that Kemp did not have any injuries
at the locations where Dr. West found bite marks, or that the marks Dr.
West found were not human bite marks, or that the expert has compared
Howard's teeth to the injuries and Howard could not have been the biter.
"These affidavits and other documents point out how many times Dr. West
has been proven wrong and they discuss how unscientific his methods are.
One affidavit even states that Dr. West made a misdiagnosis in Howard's
case, but, it does not go on and opine that Howard did not bite Kemp. Just
because Dr. West has been wrong a lot, does not mean, without something
more, that he was wrong here," Waller said.
Justice James E. Graves, in a dissent, said the affidavits should have
raised concerns about West's credibility and some skepticism about West's
testimony. Graves said the evidence should undermine any confidence in the
outcome of Howard's trial.
(source: Associated Press)
A defense attorney's failure to put on testimony to debunk bite-mark
evidence against a death-row inmate was wrong, but the error wasn't bad
enough to support a new trial for Eddie Lee Howard Jr., says the
Mississippi Supreme Court.
Howard raised questions about his attorney's performance in a
post-conviction motion. Inmates use post-conviction motions to claim
they've found new evidence to justify a new trial.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected all of Howard's arguments.
Howard was tried twice for the 1992 stabbing death and rape of 82-year-old
Georgia Kemp of Columbus. Part of the evidence against Howard were bite
marks on the woman's body that a dentist testified matched impressions of
Howard's teeth.
His 1994 capital-murder conviction and death sentence were thrown out by
the Supreme Court, which ruled prosecutors' reliance on the bite marks was
unsound.
Howard was retried in 2000 and again was sentenced to death. The Supreme
Court upheld his conviction in 2003.
In his post-conviction claim, Howard said his attorney should have hired
an expert to counter the testimony of Dr. Michael West. West, a forensic
odontologist, testified his examination of a cast of Howard's teeth could
not exclude Howard as the biter, and he could not state with any certainty
Howard was the biter.
Presiding Justice Bill Waller Jr., writing for the Supreme Court, said the
court record showed defense attorneys in both trials consulted with an
expert but decided not to call him as a witness amid concerns he might
agree with West.
Waller said the "failure to call an expert witness was deficient
performance."
However, Waller said Howard did not prove that his trial would have turned
out differently had an expert testified on his behalf.
Waller said Howard offered numerous expert affidavits and other documents
that attack West, West's testimony and bite-mark evidence in general.
Waller said Howard had nothing from an expert witness who rebutted West's
testimony.
"For example, the expert might opine that Kemp did not have any injuries
at the locations where Dr. West found bite marks, or that the marks Dr.
West found were not human bite marks, or that the expert has compared
Howard's teeth to the injuries and Howard could not have been the biter.
"These affidavits and other documents point out how many times Dr. West
has been proven wrong and they discuss how unscientific his methods are.
One affidavit even states that Dr. West made a misdiagnosis in Howard's
case, but, it does not go on and opine that Howard did not bite Kemp. Just
because Dr. West has been wrong a lot, does not mean, without something
more, that he was wrong here," Waller said.
Justice James E. Graves, in a dissent, said the affidavits should have
raised concerns about West's credibility and some skepticism about West's
testimony. Graves said the evidence should undermine any confidence in the
outcome of Howard's trial.
(source: Associated Press)