Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 6, 2006 21:53:08 GMT -5
Injustice on technicality
Most of us probably agree that Texans who spend years in prison for crimes
they didn't commit should be compensated.
And most of us probably agree that includes the 35 residents of Tulia, a
small Panhandle town, who did time based solely on the testimony of a
rogue cop who has since been convicted of lying under oath during an
investigation of his undercover operation.
The story of Tulia played the national news as a tawdry example of Texas
injustice. But the state responded well to the scandal.
A judge had ruled and the local district attorney agreed that the
undercover narcotics investigation was irreparably tainted by the
officer's dishonesty. Some of the convicted, it turned out, weren't even
in town on the days he said they sold him drugs.
The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered an investigation into the case, and
the Legislature passed a law freeing those still in prison, some for as
long as 4 years.
10 will have to wait
Gov. Rick Perry pardoned the 35 in 2003 upon the unanimous recommendation
of the state Board of Pardons and Parole.
10 have already begun receiving checks under a Texas law that provides
$25,000 for each year of false imprisonment.
Some will receive as much as $100,000, half now and half if they go a year
without being convicted of another crime.
It is not all that much compensation, considering not only were these
people imprisoned, but many had a difficult time finding work after
serving their time.
But 10 who have applied will have to wait.
The reason: These 10 were already on probation or parole when undercover
officer Tom Coleman made his cases against them. When they were charged
with felonies, their pardons and paroles were revoked and they were sent
to prison.
Coleman was no fool. Among those he fingered were some people already
found guilty of drug offenses.
A reasonable caveat, but ...
But the law providing compensation denies payment to people who are
serving concurrent sentences for crimes other than the one of which they
were falsely accused.
That's a reasonable caveat, but did legislators contemplate a situation in
which the only reason for a person being imprisoned for one crime is that
he or she was falsely accused of a 2nd crime?
State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, whose office is in charge of
distributing payments for false imprisonment, thinks not.
Last month she wrote Attorney General Greg Abbott a letter asking for a
clarification, reports the Austin American-Statesman.
"Although I am fully satisfied that a great injustice occurred in Tulia
and that equity clearly justifies full payment, there is a statutory issue
that I am compelled to present to you for your opinion," she said.
Her letter concerned the case of Jason Paul Fry, but the decision will
apply to others as well.
Fry was convicted of drug possession, but given probation - a common
punishment in relatively minor drug possession cases.
It makes sense as a wake-up call, unless someone is then thrown in prison
for a bogus probation violation.
It is, of course, possible that some of those prosecuted based on
Coleman's testimony were guilty. In fact, one woman who was pardoned told
an FBI investigator that she had sold Coleman more drugs than the charges
against her indicated.
The district attorney who cleared the way for compensation with a letter
critical of Coleman's performance said some of the accused may have been
guilty. And Brent Hamilton, the Plainview lawyer representing 19 of those
seeking compensation, said the district attorney "may not have been
wrong."
But it is also clear that many of those convicted - even some who, under
pressure pleaded guilty to lesser charges - were falsely accused.
In America, fortunately, we don't believe in punishing a group of people
because some of them may have been guilty. We should not deny just
compensation to some because others may not deserve it.
Nor should we exclude those whose probation or parole was revoked because
of the discredited testimony of a disgraced police officer.
(source: Houston Chronicle)
Most of us probably agree that Texans who spend years in prison for crimes
they didn't commit should be compensated.
And most of us probably agree that includes the 35 residents of Tulia, a
small Panhandle town, who did time based solely on the testimony of a
rogue cop who has since been convicted of lying under oath during an
investigation of his undercover operation.
The story of Tulia played the national news as a tawdry example of Texas
injustice. But the state responded well to the scandal.
A judge had ruled and the local district attorney agreed that the
undercover narcotics investigation was irreparably tainted by the
officer's dishonesty. Some of the convicted, it turned out, weren't even
in town on the days he said they sold him drugs.
The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered an investigation into the case, and
the Legislature passed a law freeing those still in prison, some for as
long as 4 years.
10 will have to wait
Gov. Rick Perry pardoned the 35 in 2003 upon the unanimous recommendation
of the state Board of Pardons and Parole.
10 have already begun receiving checks under a Texas law that provides
$25,000 for each year of false imprisonment.
Some will receive as much as $100,000, half now and half if they go a year
without being convicted of another crime.
It is not all that much compensation, considering not only were these
people imprisoned, but many had a difficult time finding work after
serving their time.
But 10 who have applied will have to wait.
The reason: These 10 were already on probation or parole when undercover
officer Tom Coleman made his cases against them. When they were charged
with felonies, their pardons and paroles were revoked and they were sent
to prison.
Coleman was no fool. Among those he fingered were some people already
found guilty of drug offenses.
A reasonable caveat, but ...
But the law providing compensation denies payment to people who are
serving concurrent sentences for crimes other than the one of which they
were falsely accused.
That's a reasonable caveat, but did legislators contemplate a situation in
which the only reason for a person being imprisoned for one crime is that
he or she was falsely accused of a 2nd crime?
State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, whose office is in charge of
distributing payments for false imprisonment, thinks not.
Last month she wrote Attorney General Greg Abbott a letter asking for a
clarification, reports the Austin American-Statesman.
"Although I am fully satisfied that a great injustice occurred in Tulia
and that equity clearly justifies full payment, there is a statutory issue
that I am compelled to present to you for your opinion," she said.
Her letter concerned the case of Jason Paul Fry, but the decision will
apply to others as well.
Fry was convicted of drug possession, but given probation - a common
punishment in relatively minor drug possession cases.
It makes sense as a wake-up call, unless someone is then thrown in prison
for a bogus probation violation.
It is, of course, possible that some of those prosecuted based on
Coleman's testimony were guilty. In fact, one woman who was pardoned told
an FBI investigator that she had sold Coleman more drugs than the charges
against her indicated.
The district attorney who cleared the way for compensation with a letter
critical of Coleman's performance said some of the accused may have been
guilty. And Brent Hamilton, the Plainview lawyer representing 19 of those
seeking compensation, said the district attorney "may not have been
wrong."
But it is also clear that many of those convicted - even some who, under
pressure pleaded guilty to lesser charges - were falsely accused.
In America, fortunately, we don't believe in punishing a group of people
because some of them may have been guilty. We should not deny just
compensation to some because others may not deserve it.
Nor should we exclude those whose probation or parole was revoked because
of the discredited testimony of a disgraced police officer.
(source: Houston Chronicle)