INNOCENCE –
Justice must be derived from truth as well as procedure E-mail
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently ruled that an apparently innocent man should be freed from state prison and his case reconsidered, even though the defendant had pleaded guilty to the crime.
"The purpose of criminal proceedings is to separate the guilty from the innocent," Justice Tom Price wrote for the majority. Punishing the innocent violates due process, Price held, and he might have mentioned common sense and decency, as well.
In the case at hand, from Dallas County, the defendant pleaded guilty to a sexual assault he did not commit in a bid to avoid imprisonment. He was sentenced to 10 years' community supervision, which was revoked when he violated the rules of his probation. His accuser subsequently admitted making the whole thing up. The ruling made news because it went contrary to previous opinions issued and voiced by the court's majority that new evidence of innocence is not grounds for a new trial or exoneration.
The court's presiding judge, Sharon Keller, has argued repeatedly that it is not the job of the courts to free innocent people wrongly convicted. As long as the trial is deemed to be fair, according to Texas' highest court for criminal matters, it doesn't matter if the verdict is wrong.
The recent victory for justice was a narrow one. Four of the 9 judges on the court dissented. Judge Barbara Hervey, in her dissenting opinion, argued in so many words that if Texas started letting innocent people out of prison, there was no way of knowing what harm it might lead to.
Lori Ordiway, chief of the Dallas County district attorney's appellate division, told the Associated Press that the prosecution was "not focused on whether [the defendant] was innocent or guilty." The state's concern was "more about what the guilty plea means in the process."
This is not the first time the prosecution has been more concerned about procedure than justice. Texans might ask why the defendant pleaded guilty to a crime he didn't commit. The answer is simple. Prosecutors routinely threaten defendants with long stretches in prison, then offer to exchange a more lenient sentence for a guilty plea.
The system all but guarantees that some innocent defendants will choose not to gamble away years or decades of their liberty in order to assert their innocence. There are not enough courts to try every person accused of a crime, so plea bargaining is a necessity. It is the job of the courts to prevent or reverse miscarriages of justice when they come to light. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' acknowledgment of this duty is as welcome as it is overdue.
(source: Editorial, Houston Chronicle)
