Better 22 years late than never

[MichaeltheGreat]

Looks like Debra Milke will finally be set free after 22 ****ing years on death row...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/justice/arizona-death-sentence-overturned/index.html?iref=obnetwork

No physical evidence, no direct testimony by witnesses, only a detective's hearsay (why in hell didn't the jury wonder why the supposed witnesses didn't bother to testify?), and a "confession" heard only by said detective.

Meanwhile, the prosecution knew about and failed to disclose said detective's track record for perjury, and Phoenix PD kept him on the force regardless.

The detective, Armando Saldate, said the friend told him that Debra Milke was involved in a plot to kill her son. But neither the friend nor Styers testified to that assertion in court.

In fact, "no other witnesses or direct evidence (linked) Milke to the crime" other than Saldate's testimony. After pleading not guilty, Milke stood trial and tried to convince a jury that her account -- and not the detective's -- was the true one.

"The trial was, essentially, a swearing contest between Milke and ... Saldate," said Kozinski.

The detective testified he "didn't buy" Milke's reaction after he informed her that her son was dead. After that, Saldate said he placed Milke under arrest. In a subsequent interrogation, she confessed that her role in the murder conspiracy was a "bad judgment call," the detective said.

But Milke offered a vastly different view of the interrogation and denied that she had confessed to any role in a murder plot.

There was no recording of the interrogation, no one else was in the room or watching from a two-way mirror, and Saldate said he threw away his notes shortly after completing his report.

"The judge and jury believed Saldate," said Kozinski of the verdict and sentence. "But they didn't know about Saldate's long history of lying under oath and other misconduct."

Specifically, the judge noted that the detective had been suspended five days for taking "liberties" with a female motorist and lying about it to his supervisors; that judges had tossed out four confessions or indictments because Saldate had lied under oath; and that judges suppressed or vacated four confessions because Saldate had violated a person's constitutional rights.

IMO, both the prosecutor and Saldate should serve day for day, the same 22 years and change Milke was wrongfully imprisoned.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

At least she is still alive, with a more efficient process we would be talking about this error posthumously.

[Uncle Sparky]

Don't worry. I'm sure she will successfully sue for millions. Of course, the money will come out of taxpayers pockets.

[Sava]

maybe that will motivate taxpayers to get off their ****ing ass and make sure **** like this doesnt happen anymore

[kentonio]

Don't worry. I'm sure she will successfully sue for millions. Of course, the money will come out of taxpayers pockets.

I'm not sure any amount can really compensate for being on death row for 22 years.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Unless the state of AZ is "nice" she probably won't get a thing. Most states you have to prove actual innocence (e.g. exoneration), not just botched trial procedure. Here there's no way to ever prove actual innocence. Arizona has no statutory compensation scheme. If she sues, they may settle, but it's a tough case. "The jury was stupid" isn't actionable. Best bet would probably be a federal suit for violation of civil rights, but even that one is tough.

She goes from being 26 and under arrest to 49 and spit out, with nothing.

[-Jrabbit]

How a judge could allow a capital conviction under such circumstances is appalling. How could there NOT be reasonable doubt?

I think it's actionable. But she'll need a better lawyer.

[Ben Kenobi]

she'll need a better lawyer

No ****. Whomever was her lawyer previously should be disbarred. Where was the actual, you know, evidence?

As for 'exoneration', it shouldn't matter. There's no evidence submitted by the prosecution to convict her - which is wrongful imprisonment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

130471725-07-99001-RE-Debra-Milke-March-14.pdf

The judge should go to prison too. Milke's trial lawyer raised these issues at trial, subpoenad the personnel file and produced hundreds of pages of documents in motion supporting the subpoena for Saldate's personnel records. In those hundreds of pages were no less than seven court orders in seven different cases where Arizona trial court judges found that Saldate had lied under oath (four cases) or significantly violated defandants' Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. One of these was a so-called interrogation and confession where a suspect was restrained in a hospital bed with a skull fracture, and he "confessed" to the crime (without witness or tape recording) despite attending physician's testimony that he didn't know his own name, what year it was, where he was, or who the President of the United States was at the time of the miraculously unwitnessed confession.

The second defect in the state court’s fact-finding process was its failure to consider all the evidence that was presented to it. We have held that, “where the state courts plainly misapprehend or misstate the record in making their findings, and the misapprehension goes to a material actual issue that is central to petitioner’s claim, that misapprehension can fatally undermine the fact-finding process, rendering the resulting actual finding unreasonable.” Id. at 1001. In short, we can’t accord AEDPA deference when the state court “has before it, yet apparently ignores,” evidence that is “highly probative and central to petitioner’s claim.” Id.

Milke presented the state court with hundreds of pages of court records from cases where Saldate had committed misconduct, either by lying under oath or by violating suspects’ Miranda and other constitutional rights during interrogations. Had these cases been brought to the jury’s attention, they would certainly have cast doubt on Saldate’s credibility. In addition to serving as impeachment evidence, they also buttressed Milke’s repeated claim that she’d been prejudiced by denial of access to Saldate’s personnel file, where more impeachment evidence could be expected to reside. This trove of court documents was critical to Milke’s claim but ignored by the post-conviction court.

In reviewing the exhibits attached to Milke’s postconviction petition, Judge Cheryl K. Hendrix, who was also the trial judge, was “unable to find a reference to the type of evidence that is allowed under Rule 608 to impeach the credibility of a witness.” That is no doubt because she grossly misapprehended the nature and content of the documents that Milke presented. Even though the judge claimed to have reviewed the exhibits, she referred to the collection of court documents as containing mere “motions and testimony from other cases in which Det. Saldate was the interrogating officer. It establishes nothing. The filing of a motion to suppress does not mean the police officer engaged in improprieties.”

Had these been merely motions and testimony, that would be true; anyone can make unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. But seven of the cases included court orders finding that Saldate had lied under oath or violated the Fifth or the Fourth Amendments during interrogations. Multiple judicial determinations that Saldate lied in performing his official functions and violated suspects’ constitutional rights would have been highly relevant where the state’s case rested on his testimony. That Milke’s evidence contained court orders, rather than just “motions and testimony,” is a significant, objective fact that the state court either misapprehended or ignored. Either way, the court’s error resulted in an unreasonable determination of the facts. These overlooked court orders are “highly probative and central to petitioner’s claim.” Taylor, 366 F.3d at 1001.

Had the state post-conviction judge realized that the documents contained judicial findings of Saldate’s mendacity and disregard for constitutional rights, she may well have recognized their relevance as impeachment evidence that had not been disclosed as required by Giglio. After all, the judge acknowledged that Milke could have used the court records to question Saldate about “specific instances of prior conduct” if the information was “probative of the detective’s character for truthfulness.” And this evidence certainly was, though the court seemed unaware of it.

While the court held that “defense counsel would have been bound by the detective’s answers” to the questions about these instances of misconduct, the documents would still have been valuable. With court orders in hand, defense counsel
would have had a good-faith basis for questioning Saldate about prior instances where he had lied on the witness stand. See Foulk v. Kotz, 673 P.2d 799, 801–02 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). If Saldate admitted the lies, his credibility would have been impaired. If he denied them, he would have exposed himself to a perjury prosecution. If he claimed he couldn’t remember, defense counsel could have shown Saldate the State v. Hall, 504 P.2d 534, 537 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). And if Saldate still couldn’t recall, the jury would have had reason to doubt, not only his veracity, but his memory as well. These court orders would have been a game-changer for Milke, but the state court failed to grasp their significance because it was apparently unaware that the documents contained judicial findings rather than mere allegations.

The full opinion of the 9th Circuit is a good read - that particular set of horses is well and truly beaten to death and beyond. The best part (since Milke isn't directly freed by the order) is that it does make a referral to the civil rights dividion of DoJ. That's criminal referral, boys, not civil.

[MichaeltheGreat]

No ****. Whomever was her lawyer previously should be disbarred. Where was the actual, you know, evidence?

As for 'exoneration', it shouldn't matter. There's no evidence submitted by the prosecution to convict her - which is wrongful imprisonment.

Her trial lawyer apparently did his job. The court just blew off the motions. Then the original state appellate review was by her trial judge, who again ignored the record and played rules of evidence games when SCOTUS mandated unilateral disclosure under the Brady and Giglio rules.

Exoneration does matter - one of many preconditions of successful wrongful incarceration suits is proof of actual innocence, not just "error" by the court, prosecution or police. The only ray of light she has is that the 9th Circuit's opinion makes a referral to DoJ civil rights division for (criminal) investigation of violation of civil rights. That process can lead to a negotiated settlement with compensation to Milke, or if it goes to trial, she'd have a non-incarceration civil cause of action.

[Ben Kenobi]

Exoneration does matter - one of many preconditions of successful wrongful incarceration suits is proof of actual innocence, not just "error" by the court, prosecution or police. The only ray of light she has is that the 9th Circuit's opinion makes a referral to DoJ civil rights division for (criminal) investigation of violation of civil rights. That process can lead to a negotiated settlement with compensation to Milke, or if it goes to trial, she'd have a non-incarceration civil cause of action.

Lack of actual evidence necessary to sustain a conviction would be sufficient. You're right that error wouldn't be enough to overturn evidence, but in this case, there's no evidence whatsoever. This is going to be a big case with a large payout. As well it should.

[Dinner]

Don't worry. I'm sure she will successfully sue for millions. Of course, the money will come out of taxpayers pockets.

I hope so because losing 22 years of your life is pretty horrific.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Lack of actual evidence necessary to sustain a conviction would be sufficient. You're right that error wouldn't be enough to overturn evidence, but in this case, there's no evidence whatsoever. This is going to be a big case with a large payout. As well it should.

Several dozen state courts of appeal say you are wrong, and explicitly state that actual innocence is a necessary precursor to a compensation claim for wrongful conviction. It's a matter of deference to the jury. In the majority of states that don't even have statutory compensation schemes, to sustain a civil action, you have to prove both actual innocence* and government misconduct. A jury ****ing up doesn't cut it, and misconduct that may void a conviction, but not show actual innocence doesn't cut it either.

* technically, the standard in most cases is that "no reasonable jury would have convicted" based on the exculpatory evidence. Only a few jurisdictions use the term "actual innocence." It amounts to the same thing. Doubt as to whether a jury would convict is not sufficient. Juries are allowed to make mistakes, without compensation claims arising. So are judges and prosecutors.

The problem in Milke's potential recovery case is that a jury might still conclude Saldate was a lying ******* in some cases, but not all, and it made no sense that the two kid killers would have killed Milke's kid just for kicks, or that she would have sent the four year old kid off with the roommate. So a jury might still convict, had they found Saldate's answers to impeachment cross-examination credible and decided Milke was just a white trash scumbag drug user.

BTW, there is still "evidence" - Saldate's testimony. The issue is how the jury would weigh that evidence in view of impeachment evidence. Not a slam dunk given deference to cops.

The only shot she has is settlement or a finding by DoJ that her civil rights were violated.

[Serb]

Looks like Debra Milke will finally be set free after 22 ****ing years on death row...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/justice/arizona-death-sentence-overturned/index.html?iref=obnetwork

No physical evidence, no direct testimony by witnesses, only a detective's hearsay (why in hell didn't the jury wonder why the supposed witnesses didn't bother to testify?), and a "confession" heard only by said detective.

Meanwhile, the prosecution knew about and failed to disclose said detective's track record for perjury, and Phoenix PD kept him on the force regardless.

The detective, Armando Saldate, said the friend told him that Debra Milke was involved in a plot to kill her son. But neither the friend nor Styers testified to that assertion in court.

In fact, "no other witnesses or direct evidence (linked) Milke to the crime" other than Saldate's testimony. After pleading not guilty, Milke stood trial and tried to convince a jury that her account -- and not the detective's -- was the true one.

"The trial was, essentially, a swearing contest between Milke and ... Saldate," said Kozinski.

The detective testified he "didn't buy" Milke's reaction after he informed her that her son was dead. After that, Saldate said he placed Milke under arrest. In a subsequent interrogation, she confessed that her role in the murder conspiracy was a "bad judgment call," the detective said.

But Milke offered a vastly different view of the interrogation and denied that she had confessed to any role in a murder plot.

There was no recording of the interrogation, no one else was in the room or watching from a two-way mirror, and Saldate said he threw away his notes shortly after completing his report.

"The judge and jury believed Saldate," said Kozinski of the verdict and sentence. "But they didn't know about Saldate's long history of lying under oath and other misconduct."

Specifically, the judge noted that the detective had been suspended five days for taking "liberties" with a female motorist and lying about it to his supervisors; that judges had tossed out four confessions or indictments because Saldate had lied under oath; and that judges suppressed or vacated four confessions because Saldate had violated a person's constitutional rights.

IMO, both the prosecutor and Saldate should serve day for day, the same 22 years and change Milke was wrongfully imprisoned.

Oh, great, now America has a Gulag of it's own. Wait a second, The United States of America cannot have a Gulag, 'cause US is the beacon of freedom.
Yeah, the beacon of freedom with legalized tourtues. The last such beacon of freedom have been known as the Third Reich.

edited: Just some more Serb's poison about America:
Somebody will stop you one day. And unfortunatelly the history always picks us to stop the evil. And we will stop you again, as we always stop the ****ers.
Untill then - have a nice day.

[Alexander's Horse]

Do you watch KTV serb?