by TChris

With good reason, prosecutors aren't opposing Larry Peterson's motion for a new trial. Peterson was convicted of rape and murder, but new DNA testing proves that semen in the victim's body and skin beneath her fingernails didn't come from Peterson. And hair found on the victim's body that the prosecutors claimed to be Peterson's actually belonged to the victim.

Great news for Peterson? Not necessarily. The prosecutor has indicated that he will ask the judge to set bail for Peterson within standard guidelines, which could mean bail of $250,000 or more. If the judge sets bail that high, Peterson's family won't be able to afford it, and Peterson will remain in jail - exonerated and still incarcerated.

What good is the mountain of DNA evidence supporting Peterson if the practical effect of setting high bail is to deny him his freedom?

Why is this happening? The explanation is both simple and common:

Asking for standard bail in this case would be one more signal that prosecutors still cannot admit they made a mistake.

by TChris

Columnist Ronnie Polaneczky writes about three men in the Philadelphia area who were arrested on the basis of mistaken identifications.

[Morris] Wells was arrested in March for a subway-stop murder that police now believe had been committed by Philly serial-killer suspect Juan Covington, who has admitted to the crime. Yesterday, murder charges against Wells were dropped.

The district attorney may soon also drop aggravated-assault and attempted-murder charges against Clyde Johnson, who has been imprisoned since April 2004, for a Logan shooting that ballistics tests have since tied to a gun belonging to Covington.

Wells and Johnson were arrested in large part based on eyewitnesses who tagged them as suspects. So was Omar Lezama de La Rosa, the Ambler man arrested last week for a rape that his half-brother is now suspected of committing.

Mistaken identification is a frequent cause of mistaken convictions. Temple law professor Edward Ohlbaum explains why:

by TChris

Kristie's Law would prohibit high speed police pursuits in California unless the fleeing driver is suspected of involvement in a violent felony. Kristie was the innocent victim of a high speed chase. Her mom complains that "[l]aw enforcement's meaningless alternative to Kristie's Law, Senate Bill 719, is sailing through the Legislature."

SB719 would require law enforcement to adopt a pursuit policy, but this reform is mostly symbolic. Police departments must already adopt a pursuit policy to receive blanket immunity from civil liability. Romero's bill retains California's unique injustice of immunity even when the policy is not followed. It states only that departments must adopt, distribute and have officers read the policy. This reform implies that officers are not even reading their policy! Where is the accountability? Can you think of any other public-safety priority where thoughtful policy is developed, adopted, and then legally ignored?

Arianna makes a persuasive case for the theory that Judith Miller obtained the info on Valerie Plame from one of her pals in the intelligence community and then passed it on to Libby who then passed it on to Rove:

Here it is: It's July 6, 2003, and Joe Wilson's now famous op-ed piece appears in the Times, raising the idea that the Bush administration has "manipulate[d]" and "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Miller, who has been pushing this manipulated, twisted, and exaggerated intel in the Times for months, goes ballistic. Someone is using the pages of her own paper to call into question the justification for the war -- and, indirectly, much of her reporting. The idea that intelligence was being fixed goes to the heart of Miller's credibility. So she calls her friends in the intelligence community and asks, Who is this guy? She finds out he's married to a CIA agent. She then passes on the info about Mrs. Wilson to Scooter Libby (Newsday has identified a meeting Miller had on July 8 in Washington with an "unnamed government official"). Maybe Miller tells Rove too -- or Libby does. The White House hatchet men turn around and tell Novak and Cooper. The story gets out.

The Denver Post has obtained documents from a closed military hearing of three Fort Carson soldiers charged with murder in the death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush. Soldiers at the hearing testified that CIA officials beat Iraqi prisoners with sledgehammer handles. Three soldiers are facing murder charges in connection with the death.

CIA officials used a sledgehammer handle to beat various prisoners in Iraq, and one official, whose name is classified, would often brag about his abuse of prisoners, according to testimony in a closed session of a military hearing.

The transcript, obtained this week by The Denver Post under a court order, was of a March hearing to determine whether three Fort Carson Army soldiers should stand trial for the death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush during an interrogation in 2003.

Raw Story reports that Karen Hughes refused to answer John Kerry's questions about the outing of Valerie Plame during her confirmation hearing.

Kerry's line of questioning focused on whether Hughes knew Wilson was a covert operative, and whether she had ever spoken with Bush adviser Karl Rove about the agent.

Hughes response was curt: "Because of my ongoing contact with the White House, I was interviewed as part of that investigation and was happy to cooperate, as I noted in my Senate Foreign Relations Committee questionnaire. As you know, these questions relate to an ongoing criminal investigation. I believe that I should honor the prosecutor's request not to discuss this matter until he has completed his investigation."

Too funny.

Famed editor Jason Epstein, husband of jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, has lately been making himself scarce at the federal facility in Virginia where his wife has been incarcerated for the past three weeks....In a frothy social column yesterday about a celeb-glutted Mediterranean cruise, featuring everyone from Isabella Rossellini to J.K. Rowling aboard the ocean liner Silver Shadow, the New York Sun's A.L. Gordon revealed:

"One passenger with his mind soberly on home is the literary icon Jason Epstein. ... Ms. Miller would have been on the cruise had she not gone to jail."

His wife's in the slammer and he cruises the Med?

[Via Huffington Post.]

by TChris

Ahmed Ressam, "who plotted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium," received a 22 year sentence today. Fortunately for Ressam, he wasn't charged with delivering a small amount of crack as a repeat offender, or he might have been looking at some serious time.

Update: U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, tacitly criticizing the Bush administration, made these compelling remarks at sentencing:

I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.

by TChris

Editors who don't share Garry Trudeau's sense of humor have, from time to time, edited or refused to run Doonesbury strips they find offensive. It's happening again, and the controversy centers around Karl Rove.

In the strip, Bush and an aide are lamenting the problems the administration has had over allegations that Rove leaked the name of a CIA officer to reporters.

Bush says, "Karl's sure been earnin' his nickname lately."

The unnamed aide says, "Boy Genius? I'm not so sure sir ..."

Bush then says, "Hey Turd Blossom! Get in here."

"Turd Blossom," CNN reports, is "one of several nicknames Bush uses for Rove" (clearly the most appropriate), although "mainstream U.S. media have rarely mentioned the nickname." Gee, they slavishly report every other gem the president utters. What's so bad about Doonesbury quoting the president?

Dan Froomkin just finished an online Chat on RoveGate over at the Washington Post. His newest column, Deflecting Responsibility, is up.

by TChris

Earlier posts (here and here) have suggested questions that could usefully be posed to John Roberts at his confirmation hearing. Continuing in that vein, Vikram David Amar suggests that senators ask Roberts to analyze the Supreme Court's rulings in five "blockbuster" cases that were decided by 5-4 majorities.

Amar refutes the notion that a judicial nominee shouldn't be asked about legal issues if those issues might again come before the court:

This is nonsense. Of course the nominee should not make, or be asked to make, promises about future rulings. But the disclosure of specific views about past cases does not commit the judge to rule in any particular way in the future. He remains free to change his mind if he is persuaded by sound legal arguments, the same way sitting justices are free to do so.

Wayne Madsen reports:

Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, announced that his commitee will be "reviewing" the criminal probe by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald of the White House leak of the identities of covert CIA agents. If Roberts is serious and not just grandstanding, this may indicate that the White House is looking to give Fitzgerald's targets (Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and others) congressional general immunity from prosecution in return for their testimony before Roberts' committee. This was the method by which John Poindexter and Oliver North were able to avoid jail time for their roles in Iran-contra, their convictions being overturned by a federal appeals court because of their previously granted congressional immunity.

Last Night in Little Rock warned about this weeks ago, in the context of a hearing being requested by Rep. Henry Waxman. So did Peter G in comments here.

John Dean wrote this column on the topic back in 2004.

Update: Joe Conasen writes in the New York Observer that the Right is getting ready to slime Fitzgerald: