home

Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 03:40:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Kenneth Marsh received $756,900 from California’s Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board for the 21 years he spent in prison for a crime that never happened. The record award represents the state’s acknowledgement that Marsh is innocent, and a board member, San Bernardino County DA Michael Ramos, actually apologized to Marsh for the government's error. Unfortunately, the facts haven’t deterred Jay Coulter, the retired prosecutor who obtained the guilty verdict, from continuing to smear Marsh’s name.

Coulter … said Thursday he remains unconvinced that Marsh is innocent. Coulter said the evidence did not fit Marsh's version of what happened.

Marsh was convicted of beating his girlfriend’s child to death. He maintains that the toddler hit his head on a fireplace hearth after falling from a couch. During the trial, prosecution experts testified that the fall could not have killed the child. The compensation board concluded that new evidence supports Marsh’s version.

A hearing officer for the state compensation board, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that an undiagnosed blood disorder and an antibiotic administered after Phillip's fall contributed to his death. "It is found that Phillip was injured in the manner described by Marsh," wrote Kyle Hedum, the hearing officer.

After hiring a new forensic expert to review the evidence, current San Diego County DA Bonnie Dumanis conceded that Marsh’s innocence was possible, and -- to her credit -- agreed that Marsh should be released.

< Friday Open Thread | PlameGate: Libby and the Government At Odds Over Discovery >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    How must he feel, any one unjustly convicted. Cases aplenty have recently been overturned here in the UK.Not least cotdeaths. Evidence given by the same "expert" government witness has been proved totaly misguiding and false. The most recent reversal of a woman accused of murdering two of her children. What must this lady have gone through, to suffer such a loss, be accused, convicted and incarcerated for some six or eight years knowing herself to be innocent.

    Re: Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 04:56:17 PM EST
    Good thing he wasn't executed.

    Re: Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    TChris: current San Diego County DA Bonnie Dumanis conceded that Coulter’s innocence was possible (I think you meant Marsh's innocence.)

    Re: Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimcee on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 07:15:44 PM EST
    $750,000. That is not enough.

    Re: Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 07:56:38 PM EST
    I sure hope that $$, a paltry compensation for 21 years of lost freedom, in not taxable.

    Re: Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 07:57:33 PM EST
    I sure hope that $$, a paltry compensation for 21 years of lost freedom, is not taxable.

    Re: Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 10:44:36 PM EST
    it's bad enough to be wrongfully convicted of a crime that did happen, conviction for a non-crime has to be the height of prosectutorial criminal negligence. i kind of thought (silly me) that before indicting someone, the absolute minimum requirement was that there be an actual crime. one of the dangers of relying on experts (and i do, in my work) is that they bring an inherent conflict of interest to the job; someone is paying them. when dealing with matters of opinion, i tend to take all "experts" with a grain of salt. wait, make that a sack of salt. however, the average juror doesn't realize this. they're told someone is an "expert" in the field, their bona fides are reviewed, and the jurors hang on their every word, regardless of how absurd it might be. absent a compelling rebuttal "expert", someone's goose is cooked; in this case, for 21 long years. squeaky, you raise an interesting question, and i'm not certain there is presently a good answer. i say that because this type of compensation is so rare, there's neither statutory, or case guidance on the issue, that i could find. granted, i didn't spend a lot of time researching it. perhaps TL can do a more thorough job. normally, compensatory damages, such as for medical costs, are non-taxable, to the extent that the plaintiff hasn't received a tax benefit from them. compensation for lost income is taxable, because it would have been taxable ordinarily. the USSC has pretty much eviscerated the old "pain and suffering" exemption, in, i believe, schmidt v comm. (unpublished opinion). more likely than not, this would be the basis for mr. marsh's compensation. absent a special act of congress, i suspect it would be treated as fully taxable income. just my opinion.

    Re: Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 05:26:16 AM EST
    I understand that this isn't enough, but jurors are told that the testimony of an expert should be given no more weight than the testimony of any other witness. At least that's the way I've always seen it. And I've sn some pretty outrageous statements by paid experts

    Compensation Awarded to Innocent Man | 8 comments (8 topical)