DA To Retry Defendant Even Though Cleared by DNA

It looks like the unidentified (and unindicted) co-ejaculator theory is alive and well in Mississippi.

After being exonerated by DNA evidence, Kennedy Brewer was freed on bond after serving 15 years in prison for a rape and murder. The DA now says he will retry him:

“I perceive that Kennedy Brewer assisted someone else in the killing of the child,” Mr. Allgood said. “Whether he actually penetrated that child or not functionally doesn’t make any difference if he was aiding, assisting and encouraging in her death.”

This case has lots of red flags, including a jailhouse snitch and a suspended forensic dentist who testified about about bitemarks, itself a junk science.

Brewer is represented by the Innocence Project which reports that Mississippi has the second largest (after Louisiana) number of incarcerated residents per 100,000:

"If the system's failure rate is a mere one percent, 215 people in prison in Mississippi are innocent," the project says.

< U.S. Spending $10 Million on New Gitmo Courtrooms | Giuliani Promises Conservative Judges >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I prefer . . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    unindicted co-ejaculator, personally.  What a crock.  The prosecutor hasn't even bothered to run the DNA from the crime scene through the state or FBI databases because he's so sure that this guy is the right guy.  Instead, he's only tested this guy's relatives and acquaintances to try to prove that he did it with someone else.  Give me a break.  Where's the Mississippi State Bar?  The Attorney General?  The judge?

    I've read about that "forensic odontologist" before.  He would find bitemarks that not a single other "forensic odontologist" would call bitemarks, human or otherwise.  He's the junkiest among junk scientists who has put many innocent people behind bars.  

    So, we have a new prosecutor, taking the place of the recused one.  He's already dropped the request for the death penalty and not opposed bail.  Hopefully, he's just working his way to dropping the charges.  

    unindicted is right (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:31:04 AM EST
    thanks, think I'll add that.

    never let facts (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:14:14 PM EST
    get in the way of a good old persecution. frankly, i'm surprised the DNA evidence was sufficient to stop his execution. after all, they have a by god schedule to keep!

    it's possible the new prosecutor is trying to figure out how to drop this, and save face for the original one. were it me, i wouldn't bother my pretty little head worrying about that bozo's reputation, it's pretty clear he's an idiot.

    but that's just me. :)

    Until the prosecutors (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    are treated like Nifong, this will continue.

    Prosecutoral / Judical Misconduct (none / 0) (#5)
    by Fortherecord on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    I was attacked at my house by a man known to all to be unstable, violent,armed at all times and had threatened me and many others before. Unfortunately, I had to shoot him and he died.

    After calling 9-1-1, I was arrested immediately and informed by the Jennings Co., IN. Sheriff that I was under arrest for murder while they decide if a crime had been commited and I can prove later it was self-defense.

    This is in complete contrast of Indiana Law IC 35-41-3-2;"No person in this state shall be put in legal jeopardy of ANY KIND WHATSOEVER for protecting himself..."

    In August '05 I stood trial for murder where the prosecutor presented such a baseless and fictitious case the jury gave it neither credence nor considertion during a mere "30-60 minute" delibertion to arrive at a unanimous not guilty verdict. "We (the jury)based ALL our feelings NOT on the courtroom procedures but on the interviews in the jail."

    The judge neglected to furnish the jury with verdict forms and dismissed them before they were allowed to record their verdict and declared a mistrial.

    In Feb.'07 during a motion to dismiss hearing the jury was ready to testify as to their not guilty verdict, however, the judge refused to allow them to speak and then stated he was in possession of blank verdict forms presented to him by this jury, therefore indicating an impasse.

    However, a juror has publically come forward and refuted the judges claim of the existence of these forms. "Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank."

    So we have a LAW as clear and precise as IC 35-41-3-2, a case so unbelievable the jury gave it no credence, an extremely quick not guilty verdict and a judge who lied about and invented blank verdict forms so as to suppress a not guilty verdict, with a retrial scheduled for Nov. 5,'07.

    No I'm not making this up, I am forced to live this nightmare.

    Even with a law so exact and a case so unwarranted, the Indiana Bar, Attorney General and Governor all refuse to assist in bringing this injustice to a halt. (Unlike N. Car who disbarred M. Nifong for far less)

    How does one get fair and just treatment if a judge is oblivious to the law and the facts that were so obvious to a 12 person jury and who invents blank verdict forms so as to suppress a not guilty verdict?

    Is a judge guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice if he lies about and invents blank forms to deny my motion to dismiss, my life and my freedom?