Probably Innocent, But Still Doing Time

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:45:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Two decades after being convicted of murder in Tennessee and sentenced to death, after losing an appeal, losing a habeas proceeding, and losing an appeal from the denial of his habeas petition, Paul House persuaded the Supreme Court that new DNA testing established his probable innocence. The Court therefore applied the "actual innocence" exception to the rule that a habeas proceeding must be commenced within a year after the state proceedings become final -- much to the dismay of the Tennessee prosecutors who can't admit they sent the wrong man to death row.

That might have been a happy ending, but the story isn't over. Two years later, House is still behind bars "while a prosecutor methodically battles every effort from the courts to have him retried." [More...]

[House] can't walk or stand and has trouble speaking because of the multiple sclerosis, an incurable nervous system disorder that he contracted 10 years ago. "It's taken me all these years to prove that I didn't do it. And I don't have another 20 years to invest," House said. "I didn't do the crime, but I've done the time."

Last Friday, a judge set House's bail at $500,000, twice the amount that had been set when House was first charged in 1986. Why? Confined to a wheelchair, House presents no flight risk. He isn't a threat to anyone, and the evidence against him is much weaker than it was in 1986. More importantly, why is the prosecutor trying to obtain a conviction when the evidence suggests that House is probably innocent?

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Obama On SCOTUS Justices >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Probably Innocent, But Still Doing Time | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This kind of thing never makes any (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:20:43 PM EST

sense to me - I always thought that the pursuit of justice should include a desire to not see someone paying the price for a crime he or she did not commit.

Once again, it looks like it is more important to prosecutors to continue to punish what looks like the wrong man in order to protect investigators, the police and perhaps even their own office.

What a travesty.

Contrasted (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by indy in sc on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:58:54 PM EST

with your post the other day regarding layoffs of public defenders in GA, this is even sadder. Why is there no money for defense attorneys for the accused, but endless money for baseless prosecutions? The taxpayers of Tennessee should be disgusted.

I've been reading about this case for years (none / 0) (#1)
by Teresa on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:08:41 PM EST

here in TN and I was going to suggest that one of you write about it. Thanks TChris.

State doesn't want to pay for his time? (none / 0) (#3)
by ineedalife on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:27:19 PM EST

Isn't there a mandatory payout to an innocent prisoner when they are released? After 20 years it is a big number and it is going to come out of somebody's budget. The reason may be that mundane.

: that depends on state law. (none / 0) (#5)
by scribe on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:32:37 PM EST

And it varies from state to state - I have no idea what the law in Tennessee is.

I don't know much about the prosecutor (none / 0) (#4)
by scribe on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:31:50 PM EST

but he sure looks like he swallowed a lemon before going to the photographer.

One has to wonder just what it is that this prosecutor is trying to prove.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that he manages to re-convict this defendant. If, as the defendant's fragile medical condition suggests, he dies before completing his appeals, then the conviction would abate and he'd die innocent. Ask Ken Lay about that. If the prosecutor should somehow convict him and have the conviction survive appeals - he goes down as having convicted an innocent man. While that might say a lot about advocacy, it would also say a lot about the prosecutor's sophistry, facilitate comments about his ethics, and further smear Tennessee's reputation for a fair justice system.

And, if the defendant is acquitted on the re-trial, he would have a good case for malicious prosecution.

It makes no sense.

: What makes no sense to me (none / 0) (#9)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:04:19 PM EST

is why the cops stopped investigating the husband (whom I pretty sure are always the prime suspect, and, I believe history has shown, rightly so) when a wife gets murdered, and went after House instead.
Considering how much TL has proven, time and time again, how often "eye-witness testimony" is completely wrong, I'm not sure why such testimony is being supported in this case.
Regardless, even if we do reject all the eyewitness testimony, the main facts that remain are that a woman was beaten to death and "friend" of the family (House) had the victim's blood on his pants.
I'm not sure why we want to believe that the cops executed a fairly elaborate framing of House?

: Lemons (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:41:06 PM EST

And saving the pits in his cheeks ready for rapid fire. I guess that the I'm going to f' you up if you cross my path look, is what a prosecutor wants to have.
Don't pro wrestlers have a similar look, but wearing just a different outfit.

Geez, is there a defense fund (none / 0) (#6)
by songster on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:48:24 PM EST

for this poor guy?

Nothing less than evil (none / 0) (#7)
by nellre on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:48:40 PM EST

The prosecuter should be fired.

um, because he can? (none / 0) (#10)
by cpinva on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:36:55 PM EST

More importantly, why is the prosecutor trying to obtain a conviction when the evidence suggests that House is probably innocent?

and the best part is, someone else (read: the taxpayer's) is footing the bill.