Illinois Convicts Real Killer 14 Years After Wrongfully Convicted Man Is Released

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 07:06:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Jeralyn told the story of Rolando Cruz way back in 2002. Cruz, Alejandro Hernandez and another man were charged with raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl who was abducted from her home in Naperville, Illinois in 1983. Cruz and Hernandez were convicted and sentenced to death in 1985. (The jury hung as to the third man and he was never recharged.)

All three men were innocent. The crime was actually committed by Brian Dugan, who went on to murder a 27-year-old woman in 1984 and a 7-year-old girl in 1985. If the police hadn't been so busy fabricating evidence against Cruz and his co-defendants, they might have apprehended Dugan before he committed those later crimes and Cruz would have been spared the 11 years he spent on death row.

Even worse, police and prosecutors knew in late 1985 that Dugan was the killer because he offered to confess to the 1983 murder during plea negotiations concerning the two subsequent homicides. They chose not to believe Dugan because he said he committed the crime alone -- a fact that made the death sentences imposed on Cruz and Hernandez rather inconvenient for the prosecutors who obtained them. [more ...]

As Jeralyn wrote here, the convictions were twice overturned on appeal, but that didn't stop prosecutors from bringing Cruz to trial a third time in 1995 -- despite Dugan's confession and despite DNA tests that linked Dugan to the murder. It was only after a law enforcement witness against Cruz acknowledged committing perjury that the judge in the third trial took the rare step of directing a verdict of acquittal, sparing Cruz from the risk of being convicted and sentenced to death a third time. The charges against Hernandez were dismissed later that year.

Another ten years lapsed after Cruz' 1995 acquittal before prosecutors finally charged Dugan with the 1983 murder and rape. The case against Dugan was supported by a new, more sophisticated DNA analysis conducted in 2002. This week, Dugan entered guilty pleas to the charges.

The question now is whether Dugan will be sentenced to death. Given the nearly dozen years he spent on death row, Cruz thinks it's only fair that the real killer should receive the same sentence. Dugan's lawyers, on the other hand, argue that Dugan's 1985 admission was intended to spare Cruz from the death penalty and should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. A jury will decide Dugan's fate at a sentencing trial scheduled to begin on September 22.

Meanwhile, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said that the state's moratorium on executions should remain in place until reforms can be implemented to ensure that innocent defendants like Cruz never again face the death penalty. That day will never come, a fact that Quinn surely understands even if he lacks the political courage to admit it. No system of determining guilt is foolproof. The understandable outrage the public feels about the brutal and vicious acts that Dugan committed can't change that reality. The only way to assure that innocent people aren't executed is to eliminate death as a sentencing option.

< Late Night Open Thread | Don't Worry. Be Happy >

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.

Illinois Convicts Real Killer 14 Years After Wrongfully Convicted Man Is Released | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hey, at least the two guys (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 07:35:24 AM EST

were kept from committing any crimes while they were behind bars.</diogenes>

Its Too Bad (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by john horse on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 07:55:03 AM EST

that Cruz and Hernandez were actually innocent. If our system didn't allow judicial review of prosecutor cases then think about what life would be like. Simple. Uncomplicated. Cool. (sarcasm alert)

[ Parent ]

What a stupid comment (none / 0) (#5)
by ggb on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:04:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I was being sarcastic and (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:15:45 AM EST

was mimicking a certain commentator.

I suppose if Jonathan Swift were alive, you'd want him arrested for encouraging cannibalism.

[ Parent ]

All you had to say was you were being sarcastic .. (none / 0) (#17)
by ggb on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:22:10 PM EST

but ... I guess you were being sarcastic again.

[ Parent ]

: I already included </diogenes> (none / 0) (#20)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:29:48 PM EST

in my remark as a clue, but if you didn't catch that, or thought it a mere oddity on my part.............

[ Parent ]

Through all the years of reading about this (none / 0) (#2)
by ruffian on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 07:51:32 AM EST

story, it never fails to horrify.

There is no way to make sure it never happens to anyone else. The death penalty has to be abolished, pure and simple.

Forensics (none / 0) (#3)
by jarober on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 08:38:41 AM EST

Here's something you might want to write more about: real doubts are cropping up about Forensic Science.

Ever since DNA testing went live, lots of bungled prosecutions have come to light - and more are likely to follow. That Popular Mechanics article was a real eye opener to me...

We have. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by TChris on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:09:07 AM EST

TalkLeft has frequently written about the perils of forensic evidence. Type 'forensic' into the search box for relevant posts.

[ Parent ]

"DNA evidence" (2.00 / 1) (#15)
by diogenes on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 07:11:39 PM EST

If juries actually start demanding either videotaped confessions or DNA evidence before they convict for murder, then a lot of Dugans are going to be wrongfully acquitted. As Dugan shows us, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

[ Parent ]

: How so? (none / 0) (#18)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:09:03 PM EST

The case against Dugan was supported by a new, more sophisticated DNA analysis conducted in 2002. This week, Dugan entered guilty pleas to the charges.
How can a Dugan be 'wrongfully acquitted' with DNA evidence, when Dugan himself was linked by a DNA analysis?
Please make sense with your comments, diogenes.
People cannot be "wrongfully acquitted" by DNA analysis, outside of a Lifetime movie of the week where you have the old evil identical twin thing going on, barring lab error or the deliberate falsification of the lab tests.
"It is better to keep ones' mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

[ Parent ]

Is this considered malpractice? (none / 0) (#4)
by samtaylor2 on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 08:54:17 AM EST

Authority without accountability (none / 0) (#8)
by Rojas on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:36:50 AM EST

is the root cause IMHO. These are civil rights violations under the color of law. We need to get the feds out of criminal law (where they commit the same kinds of abuses) and back into the role of oversight.

Senator Roland Burris, (none / 0) (#9)
by KeysDan on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:51:34 AM EST

then Illinois Attorney General played a controversial role in the Rolando Cruz case, ignoring Assistant Prosecutor Kenney's warnings about the case.

Cruz' conviction was no "mistake." (none / 0) (#10)
by Chuck0 on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:03:43 AM EST

Some of the articles refer to Cruz's conviction as a mistake. There was too much evidence exonerating him for it to be a mistake. This is law enforcement and prosecutorial malfeasance. However, as usual, the real guilty ones (and I don't mean Dugan) will suffer NO consequences. Those responsible for Cruz's conviction are the ones who belong in prison.

Dugan is a real criminal (none / 0) (#11)
by nyjets on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:38:03 AM EST

Dugan is guilty of three murders and belongs in prison. If you want to say that those responsible for Crus's covicition belongs in jail as much as Dugan, fine. But please, Dugan is a criminal who belongs in prison.

[ Parent ]

: Never said Dugan (none / 0) (#12)
by Chuck0 on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 01:48:47 PM EST

didn't belong in prison. Don't read stuff into my posts that aren't there.

[ Parent ]

"The only way (none / 0) (#13)
by wagnert in atlanta on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 05:30:32 PM EST

to assure that innocent people aren't executed is to eliminate death as a sentencing option."

And the only way to assure that innocent people aren't punished is to eliminate punishment. Of course, innocent people will still get it in the neck, just from a different direction.

A few of the tales of unjust punishment I have heard are the result of bad fortune or malign concidence. Most are due to venal police, bigoted judges, vicious prosecutors or lazy defense attorneys -- and I don't recall those perpetrators ever being called to account for their misdeeds.

Let's keep the death penalty, along with other punishments, and deal them out occasionally to those who pervert justice from the inside.

If you look at the sheer number (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 07:08:58 PM EST

of innocent people who have sat on death row and were later exonerated, the question comes up:

Are you willing to be in that same position if the dice roll against you, in return for keeping the death penalty as a possible punishment in our society?

Sometimes sheer human error without malice is to blame, that doesn't make it any worse than the situations you've outlined in your post.

[ Parent ]

And tell me, what is that sheer number? (none / 0) (#22)
by wagnert in atlanta on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:27:27 PM EST

Those cases make good headlines, but very bad philosophy. Blackstone said, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Even Maimonides set the ratio no higher than a thousand to one. Of course I would hate like hell to be executed for something I didn't do, but I think I would prefer that to spending life in prison.

The thing that strikes me about the instances where an innocent is released after years in prison or on death row is the state's total lack of interest in compensating the victim or fixing the process that convicted him.

In most cases, he has to sue to be paid for the time he spent in prison, and as for punishing the officials who put him there (assuming bad faith, not bad luck) -- well, forget it. Michael Nifong, the race-baiting prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case, was disbarred and spent one night -- one night! -- in the county slammer, and the case made headlines. Repeat this a hundred times across the US, and we might be on our way to reducing the number of unjustified convictions.

The point I want to make is that we should do our utmost to hone the legal process so that the guilty are punished and the innocent released, quickly and efficiently. When the process goes wrong, the problem should be analyzed and corrected. Instead, you advocate throwing up our hands and saying, "We can't do it right, so we shouldn't do it at all." That's not a solution, it's a surrender.

[ Parent ]

Here's some data for you to chew on: (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Dark Avenger on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:43:37 PM EST

The danger that innocent people will be executed because of errors in the criminal justice system is getting worse. A total of 69 people have been released from death row since 1973 after evidence of their innocence emerged. Twenty-one condemned inmates have been released since 1993, including seven from the state of Illinois alone. Many of these cases were discovered not because of the normal appeals process, but rather as a result of new scientific techniques, investigations by journalists, and the dedicated work of expert attorneys, not available to the typical death row inmate.

Mandatory Link

According to the Wikipedia list of exonerated death row inmates, which I cannot guarantee is completely accurate, there have been 135 people exonerated in this country alone, as well as people in other countries with the death penalty.

No, I'm advocating that we don't risk executing an innocent by dropping the death penalty.

FWIW, I think that LOP is worse than the death penalty.

Also, it's hypocritical as well. "Thou shalt not kill, and to prove we mean business, we'll kill you for breaking that law by putting you to death."

As much as we like the CSI and Forensic Files approach to the criminal justice system, the fact that there is human error possible in a system run by humans makes for that human error to end in the death of an innocent human being.

Let me turn the question around, and ask, what number of convicts per year who are innocent yet executed would you accept as a price for the death penalty?

1,5,15?

That's what you surrender to when you advocate for the death penalty.

[ Parent ]

One every ten years. (none / 0) (#24)
by wagnert in atlanta on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 07:46:34 PM EST

There, you have an answer. Happy now?
Your mandatory links are interesting. There is a long list of persons whose death sentences were overturned, but only four quoted instances since 1976 of supposedly innocent persons being executed -- four in 33 years. None of those "innocents" were definitively exonerated, either -- the reviewer just felt their claims didn't get a fair hearing. Maybe the death penalty doesn't miscarry as often as you think.

Most of the death row inmates whose sentences were overturned weren't exonerated by some newly discovered piece of evidence, like a DNA mismatch. Their convictions were overturned by appeals courts finding their trials were botched beyond repair -- and that is something that the judges, lawyers, law enforcement officials and witnesses should be held to account for. Not that this happens -- usually the episode is just swept under the rug. An exception is Cruz's case. Seven DuPage officials were tried for conspiracy. They were acquitted. How about raising hell over that? If the death penalty is eliminated, people like that will railroad the innocent into life without parole, and we have agreed that is worse than death.

[ Parent ]

: Those aren't bad odds, but you still haven't (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 08:48:48 PM EST

answered my other question:

Are you willing to be in that same position if the dice roll against you, in return for keeping the death penalty as a possible punishment in our society?

Maybe the death penalty doesn't miscarry as often as you think.
Perhaps as "often as I think" isn't the criterion here.
I'm pretty sure that if you or someone close to you was unjustly convicted, that criterion would be irrelevant to you as well.
but only four quoted instances since 1976 of supposedly innocent persons being executed -- four in 33 years.
That we know of. That doesn't translate into "only 4 innocents in 33 years". The number could be much greater, and based on the numbers of innocents convicted and sentenced to death, it probably is.
How about raising hell over that? If the death penalty is eliminated, people like that will railroad the innocent into life without parole, and we have agreed that is worse than death.
If they are alive, they at least have the chance to have their innocence come out and the be released from jail, which if they're executed then becomes impossible.
And nothing I've written on this thread can be seen as against increased penalties for railroading innocents into jail, just that there are some cases where there is human error without malice, a concept you appear to be unable to grasp.
Quibble away, nothing I say will change your bloodthirsty nature or your sophistry.

[ Parent ]

problem here? (none / 0) (#16)
by diogenes on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 07:22:09 PM EST

"Cruz was not initially a person of interest for the crime until he attempted to claim the $10,000 reward for information on the murder with a fabricated story." as per Wikipedia.
In fact, Cruz was not executed, instead being one of three who settled for 3.5 million dollars due to the injustices in this case.
Of course, maybe Cruz was the victim of self-induced bad karma; what kind of person fabricates a story about a murdered ten year old and foists it on grieving parents (assuming one believes Wikipedia on this case)?

: A little more from the Wikipedia enrty: (none / 0) (#19)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:12:12 PM EST

There was enormous public and political pressure on the state attorney's office to solve the highly publicized case and the police and prosecutors became convinced of Cruz's guilt. One of the investigating detectives however was convinced of Cruz's innocence and resigned so he could testify for the defense. Later an assistant attorney general also resigned claiming ""I was being asked to help execute an innocent man".[citation needed]
In November 1985, another man, Brian Dugan, was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without parole for two unrelated similar homicides (one a seven year old girl) committed in nearby Kane and LaSalle Counties. At the time of his arrest he had also confessed to the Jeanine Nicarico murder but this information was blocked by prosecutors from Cruz's two retrials. The conviction was overturned in 1989 due to a prosecutorial error, and Cruz was retried, and the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence in February, 1990.
Justice Heiple, writing for the majority, found errors in the trial but dismissed them as harmless in light of the "overwhelming" physical evidence. This decision sparked an understandable public outcry, since even prosecutors had to admit that no physical evidence existed linking Cruz to the crime, much less "overwhelming" physical evidence. In 1992, Assistant Attorney General Mary Brigid Kenney, who was assigned to fight Cruz's appeal, sent a memo to Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris identifying numerous errors in the investigation and trial in Cruz's initial conviction including "perjured testimony" and "fraudulent investigations by local officials".[1] Burris disputed Kenney's contentions, claiming he could not hold his judgement higher than the jury and that it was his job to uphold a jury's decision[2] and she resigned in protest.
In 1994 the verdict was overturned again. During the third trial, a sheriff's lieutenant who had provided key evidence at the original trial reversed his testimony and admitted he had lied under oath, DNA tests also eliminated Cruz and his co-defendant, Alejandro Hernandez as the contributors of the semen found at the crime scene and implicated Brian Dugan.[3] On November 3, 1995, a DuPage County judge acquitted Cruz on the basis of recanted testimony, the DNA evidence, and the lack of any substantiated evidence against Cruz.
.................................

The public outcry from the Cruz case resulted in Governor Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois, asserting that the system was "fraught with error."[9]
Nobody is saying that there shouldn't have been consequences for Cruz's attempt to claim the reward in the first place, just that they shouldn't have been a death sentence for a crime he didn't commit.

[ Parent ]