home

Jeffrey MacDonald Gets New Hearing 42 Years After Crime

A hearing is underway in federal court in North Carolina to determine whether new evidence, when considered collectively rather than piecemeal, is sufficient to overturn the murder convictions of former Army surgeon and Green Beret Jeffrey MacDonald, imprisoned since 1982 for the 1970 Charles Manson-style attack on his wife and daughters.

Here is the 2008 order denying relief. In 2011, the Appeals court reversed and ordered a new hearing. [More...]

Kathryn MacDonald, who married MacDonald in prison in 2002, and who has commented on the case here at TalkLeft, has been MacDonald's staunchest supporter.

Will the DNA evidence and evidence of witness intimidation be enough? I hope so. MacDonald has steadfastly denied committing the murders, declining to apply for parole which would require an admission of guilt. A new book by Earl Morris, "A Wilderness of Error," which was glowingly reviewed by the New York Times a few weeks ago, concludes he is factually innocent.

“A Wilderness of Error” upends nearly everything you think you know about these killings and their aftermath. Watching Mr. Morris wade into this thicket of material is like watching an aggrieved parent walk into a teenager’s fetid, clothes- and Doritos-strewed bedroom and neatly sort and disinfect until the place shines.

He will leave you 85 percent certain that Mr. MacDonald is innocent. He will leave you 100 percent certain he did not get a fair trial. Along the way he bops the poor Mr. McGinniss on the head several more times, the way a fisherman puts a flopping brook trout out of its misery before excising its innards.

According to today's News and Observer article, Joe McGunnis' publishers paid a $325,000 settlement after being sued by MacDonald for his Fatal Vision book concluding he is guilty.

Morris joined others in questioning whether McGinniss pretended to believe MacDonald was innocent to gain continued cooperation for a book that ultimately concluded guilt. MacDonald sued the author, and though a trial on the matter resulted in a hung jury, the publisher's insurance company reached an out-of-court $325,000 settlement that was distributed to the inmate's mother and mother-in-law.

More from the New York Times review of Morris's book:

Mr. Morris dilates on the confessions of two people who could be among the hippies Mr. MacDonald said were there the night of the murders. He pores over grievous evidence-collection errors. He walks us through a trial that was demonstrably rigged for the prosecution.

Reading this book made me physically ill, as the author surely intended. “I am repulsed by the fabrication of a case from incomplete knowledge, faulty analysis and the suppression of evidence,” Mr. Morris writes. “Repulsed and disgusted.”

More on the hearing that begins today here and here. The hearing could take two weeks. In a nutshell:

A military inquiry into the murders recommended that MacDonald not be court-martialed, but a federal jury found him guilty in 1979. He was sentenced to life in prison and has been behind bars since 1982.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last year ruled that MacDonald is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. He and his attorneys will argue that new DNA tests show that hair samples found underneath the fingernail of one of the victims did not come from a member of the MacDonald family and presumably were from one of the killers.

The defense team will also try to prove that the prosecutor in the criminal trial threatened Helena Stoeckley, a witness who had earlier confessed to being in the MacDonald home the night of the murders.

< Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | Feds Seek Emergency Stay of Indefinite Detention Decision >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I Am 42... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 11:36:13 AM EST
    ...and I feel like I have been on the planet for a longtime, a lifetime if you will.  I can't imagine even guilty man spending that much time in prison.  If innocent, well, that would just be more horrible than words.

    For cases with DNA evidence, they should be tested as soon as humanly possible, why they need hearing on testing conclusive evidence to someone's possible innocence is not right.  

    If the evidence points to another person, then the hearing process should begin and done quickly.  Why people drag their feet with this stuff, who claim to care about justice, is mind boggling.

    If nothing else, (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    I hope this case sheds some way overdue light on the appeals process here in the USA. Be prepared to be shocked out of your socks.

    Even anecdotally, most of us are aware of the injustice perpetrated by overzealous prosecutors, "hanging" judges, and biased, often racist, juries. And, that's only in the original trial phase.

    Once a defendant is deemed guilty there is virtually nothing that the, now "convicted" person can do that would result in him/her getting a new trial. No rabid, carnivorous, beast is a match for a prosecutor whose conviction is questioned. Not new evidence, recanted testimony, incompetent representation, or sleeping jurors, almost nothing stands a chance against the system's unshakeable belief that a defendant only gets "one bite at the apple."

    Like I said, if MacDonald's case gets some traction, and if (don't laugh now) the media does its job, you will hear of cases that will tear your heart apart. I'm certainly no expert here, but I have done quite a bit of reading regarding cases where any normal, decent person would be aghast at the reasons, really pretexts, for not granting new trials. Whether the prisoner didn't file within an arbitrary time limit, or new science rendered the old science unreliable, rules are rules, and justice be damned.

    Please don't be fooled by exceptional cases, like the ones made famous by the wonderful, tireless attorneys of "The Innocence Project." Yes, they do fantastic work, and some prisoners do sometimes get exonerated. But the numbers are so tiny compared to our total prisoner population that I fear our "law and order" society gets a false sense of the infallibility of our judicial system.

    If the MacDonald case gets the publicity I'm hoping for, prepare yourself for a world that goes beyond "A Clock World Orange." Even Kafka would feel slighted.

    Parent

    I gave you five stars (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 01:54:27 AM EST
    Because not only do I agree with every word you said, but you said it more elegantly than I usually manage. I've followed TL and sites like Grits for Breakfast for years not to mention places like the Community of the Wrongly Accused. None of this surprises me, but the average person would be totally shocked. And your points about appeals are well-spoken. The only thing you didn't add is that appeals are often over technical legal issues BECAUSE often appeals based on evidence not presented at trial are precluded. How messed up is that? Meanwhile, so many people feel that inmates get too many appeals, that the vast majority of appeals are frivolous, and have no clue just how messed up the appeal system is. It literally often is playing legal games rather than worrying about any new exculpatory or potentially exculpatory evidence.

    Parent
    Copycat Manson (3.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    This always seemed a possibility to me, for what it's worth. I remember being in high school in the 80s and reading about the case. All I could think was it was within a year of Manson, and something always bothered me about it for that reason.

    Sadly (none / 0) (#3)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 12:51:06 PM EST
    should anything come of this and MacDonald is exonerated (I read the McGinniss book a long time ago and I'm not sure if he's guilty or not), no one involved in his prosecution or conviction will be held accountable. They were just "doing their job."

    Let's not miss any opportunity to (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    pile on prosecutors.  

    Parent
    So you think they should be held (none / 0) (#5)
    by sj on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    unaccountable then?

    Parent
    I think they are. By judges, juries, (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    State Bar Associations, supervisors, elected DAs, peers, civil lawsuits (infrequently) and appellate courts.  

    Parent
    Not seeing it, frankly (none / 0) (#8)
    by sj on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    Conviction success rate is (typically) rewarded.

    Judicial review based on new technologies is a struggle and not a given and is (typically) fought tooth and nail by the DA's office.

    And it shouldn't be so hard to obtain accountability for bad faith from

    State Bar Associations, supervisors, elected DAs, peers, civil lawsuits (infrequently) and appellate courts.
    I have no problem at all with "piling on the prosecutors". If they don't want the pile-on then, as a group, don't behave as if they are Judge Dredd.

    Parent
    The DA's office where I was formerly (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    employed has its own team of highly skilled and professional prosecutors reviewing all past convictions in which DNA testing technology was not available or not as precise as now.  

    Parent
    And Yet Nearly Every Person... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 01:45:24 PM EST
    ...who's been exonerated after a wrongful conviction years later, has a DA who played fast and lose with the law.  Often created a path to conviction that probably wouldn't have occurred without their bending and ofter breaking of rules.

    Review is fine, but when someone does 10 years because maybe the DA 'forgot' to turn over exculpatory evidence, that is a crime.  Someone is being deprived of their freedom, and everyone else in court is subject to criminal charges should they forget something crucial.

    So one mans loses a decade, another loses their license (which is so rare it's hardly worth mentioning) ?  That's not justice.  Not to mention that pesky little thing about the real perpetrators never perused.

    I am not about dumping on DA's, but there are rules and laws that apply to everyone in the court room, not just one side and sorry, but being confined to prison because a prosecutorial misconduct is a felony IMO. And if that means a couple bad guys slide, well that's the price we pay to ensure innocent people are convicted.

    They make mistakes, like everyone, but I am talking about flagellant and intentional misconduct.  

    Parent

    That is the way it should be, but it isn't in most (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by womanwarrior on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 05:06:47 PM EST
    cases.  I have a friend who uncovered evidence that a prosecutor got witnesses to lie in a death penalty case for two men.  He succeeded in having them exonerated after several years, including winning a retrial, and he filed a bar complaint against the prosecutor, because he was a very brave lawyer.  It came out in the disciplinary proceedings that the prosecutor was taped teaching a class to other prosecutors saying, "It isn't hard to get the death penalty for the guilty defendant.  The challenge is to get a death penalty for an innocent one."  (I am paraphrasing from memory.)  

    Seven years after the filing of the bar complaint, the prosecutor was disbarred by the Supreme Court of the state.  During that seven years, the prosecutor's office implemented a policy that there would be no plea bargaining with my friend.  He did a lot of trials and won more than he expected.  The whole office should have been disbarred for such a policy, imho.  It takes a long time for "justice" to be done, and sometimes it isn't.

    Parent

    See the Yale Law Journal (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 07:45:04 PM EST
    2011, The Myth of Prosecutorial Accountability After Connick v. Thompson: Why Existing Professional Responsibility Measures Cannot Protect Against Prosecutorial Misconduct

    In a 50 state study, the conclusion was "professional responsibility measures as they are currently composed do a poor job of policing prosecutorial misconduct."

    Parent

    That is an exception, (none / 0) (#12)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    not a rule.

    Coincidentally, there's a good post today at The Agitator that bears out my sentiments.
    http://www.theagitator.com/2012/09/16/where-does-she-go-to-regain-her-reputation-will-the-prosecutio n-be-punished/

    Parent

    Heck even Judge Dredd has an excuse compared (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 02:03:27 AM EST
    to our present-day crooked (not all of them of course but too many) prosecutors.
    After all in MegaCity 1, Dredd has had to deal with witches,aliens, madmen seizing power, robot wars, at least one major nuclear attack on his city that did tremendous damage, etc.
    In short, the Judges -even in the best of times - are tasked with stopping a nearly anarchistic situation from spiraling out of control and are constantly understaffed. Thus it makes sense to give such a highly trained person both law enforcement and judicial powers.

    Meanwhi