The Innocence Project is reporting that Robert Stinson is eligible for only $25,000 of compensation in Wisconsin after serving 23 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. The outrageously low compensation is the result of a statutory compensation level that has not been changed since 1913.
The legislature in 1913 set $5000 a year for compensation — a figure that the IP notes would be $100,000 today if adjusted.
The Wisconsin Claims Board has agreed to ask for an additional $90,000. That would still, in my view, be remarkably low compensation for a man denied the best years of his life. If the state runs over a man with a state truck, he can recover hundreds of thousands in damages. However, if prosecutors and police wrongly deny a man a full life, he is given only $5000 a year?
Let’s do the math. With 23 years in jail, Stinson has a right for compensation for roughly 8395 days. At $25,000, he will receive $2.90 per day. Even at $100,000, that would amount to roughly $12 a day to sit in prison for the majority of his life.
IP reports that “[o]f the 27 states with compensation laws, Wisconsin’s compensation law has the second-lowest maximum dollar amount. New Hampshire caps compensation at $20,000.”
The result that there is little financial or political deterrent to unjust convictions. Part of the value of these awards is that the public takes note of these cases and asks for an accounting. Some prosecutors have been accused of exercising little discretion or judgment in weak cases — simply leaving it to jurors and minimizing their own role. This is not to disparage most police and prosecutors who work hard to “make the case” and do justice. However, putting aside the obvious obligation to pay someone for a wrong committed against them, the compensation for false convictions is one of the few deterrents in this area. It forces the public to internalize — and recognize — part of the cost of wrongful convictions.
Ione F. Cyshosz was found the morning after disappearing from a Bingo event. She had been beaten and her corpse showed bite marks on the torso. Stinson was arrested in the area after saying the teeth of the then-21-year-old matched the bite marks.
The conviction was heralded at the time as the first “bite mark” case to go to verdict in the state — a controversial basis for conviction that has been discredited in past cases. The conviction was secured by Dr. L. Thomas Johnson, a forensic odontologist and prosecutor (and now law professor) Daniel Blinka. Blinka, shown right, now teaches The Constitution and Criminal Investigations at Marquette Law School. Despite DNA evidence disproving bite mark evidence (which was the only direct evidence used for conviction), Blinka and Johnson insist that they still have no doubt about his guilt.
The prosecutors also insist that Stinson was given a fair trial and now have six-months to decide whether to recharge and retry Stinson.
Jonathan Turley
You could say the same for me but I doubt it would hold up in court if I made any threats or had any direct contact with any of the criminals who intentionally hurt me.
From the way I see it, that man now has a free pass to go directly to each person that had any part in his wrongful incarceration and literally teach them a lesson they won’t soon forget, at least not before they get discharged from their upcoming needed hospital stay.
It is not even plausible that a jury would believe bite-mark identification except as to excluding a suspect with a jaw much larger or smaller.
Obviously people don’t take their duties as jurors seriously.
There have been many studies about sadism and how people like to hurt people.
”
At the trial, two forensic odontologists testified that Stinson’s teeth were a match, even though Stinson was apparently missing a tooth in a place where the bite marks indicated a tooth, Lichstein, said.”
Steven Kohn, Stinson’s trial attorney, didn’t remember the details of the prosecution. He recalled that the two state experts had previously discussed the case at a conference for forensic odontologists, leaving them ethically unable to serve as defense witnesses. He said he was forced to rely on an expert whose expertise was in dental records, not forensic odontology.
For a decade, attorneys and even some forensic experts have ridiculed bite-mark identification as sham science and glorified guesswork.
Critics say human skin changes and distorts imprints until they are nearly unrecognizable. As a result, courtroom experts end up offering competing opinions.
Since 2000, at least eight people in five states who were convicted largely on bite-mark identification have been exonerated, according to the Innocence Project.
Scarey!!
Its not just “absurdity”. The quality of people’s lives is totally destroyed. I, for instance, never thought I was mentally ill and have no reason to believe that I am mentally ill, but I think about suicide almost every day.
The woman I mentioned will never recover; she probably couldn’t even comply with the terms of probation.
The man in the article will never recover.
“well-meaning ineptitude that rises to empyreal absurdity”- M.S.Dworkin
When I was in jail (with no criminal charge) I met a woman who pled guilty to a crime that never occurred with no evidence that a crime occurred. She did so as a plea bargain to time served and got 5 years probation.
Her ex boyfriend had reported to the cops that he was missing cash and tools but there was no evidence that she had either or that he was missing either.
Her PD said the jury would not believe her because she couldn’t make bail.
Her bail was $10 K.
She had been working for minimum wage her entire life.
When she was arrested, they took her car into custody but they didn’t search it. She was told she would have to pay at least $500 to have her car searched but she didn’t have $500.
Her PD told her she would be charged with perjury if she tried to withdraw her plea bargain.
Mike Spindell wrote:
“I find it outrageous that the pain and suffering of this man, inflicted for almost a quarter century, would yield such a paltry attempt at compensation. I find it likewise infuriating that Blinka and Johnson are unable to admit to their failings.
The human ability for self deception is unlimited.”
=====================
Mike,
So very well said, including the rest of your comment.
This man might have found some measure of justice with you in his court, so to speak. The amount of compensation in this case is appalling and, even, criminal, loosely speaking.
Thanks for clarifying/correcting my statment. You’re right: “…justice has always been in short supply here.” One thing that I would add: Things seem to be getting worse, if only in terms of scope. I could be wrong, but it seems to be the case…
28 USC § 1654 Appearance personally or by counsel
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.
28 USC § 1654 was signed by President George Washington and has been a continuous statute but it is not recognized in federal court.
It is not just me, the 10th Circuit has recognized many NO PRO SE orders.
There was no reference to any motion to impeach in any NO PRO SE order I have ever read.
At the same time, people convicted of crimes involving dishonesty appear PRO SE all the time. An example is R. Allen Stanford. Convicted rapists and murderers are also allowed to represent themselves in court. And some convicted felons turned out to be innocent.
It is impossible for there to be an injunction against litigation that complies with Rule 65 except in the very limited case of simultaneous actions in different courts.
Laws that have been on the books for more than 100 years are not enforced.
The Non Detention Act is not enforced.
As far as Obamacare, I was somewhat at fault for writing to George Bush # 1 suggesting health insurance vouchers. His office called me in 1989 to discuss my letter and said that no one else suggested it.
I have come to believe that there is almost no value in buying health insurance because insurance regulation is not effective.
Also, I don’t believe there will be any procedure that will allow enforcement of insurance contracts.
I read yesterday that there was some new study finding that marijuana prevents or reverses cancer. I don’t know the details.
I suspect that the only medical care or relief that our generation will get in our later years are drugs. I don’t believe that more than a small percentage of us will be able to afford or will receive surgery.
This comes into play now:
As Republicans Take Control, New Laws May Not Be On The Books For Long
SCOTT BAUER | 12/28/10 05:06 PM | AP
MADISON, Wis. — Revamped gun measures and tougher rules for payday lenders are among the laws set to take effect around the country on Jan. 1. But some of them may not be on the books for long.
This January, the statutes will kick in just as freshly elected governors and legislators arrive for work. And if new GOP majorities succeed in getting legislation repealed, the result may be sudden U-turns on issues that were only recently debated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/gop-agenda_n_802297.html
The District of Colorado just ruled on prosecutorial misconduct
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judges/Opinions/08-CV-02278-LTB.pdf
“From where I’m sitting, justice is in mighty short supply these days. It’s doesn’t bode well for this country of ours.”
Anon Nurse,
Couldn’t agree more, though with the caveat that justice has always been in short supply here. Our legal system has always been entangled with:
1. Self serving egotism.
2. Deference to the wealthy and connected.
3. Shoddy investigative practices.
4. Prejudice.
5. Refusal to recognize past errors.
6. Political considerations.
Etc. and not necessarily in that order. The pity is that in theory we should have the best justice system yet devised, but in practice the loftiness of our judicial aims has fallen far short of the mark. It is why in each generation we have had attorneys and others who have had to buck the powers that be in order to obtain justice for those wrongfully damaged. People like Daniel Webster, Clarence Darrow, Floyd Abrams, the ACLU and in our own times the proprietor of this blog.
I find it outrageous that the pain and suffering of this man, inflicted for almost a quarter century, would yield such a paltry attempt at compensation. I find it likewise infuriating that Blinka and Johnson are unable to admit to their failings.
The human ability for self deception is unlimited.
What should I do?
kay,
Some draconian things going on in this country, that’s for sure…
It seems to me possible that the government will greatly increase incarcerations without criminal charges. Once someone is incarcerated it is easy to kill them.
Reposting, with correction:
“Point is, justice is getting harder to come by in our current toxic atmosphere.” -Otteray Scribe
=============================
Well said, Otteray Scribe. From where I’m sitting, justice is in mighty short supply these days. It doesn’t bode well for this country of ours.
I agree 100% with you that big wrongful imprisonment awards provide incentive to get people out. Also he does not have a chance of living on 25K or 90K for very long and will probably find it very difficult to get employment. Probably the best option for this man is to go back to school.
As far as lawyers’ incentives, I think there should be a decent bounty for any lawyer who gets anyone out of jail for being wrongfully convicted even if the conviction is for a misdemeanor or class one felony. I think there are a lot of innocent people in jail, or people whose sentence was way out of proportion with what they actually did. In addition to the direct costs, there are huge indirect costs from lost income, costs to families, bad teeth and bad health, etc.
As I have blogged before, USMS held me as part of an extortionist scheme for 5 months. I got a letter recently from DOJ Criminal division stating that they have no record of any criminal charges against me, no record of search warrants, no record of arrest warrants. USMS acted on its own independent from other DOJ components. I was denied a defense lawyer, an arraignment and a bail hearing. USMS assistant counsel Bordley wrote to me recently that USMS uses the offense code from the FBI. There was a lie there somewhere because on my Prisoner Tracking System records USMS used the offense code from the PTS manual for “5005 civil contempt”. I have the PTS manual and those PTS offense codes also include homosexuality, receipt of abortion and possession of alcohol as federal crimes. I sued DOJ once and DOJ wrote that my imprisonment was government policy and intended to stop my third party lawsuits. There is no public record of why DOJ was interested in my third party lawsuit at all.
In my lawsuit I argued that if there were no damage payments then USMS would do it again and there would be no accountability and no reason for DOJ to go over its systems and prevent repetition. In fact, the DOJ Data Integrity Board hasn’t even had a meeting for 5 + years. For 3 weeks I was held as a federal prisoner with no PTS records at all.
The federal judge to which my Sieverding v DOJ # 1 case was assigned was a former prosecutor so maybe he was pre disposed against any admission of wrongful imprisonment. Judge Bates wrote
“Ms. Sieverding’s complaint does not adequately allege that government employees violated federal criminal law. Although she insists that the Marshals lacked the authority to arrest and jail her, see Compl. ¶¶ 151-56, an unauthorized search or seizure is not, without more, a violation of federal criminal law. Nor does simply asserting to the FBI that she was being held without charges, as she claims she and her husband did, see Compl. ¶¶ 163-64, state a claim for violation of federal criminal law. And Ms. Sieverding’s contention
that the Marshals “conspired” to deprive her of her constitutional rights, see Compl. ¶ 156 –behavior that might constitute a federal crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 241 — is wholly unsupported by factual allegations and thus need not be credited by the Court.”
I have gone over and over the record and the law looking at how to go back to Court. In fact, I did a lot of this over the Christmas holidays. The reason that I spent Christmas Day working on a draft complaint is that since I was first imprisoned my own brother has refused to let me attend family functions such as Thanksgiving and Christmas. I read other accounts that also say that any record of imprisonment causes people to be marked and shunned. I don’t even have a criminal record for minor offenses.
As it stands, USMS has precedence for immunity to act like the KPMG. In facts, USMS has over twice as many prisoners as it used to. (68,000 nationally compared to 199,000 convicted federal prisoners in BOP custody.) Contract jails accept any person that USMS brings them and mark their papers “federal hold” with no effort to make sure that the provision in the contract that defines a federal prison as a person accused of or convicted of a federal crime is complied with. Individual USMS officers have the ability to cause any person to be arrested and detained and there isn’t even any record of the names of who implemented extra judicial incarcerations.
“Point is, justice is getting harder to come by in our current toxic atmosphere.” -Otteray Scribe
=============================
Well said, Otteray Scribe. From where I’m sitting, justice is in mighty short supply these days. It’s doesn’t bode well for this country of ours.
If the forces of the US Chamber of Commerce and their henchmen have their way, look for caps this draconian on almost all damage claims.
OT, but I see that Transocean is thumbing its corporate nose at subpoenas issued by the US Chemical Safety Board for discovery in the Gulf Oil spill. The attitude seems to be, “We are not going to comply and you can’t make us.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/rig-owner-refuses-oil-spill-subpoenas_n_802547.html
Point is, justice is getting harder to come by in our current toxic atmosphere.