An Attorney's apology

[Bill Schade]

Interesting perspective on an erroneous conviction in Louisiana.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/op ... /25049063/



Editor's Note: Attorney A.M. "Marty" Stroud III, of Shreveport, was the lead prosecutor in the December 1984 first-degree murder trial of Glenn Ford, who was sentenced to death for the Nov. 5, 1983 death of Shreveport jeweler Isadore Rozeman. Ford was released from prison March 11, 2014, after the state admitted new evidence proving Ford was not the killer. Stroud is responding to an editorial in the March 6 edition of The Times that urged the state to now give Ford justice by not fighting compensation allowed for those wrongfully convicted.


This is the first, and probably will be the last, time that I have publicly voiced an opinion on any of your editorials. Quite frankly, I believe many of your editorials avoid the hard questions on a current issue in order not to be too controversial. I congratulate you here, though, because you have taken a clear stand on what needs to be done in the name of justice.

Glenn Ford should be completely compensated to every extent possible because of the flaws of a system that effectively destroyed his life. The audacity of the state's effort to deny Mr. Ford any compensation for the horrors he suffered in the name of Louisiana justice is appalling.
I know of what I speak.

I was at the trial of Glenn Ford from beginning to end. I witnessed the imposition of the death sentence upon him. I believed that justice was done. I had done my job. I was one of the prosecutors and I was proud of what I had done. The death sentence had illustrated that our community would brook no tolerance for cold-blooded killers. The Old Testament admonishment, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, was alive and well in Caddo Parish. I even received a congratulatory note from one of the state's witnesses, concluding with the question, "how does it feel to be wearing a black glove?"

Members of the victim's family profusely thanked the prosecutors and investigators for our efforts. They had received some closure, or so everyone thought. However, due to the hard work and dedication of lawyers working with the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, along with the efforts of the Caddo Parish district attorney's and sheriff's offices, the truth was uncovered.

Glenn Ford was an innocent man. He was released from the hell hole he had endured for the last three decades.

There was no technicality here. Crafty lawyering did not secure the release of a criminal. Mr. Ford spent 30 years of his life in a small, dingy cell. His surroundings were dire. Lighting was poor, heating and cooling were almost non-existent, food bordered on the uneatable. Nobody wanted to be accused of "coddling" a death row inmate. But Mr. Ford never gave up. He continued the fight for his innocence. And it finally paid off.

Pursuant to the review and investigation of cold homicide cases, investigators uncovered evidence that exonerated Mr. Ford. Indeed, this evidence was so strong that had it been disclosed during of the investigation there would not have been sufficient evidence to even arrest Mr. Ford!

And yet, despite this grave injustice, the state does not accept any responsibility for the damage suffered by one of its citizens. The bureaucratic response appears to be that nobody did anything intentionally wrong, thus the state has no responsibility. This is nonsensical. Explain that position to Mr. Ford and his family. Facts are stubborn things, they do not go away.

At the time this case was tried there was evidence that would have cleared Glenn Ford. The easy and convenient argument is that the prosecutors did not know of such evidence, thus they were absolved of any responsibility for the wrongful conviction.

I can take no comfort in such an argument. As a prosecutor and officer of the court, I had the duty to prosecute fairly. While I could properly strike hard blows, ethically I could not strike foul ones.

Part of my duty was to disclose promptly any exculpatory evidence relating to trial and penalty issues of which I was made aware. My fault was that I was too passive. I did not consider the rumors about the involvement of parties other than Mr. Ford to be credible, especially since the three others who were indicted for the crime were ultimately released for lack of sufficient evidence to proceed to the trial.

Had I been more inquisitive, perhaps the evidence would have come to light years ago. But I wasn't, and my inaction contributed to the miscarriage of justice in this matter. Based on what we had, I was confident that the right man was being prosecuted and I was not going to commit resources to investigate what I considered to be bogus claims that we had the wrong man.

My mindset was wrong and blinded me to my purpose of seeking justice, rather than obtaining a conviction of a person who I believed to be guilty. I did not hide evidence, I simply did not seriously consider that sufficient information may have been out there that could have led to a different conclusion. And that omission is on me.

Furthermore, my silence at trial undoubtedly contributed to the wrong-headed result. I did not question the unfairness of Mr. Ford having appointed counsel who had never tried a criminal jury case much less a capital one. It never concerned me that the defense had insufficient funds to hire experts or that defense counsel shut down their firms for substantial periods of time to prepare for trial. These attorneys tried their very best, but they were in the wrong arena. They were excellent attorneys with experience in civil matters. But this did not prepare them for trying to save the life of Mr. Ford.

The jury was all white, Mr. Ford was African-American. Potential African-American jurors were struck with little thought about potential discrimination because at that time a claim of racial discrimination in the selection of jurors could not be successful unless it could be shown that the office had engaged in a pattern of such conduct in other cases And I knew this was a very burdensome requirement that had never been met in the jurisprudence of which I was aware. I also participated in placing before the jury dubious testimony from a forensic pathologist that the shooter had to be left handed, even though there was no eye witness to the murder. And yes, Glenn Ford was left handed.

All too late, I learned that the testimony was pure junk science at its evil worst.

In 1984, I was 33 years old. I was arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very full of myself. I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning. To borrow a phrase from Al Pacino in the movie "And Justice for All," "Winning became everything."

After the death verdict in the Ford trial, I went out with others and celebrated with a few rounds of drinks. That's sick. I had been entrusted with the duty to seek the death of a fellow human being, a very solemn task that certainly did not warrant any "celebration."

In my rebuttal argument during the penalty phase of the trial, I mocked Mr. Ford, stating that this man wanted to stay alive so he could be given the opportunity to prove his innocence. I continued by saying this should be an affront to each of you jurors, for he showed no remorse, only contempt for your verdict.

How totally wrong was I.

I speak only for me and no one else.

I apologize to Glenn Ford for all the misery I have caused him and his family.

I apologize to the family of Mr. Rozeman for giving them the false hope of some closure.

I apologize to the members of the jury for not having all of the story that should have been disclosed to them.

I apologize to the court in not having been more diligent in my duty to ensure that proper disclosures of any exculpatory evidence had been provided to the defense

Glenn Ford deserves every penny owed to him under the compensation statute. This case is another example of the arbitrariness of the death penalty. I now realize, all too painfully, that as a young 33-year-old prosecutor, I was not capable of making a decision that could have led to the killing of another human being.

No one should be given the ability to impose a sentence of death in any criminal proceeding. We are simply incapable of devising a system that can fairly and impartially impose a sentence of death because we are all fallible human beings.

The clear reality is that the death penalty is an anathema to any society that purports to call itself civilized. It is an abomination that continues to scar the fibers of this society and it will continue to do so until this barbaric penalty is outlawed. Until then, we will live in a land that condones state assisted revenge and that is not justice in any form or fashion.

I end with the hope that providence will have more mercy for me than I showed Glenn Ford. But, I am also sobered by the realization that I certainly am not deserving of it.

[L.J.Steele]

I congratulate him on having the courage to say, publically, that he was wrong. It seems, too often, when there's an exoneration that the response is to circle the wagons, to say that the defendant must have been involved as a co-offender or conspirator or some such. It's easier, I guess.

I've got cases that keep me up nights. Where I've done all that I can and it wasn't enough and I wonder if the result would have been different if I'd said or done something differently.

[Bill Schade]

I posted this because I thought it was a lesson we could all benefit from. I too was impressed by his courage in admitting his part in the mistake.

It's rarely a single thing or single person who is responsible for these errors. It seems to be a systemic failing and everyone should examine their role when errors come to light.

It's interesting to note that the "state" is still arguing against Mr. Fords claim for restitution. A lot of stories on this case if you google it

[Tazman]

It's interesting to note that the "state" is still arguing against Mr. Fords claim for restitution.

It is NOT about what is right or wrong or moral or ethical. It is NOT about Glenn Ford or how, as a completely and undeniably innocent person, virtually his whole life was stolen from him by the State of Louisianna.

It is about money.

"Nothing personal, just business."

Or, in other words:
"We don't give a whit who was right or wrong. If you suffered, that's your bad luck. If we have to pay for your suffering, that's our bad luck. We will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying you anything, no matter what. And if we were to pay you even one cent, then every swinging con in the system would want to get paid, too."

"Nothing personal. Just business."

Mr. Stroud is a moral man of ethics. I would also credit Ms Steele with being a moral woman of ethics. Obviously, Mr. Stroud's former employer is possessed of little morality or ethics. His former employer is a government agency.

[Bill]

I would like to see defense attorneys admit they were wrong in badgering and trying to discredit expert witnesses who actually do have their facts straight. One defense attorney told me last year it's not about truth, only the perception of truth.

To Ms. Steele: This may come as a shock to you, but, occasionally, defense attorneys will have clients who are, in fact, guilty. And, clients do lie to their attorneys.

I think there are examiners out there who lose sleep over cases before trial wondering if they did everything correctly, and then lose sleep after the trial, or suffer other stress-related symptoms after an encounter with an unscrupulous defense attorney whose main objective is to totally discredit the examiner.

But, the subject of the thread is about a former prosecutor who took the high road and apologized to the defendant. We see too little of that. I heard him interviewed on "All Things Considered," the afternoon news program on NPR. He was almost in tears. I am thankful I work in a jurisdiction where, as far as I can tell, the prosecutors appear objective and ethical.

[Tazman]

. . . . One defense attorney told me last year it's not about truth, only the perception of truth. . . .

At a regional division IAI conference a couple of decades ago, a defense attorney who graduated from law school while employed as a latent print examiner gave a presentation. He explained a tactic he used in court when spinning the testimony of a latent print witness. I raised my hand and objected that what he was leading the jury to believe was not the truth. His answer was something like this: "Never confuse 'truth' with 'facts.' The Court is not concerned with 'truth,' only with 'facts.' And a fact is anything I can prove to the court. It does not have to be the truth."

In my cynical moments, I conclude that the Court is not concerned much with Justice, either. It is more concerned with resolution and closure.

[Bill]

Interesting, Taz.
I think that is a warped system. Why must Truth and Fact be mutually exclusive? Grant, truth cannot always be proven, such as no two people have the same fingerprints.

Going from an LPE to be an attorney?? Good heavens! What a step down!

[L.J.Steele]

I would like to see defense attorneys admit they were wrong in badgering and trying to discredit expert witnesses who actually do have their facts straight. One defense attorney told me last year it's not about truth, only the perception of truth.

To Ms. Steele: This may come as a shock to you, but, occasionally, defense attorneys will have clients who are, in fact, guilty. And, clients do lie to their attorneys.

Of course. This will come as no surprise to any attorney. One of the three bits of practical advice I recall from my law school ethics class was "your client will lie to you." (The other two were "get the money up front" and "the client goes to jail, you don't" (i.e. don't break the law for your client)). (There was also a lot of discussion about what ethical representation means, but this was some of the hard-nosed thoughts of a guy who had worked in private practice.)

I work in appeals. My job is a bit different from trial counsel. All of my clients are guilty -- the jury or trial judge said so. Guilty of what can be a question -- were all the elements of the offense proven, or only some of them? Is the client guilty of murder, or only of reckless manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide (to take a case I argued within the past couple of years).

My job is to look for errors in the trial that are so serious that arguably, we need to toss out the verdict and try the case again, or dismiss all or some of the charges. My job is about what happened on the record (the court pleadings, transcripts, and exhibits). I may have opinions about the strength of the state's case. I may have an opinion from contact with the client. But my opinion is utterly irrelevant to whether the record shows a legal error. That can, and has, included arguments that the trial court made a mistake when it denied a motion to suppress or to limit/strike testimony. That's a different thing, I admit, from the cross-exam itself.

The defense attorney's job is to zealously represent the client within the bounds of the law. If the case goes to trial, it is trial counsel's job to test the prosecution evidence. We can't look inside your heads. We don't know if you are the most conscientious examiner in the state, or someone like Annie Dookhan (deemed a model employee before her fraud was uncovered). And, rarely, the conscientious examiner does still sometimes screw up or use bad science. (Less an issue in fingerprints than some of the ongoing fights over bitemark, shaken baby, or arson investigation.) So it's our job to test for that too by cross-exam. If someone is doing it in a way you think is improper, talk to them after the trial is over. Or if it is really bad, talk to their supervisor (if they have one). I think my colleagues are adults enough to have a civil conversation about what they did, and why, and if it was over the line to not repeat that next time.

I see a tiny subset of the serious felony cases in my own states (Mass and CT), but from that tiny subset, my impression is that it is far more likely that defense counsel won't challenge forensic evidence, or will make a few cursory questions than that they will make a vigorous challenge. (Sometimes the absence of objection or cross makes the forehead shaped dent in my desk deeper. Evidentiary issues that are not objected to almost never can be raised in the appeal.)

[CamilleB]

I’m thinking about previous posts regarding knuckle creases. It seems the questions were less about the process and decisions being within the constraints of what science will allow, and more concerned with who had managed to get this evidence through a court before. Also, previous posts about when a latent fingerprint was deposited, and when examiners are in danger of overstating conclusions.

In the Ford case, the court took testimony for latent fingerprint evidence that didn’t even exist anymore. Are we learning everything we can learn from these wrongful convictions?

[Alan C]

Among other things, this case is a good reminder that we're not the only people in the criminal justice system who are susceptible to confirmation bias. I'm glad Mr. Ford wasn't executed before he could prove his innocence.

[Tazman]

I'm glad Mr. Ford wasn't executed before he could prove his innocence.

You mean, like Todd Willingham? Willingham was convicted of the arson murders of his wife and daughters and was executed in 2004 on no evidence whatsoever except terribly flawed arson analysis. The Texas Forensic Science Commission surely would have recommended halting his execution, except that then-governor Rick Perry terminated several good scientists from the Commission the day before their pivotal meeting and appointed several of his political cronies who he knew would vote to sustain the conviction and proceed with the execution. Rick Perry sent a man almost universally acknowledged as innocent even at the time to the death chamber so he could prove he was tough on crime. Uncle Rick still to this day proudly proclaims that the system works as it should and he did nothing wrong. But now we KNOW the evidence against Willingham was completely bogus and he was as innocent a victim as his wife and daughters who were killed in the fire.

For the most recent information, see: http://camerontoddwillingham.com/

Or just google Todd Willingham.

Glenn Ford can thank his lucky stars he didn't follow Todd Willingham.

[Alan C]

You mean, like Todd Willingham? Willingham was convicted of the arson murders of his wife and daughters and was executed in 2004 on no evidence whatsoever except terribly flawed arson analysis. The Texas Forensic Science Commission surely would have recommended halting his execution, except that then-governor Rick Perry terminated several good scientists from the Commission the day before their pivotal meeting and appointed several of his political cronies who he knew would vote to sustain the conviction and proceed with the execution. Rick Perry sent a man almost universally acknowledged as innocent even at the time to the death chamber so he could prove he was tough on crime. Uncle Rick still to this day proudly proclaims that the system works as it should and he did nothing wrong. But now we KNOW the evidence against Willingham was completely bogus and he was as innocent a victim as his wife and daughters who were killed in the fire.

This is why I'm not a fan of the death penalty (although I can see it as a bargaining chip with serial killers like Gary Ridgway). I have nothing but contempt for Rick Perry.

[Tazman]

Uncle Rick is a piece of work, isn't he? Personally, I think Greg Abbott is cut from the same cloth.

In my early years, I was as strong a proponent of the death penalty as anyone. As a cop, I saw guys who I was utterly convinced deserved to die.

Then I read Tolkien and one response from Gandalf had more impact on me than anything else in my life to that point. Frodo comments that Gollum deserves to die. Gandalf responds,

Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Since then, I have seen biased cops fabricate evidence. I have seen victims and witnesses lie. When can we really be sure, even in possession of a confession?

I think there is a worse punishment than death: Solitary for life without parole. At least then, if a mistake is discovered, there is a minimal opportunity to restore the innocent person to a life outside of prison.

I am glad to meet a kindred spirit here, especially one who shares my contempt for Uncle Rick and others of his ilk.