Inadequate use of Defense Experts
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:59 am
In the vein of a couple of other threads currently being discussed on this forum, I offer this case in today's news regarding an innocent man who served 30 years on death row before being released this week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... unraveled/
In summary, Anthony Ray Hinton was convicted of murder based solely on firearms evidence. Bullets were said to have been fired from a gun his mother owned and to which he had access. Hinton's original defense attorney was given a very limited budget by the court for a firearms expert. He could not get a qualified FA/TM examiner who would take the case for the approved fee and ended up hiring a quack who could not refute the prosecution's case. Hinton was convicted and sentenced to death. For three decades, Hinton proclaimed his innocence. Finally, an appellate attorney was able to obtain a more competent firearms examination. There was no basis for identifying the bullets as having come from Hinton's mother's gun after all. He was released from prison with no intention on the part of prosecution to refile the case.
The inadequacy of funding for defense experts is a serious problem. During the years I did defense consulting, I believe I did more pro bono cases than cases I got paid for. In one case, a death penalty case, I worked extensively with the defense attorney for a year and a half, holding several day long meetings. Finally, the prosecution dismissed the charges and the client was released from jail where he had sat awaiting trial. My bill was for around $1,800, but the court cut my fee to around $1,200. The defense attorney was so embarrassed that he paid me the full amount, making up the difference out of his firm's account. Of course, they could well afford it. But the fact that the court would not approve a reasonable fee for an expert that helped win dismissal of a case was typical of the problem that defense attorneys and defendants face. The prosecution has virtually unlimited funds to prove their case with forensic evidence, but the defense is severely restricted and can seldom afford a competent review of the forensic evidence against the defendant.
I know there is another side to the coin. Given unlimited funding, many defense attorneys would go overboard spending money grasping at straws and hiring outlandish consultants to attack good forensic evidence. I don't know where the balance lies, but I do know that much bad forensic evidence goes unchallenged because of the lopsided funding resources available to prosecution and defense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... unraveled/
In summary, Anthony Ray Hinton was convicted of murder based solely on firearms evidence. Bullets were said to have been fired from a gun his mother owned and to which he had access. Hinton's original defense attorney was given a very limited budget by the court for a firearms expert. He could not get a qualified FA/TM examiner who would take the case for the approved fee and ended up hiring a quack who could not refute the prosecution's case. Hinton was convicted and sentenced to death. For three decades, Hinton proclaimed his innocence. Finally, an appellate attorney was able to obtain a more competent firearms examination. There was no basis for identifying the bullets as having come from Hinton's mother's gun after all. He was released from prison with no intention on the part of prosecution to refile the case.
The inadequacy of funding for defense experts is a serious problem. During the years I did defense consulting, I believe I did more pro bono cases than cases I got paid for. In one case, a death penalty case, I worked extensively with the defense attorney for a year and a half, holding several day long meetings. Finally, the prosecution dismissed the charges and the client was released from jail where he had sat awaiting trial. My bill was for around $1,800, but the court cut my fee to around $1,200. The defense attorney was so embarrassed that he paid me the full amount, making up the difference out of his firm's account. Of course, they could well afford it. But the fact that the court would not approve a reasonable fee for an expert that helped win dismissal of a case was typical of the problem that defense attorneys and defendants face. The prosecution has virtually unlimited funds to prove their case with forensic evidence, but the defense is severely restricted and can seldom afford a competent review of the forensic evidence against the defendant.
I know there is another side to the coin. Given unlimited funding, many defense attorneys would go overboard spending money grasping at straws and hiring outlandish consultants to attack good forensic evidence. I don't know where the balance lies, but I do know that much bad forensic evidence goes unchallenged because of the lopsided funding resources available to prosecution and defense.