Daye, 45, was convicted in 1984 for the rape of a San Diego woman. He was exonerated by DNA testing in 1994. Under California law at the time, Daye could have received $10,000 for his time behind bars, but he chose instead to sue San Diego authorities in federal court. “$10,000 for 10 years is trivial,” said his attorney, Dwight Ritter. Daye’s federal lawsuit failed, however. A federal judge refused to allow him to present evidence of his 10 years in prison to the jury. Instead, they heard only that he had spent two days in county jail. No damages were awarded.

After legislation was enacted in 2000 to provide $100 a day for those wrongfully imprisoned, Daye was allowed to make a claim against the state. Still, nearly two more years passed before Daye’s award was approved.

Ritter said that it was good that the state had awarded Daye some compensation, but it would have been better if he had been allowed to present all of his evidence in federal court. “I believe 12 California citizens would have likely rendered him considerably more compensation,” Ritter said.

McSherry, the other man awarded money, had been convicted of kidnapping and raping a 6-year old girl from Long Beach. In 2001, DNA testing cleared him of the crime.

Another California man, Kevin Greene, was cleared in 1996 after spending 16 years in prison for the murder of his pregnant wife. He was awarded $620,000 in 1999 under special legislation.

Sources: The Legal Intelligencer (reprinted from American Lawyer Media), San Francisco Chronicle, National Law Journal.

Reprinted with permission from Prison Legal News., 2400 NW 80th St #148, Seattle, WA 98117.

 htttp://prisonlegalnews.org 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-11-wrongly-convicted_x.htm
 

Report: Thousands wrongly convicted each year

WASHINGTON (AP) — Thousands of suspects unable to afford lawyers are wrongly convicted each year because they are pressured to accept guilty pleas or have incompetent attorneys, the American Bar Association says in a report.
The study by a committee of the nation's largest lawyers' group says that legal representation of indigents is in "a state of crisis." These defendants are at constant risk of wrongful conviction and unjust punishment, including the death penalty, according to the study being released Friday.

"The fundamental right to a lawyer that Americans assume apply to everyone accused of criminal conduct effectively does not exist in practice for countless people across the United States," the study states. "All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights."

The ABA committee wants Congress and local governments to spend more money and create oversight groups to guard against shoddy legal representation. Judges also are asked to be more vigilant in ensuring defendants have competent counsel.

It has been more than 40 years since the Supreme Court ruled the government must provide legal counsel to indigent defendants who are charged with serious crimes.

The report comes one week after President Bush called for more training for lawyers who represent accused killers and greater use of DNA testing. That proposal is not on the agenda at the ABA winter meeting in Salt Lake City, which runs through Tuesday.

The ABA study points to people like Brandon Moon of Kansas City, Mo., who served nearly 17 years for the rape of an El Paso, woman before DNA tests determined he was not responsible; and Ryan Matthews, a Louisiana man who sat on death row for five years before he was exonerated.

More than 150 people who were convicted in 31 states and the District of Columbia served a total of 1,800 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. All were exonerated due to DNA evidence.

"The challenge is coming up with politically viable ways to fix the problem," said Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who tracks death penalty cases. "The long-term costs of underfunding defense counsel are hard to see when a state is facing budget crises.

"Needless to say, criminals or accused criminals are not a very powerful lobby or a group that particularly draws sympathy for more dollars and cents," Berman said.

The report also pointed to negligent or otherwise unprepared lawyers, leading to faulty convictions or more serious punishment. No formal training existed for lawyers for the indigent in Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, which puts more people to death than any other state.

In the majority of states surveyed, money for prosecutors outpaced public defenders. For example, California allocates defense counsel an average of $60.90 for every $100 the prosecution receives.

In the South, the report cited a problem of "meet 'em and plead 'em lawyers" where lawyers in states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia often negotiate a plea agreement the first day they meet their clients.

In Texas, Rhode Island and elsewhere, legal experts reported incdances where indigent clients languished in jail for months without access to a lawyer or were improperly urged by prosecutors to accept plea deals without a lawyer present.

The report recommends that:

_states provide money for public defenders that is on par with prosecutors.

_states establish oversight organizations to police potential abuses such as forced plea agreements or otherwise negligent or inadequate counsel.

_lawyers refuse new cases if workloads are so excessive that id would substantially impair their defense preparation.

_judges report prosecutors who seek to obtain waivers of counsel and guilty pleas that are not voluntary and on the record.

The study was based on research and testimony gathered from 22 states. The states are: Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

LOS ANGELES
Man Wrongly Imprisoned for 24 Years Files Civil Rights Suit
Thomas Goldstein, who was falsely convicted of murder, seeks damages from Long Beach, Los Angeles County and other defendants.
 

By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer

Thomas L. Goldstein, who spent 24 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder, said Tuesday that he has filed a civil rights suit in federal court in Los Angeles that seeks damages from Long Beach, Los Angeles County, four police officers and two prosecutors.

"There is no way to give me back those 24 years," said Goldstein, 55, who announced the lawsuit at a news conference at the Pasadena offices of Kaye, McLane & Bednarski, the law firm representing him. "No way to give me a career, a wife, a family — all those things I had for myself when I was arrested all those years ago.

"Throughout my 24 years of incarceration, I expected the system to work," Goldstein said.

He added that the system had failed him many times before he secured his freedom last April. Five federal judges ruled that his constitutional rights had been violated, and a state court judge dismissed the charges "in furtherance of justice."

He cited a lack of evidence against Goldstein and the "cancerous nature" of the case.

"I am immensely grateful for the work of the federal public defender's office and other people who helped me, but justice has not been done yet," said Goldstein, a former Marine who served in Vietnam. "Today, I ask for justice. I ask the city of Long Beach and the county of Los Angeles to make amends."

Goldstein, a native of Kansas, was convicted of the November 1979 shotgun slaying of John McGinest in Long Beach.

His conviction was based largely on both the testimony of a notorious jailhouse informant and an eyewitness who later recanted.

Goldstein, who was a Long Beach City College student at the time, has steadfastly maintained his innocence. No physical evidence tied him to the crime and no evidence existed that he had ever met the murder victim. Most of the witnesses who saw the slaying identified the killer as black or Mexican American and several said the gunman was considerably larger than Goldstein.

Goldstein's suit asserts that four Long Beach police officers worked with a jailhouse informant to fabricate testimony that Goldstein confessed the murder to him when they were cellmates. The complaint also said the officers improperly influenced one witness, Loran Campbell, to identify Goldstein as the killer. 

In the suit, Goldstein's lawyers assert that during his preliminary hearing and trial, prosecutors sat mute as the jailhouse informant, Edward F. Fink, committed perjury when he said that he was receiving no benefits for his testimony against Goldstein.

In reality, Fink received significant benefits for his testimony, a point made by federal judges who overturned Goldstein's conviction. Prosecutors dropped one case against him and reduced charges in another. Fink, who had three felony convictions and a heroin habit, was arrested at least 35 times, including 14 times in Long Beach. He died in 1994. 

The district attorney's failure to tell the defense about the deal denied Goldstein a fair trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block ruled in November 2002. That conclusion was later ratified by four other federal judges. 

Goldstein's suit contends that now-retired Long Beach Police Officers John Henry Miller and William MacLyman and other unknown members of the department "illegally influenced Mr. Campbell's identification by pointing to Mr. Goldstein as the perpetrator of the crime," when they showed him a picture of Goldstein in photos of potential suspects.

Block also ruled that Campbell's original testimony against Goldstein was false and that his recantation in 2002 was credible. 

The suit also asserts that Long Beach engaged in a pattern and practice of acting with deliberate indifference and reckless disregard for the constitutional rights of Goldstein and others through their training and supervision of the police officers. In addition, the suit contends that Los Angeles County acted with reckless disregard toward Goldstein's rights by permitting jailhouse informants to testify falsely and commit perjury.

"Like most of us, Tom Goldstein believed in the criminal justice system, but the system failed him miserably," said attorney Ronald O. Kaye. "All along the way, the system proved that where police officers fabricate evidence and prosecutors permit perjury and give their stamp of approval for this outrageous conduct, the system is not only broken, it was corrupt."

Kaye's co-counsel, David S. McLane, said Goldstein's case was not an aberration. He emphasized that the Los Angeles County Grand Jury had issued a special report in 1990 that chastised the district attorney's office for the misuse of jailhouse informants between 1979 and 1990. 

McLane said Tuesday that the extensive use of jailhouse informants "created an absurd system of justice where the word of known perjurers was believed over innocent men like Thomas Goldstein."

Attorney Marilyn Bednarski said that another key aspect of Goldstein's suit involves the actions of Los Angeles County deputy district attorneys Ann Ingalls and Patrick Connolly to keep Goldstein in jail for an additional four months after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had twice ordered that he be released in December 2003.

Bednarski said the prosecutors exceeded their lawful authority by faxing orders to prison officials to not release Goldstein until a detective had been sent from Los Angeles to pick him up and keep him in custody.

Last June, after investigating this issue, U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian issued a tartly worded order that criticized the prosecutors' conduct.

"This court condemns and censors" Connolly and Ingalls "for their cavalier attitude, ethical amnesia and questionable conduct in issuing a detainer that did not comply with" the California Penal Code, Tevrizian wrote. Last week, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that order.

On Tuesday, Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, issued a one-sentence statement regarding Connolly and Ingalls: "Their actions were fully supported by the law and were properly undertaken when reviewing whether or not to proceed with retrial of a murder case."

The Long Beach Police Department declined to comment except to say that the four officers had retired after long careers. "They had years of homicide experience," Sgt. David Cannan said.

MacLyman declined to comment when reached by phone. The Times was unable to reach Miller or the other two retired officers — William Collette and Logan Wren — who are named defendants. County Counsel Ray Fortner said he had not had time to review the suit. The Long Beach city attorney's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Goldstein, now a paralegal, said Tuesday that he was working on a case involving conditions at a jail in Orange County where he had interviewed inmates. Asked about that, he smiled and said, "I kinda liked the idea of being able to walk out." 

  LA Times 
' 
Dec. 13, 2001 

By TRACY WILSON, TIMES STAFF WRITER 
 

An Oxnard man wrongly convicted of murder has filed a federal lawsuit against 
Santa Barbara prosecutors and police officers, accusing them of negligence 
and conspiracy to keep him in prison. 

After four years behind bars, Efren Cruz, 27, was freed Oct. 12 when a judge 
ruled that credible evidence suggests that another man pulled the trigger 
during a 1997 gang shooting in downtown Santa Barbara. 

Last week, Cruz filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles that 
accuses nearly a dozen law enforcement officials of violating his civil 
rights before and after his trial. The lawsuit accuses Santa Barbara County 
Dist. Atty. Thomas W. Sneddon and three senior prosecutors of conspiracy and 
malicious prosecution for allegedly withholding evidence favorable to Cruz. 

Prosecutors and six Santa Barbara police officers are accused of negligent 
investigation for allegedly failing to pursue evidence that indicated that 
another suspect was the killer. 

The lawsuit also charges Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Hilary Dozer, lead 
prosecutor on the case, with defamation for blaming Cruz in the media "when 
he knew or should have known that there was great doubt that [Cruz] was [the] 
actual shooter." 

Cruz is seeking more than $120 million in damages. 

"I think that my client is entitled to be compensated for 4 1/2 years in 
Pelican Bay," said Thousand Oaks attorney Richard Hamlish, referring to the 
maximum-security prison. 

"To serve there and be innocent of a crime, the kid's life was ruined," 
Hamlish said. 

Sneddon and other law enforcement officials named in the lawsuit could not be 
reached Wednesday. Dozer and Santa Barbara County Counsel Shane Stark said 
they had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment. 

The suit stems from Cruz's arrest after a shooting at Santa Barbara Parking 
Lot 10 on Jan. 26, 1997. Two groups of young men--some Oxnard gang 
members--exchanged taunts in the parking structure at Anacapa and Ortega 
streets, and one of the men pulled a gun. 

Michael Torres, a 23-year-old Santa Barbara resident, died of a gunshot wound 
to the head. Santa Ynez resident James Miranda, 21 at the time, was seriously 
injured but recovered. 

Cruz, the only one to not flee the scene, was arrested, and police found a 
chrome .38-caliber revolver. Forensic tests revealed that Cruz had gunpowder 
residue on his hands, and a driver leaving the parking structure identified
him as the shooter. 

Prosecutors charged Cruz and three others--including Cruz's cousin, Gerardo 
Reyes--with murder. One suspect pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, and Reyes 
and the other suspect were released for lack of evidence. Cruz was the only 
one to stand trial. 

According to Cruz's lawsuit, Santa Barbara authorities had evidence favorable 
to Cruz before his trial, but failed to turn it over to the defense. That 
evidence included other witnesses' statements to police suggesting that Reyes 
was the shooter. 

Although Cruz denied shooting Torres and Miranda, jurors found him guilty of 
murder and attempted murder, and in January 1998, he was sentenced to 41 
years to life in prison. 

A year later, Oxnard Police Det. Dennis McMaster received a tip from an 
informant that Reyes was the Lot 10 shooter. 

At the request of Santa Barbara authorities, Ventura County prosecutors 
investigated and arranged an undercover meeting between the informant and 
Reyes, who were members of the same Oxnard gang. During a conversation 
secretly tape-recorded, Reyes admitted to the shooting. 

Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury wrote a letter to Sneddon 
stating that based on new evidence, "we have concluded that Gerardo Reyes, 
not Efren Cruz, killed Michael Torres." 

However, Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction of Cruz. 

But Superior Court Judge Frank Ochoa, ruling after a 26-day hearing, 
concluded that there was credible evidence that Reyes was the shooter, not 
Cruz, and ordered him released. 

According to the lawsuit, prosecutors abandoned their obligation to 
investigate the case after new evidence came to light. They also conspired to 
discredit Reyes' confession and keep Cruz in prison, the suit says. 

As a result, Cruz suffered humiliation, depression and emotional distress 
requiring psychological counseling, according to the lawsuit. 

Cruz was out of town and could not be reached for comment. But Adela Reyes, 
his mother, said the lawsuit was not about money as much as sending a message 
to Santa Barbara authorities. 

"People make mistakes," Reyes said. "They had the opportunity to say they 
made a mistake. But they are still saying Efren was the real shooter. 
Hopefully this will open their eyes." 

* 

Times staff writer David Rosenzweig contributed to this story. 

Framed Inmate Sues City, LAPD Officers
Ovando Is Asking For Unspecified Damages 

LOS ANGELES, Posted 7:15 p.m. October 12, 1999 -- The man allegedly shot, paralyzed and then framed by undercover police officers announced Tuesday he is suing the city and others for violating his civil rights. 

Javier Francisco Ovando, 22, was released from Salinas Valley State Prison on Sept. 16, two years and 11 months into his roughly 23-year sentence. 

Ovando's freedom came amid a police investigation into alleged corruption involving some anti-gang officers at the LAPD's Rampart Station, which serves an area west of downtown Los Angeles. 

Ex-undercover officer Rafael Perez had provided information that sparked the scandal and led to the release of Ovando. 

Perez told investigators what he knew of alleged crimes as part of a plea bargain he reached after pleading guilty to stealing about eight pounds of cocaine from an LAPD evidence locker. 

Ovando's Los Angeles Superior Court complaint names the city; Perez; Nino Durden; Officer "John Doe" Ruiz; Michael Montoya; Richard Meraz; Nick Salicos; Dennis Wuethrich; Chief Bernard Parks; William Williams; Richard Maruoka; and as-yet-unnamed LAPD commanders. 

Ovando seeks unspecified damages. 

Ovando, a suspected 18th Street Gang member with no prior convictions, tells this version of the events that occurred the night of Oct. 12, 1996: Then 19, Ovando says he was in an apartment at 1209 S. Lake St. when Perez, Durden, Montoya and Ruiz entered without a warrant. The defendants allegedly handcuffed Ovando and threatened to shoot him. 

Ovando alleges he "pleaded for his life," but that the CRASH unit officers -- the acronym for the department's anti-gang unit -- shot him repeatedly in the chest and body. 

The plaintiff contends that as he lay on the floor, someone shot him in the head "to ensure that they had killed him." 

Afterward, Ovando alleges, the officers planted a gun on him, falsely accused him of having assaulted them with it and wrote out false police reports to that effect. Their story was allegedly corroborated by fellow officers and civilian employees at the Rampart Station, he says. 

Ovando alleges that he was wrongfully convicted of felony assault on a police officer, assault with a deadly weapon with the intent of committing great bodily injury and exhibiting a firearm in the presence of an officer. 

Ovando -- who needs a wheelchair now to get around -- was sentenced to 23 years and four months in prison on March 7, 1997. 

Lawyers recently filed a $20 million claim against the city -- the first step in filing a lawsuit -- on behalf of Destiny Ovando, the 2 1/2-year-old daughter of Ovando and Monique Valenzuela. 
 

Copyright 1999 by Channel 2000 

 http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/1535899p-1612397c.html

Orange County D.A. receives surprise endorsement

Published 4:55 a.m. PST Sunday, Jan. 27, 2002 
SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - The county's top prosecutor has received a surprise endorsement in his re-election bid. 
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas has been offered support from a man who was imprisoned for nearly two decades after being wrongly convicted by Rackauckas of murder. 

Rackauckas as a young prosecutor in 1982 persuaded a jury to convict DeWayne McKinney in the killing of a fast-food restaurant manager. Rackauckas argued for the death penalty, but McKinney was sentenced to life in prison. 

The public defender's office began reviewing the case in 1997 after another man, Willie Charles Walker, confessed to participating in the crime and identified another man as the shooter. 

McKinney said Rackauckas could have easily ignored the evidence, but instead worked to set him free. He also said that Rackauckas track record, which includes overturning five convictions during his three years in office, shows that the prosecutor is willing to own up to the mistakes in the criminal justice system. 

"People have been getting falsely accused and going to prison for years," McKinney said. "But no one has stepped forward and admitted those things occurred. There's a lot of people incarcerated and nobody is giving them a chance to present their cases. When you see someone that rectifies situations over and over again, all you can do is commend that." McKinney met Rackauckas on Saturday and, after shaking hands, he agreed to walk precincts to gain support for the district attorney. 

The unsolicited gesture was unexpected, Rackauckas said. 

"It was a pleasant surprise," Rackauckas said. "I would expect most people to be bitter and resentful, but he's not." 

Deputy District Attorney Wally Wade is challenging Rackauckas in the race. 

McKinney, 41, who works at University of California, Irvine as a lecture hall aide, said he felt indebted to the district attorney for not challenging the public defender's appeal. 

"He could have fought me for the next 10 years, but he didn't," McKinney said. 

McKinney has filed a $10 million federal lawsuit against the Orange police and the public defender's office. The lawsuit contends a detective induced witnesses to implicate him and defense attorneys failed to pursue leads incriminating the real killer.