Court Overturns Convictions of Arizona Woman on Death Row

Fox News ^ | 03/15/2013

[nickcarraway]

A federal appeals court overturned the convictions of an Arizona woman who was sentenced to die after being found guilty of orchestrating a gruesome plot to murder her 4-year-old son for insurance money in 1989.

The court ruled Debra Jean Milke's case was tainted by a detective with a history of lying under oath.

[nickcarraway]

It sounds to me like there was enough evidence to convict her without his testimony. Which is what the prosecutor should have done in the first place. If he knew this witness has such a history. Which it is his job to know.

[ReignOfError]

Why didn’t the judge order a new trial?

It's not within the appeals court's power to force the prosecutor to bring charges again. That's within the prosecutor's discretion. This ruling leaves it in their hands.

if the witness is unreliable, isn’t that for a jury to decide?

Yes. The verdict was vacated because the fact of the witness' past lies was withheld from the defense and the jury.

It seems like there wasn’t any proof he lied in this case.

How could there be? He claimed that the defendant confessed in a closed room with no one else observing and no recording, and he destroyed his notes. Of course, you could lock him in a room with another detective and then say he confessed to lying about Milke's confession ...

[BCrago66]

It is now time for a pause for the Koz.

Alex Kozinski, that is, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit. Listen as he pretty much destroys the unfortunate attorney charged with defending the corrupt cop in this case. The good part starts at around 39 minutes, 30 seconds:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000000065

Note: This is a complex case, procedurally. The are 2 oral arguments archived on the 9th Circuit site: The one above from 2008, and a later one (with the same panel of judges) in 2010, which is here:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000006463

[coloradan]

I don’t know how you figure, because she was after all on death row, so you can get death for whatever it was she was convicted of. Second, I did say *if* his lies are what led to her sentence, then he should face the same punishment as she faced. If it was incidental, that’s different.

It might indeed sound Old Testamentish, as another wrote, but if someone frames a person for murder, I believe he should face murder charges even though he didn’t kill anyone, just as the framed person did (who also didn’t kill anyone). Similarly I would charge those women who knowingly and falsely claim rape, with rape charges. (e.g. Tawana Brawley.) Lying under oath when another’s life or freedom hangs in the balance ought to be discouraged.

[JCBreckenridge]

“there is no evidence other than his word of the alleged confession.”

And therein lies the rub. The lady served 22 years of her life in jail for a crime for which there existed no physical evidence of her committing the crime. She’s going to get a very big payout at the end of all this.

[autumnraine]

I’ve done that before. Looked at a post that was more fingers typing my thoughts rather than actually thinking grammatically about my response. I read it and think, ‘wow, I must look like I am in the third grade!’

We aren’t turning in term papers, just commenting on articles. I don’t believe you are illiterate, LOL!

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

To me, the critical thing in this story is that neither of the two men would rat her out, even though they both are on death row themselves. Had they implicated her, one of them might have at least gotten life instead of death.

Without any other evidence against her, this is a slam dunk to dismissal or at least retrial.

[CottShop]

[[There was not an acquittal. The verdict was vacated. The prosecutor has 30 days to decide whether to bring the charges again]]

Thanks- i misunderstood

[[Because of his own actions, there is no evidence other than his word of the alleged confession.]]

I’m jusat tryign to think it through from legal standpoint- there’s also no evidence he did lie- only an assumption- I know it sucks for the victim or alleged victim in htis case, but the law is pretty specific when it coems to at the very least presentign enough evidence to show something beyond reasonable doubt- Doesn’t have to be rock solid evidence, but itm ust show BRD (althogh many times juries ignore this legal standard such as in oj trial and casey anthony case where there was more than enough BRD evidence to show motive and opportunity-

In thsi case there is far less evidence the cop lied- only a hunch- there is more ‘evidence’ that htere was a confession- albiet sketchy evidence (His word)

[[and he destroyed his notes.]]

That MIGHT be a line the defence coudl pursue IF it can be shown BYD that there were notes that were destroyed- but I woudl logically think it would be long shot

[[What he allegedly lied about was a confession with no one else in the room, no one observing, no recording, and he destroyed his notes]]

I woudl think that a better line to pursue might be shooting for a retrail due to fact cop didn’t follow protocol- defence might even be able to get aquittal for client based on that- I just think it’s goign to be too hard to prove he lied- from a legal standpoint

[CottShop]

[[Man, my spelling is so poor on this post..I’m not even going to try to correct it.]]

You spelling was fien compared to mine

[berdie]

Thank you for being so generous!

[berdie]

I still completely understood your post!

[ReignOfError]

The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Milke killed her child. The cop’s past veracity problems could, in the eyes of the jury, constitute reasonable doubt.

The defense does not have to prove BRD that Saldate lied; just convince the jury that it’s likely enough that it constitutes reasonable doubt of MIlke’s guilt.

The BRD standard would apply if the state brought criminal charges against Saldate. I don’t think anyone is seriously contemplating that. The evidence just isn’t there.

[Graybeard58]

***If the detective lied to put her on death row, justice requires that he be punished by the same fate that would have befallen her if his lies had stuck: death.***

That sounds familiar:

Deuteronomy 19:

18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

[ReignOfError]

Alex Kozinski is famous in legal circles for opinions that are well and concisely written, and often funny to boot. Some of my favorite quotes:

• The two provisions have as much in common as apples and pineapples: They sound vaguely similar but they grow on entirely different statutory trees. [Pineapples do not, in fact, grow on trees, but he never said he was a botanist.]
  
  
• No one who has occasion to study the Limitations of Liability Act has been struck by its lucidity.
  
  
• The parties are advised to chill.