A Texas minister was killed with his own gun as he tried to confront an intruder at his northwest Harris County home early on the 4th of July, reported KPRC-TV in Houston..
Just after midnight, deputies were called out to a home in the 4200 block of Amber Lake Drive in the Deerfield Village subdivision.
Investigators said the minister, 69-year-old Donald Frazier, and his wife woke up when they heard their generator turn on.
Frazier noticed the entry door to the garage was open so grabbed his gun and went outside to investigate. That is when he saw a man in his garage and the two began to fight.
Frazier’s wife saw the struggle and called 911, according to investigators.
During the struggle, deputies said the intruder, identified as Daniel Durham, managed to grab Frazier’s gun and shoot him with it.
Neighbors said they thought the gunshots were fireworks.
“It was about three or four hours into our sleeping and we heard some pops. It was real crisp. It sounded like a small-caliber gun maybe a .22,” neighbor Rick Soto said.
Frazier died at the scene.
To read more Click Here
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Saturday, July 5, 2014
The Cautionary Instruction: Oscar Pistorius strikes out with mental illness defense
Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
July 3, 2014
Olympic star and double-amputee Oscar Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend in 2013. Pistorius is on trial in South Africa for her murder. He acknowledges that he shot Reeva Steenkamp when he mistook her for an intruder.
In May, Pistorius was ordered by a judge to undergo psychiatric tests at the request of the chief prosecutor, Gerrie Nel. The prosecutor said he had no option but to ask for it after an expert witness for the defense testified that Pistorius had an anxiety disorder since childhood that may have influenced his judgment when he fatally shot Steenkamp.
Under South African law Pistorius could be acquitted if it’s found that he was not criminally responsible for Steenkamp’s shooting because of a mental illness.
Under South African law a defendant may lack the capacity to knowingly commit a crime because of mental illness. This was previously referred to as an “insanity” defense — South African law now refers to it as pathological incapacity.
By law the defense of pathological incapacity provides:
“A person who commits an act or makes an omission which constitutes an offence and who at the time of such commission or omission suffers from a mental illness or mental defect which makes him or her incapable —
(a) of appreciating the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission; or
(b) of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission, shall not be criminally responsible for such act or omission.”
In the United States a majority of states, including Pennsylvania, apply the M’Naughten Rule when evaluating insanity. (b) of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission, shall not be criminally responsible for such act or omission.”
Under the law, a person is legally insane only if, at the time of the act, he was laboring "under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if the actor did know the quality of the act, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.''
The rule sets a very high standard. The insanity defense is sought in few cases and proving it is extremely rare.
"You can be severely mentally ill but not qualify as legally insane,'' said Thomas P. Rogers, a lawyer from eastern Pennsylvania.
The hurdle is such, said Rogers, that a defendant has to "believe he's shooting Martians, not his wife, because voices are telling him they're Martians, and that he's supposed to shoot them.''
After a month long break in the trial, a panel of mental health experts concluded that Pistorius was not suffering from a mental illness when he killed his girlfriend. The experts reported to the court that Pistorius was "capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his act" when he killed Steenkamp.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George, P.C. He is the former district attorney of Lawrence County and just completed a six year term on the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. His weekly column on crime and punishment is syndicated by GateHouse New Service. You can read his musings on the criminal justice system at www.mattmangino.com and follow Matt on Twitter @MatthewTMangino. His new book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010: The Crimes, Arrests, Trials, Appeals, Last Meals, Final Words and Executions of 46 Persons in the United States is now available from McFarland & Company publishers.
Visit Ipso Facto
Friday, July 4, 2014
GateHouse: DNA transference under scrutiny in criminal prosecutions
Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
July 4, 2014
When DNA comes up in a criminal investigation, people listen. DNA is “the gold standard” of forensic science, nearly beyond question when it comes to a criminal conviction or exoneration. Many believe the identifying power of DNA is infallible and, as a result, treat it as an absolute form of evidence, rather than any other form of trace evidence.
According to the Innocence Project, there have been 316 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. Eighteen of those exonerated through DNA served time on death row. On the other hand, there have been countless convictions for everything from burglary to murder based on DNA evidence. Some of those cases had gone cold with little hope of being solved.
However, this idea of DNA infallibility has come into question in recent years with the news about errors in DNA testing. Last year, the New York City medical examiner’s office confirmed that it was reviewing more than 800 rape cases from a 10-year period during which DNA evidence may have been mishandled by a lab technician.
According to the ABA Journal, a former chemist at a lab in Boston was indicted on 27 counts of obstructing justice, tampering with evidence, perjury and other charges in connection with her handling of some of the thousands of cases she analyzed. Similar action has been taken in labs in St. Paul, Minnesota; Oklahoma City; and Nassau County, New York.
There will always be concern with the human element involved in DNA analysis — whether it be incompetence or maliciousness. However, there has been a burgeoning concern, although never proven, that a criminal prosecution could be based on the transference of DNA evidence. An honest and competent analyst could obtain DNA from a crime scene that was accidentally transferred there.
The concern has been substantiated. Lukis Anderson, a homeless alcoholic from San Jose, California, was implicated by DNA in the murder of a Silicon Valley millionaire in 2012.
DNA can be deposited at a crime scene in many different ways — a drop of blood, a hair, a flake of skin, even dandruff. Any of those things can be accidentally transferred from one location to another. Unlike a fingerprint, which cannot be inadvertently lifted from the wall in one building to the wall in a second building, DNA can be accidentally carried from one location to another.
According to the San Jose Mercury News, in Anderson’s case lawyers proved that paramedics who had treated him on the streets of downtown San Jose inadvertently transferred his DNA to a murder scene when they responded to that that location.
Anderson’s DNA was transferred to the murder scene by paramedics via a simple oxygen-monitoring probe they clipped first onto Anderson’s finger and then onto the dead man’s finger.
The case is believed to be the first in the nation in which transferred DNA evidence was shown to have falsely placed an innocent person at the scene of a crime.
“Before, we just had hypotheticals, stuff that DAs would say was smoke and mirrors,” Deputy Public Defender Kelley Kulick, who handled Anderson’s case, told The Mercury News. “Now, there is a case to support it.”
In a 2010 article in Investigative Genetics, the authors warned, “Greater effort needs to be made by police/crime investigators to investigate how a DNA sample arrived at the location where it was found … [a]wareness of these variables, and their impact on transfer events, will assist in weighting the likelihood of proposed alternative scenarios.”
Practitioners have long been concerned about the future possibility of accidental DNA transference playing a prominent role in a criminal prosecution — the future is now.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was recently released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
Visit the Column
GateHouse News Service
July 4, 2014
When DNA comes up in a criminal investigation, people listen. DNA is “the gold standard” of forensic science, nearly beyond question when it comes to a criminal conviction or exoneration. Many believe the identifying power of DNA is infallible and, as a result, treat it as an absolute form of evidence, rather than any other form of trace evidence.
According to the Innocence Project, there have been 316 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. Eighteen of those exonerated through DNA served time on death row. On the other hand, there have been countless convictions for everything from burglary to murder based on DNA evidence. Some of those cases had gone cold with little hope of being solved.
However, this idea of DNA infallibility has come into question in recent years with the news about errors in DNA testing. Last year, the New York City medical examiner’s office confirmed that it was reviewing more than 800 rape cases from a 10-year period during which DNA evidence may have been mishandled by a lab technician.
According to the ABA Journal, a former chemist at a lab in Boston was indicted on 27 counts of obstructing justice, tampering with evidence, perjury and other charges in connection with her handling of some of the thousands of cases she analyzed. Similar action has been taken in labs in St. Paul, Minnesota; Oklahoma City; and Nassau County, New York.
There will always be concern with the human element involved in DNA analysis — whether it be incompetence or maliciousness. However, there has been a burgeoning concern, although never proven, that a criminal prosecution could be based on the transference of DNA evidence. An honest and competent analyst could obtain DNA from a crime scene that was accidentally transferred there.
The concern has been substantiated. Lukis Anderson, a homeless alcoholic from San Jose, California, was implicated by DNA in the murder of a Silicon Valley millionaire in 2012.
DNA can be deposited at a crime scene in many different ways — a drop of blood, a hair, a flake of skin, even dandruff. Any of those things can be accidentally transferred from one location to another. Unlike a fingerprint, which cannot be inadvertently lifted from the wall in one building to the wall in a second building, DNA can be accidentally carried from one location to another.
According to the San Jose Mercury News, in Anderson’s case lawyers proved that paramedics who had treated him on the streets of downtown San Jose inadvertently transferred his DNA to a murder scene when they responded to that that location.
Anderson’s DNA was transferred to the murder scene by paramedics via a simple oxygen-monitoring probe they clipped first onto Anderson’s finger and then onto the dead man’s finger.
The case is believed to be the first in the nation in which transferred DNA evidence was shown to have falsely placed an innocent person at the scene of a crime.
“Before, we just had hypotheticals, stuff that DAs would say was smoke and mirrors,” Deputy Public Defender Kelley Kulick, who handled Anderson’s case, told The Mercury News. “Now, there is a case to support it.”
In a 2010 article in Investigative Genetics, the authors warned, “Greater effort needs to be made by police/crime investigators to investigate how a DNA sample arrived at the location where it was found … [a]wareness of these variables, and their impact on transfer events, will assist in weighting the likelihood of proposed alternative scenarios.”
Practitioners have long been concerned about the future possibility of accidental DNA transference playing a prominent role in a criminal prosecution — the future is now.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was recently released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
Visit the Column
Thursday, July 3, 2014
California's prison 'realignment' not impacting recidivism
California Governor Jerry Brown's "realignment" of criminal justice procedures, aimed at reducing overcrowding in state prisons by diverting more felons into local jails and probation, has not resulted in lower rates of new criminal activity among offenders, a study by the Public Policy Institute of California concludes, reported the Sacramento Bee.
New offenses by those released from custody are known as "recidivism" and putting felons under local control was supposed to include more drug treatment and other programs to reduce their criminal activity.
However, the PPIC study concludes, "We find that the post-realignment period has not seen dramatic changes in arrests or convictions of released offenders. In the context of realignment's broad reforms to the corrections system, our findings suggest that offender behavior has not changed substantially."
"Overall arrest rates of released offenders are down slightly, with the proportion of those arrested within a year of release declining by two percentage points," the authors of the study, Magnus Lofstrom, Steven Raphael, and Ryken Grattet, continue. "At the same time, the proportion of those arrested multiple times has increased noticeably, by about seven percentage points. These higher multiple arrest rates may reflect the substantial increase in the time that released offenders spend on the streets--a result of counties' limited jail capacity."To read more Click Here
New offenses by those released from custody are known as "recidivism" and putting felons under local control was supposed to include more drug treatment and other programs to reduce their criminal activity.
However, the PPIC study concludes, "We find that the post-realignment period has not seen dramatic changes in arrests or convictions of released offenders. In the context of realignment's broad reforms to the corrections system, our findings suggest that offender behavior has not changed substantially."
"Overall arrest rates of released offenders are down slightly, with the proportion of those arrested within a year of release declining by two percentage points," the authors of the study, Magnus Lofstrom, Steven Raphael, and Ryken Grattet, continue. "At the same time, the proportion of those arrested multiple times has increased noticeably, by about seven percentage points. These higher multiple arrest rates may reflect the substantial increase in the time that released offenders spend on the streets--a result of counties' limited jail capacity."To read more Click Here
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Op-Ed challenges juvenile life without parole
The following is an excerpt from an op-ed co-authored by Marsha Levick, Deputy Director & Chief Counsel, Juvenile Law Center; Jody Kent Lavy, Director National Coordinator, Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth; and Ashley Nellis, Ph.D., Senior Research Analyst, The Sentencing Project, posted on the Juvenile Law Center website.
Joe Ligon is a 75-year-old inmate who was condemned to die in a prison in Philadelphia over six decades ago for a murder he witnessed, but did not commit. With no disciplinary infractions and serious health issues, including cancer, he is a gentle man whose continued confinement aptly illustrates the insanity of these extreme sentencing practices.
Two years ago, we thought Joe and the thousands of others like him might have some hope. On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that it is unconstitutional to impose a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole upon a juvenile (JLWOP). The ruling immediately voided sentencing laws in 28 states, where approximately 2,100 individuals were serving a mandatory life without parole sentence for murder committed before they turned 18. Another 400+ youth are serving discretionary life sentences across the country.
[...]
Initial feelings of optimism were justified. The Court's strong language in Miller, especially on the heels of Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, surely signaled, and indeed required, an end to our nation's love affair with long, harsh sentences for children.
In the face of the ruinous and misguided juvenile justice policies of the 1990s, Miller offered hope that we could now return to a more rational and effective justice policy for youth. Calls for reform nationally have been bi-partisan. Pope Francis recently expressed concern for youth serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed as children; and international human rights activists continue to be stunned at our refusal to end JLWOP as we remain the only country in the world that clings to this barbaric sentence.
But we are far from popping the champagne corks.
Visit the Juvenile Law Center
Joe Ligon is a 75-year-old inmate who was condemned to die in a prison in Philadelphia over six decades ago for a murder he witnessed, but did not commit. With no disciplinary infractions and serious health issues, including cancer, he is a gentle man whose continued confinement aptly illustrates the insanity of these extreme sentencing practices.
Two years ago, we thought Joe and the thousands of others like him might have some hope. On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that it is unconstitutional to impose a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole upon a juvenile (JLWOP). The ruling immediately voided sentencing laws in 28 states, where approximately 2,100 individuals were serving a mandatory life without parole sentence for murder committed before they turned 18. Another 400+ youth are serving discretionary life sentences across the country.
[...]
Initial feelings of optimism were justified. The Court's strong language in Miller, especially on the heels of Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, surely signaled, and indeed required, an end to our nation's love affair with long, harsh sentences for children.
In the face of the ruinous and misguided juvenile justice policies of the 1990s, Miller offered hope that we could now return to a more rational and effective justice policy for youth. Calls for reform nationally have been bi-partisan. Pope Francis recently expressed concern for youth serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed as children; and international human rights activists continue to be stunned at our refusal to end JLWOP as we remain the only country in the world that clings to this barbaric sentence.
But we are far from popping the champagne corks.
Visit the Juvenile Law Center
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Mangino interview on WKBN-TV
Watch my interview on the General Motors compensation plan for those injured due to the faulty ignition recall. To watch the interview Click Here.
Pennsylvania poised to enact Rocco's Law
Rocco's Law is on the way to the Governor's desk. The legislation named for a slain Pittsburgh police K-9 toughens the penalty for anyone convicted of hurting a police dog, reported the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
Senate Bill 1261 and House Bill 2026, which make up Rocco's Law, would change the charge against a person convicted of severely injuring or killing a police animal from a third- to a second-degree felony. A second-degree felony carries a fine of $25,000 and up to 10 years in prison. Current law carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.
In Pennsylvania it is a first degree felony to attempts to cause serious bodily injury to a human being or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Aggravated assault is a felony of the first degree punishable by up to 20 years and $25,000.
In Pennsylvania it is a first degree felony to attempts to cause serious bodily injury to a human being or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Aggravated assault is a felony of the first degree punishable by up to 20 years and $25,000.
The House unanimously passed SB 1261. “It took bipartisan, bicameral cooperation and coordination to get Rocco's Law to the governor in just five short months,” said state Sen. Matt Smith, D-Mt. Lebanon, in a statement.
Rocco, an 8-year-old German shepherd, was stabbed while helping Pittsburgh police track a suspect in the basement of a Lawrenceville building on Jan. 28. He died two days later of his wounds.
Police charged John Rush, 21, of Stowe with aggravated assault, abusing a police animal, resisting arrest, cruelty to animals and other crimes. He is being held without bail in the Allegheny County Jail as he awaits trial.
“Rocco's service to the community continues even after his tragic death by inspiring a fresh look at our anti-cruelty laws,” said state Rep. John Maher, R-Upper St. Clair, who sponsored the House measure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
