DNA test frees California man after 10 years [Archive]

Almighty Colin

10-31-2004, 09:39 AM

That guy must be be pretty bitter.

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- A man who spent 10 years behind bars has been freed after a judge acknowledged new DNA evidence and overturned his conviction for raping a 13-year-old girl.

The San Joaquin County judge on Friday released Peter J. Rose, citing DNA tests that showed evidence used to convict Peter J. Rose did not match his genetic makeup.

Rose, 36, of Lodi, left Mule Creek State Prison amid tears and hugs from his children, relatives, friends and law students from San Francisco's Golden Gate University who pursued his case years after evidence had been stored away and forgotten.

"I've been doing this for 25 years, and I feel like this is the best use of my legal skills my entire career," said Oakland attorney Janice Brickley, a law professor who supervised the students on the case. "It was an incredibly emotional experience."

Brickley and students affiliated with the university's branch of the Northern California Innocence Project discovered evidence thought to have been lost or destroyed and won permission for new DNA tests that triggered the judge's decision Friday.

Brickley said she was nervous about letting Rose comment on the case because the district attorney could refile charges against him. He was believed to have gone to his mother's house in Mendocino County, but a phone number for her could not be found.

The girl was raped in 1994 while she was walking to school. Rose was arrested after she told police three weeks later that she believed he was responsible. But she had not identified him during a police lineup and initially told police her attacker was a stranger. Rose's attorneys a decade ago said he was an acquaintance of her family.

Rose was convicted in 1996 of rape, kidnapping and other charges based on blood evidence that prosecutors said linked Rose to the crime. A sobbing Rose, who had no previous history of violence, proclaimed his innocence as a judge sentenced him to 27 years in prison.

The district attorney's office has until January to decide if it will refile charges. Officials there said the office had lost contact with the victim.

Rose said Friday he probably will file a claim against the state.

Winetalk.com

10-31-2004, 09:51 AM

very sad indeed.....and I beleive State MUST pay for all his sufferings.

Peaches

10-31-2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Oct 31 2004, 10:52 AM
very sad indeed.....and I beleive State MUST pay for all his sufferings.
Why? They presented the evidence they had to a jury/judge and he was convicted. No, it's not "fair" that he spent 10 years in jail for something he didn't do, but not everything in life is "fair".

SykkBoy

10-31-2004, 10:56 AM

he should be allowed a gimme crime...
since he was falsely convicted, now he gets like a freebie, gets to knck over a liquor store or steal and old lday's pension check...

Peaches, I would disagree
maybe if this guy was a football player a rich pop singer or owned a powerful hi-tech Internet company, his lawyers could have gotten him off

Also, consider the crime he is accused of...in the case of molestation/juvenile rape, we tend to get so blind with fury, we assume guilt and often "ignore" evidence...what if the jury had found him innocent, yet members of this girl's family decided he was guilty anyways? How do we know the initial judge didn't have inherent prejudice because of the nature of the rime? Maybe the jury was the same way?

What if it was your son that went to jail for 10 years for a crime he didn't commit? That lost his entire livelihood due to this "unfair" mistake. Also, considering the nature of this crime, this man could basically lose the rest of his life. How many people will read that artiocle and know he was truly innocent. Now, he'll still hear whispers when he's around, people will still assume guilt. What's he going to do? Carry around a news paper clipping with the story to explain to people why he was accused of this crime? You can bet this was a high profile case where he lives.

Remember the McMartin trial?

I'm sure because he wasn't a celebrity or powerful person that he didn't have the best lawyers at his disposal either.

Yeah, life is unfair, but this man's entire life was ruined because of this error.

I wonder how many other women might have been raped by the real rapist?

Peaches

10-31-2004, 11:46 AM

So explain to me where the government did something so in error that they now need to pay the millions he will be suing for?

Almighty Colin

10-31-2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 11:47 AM
They presented the evidence they had to a jury/judge and he was convicted .... So explain to me where the government did something so in error that they now need to pay the millions he will be suing for?
But the don't present the information neutrally. They PROSECUTE the case. The members of the prosecution were in error and "the government" is responsible for their actions in the same way as a company is responsible for the actions of its employees when they are following company policies (like dumping toxic waste in a river).

Buff

10-31-2004, 02:27 PM

No wonder he never got in the Hall of Fame.

SykkBoy

10-31-2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 11:47 AM
So explain to me where the government did something so in error that they now need to pay the millions he will be suing for?
I guess it's just fine to totally ruin a man's life as well as the life of his family?

If I make a "mistake" on my taxes, the IRS doesn't like that and they'll fine me they might even put me in jail...

Why should they not have to pay for their mistake?

pushpills

10-31-2004, 04:36 PM

There's been cases like this in England where, after being cleared and released, they got a 50 grand bill for the undeserved free food and housing.

Peaches

10-31-2004, 04:38 PM

They worked with the evidence they had. He was guilty according to what they had. They were doing their job. Should they have told the parents of the girl "Well, the evidence we have points to this guy and a jury found him guilty, but there might be some technology in the future that is a better test of evidence that would PROVE him innocent or guilty so we're going to let him go."?

Rolo

10-31-2004, 05:21 PM

10 Years is alot of missed birthdays, xmas, parties, familiy, friends... I say pay up.

Hopefully with todays DNA tests we will see less of these cases in the future...

It should be "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "oh, it might be him".

SykkBoy

10-31-2004, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 04:39 PM
They worked with the evidence they had. He was guilty according to what they had. They were doing their job. Should they have told the parents of the girl "Well, the evidence we have points to this guy and a jury found him guilty, but there might be some technology in the future that is a better test of evidence that would PROVE him innocent or guilty so we're going to let him go."?

This is why beyond a reasonable doubt is just that. Our system is supposed to be set up on the premise it's better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongfully prosecuted.

What if it were your son? Would you feel differently? After he was prosecuted, would you have cut off all contact from him or said "don't worry son, I know you're innocent, that's all that matters"

Also, why did this man's children have to live without a father and caregiver for 10 years? Did this wrongful prosecution cause her to have to get a job other than being a mother or maybe even result to something else to make ends meet?

Do you know this for a fact?
I know how these kinds of cases are prosecuted. They will do everything they can to prosecute a suspected child molester, evidence be damned.

What would you tell the kids of the man who went to jail for such a horrible crime? "We're sorry we made your dad out to be a monster and attach a stigma to him that will stick with him for the rest of his life and probably yours too". "We're sorry you had to live with 10 YEARS of people calling your dad a monster and maybe you thought he was a monster too"

PornoDoggy

11-01-2004, 08:15 AM

You know, some people probably miss the good old days when the good menfolks of the community would get together and take care of the miscreant themselves. It used to happen for dastardly deeds like murder, rape, brother (or sister or mother or father) of murderer, and that most despicable crime - frightening or insulting white women.

Peaches, I probably know as much about this specific case as you do - which is to say, nothing. Just out of idle curiousity, do you give the IRS or state revenue service the same blind faith that you do the justice system?

Before I say he's entitled to some form of compensation (or say he isn't), I've got to know more than what I've seen here. The little that Colin posted suggested the guy had a record for some violent crimes - but the witness identification seems more than a little suspect. Did they pull an Oklahoma, and hire an $800 lawyer for a capital case? Did they pull a Texas, and have an expert testi-lie? Did the cops and prosecutor "help" the witness identify him as the perp?

Of course, none of those things EVER really happen ... at least, not in Peaches' world.

Buff

11-01-2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Peaches+Oct 31 2004, 09:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Oct 31 2004, 09:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Serge_Oprano@Oct 31 2004, 10:52 AM
very sad indeed.....and I beleive State MUST pay for all his sufferings.
Why? They presented the evidence they had to a jury/judge and he was convicted. No, it's not "fair" that he spent 10 years in jail for something he didn't do, but not everything in life is "fair". [/b][/quote]
So he's just shit out of luck? No compensation for 10 years of misery behind bars? Or did you have some other method of compensation in mind besides state-funded?

It's not fair, and life's not fair, but we have the means to compensate the guy, so it needs to happen.

Buff

11-01-2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 03:39 PM
They worked with the evidence they had. He was guilty according to what they had. They were doing their job. Should they have told the parents of the girl "Well, the evidence we have points to this guy and a jury found him guilty, but there might be some technology in the future that is a better test of evidence that would PROVE him innocent or guilty so we're going to let him go."?
Ok, but they were wrong. I don't care if they did their best. They still fucked up.

"Hey, officer, I was driving my best -- I'm sorry I ran over 35 kids, but I was going the speed limit, and I wasn't drinking. I did my best, but I just had an accident."

Come on, peaches.

Peaches

11-01-2004, 08:39 AM

So, how much? I'll bet he's going to sue for millions. How much do YOU think he should get? What price do YOU put on it?

PornoDoggy

11-01-2004, 08:55 AM

He probably won't sue ... he'll probably settle out of court for an undisclosed amount. Just based on what I've read he ought to get enough to get him back on his feet - but, like I said, there's not enough information to start writing him large checks OR to say he's not entitled to anything.

Peaches

11-01-2004, 09:01 AM

Giving someone enough to get back on their feet is one thing and I don't have a problem with that. But I've not seen any cases like this where they didn't sue.

PornoDoggy

11-01-2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Peaches@Nov 1 2004, 09:02 AM
Giving someone enough to get back on their feet is one thing and I don't have a problem with that. But I've not seen any cases like this where they didn't sue.
A lot is going to depend on the circumstances of the original conviction - was there any kind of misconduct on the part of the state?

He may have to hire a lawyer (they are undoubtedly contacting him in droves) and threaten to sue in order to get the state to settle. After all, the same sort of people who would have a knee-jerk reaction that he isn't entitled to anything would be absolutely LIVID if they found out the state offered him some kind of settlement without duress.

Some jurisdictions have kept the settlement amounts down by using their ability to refile charges as leverage. Not sure they could do that with the DNA results in this case, however.

Like I said - not enough information.

Almighty Colin

11-01-2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Peaches@Nov 1 2004, 08:40 AM
So, how much? I'll bet he's going to sue for millions. How much do YOU think he should get? What price do YOU put on it?
10 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit? $10 million sounds about right to me.

LadyLaw

11-01-2004, 09:49 AM

http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0408/26/a15-254861.htm

According to this article, CA offers $100 a day for compensation for exonerated prisioners....however, only a few cases have actually been approved for compensation.

The vast majority of those cleared of their crimes only get pocket change given at the prision gates and the clothes on their back to start their lives over again. "On the other hand, those who never had their convictions overturned - parolees - can receive free employment counseling, housing referrals and physical and mental health services through parole agents charged with helping them rejoin society."

"A proposed bill would address what advocates for the exonerated see as shortcomings in the law. The measure would require the state to notify exonerated former prisoners of their potential eligibility for compensation; provide interim health, housing and other services for up to three years; and fund a case management agency, such as Life After Exoneration.

Vollen estimates that 20 percent of the exonerated people she knows have lawsuits pending against authorities. Legal action, however, is not a promising tactic, given that those who sue must prove intentional misconduct by authorities and given that prosecutors enjoy broad immunity."

"The California law, like those of other states, requires that the applicant do more than just prove innocence. A claimant must show that he didn't "intentionally or negligently contribute to the bringing about of his arrest or conviction."

The high standard explains why relatively few claims have succeeded, California Deputy Attorney General Michael Farrell said."

Peaches

11-01-2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by LadyLaw@Nov 1 2004, 10:50 AM
http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0408/26/a15-254861.htm

According to this article, CA offers $100 a day for compensation for exonerated prisioners
That sounds fair, IMHO.

LadyLaw

11-01-2004, 10:07 AM

CA doesn't pay for time in County Jail awaiting trial....which appears to be about two years in this case. If convicted in 1996, this guy would get approximately $300K for the 10 years he lost in prision, but only if his claim is approved. So far, 10 claims out of 47 have been approved.

$300K isn't much for 10 miserable years....but at least it is something. Better than getting a million in a long protracted lawsuit, when the lawyer and fees eat up half of it, and you wait 5 years for a final judgment.

I'm hopeful DNA evidence will prevent these types of sad stories in the future.

Buff

11-01-2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Peaches@Nov 1 2004, 07:40 AM
So, how much? I'll bet he's going to sue for millions. How much do YOU think he should get? What price do YOU put on it?
How much is 10 years of my life worth? 10 years stuck in prison, being abused? I'd want several million dollars -- maybe $60million.

Almighty Colin

11-01-2004, 10:37 AM

How much it is worth? How much money would someone have to pay you to spend the next 10 years in jail. Even if I worked at McDonald's and had no career aspirations I would not trade 10 years in jail for any amount of money. I value the ten years as infinite.

Buff

11-01-2004, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 1 2004, 09:38 AM
How much it is worth? How much money would someone have to pay you to spend the next 10 years in jail. Even if I worked at McDonald's and had no career aspirations I would not trade 10 years in jail for any amount of money. I value the ten years as infinite.
And that's if jail meant just being locked away from people... add in the butt rape, guard abuse, and people you'd be stuck around... Infinity +1

Almighty Colin

11-01-2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Buff+Nov 1 2004, 10:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Nov 1 2004, 10:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 1 2004, 09:38 AM
How much it is worth? How much money would someone have to pay you to spend the next 10 years in jail. Even if I worked at McDonald's and had no career aspirations I would not trade 10 years in jail for any amount of money. I value the ten years as infinite.
And that's if jail meant just being locked away from people... add in the butt rape, guard abuse, and people you'd be stuck around... Infinity +1 [/b][/quote]
Foul! Cantor has a ruling. Infinity + 1 = Infinity.

SykkBoy

11-01-2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Buff+Nov 1 2004, 10:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Nov 1 2004, 10:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 1 2004, 09:38 AM
How much it is worth? How much money would someone have to pay you to spend the next 10 years in jail. Even if I worked at McDonald's and had no career aspirations I would not trade 10 years in jail for any amount of money. I value the ten years as infinite.
And that's if jail meant just being locked away from people... add in the butt rape, guard abuse, and people you'd be stuck around... Infinity +1 [/b][/quote]
and let's not forget that this man was convicted of a sex crime with a minor...so he no doubt got several hundred blanket parties and abuse beyond the typical prison sodomy....

Almighty Colin

11-01-2004, 01:07 PM

*KK*

11-01-2004, 01:45 PM

DNA and California. Interestingly enough, tomorrow's a big day for that, among other things.

Here's an excerpt from the Argonaut, one of the local papers --

Prop 69 sounds innocent enough until you read the small print. The proposition is designed to expand the state's DNA database by requiring DNA from felons. So far, so good. Then you find out that the DNA will be collected not only from convicted felons but from anybody who is stopped under the suspicion of having committed a felony. Instead of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, those arrested would have to prove themselves innocent of all crimes in order have their DNA removed from the database of felons. This is a new and dangerous intrusion on privacy rights. As one who has a common last name, we know the opportunity of being confused with others of a simlar name. There are just two many Johnsons running around out there for us to be comfortable with this threat to privacy.

Almighty Colin

11-01-2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by *KK*@Nov 1 2004, 01:46 PM
DNA and California. Interestingly enough, tomorrow's a big day for that, among other things.

Here's an excerpt from the Argonaut, one of the local papers --

Prop 69 sounds innocent enough until you read the small print. The proposition is designed to expand the state's DNA database by requiring DNA from felons. So far, so good. Then you find out that the DNA will be collected not only from convicted felons but from anybody who is stopped under the suspicion of having committed a felony. Instead of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, those arrested would have to prove themselves innocent of all crimes in order have their DNA removed from the database of felons. This is a new and dangerous intrusion on privacy rights. As one who has a common last name, we know the opportunity of being confused with others of a simlar name. There are just two many Johnsons running around out there for us to be comfortable with this threat to privacy.
They can have my dna. WTF they gonna do with it? We ain't nothin' but molecules.

*KK*

11-01-2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 1 2004, 10:58 AM
They can have my dna. WTF they gonna do with it? We ain't nothin' but molecules.
Perhaps they could sell it, per Prop 60A...

...would help pay off those expensive bonds that Gov Schwarzenegger put on taxpayers to help bail out the state budget deficit. Usint funds from the sale of surplus property seems like a common-sense way to help lower a terrible deficit.

;)

KeyGuy

11-02-2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Peaches+Oct 31 2004, 07:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Oct 31 2004, 07:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Serge_Oprano@Oct 31 2004, 10:52 AM
very sad indeed.....and I beleive State MUST pay for all his sufferings.
Why? They presented the evidence they had to a jury/judge and he was convicted. No, it's not "fair" that he spent 10 years in jail for something he didn't do, but not everything in life is "fair". [/b][/quote]
Read about Rubin Carter. You might change your mind.

Almighty Colin

11-02-2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 2 2004, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 2 2004, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 07:32 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Serge_Oprano@Oct 31 2004, 10:52 AM
very sad indeed.....and I beleive State MUST pay for all his sufferings.
Why? They presented the evidence they had to a jury/judge and he was convicted. No, it's not "fair" that he spent 10 years in jail for something he didn't do, but not everything in life is "fair".
Read about Rubin Carter. You might change your mind. [/b][/quote]
I'll bet ya $100 it doesn't change her mind.

KeyGuy

11-02-2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 2 2004, 07:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Nov 2 2004, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 2 2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 07:32 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Serge_Oprano@Oct 31 2004, 10:52 AM
very sad indeed.....and I beleive State MUST pay for all his sufferings.
Why? They presented the evidence they had to a jury/judge and he was convicted. No, it's not "fair" that he spent 10 years in jail for something he didn't do, but not everything in life is "fair".
Read about Rubin Carter. You might change your mind.
I'll bet ya $100 it doesn't change her mind. [/b][/quote]
i wouldn't take that bet

Almighty Colin

11-02-2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 2 2004, 10:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 2 2004, 10:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Colin@Nov 2 2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by KeyGuy@Nov 2 2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 31 2004, 07:32 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Serge_Oprano@Oct 31 2004, 10:52 AM
very sad indeed.....and I beleive State MUST pay for all his sufferings.
Why? They presented the evidence they had to a jury/judge and he was convicted. No, it's not "fair" that he spent 10 years in jail for something he didn't do, but not everything in life is "fair".
Read about Rubin Carter. You might change your mind.
I'll bet ya $100 it doesn't change her mind.
i wouldn't take that bet [/b][/quote]
Oh, man. :biglaugh: