Ask Arkansas Governor to Bring Innocent Woman Home for the Holidays

300 Exonerations — and Counting…
Innocence ProjectDear Annamaria,On June 12, 1994, Belynda Goff walked out of her bedroom, where she had been sleeping with her three-year old son, to find her husband, Stephen, lying unconscious just inside the doorway of their apartment. She immediately called to request emergency medical assistance. The paramedics arrived ten minutes later. Despite the quick response by both Belynda and the paramedics, they were unable to find a pulse.An autopsy revealed that Stephen’s cause of death was blunt force trauma to his head.  This is a fact. When it comes to Stephen’s death, very few other facts have been conclusively established. No murder weapon has been found, no witness could identify Stephen’s killer, and no physical evidence has linked anyone, much less Belynda, to the murder. Yet Belynda Goff has languished in prison for two decades for a murder she has always maintained she did not commit. We are currently conducting DNA testing that could prove Belynda’s innocence, but crucial evidence in her case has been lost, so testing may never be able to provide the results we need.Urge Arkansas Governor Beebe to have his appointed parole board vet Belynda’s clemency petition and grant it!

Multiple witnesses have come forward to say that Stephen’s murder was the result of his involvement in an arson scheme and that Belynda had no involvement in his death.  We believe testing on all of the crime scene evidence could have conclusively proven Belynda had no involvement, but with crucial evidence going missing, we may never be able to fully vindicate Belynda through DNA testing alone.  An order of clemency from Governor Beebe may be Belynda’s only chance at justice.

I ask you to join me in calling on Governor Beebe to grant our clemency request for Belynda Goff and release her from prison. Let’s make sure Belynda gets to spend the holidays with her family this year.


Karen Thompson
Staff Attorney

Man wrongfully convicted of murder gets $3.6 million from state

Man wrongfully convicted of murder gets $3.6 million from state

Man wrongfully convicted of murder gets $3.6 million from state | SocialAction2014 |

Anthony Yarbough was wrongfully convicted in 1992 of murder — and now the state of New York is making amends. The Brooklyn District Attorney’s office has focused on the rights of the falsely convic…




Death Row News to fight the Death Penalty – TX: Alfred Dewayne Brown death row conviction overturned

Death Row News to fight the Death Penalty – TX: Alfred Dewayne Brown death row conviction overturned.

“If these flaws do not make us conscious that we are sending people off to murder them, shame on us. Shame on us that we don’t want to make our system better,” Graves told The Times, “What are the safeguards that are now being put in place to stop this from happening? We’ve got a justice system going awry. I’m just hoping that he receives a fair trial.”

Max Soffar is innocent, but he’s been on death row for 34 years. Now he’s dying of liver cancer. He should spend his last days with family, not behind bars.

hgKqTInFKGwZbrM-556x313-croppedMax Soffar is innocent, but he’s been on death row for 34 years. Now he’s dying of liver cancer. He should spend his last days with family, not behind bars.

Sign Sister Helen’s petition

Innocent Man on Death Row Wants To Die At Home: via @YouTube

Max Soffar is innocent, but he’s been on death row for 34 years. Now he’s dying of liver cancer. He should spend his last days with family, not behind bars.

Sign Sister Helen’s petition
Annamaria –

When I became a nun, I never imagined that I would spend a great deal of my life ministering to and working with death row inmates. Working with death row inmates and writing about it in my book “Dead Man Walking” (which later became a movie) changed my life, and I’ve been working with death row inmates ever since.

I’m writing to you today about one such inmate, Max Soffar, an innocent man who desperately needs our help.

Max has been on death row for 34 years for a crime he didn’t commit. When he was only 24, police convinced Max to sign a false confession after three days of aggressive, unrecorded interrogation. To this day, there is not one shred of evidence besides that false confession tying Max to the crime for which he’s been in prison for more than three decades. In fact, the evidence that does exist points to another man. 

Now Max has another death sentence: he’s dying of liver cancer. I’m fighting to allow this innocent man to die at home with his wife instead of alone in a cage. Please click here to sign my petition.

Max is in solitary confinement on death row. He never has human contact except for the doctors who treat his cancer and the guards who put him in shackles. When he is allowed to see his wife, she is behind glass, and he sits on a metal stool struggling to find a position that doesn’t cause him pain. Max says that solitary confinement “is like torture, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Max Soffar is going to die, and soon. That fact is not in dispute. The only question is whether the state of Texas will force an innocent man to die alone behind bars, or whether Max will be allowed to die at home, with his family, with the love we all deserve.

We have already convinced the former governor of Texas, Mark White, to join our fight: he believes in Max’s innocence and has written to current governor Rick Perry in support of Max being released to die at home with his loved ones. I know that with your help, we can convince Governor Perry to show Max the compassion he deserves.

Click here to sign my petition to allow an innocent man to spend his last days at home with his family.

From the heart, Sister Helen Prejean

Sign Sister Helen’s petition

“Why Innocent People Plead Guilty”

Why Innocent People Plead Guilty (THANK YOU)

Jed Rakoff writes in the NY Review of Books:

The criminal justice system in the United States today bears little relationship to what the Founding Fathers contemplated, what the movies and television portray, or what the average American believes.

To the Founding Fathers, the critical element in the system was the jury trial, which served not only as a truth-seeking mechanism and a means of achieving fairness, but also as a shield against tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The Constitution further guarantees that at the trial, the accused will have the assistance of counsel, who can confront and cross-examine his accusers and present evidence on the accused’s behalf. He may be convicted only if an impartial jury of his peers is unanimously of the view that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and so states, publicly, in its verdict.

The drama inherent in these guarantees is regularly portrayed in movies and television programs as an open battle played out in public before a judge and jury. But this is all a mirage. In actuality, our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is very largely determined by the prosecutor alone.

In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial. The plea bargains largely determined the sentences imposed.

While corresponding statistics for the fifty states combined are not available, it is a rare state where plea bargains do not similarly account for the resolution of at least 95 percent of the felony cases that are not dismissed; and again, the plea bargains usually determine the sentences, sometimes as a matter of law and otherwise as a matter of practice. Furthermore, in both the state and federal systems, the power to determine the terms of the plea bargain is, as a practical matter, lodged largely in the prosecutor, with the defense counsel having little say and the judge even less.

It was not always so. Until roughly the end of the Civil War, plea bargains were exceedingly rare. A criminal defendant would either go to trial or confess and plead guilty. If the defendant was convicted, the judge would have wide discretion to impose sentence; and that decision, made with little input from the parties, was subject only to the most modest appellate review.

After the Civil War, this began to change, chiefly because, as a result of the disruptions and dislocations that followed the war, as well as greatly increased immigration, crime rates rose considerably, and a way had to be found to dispose of cases without imposing an impossible burden on the criminal justice system. Plea bargains offered a way out: by pleading guilty to lesser charges in return for dismissal of the more serious charges, defendants could reduce their prison time, while the prosecution could resolve the case without burdening the system with more trials.

The practice of plea bargaining never really took hold in most other countries, where it was viewed as a kind of “devil’s pact” that allowed guilty defendants to avoid the full force of the law. But in the United States it became commonplace. And while the Supreme Court initially expressed reservations about the system of plea bargaining, eventually the Court came to approve of it, as an exercise in contractual negotiation between independent agents (the prosecutor and the defense counsel) that was helpful in making the system work. Similarly, academics, though somewhat bothered by the reduced role of judges, came to approve of plea bargaining as a system somewhat akin to a regulatory regime.

Thus, plea bargains came to account, in the years immediately following World War II, for the resolution of over 80 percent of all criminal cases. But even then, perhaps, there were enough cases still going to trial, and enough power remaining with defense counsel and with judges, to “keep the system honest.” By this I mean that a genuinely innocent defendant could still choose to go to trial without fearing that she might thereby subject herself to an extremely long prison term effectively dictated by the prosecutor.

All this changed in the 1970s and 1980s, and once again it was in reaction to rising crime rates. While the 1950s were a period of relatively low crime rates in the US, rates began to rise substantially in the 1960s, and by 1980 or so, serious crime in the US, much of it drug-related, was occurring at a frequency not seen for many decades. As a result, state and federal legislatures hugely increased the penalties for criminal violations. In New York, for example, the so-called “Rockefeller Laws,” enacted in 1973, dictated a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment for selling just two ounces (or possessing four ounces) of heroin, cocaine, or marijuana. In addition, in response to what was perceived as a tendency of too many judges to impose too lenient sentences, the new, enhanced sentences were frequently made mandatory and, in those thirty-seven states where judges were elected, many “soft” judges were defeated and “tough on crime” judges elected in their place.

At the federal level, Congress imposed mandatory minimum sentences for narcotics offenses, gun offenses, child pornography offenses, and much else besides. Sometimes, moreover, these mandatory sentences were required to be imposed consecutively. For example, federal law prescribes a mandatory minimum of ten years’ imprisonment, and a maximum of life imprisonment, for participating in a conspiracy that distributes five kilograms or more of cocaine. But if the use of a weapon is involved in the conspiracy, the defendant, even if she had a low-level role in the conspiracy, must be sentenced to a mandatory minimum of fifteen years’ imprisonment, i.e., ten years on the drug count and five years on the weapons count. And if two weapons are involved, the mandatory minimum rises to forty years, i.e., ten years on the drug count, five years on the first weapons count, and twenty-five years on the second weapons count—all of these sentences being mandatory, with the judge having no power to reduce them.

In addition to mandatory minimums, Congress in 1984 introduced—with bipartisan support—a regime of mandatory sentencing guidelines designed to avoid “irrational” sentencing disparities. Since these guidelines were not as draconian as the mandatory minimum sentences, and since they left judges with some limited discretion, it was not perceived at first how, perhaps even more than mandatory minimums, such a guidelines regime (which was enacted in many states as well) transferred power over sentencing away from judges and into the hands of prosecutors.

One thing that did become quickly apparent, however, was that these guidelines, along with mandatory minimums, were causing the virtual extinction of jury trials in federal criminal cases. Thus, whereas in 1980, 19 percent of all federal defendants went to trial, by 2000 the number had decreased to less than 6 percent and by 2010 to less than 3 percent, where it has remained ever since.

The reason for this is that the guidelines, like the mandatory minimums, provide prosecutors with weapons to bludgeon defendants into effectively coerced plea bargains. In the majority of criminal cases, a defense lawyer only meets her client when or shortly after the client is arrested, so that, at the outset, she is at a considerable informational disadvantage to the prosecutor. If, as is very often the case (despite the constitutional prohibition of “excessive bail”), bail is set so high that the client is detained, the defense lawyer has only modest opportunities, within the limited visiting hours and other arduous restrictions imposed by most jails, to interview her client and find out his version of the facts.

The prosecutor, by contrast, will typically have a full police report, complete with witness interviews and other evidence, shortly followed by grand jury testimony, forensic test reports, and follow-up investigations. While much of this may be one-sided and inaccurate—the National Academy of Science’s recently released report on the unreliability of eyewitness identification well illustrates the danger—it not only gives the prosecutor a huge advantage over the defense counsel but also makes the prosecutor confident, maybe overconfident, of the strength of his case.

Against this background, the information-deprived defense lawyer, typically within a few days after the arrest, meets with the overconfident prosecutor, who makes clear that, unless the case can be promptly resolved by a plea bargain, he intends to charge the defendant with the most severe offenses he can prove. Indeed, until late last year, federal prosecutors were under orders from a series of attorney generals to charge the defendant with the most serious charges that could be proved—unless, of course, the defendant was willing to enter into a plea bargain. If, however, the defendant wants to plead guilty, the prosecutor will offer him a considerably reduced charge—but only if the plea is agreed to promptly (thus saving the prosecutor valuable resources). Otherwise, he will charge the maximum, and, while he will not close the door to any later plea bargain, it will be to a higher-level offense than the one offered at the outset of the case.

In this typical situation, the prosecutor has all the advantages. . .

Continue reading.

As Lord Acton observed, “Power corrupts. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely.” US prosecutors have way too much power and we have repeatedly seen how they have become corrupted—and, even worse, they never suffer sanctions for such things as hiding evidence from the defense, sending innocent people to prison (including to death row). For a prosecutor to get so much as a rebuke is rare, and for them actually have to pay a price for their crimes—for that is what they are—is so rare one can say that it essentially does not happen, even in the most egregious cases. …

Shirley Rees Smith – Not a Case – but a Woman Insisted to be Innocent, read this please!

Originally posted on

A Far Cry From ‘CSI’

by A.C. Thompson
ProPublica, Jan. 8, 2012, 12:01 p.m.

Shirley Ree Smith has spent the past 14 years in prison or virtual house arrest while the nation’s two most influential courts have engaged in legal bickering over whether her conviction in the 1996 death of her seven-week-old grandson was grounded in facts, not speculation. (Michael Robinson Chavez, Copyright, 2011, Los Angeles Times. Reprinted with permission.)

This story was co-published with the Los Angeles Times [1]. ´California Gov. Jerry Brown is considering granting clemency to Shirley Ree Smith, a grandmother convicted in 1997 of shaking to death her 7-week-old grandson, Etzel Glass. Sentenced to 15 years to life in prison, Smith insists she’s innocent. 

View original


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.