PDA

View Full Version : A 44 Year Prison Sentence Because of A Quack "Expert"'s Testimony



Crazed Rabbit
08-12-2011, 05:26
This is just so sad; (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/leigh-stubbs-michael-west-forensics-discredited-testimony_n_922219.html?page=1)


LEIGH STUBBS

Stubbs may not be the most sympathetic of West's victims. She's a former drug addict, who on the night of her alleged crimes wasn't in the best of company. But witness accounts say Stubbs remained sober that night (she passed a drug test), and the evidence suggests she was the group's caretaker.

Stubbs' story begins in March 2000, just after she successfully completed treatment at a rehab center in Columbus, Miss. Stubbs checked out with Tammy Vance, a friend she met in rehab, and Kim Williams, the woman Vance and Stubbs would later be accused of assaulting.

After checking out, the three women drove to the home of Dickie Ervin, whom Williams had been dating. Vance and Stubbs then left Ervin's house. They were joined later by Williams, who had stolen some of Ervin's Oxycontin. Vance and Williams began drinking and taking the Oxycontin, while Stubbs drove and remained sober. The three eventually ended up at a Comfort Inn in Brookhaven, Miss. By that time, Vance and Williams had passed out. Stubbs checked the three of them in to the hotel. According to the clerk's testimony, Stubbs didn't appear drunk or high, only tired.

By Stubbs' account, she then helped the other two women into the room, and the three went to sleep. The next day, Stubbs and Vance went to get some food, leaving Williams in the room, still sleeping. Later the same afternoon, Stubbs and Vance noticed that Williams still hadn't woken up, and was having trouble breathing. They called an ambulance, and Williams was admitted and treated for a drug overdose. She fell into a coma. At the hospital, doctors found a number of injuries on Williams ... Another doctor later also found an injury to Williams' head. A few days later, the office of then-District Attorney Dunn Lampton called in Michael West to examine Williams' injuries. (Williams, who has since recovered, says she doesn't remember who attacked her.)

Lampton chose to bring in Michael West as a witness even though West's credibility problems were already well-known. West had previously claimed to be able to trace the bite marks in the bread of a half-eaten bologna sandwich to the prosecution's chief suspect; he had compared his own genius to the musical genius of Itzhak Perlman; and he once testified in court that his own error rate was merely "something less than my savior, Jesus Christ." West had been exposed in articles in both the American Bar Association Law Journal and the National Law Review, and he was suspended and later resigned from the American Board of Forensic Odontologists. But Lampton ignored West's history and called in his expertise in yet another criminal case.

In a routine he had by then repeated dozens of times with law enforcement officials across Mississippi and Louisiana, West claimed to find human bite marks on Williams that other doctors had overlooked. He then ordered dental impressions taken from Stubbs, Vance and two other suspects. But by the time the plaster impressions arrived, Williams' alleged wounds had faded. So West performed his analysis based on photographs he had taken of his findings days earlier. He would later testify that it was a "probability" that a bite mark he claimed to have found on William's thigh was made by Stubbs. (In a rare display of humility, West did concede that he wasn't "100 percent" certain of the match -- only that it was likely.)
...
On the night of the alleged attack, the Comfort Inn had a security camera camera trained on its parking lot. Lampton sent the grainy VHS tape, which was taken after nightfall, to the FBI for analysis. The agency's report found nothing incriminating in the footage. It repeatedly points out that the quality of the recording is insufficient to tell for certain how many people are depicted in the video, much less determine their identities or what sort of clothing they're wearing. The report also makes no mention of anyone moving a "body."

Though he was obligated by law to do so, Lampton never turned that FBI report over to Stubbs' defense attorney. But he sent the video to Michael West, who, now donning his "video enhancement expert" cap, claimed he was able to enhance the video and capture still photos from those enhancements incriminating Stubbs and Vance for Williams' injuries.

The ability to "enhance" security camera footage beyond its resolution is a Hollywood-perpetuated myth so common that mocking it has become a running pop culture meme. Yet West testified in court that he could do exactly that. West and Lampton both knew that the FBI itself was unable to glean anything useful from the video, according to this correspondence, in which West references the FBI's examination of the tape. They kept that correspondence from the defense and the jury.
...
In 2001, Stubbs was convicted of assault, and also of stealing Oxycontin and methadone. The only evidence against Stubbs for the drug thefts was that she was with Williams and Vance when the drugs were stolen. Stubbs, who had no prior criminal record, was sentenced to 44 years in prison.

Good God. 44 years in prison because of the testimony of an already-exposed quack and a vindictive prosecutor.

Forty four years. And Micheal West, the quack who put people on death row and many, many, in prison, is a free man.

I should be outraged, boiling with anger - but I'm just too depressed. Like there's a weight on my soul.

Forty four years.

CR

Centurion1
08-12-2011, 05:31
This is just so sad; (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/leigh-stubbs-michael-west-forensics-discredited-testimony_n_922219.html?page=1)


Good God. 44 years in prison because of the testimony of an already-exposed quack and a vindictive prosecutor.

Forty four years. And Micheal West, the quack who put people on death row and many, many, in prison, is a free man.

I should be outraged, boiling with anger - but I'm just too depressed. Like there's a weight on my soul.

Forty four years.

CR

44 ******* years. Even if she was guilty.

murderers serve an average of what? like 7 years?

The justice system is so ******* up.

Montmorency
08-12-2011, 05:36
Amusing.

Don't let it happen to you, kids. Just say no.

Yes, I am being sarcastic. Don't freak out.

a completely inoffensive name
08-12-2011, 05:38
War on Drugs takes another toll.

Major Robert Dump
08-12-2011, 06:43
Reminds me of the Lupe Fuentes case. Incompetent prosecutor, quack witnesses.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/porn-star-lupe-fuentes-saves-man-from-bogus-child-porn-charges

Cute Wolf
08-12-2011, 15:50
darn, suspecting of causing simple injuries got 44 years? and outright premediated murder most got 20? tell me this is justices?

Banquo's Ghost
08-12-2011, 16:10
All I can say is that we should at least be grateful this kind of "justice" happens in a state which doesn't practise the death penalty.

Oh wait.

Husar
08-12-2011, 16:52
I wonder why the defense lawyer didn't make that very clear and completely discredited the "expert"?

Or did he do that and the jury chose to believe the "expert" anyway?
The judge decides on the sentence though, doesn't he?

I'm not too familiar with the US judicial system or any other for that matter but this is pretty much unacceptable.

Louis VI the Fat
08-12-2011, 19:28
I hate it when the weak and downtrodden get crushed. I get in a rage when I see wannabe though guys on the streets go after the homeless, the drunks, the miserable ones. I equally hate the justice system being abused as a means to take society's frustrations out on the poor and the weak. A few poor Black drug addicts, what justice is served by going after them with all the might of the state?


Never be weak or vulnerable near police officers and public prosecuters. An alarming amount of them are frustrated little men, who like a predator go into a feeding frenzy when finally confronted with a completely vulnerable victim. They love the absolute power. It is dangerous to be a drug addict, or to be dirt poor, or to be severely physically handicapped. The police and the justice system prey on you, both are full of nasty little men who will go berserk when they discover they can have absolute power over you.

Fisherking
08-12-2011, 20:36
I wonder why the defense lawyer didn't make that very clear and completely discredited the "expert"?

Or did he do that and the jury chose to believe the "expert" anyway?
The judge decides on the sentence though, doesn't he?

I'm not too familiar with the US judicial system or any other for that matter but this is pretty much unacceptable.


Well, if it was a public defender it is likely he didn’t care enough to bother.

In some states the more you lose the more cases you get handed.

Crazed Rabbit
08-12-2011, 21:29
I wonder why the defense lawyer didn't make that very clear and completely discredited the "expert"?

Or did he do that and the jury chose to believe the "expert" anyway?
The judge decides on the sentence though, doesn't he?

I'm not too familiar with the US judicial system or any other for that matter but this is pretty much unacceptable.

Most often, smart jurors are weeded out so all that remain are morons to be led along by the lawyers. And the mostly dumb remnants will blindly believe anything an "expert" says.

CR

Husar
08-13-2011, 09:57
Wouldn't that mean the system of "checks and balances" where the "jury of your peers" is a counterbalances to the judges and state attourneys is not working correctly? If the state can manipulate it to get more or less the results it wants most of the time then it seems the system is in dire need of reform, no?
And quite frankly, the intelligent people who I've also seen post here about how to best avoid jury duty would be part of the problem.

Greyblades
08-13-2011, 11:44
So basically the jury is full of people not smart enough to dodge jury duty. Not a good sign.

classical_hero
08-13-2011, 14:04
Surely that will be thrown out of appeal.

Gregoshi
08-13-2011, 20:10
Most often, smart jurors are weeded out so all that remain are morons to be led along by the lawyers. And the mostly dumb remnants will blindly believe anything an "expert" says.

CR
It is up to the lawyers to establish credibility of the expert witness or to discredit them. The jurors are not provided with any tools other than common sense/critical thinking to determine if said witness is in fact an "expert". I sat on a jury with an expert witness for the prosecution and the defense attorney made a fool of himself trying to discredit the expert. But the point is, we only had the testimony with which to judge the expert.

rory_20_uk
08-14-2011, 12:55
Wouldn't that mean the system of "checks and balances" where the "jury of your peers" is a counterbalances to the judges and state attourneys is not working correctly? If the state can manipulate it to get more or less the results it wants most of the time then it seems the system is in dire need of reform, no?
And quite frankly, the intelligent people who I've also seen post here about how to best avoid jury duty would be part of the problem.

The "jury of one's peers" is a concept that last worked when there were small villages - so one's peers knew the defendant and know what type of person they are. Since the purpose from this angle has ended, it would make more sense to have professional jurors who have intelligence, insight, knowledge and ability - almost following the model of Non Executive Directors rather than a group of press-ganged malcontents.

~:smoking: