home

Stinson Charges Dismissed

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:19:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As TalkLeft noted earlier this year, Robert Lee Stinson's Wisconsin homicide conviction was vacated, and Stinson was awarded a new trial, after new DNA testing cast considerable doubt upon his guilt. Stinson's 1985 conviction was based largely on the (now discredited) pseudo-science of bite mark identification.

Yesterday, prosecutors conceded that they could not prove Stinson's guilt and dismissed the charges. Despite spending nearly two dozen of his years behind bars, Stinson said he's learned to put the bitterness of his wrongful conviction behind him.

Stinson is the twelfth Wisconsin inmate set free by the remarkably effective Wisconsin Innocence Project.

< Manhattan DA Candidates and the Problem of Wrongful Convictions | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Stinson Charges Dismissed | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    So George can't really use (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:24:45 PM EST
    pencil teeth marks to tell if it's Jon Voight's car?

    (Sorry to be glib, but it came to mind.)

    according to the CSI series, (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 11:17:01 PM EST
    bite mark identification is legitimate forensic tool, currently in use. if you think about it, it certainly sounds reasonable. of course, so did the "flat-earth" theory.

    i wonder how many additional victims exist, as a result of the police expending all their resources on the wrong person?

    Yay! (none / 0) (#3)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 11:51:46 PM EST


    One fewer AA male in jail (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 11:51:56 PM EST
    in Wisconsin still does not begin, bless the Project, to ameliorate the state's status as having more incarcerated AA males, proportionately, than any other state.  May Mr. Stinson, at least, enjoy his remaining years, after losing 23 of them.

    Good job (none / 0) (#6)
    by eric on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 10:51:53 AM EST
    jury.  I would love to track down and interview the members of the jury that convicted this guy.  Do you think they have remorse?  Sure, they were doing there best, blah blah, but the fact is, they got it wrong and put some guy away for twenty some years.

    Maybe they should have taken that "reasonable doubt" thing a little more seriously.

    I know that I would have a hard time sleeping if I found out I was responsible for such a horrible thing as destroying this man's life.

    How do you know that they did not (none / 0) (#7)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:32:23 AM EST
    The jury may have taken there jobs seriously. They heard the evidence and believed that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. IOW, they did the best they could.

    Parent
    Not good (none / 0) (#10)
    by eric on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    enough, apparently.  I understand that people make mistakes.  But I would like to put some of these jurors into the spotlight.  I would love to hear about how they tried their best but still got it wrong.  Maybe future jurors would try a little harder once they hear about how a jury, trying its best, still put someone away for 20 years for no reason.

    Parent
    How do you know the jury made a mistake (none / 0) (#11)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    Based on the evidence presented by the prosectution they beleived that he was guilty beyond a reasonable double. If you want to blame anyone, blame the defense attorny for not challenging the evidence. Or the prosector for relying on 'junk evidence.'
    And do we realy want to put jury's in the spotlight. Espically when, regardless of the outcome, there could be retaliation. Like in mob cases for example.


    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#12)
    by eric on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    juror's identities are normally public information, so they probably could be found in the court file.

    Anyway, I know that it sounds unfair, but the jury is the "decider" in a criminal case.  It is in the position to either get it right or get it wrong.  I do not think that there are enough consequences for juries that get it wrong and therefore, they do not take the job seriously enough.  And it certainly would be tough to enact any sanctions on juries that got it wrong.  The only thing that I think might work is for current jurors to consider how other jurors felt after they did something so wrong.  In other words, I want jurors to fear the guilt that might come from getting it wrong.

    Parent

    We have a system that requires jurors (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 04:00:40 PM EST
    to serve under penalty of law, regardless of ability or willingness. So much for the land of the free.

    Your anger at the jurors is seriously misplaced.

    And, yes, I bet if they are aware of the release, they do feel like sh*t.

    Parent

    Serving in a jury (none / 0) (#15)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:15:34 PM EST
    Serving as a member of a jury has nothing to do with "So much for the land of the free." It is a resonspibilty as an American Citizen. The two things are not mutually exclusive.


    Parent
    Calling it "your responsibility" (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:40:02 PM EST
    ol' hoss sure don't make it right.

    Under penalty of law you sit in that room for however long it takes, regardless of what personal or financial hardships that burdens you and your and family with.

    The only other time we're legally held by the gvt against our will like that is when we're incarcerated.

    Hey, wait a minute...

    Parent

    Actually you can contact the people who run it (none / 0) (#17)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 06:31:30 PM EST
    You can petition to be excused from jury duty if there is a valid reason like financial hardship. Any many places have done a good job to make the system realiviely painles.
    I stand by what I said before. It is a responsiblity as a citizen to serve on a jury. It is like paying taxes.

    Parent
    Not in LA my friend. (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 08:08:01 PM EST
    No excuses accepted, you show up or a warrant is issued.

    You can be held by the state against your will.

    And you can't even watch Oprah.

    Parent

    Again, how do you know they were wrong at the time (none / 0) (#14)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 05:03:18 PM EST
    Sometimes the reason they are aquited because new evidence comes up. Othertimes, the defense attorny did not challenge the evidence. To quote another poster, your anger at jurors are misplaced.
    Also, if we had it your way, no one would every be found guilty. Every criminal crime would go unpunished.

    Parent
    Good job Wisconsin Innocence Project! (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 12:11:01 PM EST


    As always.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    ".....learned to put the bitterness of his wrongful conviction behind him."

    Until he's sure he's really free.

    Once that sinks in, I hope he sues their #&#$&'s off!

    Is Steven Avery one of the twelve? (none / 0) (#18)
    by diogenes on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 06:48:10 PM EST
    Steven Avery, as per Wikipedia, was a fellow who set fires to animals in his youth and not a savory fellow.  He was freed from a conviction by Wisconsin Innocence Project due to the actual DNA being from another man.  Unfortunately he then killed a young woman.
    So I guess if at least one of the Wisconsin innocence project's innocents were still in prison then one innocent woman wouldn't have been murdered.
    Non sequitur (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TChris on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 10:36:22 PM EST
         Are you suggesting that Avery should have remained in prison for a crime he didn't commit to assure that he didn't commit an actual crime if set free? Do you really believe we should lock up innocent people to prevent them from harming other innocent people?  I refer you to the suggestion in this post that locking up all Republicans before they commit any crimes would also be an effective crime control solution.
         I know quite a bit about the Avery case.  Many people who are familiar with Avery believe that the years he spent in prison for a crime he didn't commit had a profoundly negative effect upon his mental health that produced his homicidal behavior upon release.  So the flip side to your theory is that if Avery hadn't been wrongly convicted, that innocent woman would be alive today.

    Parent
    Great response, TChris (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 10:47:36 PM EST
    And thank you for writing about it.

    Parent
    Minor quibble (2.00 / 0) (#23)
    by nyjets on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:17:08 AM EST
    I agree that no one should do time for a crime he or she did not commit. I will never argue otherwise.
    However Avery was criminal who was guilty of other crimes. He was not a good guy before he was sent to prison for a crime he did not commit. He may have become a murder regardless. The fact is we will never know.

    Parent
    From Steven Avery Wikipedia (none / 0) (#24)
    by diogenes on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 06:21:26 PM EST
    t age eighteen, Avery pled guilty to burglarizing a bar and was sentenced to ten months in prison.[1] When he was twenty, Avery and another man pled guilty to animal cruelty after pouring gas and oil on Avery's cat and throwing it into a fire; Avery was sentenced to prison again for that crime.[2] In 1985, Avery was charged with assaulting and flashing his cousin and possessing a firearm as a felon, and with the rape for which he was later exonerated.[3] He served six years for assaulting his cousin and illegally possessing firearms, and twelve years for the rape he did not commit.[4]

    Avery was a bad man BEFORE 1985.  Or do you consider pouring gas on a cat and setting it on fire to not be negative, antisocial behavior?

    Parent

    Stinson Charges Dismissed | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment