Sunday, July 8, 2012

Once convicted, evidence of actual innocence doesn't automatically set you free!

Most people think that if Scott had proof of his actual innocence, he would be free by now.  That's not the way the system works for convicted persons.  And here's another story from Modesto that shows the hoops innocent convicted persons have to jump through to regain their freedom.

Saturday, Jul. 07, 2012
Modesto landlord convicted in fatal fire may now challenge ruling
By Maura Dolan 
Los Angeles Times Saturday, Jul. 07, 2012 Saturday, Jul. 07, 2012 
By Maura Dolan 

FRESNO -- A federal judge has ruled that a Modesto man convicted of setting a fire that killed his tenant and her two children has shown "actual innocence" and may now challenge his conviction on other grounds.
Chief U.S. District Judge Anthony W. Ishii upheld the findings of a magistrate who examined the evidence against George Souliotes, 72, and concluded that no reasonable juror would have convicted him given the state of the evidence today.
But the court's finding will not necessarily free Souliotes, convicted of setting a 1997 fire in a rental home he owned. 

Modesto Bee - George Apostos Souliotes is charged in the arson deaths of Daniel Jones Jr., Amanda Jones and their mother Michelle Jones. Souliotes, a disgruntled landlord set their home ablaze. Retrial sought for '97 Modesto murder 

His lawyers missed a legal filing deadline, and under the law, Souliotes had to prove his innocence before he could appeal his conviction on other grounds, including inadequate legal representation at trial.

In determining actual innocence, the judge considered both old and new evidence, regardless of its admissibility at trial. His decision was based on whether he believed it was "more likely than not" that a reasonable juror with that information would have found the inmate guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ishii said in his ruling that the appeal should now proceed quickly. Citing Souliotes' age, Ishii said the innocence determination "only heightens" the urgency required.

Fire scientists have discredited evidence that was used to convict Souliotes, and the state has conceded that it no longer can prove that the deadly 1997 blaze was deliberately set. Souliotes has been behind bars for 15 years.

Aleka Pantazis, 64, Souliotes' sister, said attorneys will meet early next week to schedule a hearing.

"My heart is so happy, and I am so touched," said the Glendale resident, who helped persuade the Northern California Innocence Project to represent Souliotes. "I can finally hope." 

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has fought to uphold the conviction that sent the Greek immigrant to prison for life. Lawyers for her office tried to overturn the innocence finding on the grounds that Souliotes has not proved exoneration.

But Ishii said the law does not require exonerating evidence in such cases.

'Shoes tell the tale'

Michelle Jones, 31, and her children, Daniel Jones Jr., 8, and Amanda, 3, perished in the fire.
Modesto fire investigators determined that the blaze was deliberately set, based on a variety of factors that are now known to occur in accidental fires. Prosecutors also presented evidence that a petroleum substance found on Souliotes' shoes matched a compound that ignited the fire and called it "the most conclusive scientific evidence of his guilt." 

"The shoes tell the tale," a prosecutor told the jury in closing arguments.

But a fire scientist later determined that the substance on the shoes was chemically different from the fire debris, a finding that prosecutors did not dispute.

Prosecutors also presented an eyewitness at trial who testified that she saw Souliotes approach the house in the darkness just before flames erupted. But defense lawyers re-enacted the scene and presented the magistrate with a video that showed she could not have seen what she claimed.

That and other evidence led the magistrate who conducted the innocence hearing to conclude that the witness was not credible. 

Read more here:


Jane said...

From a previous Modbee article about the Souliotes case:

Chief Deputy District Attorney Dave Harris prosecuted the case. During the second trial, Harris told the jury Souliotes needed to sell the home quickly and stood to gain more cash — nearly $93,000 — if the home were destroyed by fire rather than sold on the open market.

Marlene Newell said...

It seems that Dave Harris has an over-active imagination.