ILNews

Aid rises for those wrongly convicted

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lana Canen and Kristine Bunch insisted they were innocent for years after each was convicted of murder by Indiana juries. Both women were freed in 2012, but their paths to exoneration were starkly different.

“When a prosecutor knows that a person is not responsible, that prosecutor has a duty to take action because of the interest of justice,” said Elkhart County Prosecutor Curtis Hill. As prosecutor since 2003, his office won a conviction against Canen, and then years later joined defense efforts to free her from a 55-year sentence when new evidence came to light.

canen Canen

Canen’s case illustrates a trend reported by the National Registry of Exonerations maintained by the law schools at the University of Michigan and Northwestern University. In a report this month, the registry concluded that prosecutors or police last year initiated or cooperated in more than half of the 63 known homicide and sex-crime exonerations last year, a record high.

Canen was convicted in 2005 of killing 94-year-old Helen Sailor, largely on the strength of fingerprints on a pill bottle in Sailor’s home that authorities testified were Canen’s. Her conviction was affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court, but in post-conviction relief, defense attorney Cara Shaefer Wieneke said a new expert re-examined that crucial evidence and concluded Canen’s prints didn’t match.

bunch Bunch

The defense review was provided to Hill’s office, and the state witness, “to his credit, at least made the determination he had been wrong about what he had testified,” Hill said.

As a PCR hearing neared, Wieneke got a call “out of the blue” from Hill’s office. “I never would have known any of that,” she said. “After that point, they really took the lead in terms of getting things in front of a judge.”

Wieneke said prosecutors joined a defense motion to vacate Canen’s conviction in November, and Canen walked out of prison the next day. “It was a really great turning point that they were willing to jump on board,” Wieneke said.

watson Watson

Bunch’s experience, however, reflects a continuing reluctance among some authorities to reconsider exculpatory evidence and claims of actual innocence.

Convicted of setting a fire in her mobile home she shared with her 3-year-old son Anthony in Decatur County, Bunch professed her innocence for more than 17 years.

Key to evidence against Bunch was testimony from witnesses including an ATF agent that accelerants were used to start the fire. The agency, though, failed to disclose documents that contradicted the testimony and evidence samples that were negative for the alleged accelerants.

The Indiana Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling ordered a new trial for Bunch, in part due to the withheld evidence and also because of the evolving science of arson forensics. The Supreme Court chose not to review the ruling. Bunch was freed in September 2012, and prosecutors dropped charges against her in December.

“The state of Indiana did not support her efforts to overturn her conviction,” said Faegre Baker Daniels LLP partner Jon Laramore, who joined Bunch’s defense team that succeeded in exonerating her. “Her conviction was overturned over the state’s opposition.”

Professor Fran Watson leads the Wrongful Conviction Clinic at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. She said attitudes of prosecutors toward re-examining possible wrongful convictions or cases of actual innocence “are beginning to change, and perhaps it changes faster in some places than others, and it’s always going to be case by case.”

exonerated-facts.jpgWatson said the case of Larry Mayes, who in 2001 became the first person in Indiana cleared through re-examination of DNA evidence during post-conviction relief, was a turning point. It also was the first case Watson handled through the clinic. Lake County prosecutors joined defense attorneys in vacating Mayes’ conviction.

“When science changes just a little bit, do we as a society want to say, you only get one bite at the apple, even though now science has advanced to the point that you can actually show innocence?” she asked.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Ryan Scott has written extensively on criminal procedure and sentencing and recently attended a sentencing conference at Wake Forest University School of Law. There he met Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins, who formed one of the nation’s first conviction integrity units specifically to review claims of innocence.

“Prosecutors are increasingly willing to cooperate in efforts to investigate credible claims of innocence,” Scott said. “That wasn’t always true.”

Scott said “tough on crime” stances tended to make prosecutors loath to re-examine such cases. “The assumption for many years among prosecutors was it was bad politics to cooperate” with exoneration efforts. In Dallas, Scott said, “the public has responded quite favorably because it helps to confirm the credibility of the system.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT