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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT