NewsMine — security — prison-incarceration — deathpenalty — Viewing Item

8th ncarolina death row inmate freed { May 6 2008 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/NRSTAFF/981667774 http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/NRSTAFF/981667774 Freed death row inmate wants police, lawyers punished McClatchy Regional News Tuesday, May. 6, 2008 updated 7:19 am RALEIGH — Freed death row inmate Levon "Bo" Jones said Monday that the prosecutors and police in his case should be punished for withholding favorable evidence at his 1993 trial. ''They should be accountable for everything they did," Jones, 49, said at a Raleigh news conference. "They should be prosecuted for the wrong they've done, I feel like. Justice should be done." But the district attorney who prosecuted Jones at trial -- and dropped all charges against him last week -- said Jones should instead blame his trial lawyers for doing such a poor job that a federal judge ordered a new trial. ''I've had an open-file policy for 15 or 20 years," District Attorney Dewey Hudson said Monday. "Anything I had, all they had to do was walk into my office and look at my file. I presented the evidence to the jury, which found him guilty. I did my job." The case is over, Hudson said. "The guy's won. What's all this bashing Dewey Hudson about? I've done nothing wrong." Jones is the eighth North Carolina inmate freed from death row since 1974. His release comes amid a re-examination of capital punishment in the state, where the death penalty has been on hold since last year because of several legal challenges to it. A Duplin County jury in 1993 convicted Jones of first-degree murder in the 1987 shooting death of bootlegger Leamon Grady. Crumbled testimony The prosecution's case rested largely on the testimony of Lovely Lorden, Jones' girlfriend at the time. But as Jones' appeal lawyers later discovered, Lorden was a paid informant who gave investigators conflicting statements, unbeknownst to his trial lawyers. In a Dec. 5, 2007, affidavit prepared by Jones' lawyers, Lorden recanted her trial testimony. Lorden said law officers threatened her with prosecution, coached her testimony and paid her $4,000. ''Much of what I testified to was simply not true," she said. A sheriff's deputy "let me know what he wanted me to say," she said. A federal judge ordered a new trial two years ago because Jones' court-appointed trial lawyers had not given him a proper defense. But it was Lorden's reversal that prompted Hudson on Friday to drop the charges against Jones instead of launching a new trial. Hudson also said he believes Lorden's trial testimony was true, and he thinks Jones' trial jury was correct to convict him. That angered Jones' present team of three lawyers. ''We were a little upset, to say the least, by the comments made by the prosecutor," Jones' lead lawyer, Ernest "Buddy" Conner, said Monday. "But for the changing stories of Lovely Lorden, Bo wouldn't have been charged. ...There is no credible evidence that supports his guilt." Jones' lawyers said he's factually innocent but came within two months of execution in 1997. ''The fact that an innocent man was almost executed is evidence of a fundamental crisis with the death penalty," said one of them, Cassie Stubbs of the American Civil Liberties Union's Durham office. "A system that is so broken that it can't protect the innocent should not be trusted with life-and-death decisions." Hudson questioned why Jones' defense team waited four months to notify him of Lorden's recantation. Once Hudson verified the authenticity of her affidavit, he promptly dismissed the case against Jones, he said. ''They should have filed that affidavit to the court in December -- I would have dismissed it in January instead of May," he said. "If their client is so innocent, why would they allow him to sit in jail for four more months?" Jones said he's looking forward to spending time with relatives and friends and getting "reacquainted with society." ''From the day I was locked up, August 14, 1992, I said I was innocent, until this day," Jones said. "I've always been innocent. I hope you all believe the same."

1000th execution is white while black spared 8th ncarolina death row inmate freed { May 6 2008 } Ashcroft pursues death { July 1 2002 } California and florida suspend executions after botch Court overturns 100 death sentences { September 2 2003 } Death penalty flawed { June 12 2000 } Death penalty suspended in new york Death row evidence deliberately falsified by police { May 6 2006 } Dna clears death row inmate { April 22 2003 } Dna evidence destroyed in death penalty case { November 30 2005 } Doctors refusal cause execution postponed indefinitely Fed penalty unconstitutional { July 2 2002 } Federal unconstitutional { September 24 2002 } Governor orders innocence test of executed man { January 6 2006 } Halt executions { May 16 2002 } Innocent individuals are executed { August 11 2003 } Jury only { June 25 2002 } Justice stevens cites serious flaws in use of death penalty { August 8 2005 } Lethal injections cause agonizingly painful deaths { April 15 2005 } Md death penalty { May 10 2002 } Md death racial { January 8 2003 } Md study disparities Mentally retarded { June 21 2002 } Mounting evidence innocent people death penalty North carolina executions on hold { February 20 2007 } Us accuses germany undermining death penalty { November 14 2000 } Us courts overturns 100 death sentences { September 2 2003 } Us violated mexicans rights on death row Witness clears man executed in texas in 1993 { November 22 2005 } Files Listed: 29

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.