Innocence Project

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares99 Views

    Georgia Man Charged With 1985 Murders of Couple in Church

    by

    Erik Sparre was arrested earlier this week, more than two decades after Dennis Perry was wrongly sent to prison for the crime.Nearly 40 years after Harold and Thelma Swain were shot to death in a small church in Camden County, Ga., and after a man was wrongly sent to prison for two decades over the crime, the authorities arrested another man who they believe murdered the Swains.The man, Erik Kristensen Sparre, 61, of Waynesville, Ga., was charged with two counts of murder and two counts of aggravated assault in the 1985 deaths of the Swains, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation announced on Monday.Dennis Perry, who is now 62, was convicted of two counts of homicide in 2003 but he was released in 2020 after his conviction was overturned, in part because reporting by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution cast doubt on an alibi that Mr. Sparre had used when he was investigated after the killings.Mr. Sparre was arrested in Waynesville, about 90 miles south of Savannah, at a store near his home without incident, according to the Bureau of Investigation. He was booked into the Camden County Jail. The Bureau of Investigation declined to comment further.After a Bible study session in 1985, Harold Swain, 66, and Thelma Swain, 63, a married couple, were killed in the vestibule of the Rising Daughter Baptist Church in Waverly, Ga., about 14 miles southeast of Waynesville.Investigators contacted Mr. Perry after receiving a tip, learned that he had been working hundreds of miles away in the Atlanta area around the time of the killings, and cleared him.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Judge Finds Death Row Inmate Melissa Lucio Innocent In Daughter’s Death

      by

      In a court filing, the judge said the conviction of Melissa Lucio, whose scheduled execution in 2022 was halted, should be overturned. The state’s highest criminal court will now decide.A Texas district judge declared that a mother on death row is innocent in the 2007 death of her 2-year-old daughter, according to court documents filed in October but made public this week.The decision in the case now stands with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court, which in 2022 halted a scheduled execution of the mother, Melissa Lucio, to gather more evidence. That included asking the district judge in the original trial, Arturo Nelson, to file an opinion. An execution date has not been rescheduled.Ms. Lucio, 56, who lived in the border city of Harlingen, was sentenced to death in 2008 after her daughter, Mariah Alvarez, died as a result of what prosecutors said was the mother’s physical abuse. Ms. Lucio and her lawyers have long maintained her innocence, arguing that Mariah died from complications after accidentally falling down a flight of stairs. An autopsy said the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head.Judge Nelson sided with Ms. Lucio in his recent findings, writing that she was “actually innocent; she did not kill her daughter.”He added that, even regardless of that conclusion, Ms. Lucio had a right to have her conviction overturned because the state had used false testimony in her trial and withheld evidence that was favorable to her case. The judge also cited new scientific evidence that was unavailable during her trial.It was unclear on Saturday when the Court of Criminal Appeals would issue its ruling. Vanessa Potkin, one of Ms. Lucio’s lawyers and a special litigation director for the Innocence Project, said it could take a couple of months. Once that court rules, the case could be returned to trial court, at which point a prosecutor would decide if the case should be retried or the charges dismissed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Ruling by the Virginia Court of Appeals

      by

      Safeguards in the Twenty-First Century, 2006 Wis. L. Rev. 479, 514 (2006); Gisli H. Gudjonsson, The
      Science-Based Pathways to Understanding False Confessions and Wrongful Convictions, 12 Frontiers
      Psychol. Feb. 2021. Further, Grimm presents a report from Dr. Richard Leo, Ph.D., J.D. Dr. Leo is a subject
      matter expert in false confessions and reviewed both the content and context of Grimm’s confession.
      DECISIONAL STANDARD
      “A person seeking a writ of actual innocence faces a daunting task; the process begins not with a
      presumption that a petitioner is innocent, but rather, that he or she is guilty.” Haas v. Commonwealth, 74
      Va. App. 586, 624 (2022); see also Tyler v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 445, 459 (2021) (recognizing that
      this Court begins “with the presumption that [petitioner]’s conviction, the result of a full criminal trial that
      has been affirmed on direct appeal, is correct”). “Because the petition is filed with us in the first instance, we
      are not reviewing a judgment below in the traditional appellate sense, and consequently, there is no appellate
      standard of review to apply.” Tyler, 73 Va. App. at 458. “Rather, actual innocence petitions ‘present[] one of
      the rare situations in which the General Assembly has charged an appellate court with engaging in factual
      222
      evaluation.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Dennis v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 104, 127 (2019)).
      Therefore, “[s]itting ‘as a court of original jurisdiction[,]’ we have ‘the same authority to weigh and
      evaluate documentary and physical evidence as a trial court would have.” Id. at 458-59 (second alteration in
      999
      original) (quoting Haas v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 284, 292 (2019)). In exercising such jurisdiction, this
      Court must consider “the record of any trial or appellate court action,” Code § 19.2-327.11(D), and “the
      petition, the response by the Commonwealth, previous records of the case, the record of any hearing held
      under this chapter, and, if applicable, any findings certified from the circuit court pursuant to an order issued
      under this chapter[.]” Code § 19.2-327.13. The purpose of this review is “to allow us to perform the fact-
      finding function the General Assembly assigned us in the statutory scheme-determining whether the
      petitioner has produced sufficient new evidence to establish the statutory requirements to the requisite level of
      proof to warrant overturning a presumptively valid conviction.” Tyler, 73 Va. App. at 459.
      – 11 – More