Mother On Death Row Has Conviction Overturned

Mother On Death Row Has Conviction Overturned

news.sky.com

A mother on death row for 22 years for killing her four-year-old son in 1989 has had her conviction overturned.

A federal appeals court ruled Debra Jean Milke’s case was tainted by a detective with a history of lying under oath.

Prosecutors had said Milke dressed up her son Christopher in his favourite outfit and told him he was going to see Santa Claus at a shopping centre during the holidays.

Instead, he was taken into the desert by her boyfriend and another man and shot three times in the back of the head as part of what prosecutors said was a plot by Milke and the two other defe

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well this is bound to raise the whole death penalty issue again, or at least the gathering of evidence needed for a conviction and a sentence like this.

How lucky is this woman that they allowed her to keep trying with her appeals?

"Our main concern is the fact that I have a client that never confessed and a police detective who said she gave a confession. There was no tape recorder, no witnesses, nothing. Just his word," Mr Kimerer said then.

Milke would have been the first woman executed in Arizona since the 1930s had her appeals run out.

How did she even end up in prison with such poor quality evidence? I wouldn't just be looking at the detective in this case, it takes more than one person to send you to Death Row.

Hopefully they'll look into other cases managed by this guy.

CX.


news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

My concern is this. If a person is on death row, it should be because thier case has already been seen to be WATERTIGHT. Bomb proof. Bullet resistant.

If there is even the merest chink in a case, then there must be a re-investigation.

Conclusions come to by jury are all very well, but it does help when they bare resemblance to what actually happened.

woman in prison facing execution for 22 years...

because some guy said so...nothing more.

Crazy stuff...and damn scary.

What if its found out she is innocent? how do you pay back someone whom lost 22 years, faced promised state sanctioned murder, and tainted her name as a child killer...

I don't even think billions would be enough..you simply cannot make that right.

reply to post by TrueBrit

If a person is on death row, it should be because thier case has already been seen to be WATERTIGHT. Bomb proof. Bullet resistant.

That is what should happen, unfortunately that is not what happens for some.

reply to post by SaturnFX

What if its found out she is innocent? how do you pay back someone whom lost 22 years, faced promised state sanctioned murder, and tainted her name as a child killer...

Well since she is in Arizona, if she is found innocent the best she gets is a trip home as she is not able to collect monetary compensation.

The federal government, the District of Columbia, and 27 states have compensation statutes of some form. The following 23 states do not: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming

www.innocenceproject.org...

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

If a person is on death row, it should be because thier case has already been seen to be WATERTIGHT. Bomb proof. Bullet resistant.

That is what should happen, unfortunately that is not what happens for some.

Which is the clear, concise and PERFECT reason for the abolition of state sanctioned murder of Citizens.

Poor, poor kid though. Whoever was responsible, the poor little kid is still dead and if his mother was not a party to his murder, she has spent not only decades in prison unjustly, but her child was ripped from her too.

What a terrible state of affairs.

reply to post by CX


Unfortunately...she is not out of the woods yet...she can be retried etc.

(Quote) " The ruling reversed a US District Court judge's ruling and ordered the lower court to require Arizona authorities to turn over all relevant personnel records for the detective.

Once the material is produced and defence lawyers have time to review it, prosecutors will have 30 days to decide whether to retry her. If they don't, she will be released from prison." (unquote)

reply to post by MysterX


You see, there ARE cases where a case can be made watertight against a suspect. In those cases, by all means execute the perpetrator of a capital offence. But literally any difficulty ought to present the judge with the option of life imprisonment.

For instance, in the case of the BTK killer, he actually confessed, gave details of the crimes which couldnt have been known to any but the killer themselves, and had a self documented double life which he confessed to as part of his general confession.

He should be terminated without delay, to prevent his being a cost to the taxpayer, to prevent his ever being released or escaping, and to ensure justice for the fallen.

Everyone posting on this story should do a little research before jumping to conclusions.

The two men convicted in the Milke case, Roger Scott and former Milke roommate James Styers, are also on death row. Scott confessed during a police interrogation and led detectives to the boy's body. Neither Scott nor Styers testified against Milke.

The county attorney at the time, Rick Romley, was not so happy. "If she walks, it's a travesty of justice," Romley told KPHO-TV.

Christopher Milke's father, Arizona Mark Milke, was just as adamant, saying he was convinced his ex-wife killed their son.

"Why do you think two guys would just take off and kill my kid," he asked Friday. "Now, if she walks and those two get put to death, that's why this country has gone to hell, brother."

Source

She was the only person who would've collected the 50,000 life insurance policy on her little boy.

Prosecutors said Debra Jean Milke dressed up her son Christopher in his favorite outfit and told him he was going to see Santa Claus at a mall during the holidays.

Instead, he was taken into the desert by her boyfriend and another man and shot three times in the back of the head as part of what prosecutors said was a plot by Milke and the two other defendants to collect a $50,000 life insurance policy.

I don't think she is the innocent little angel this OP is making her out to be.

link

reply to post by SaturnFX


Because "one guy said so" was enough to have Cameron Todd Willingham put on death row. And then wrongfully executed.

Originally posted by CX

Well this is bound to raise the whole death penalty issue again, or at least the gathering of evidence needed for a conviction and a sentence like this.

How lucky is this woman that they allowed her to keep trying with her appeals?

"Our main concern is the fact that I have a client that never confessed and a police detective who said she gave a confession. There was no tape recorder, no witnesses, nothing. Just his word," Mr Kimerer said then.

Milke would have been the first woman executed in Arizona since the 1930s had her appeals run out.

How did she even end up in prison with such poor quality evidence? I wouldn't just be looking at the detective in this case, it takes more than one person to send you to Death Row.

Hopefully they'll look into other cases managed by this guy.

CX.


news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 15/3/13 by CX because: (no reason given)

Actually you raise all good points. I personally would never trust myself to a trial by my peers, or a jury trial. Too many biases. I've seen it too many times, and I know too many people to even give any credulity to 12 people getting together to decide if some flimsy evidence is worth convicting a person or not. They get it wrong ALL THE TIME. And are allowed to convict people with very little to no evidence.

Just circumstantial evidence is enough to send a person away for life, or the testimony of one person. Many times the prosecutors themselves don't know if the person they're trying is guilty or innocent, they just go on what they think. And as was shown here, we all know that detectives lie all the time. They are probably some of the lowest scum around, lying to everyone all the time and thinking that it is just. And this is not bias, they do lie all the time, and they think they are just doing it.

But I will tell you something, if someone thinks it is okay to lie to me or to you, they are not trustworthy. If you lie, and you think it is okay, you are wrong. And you shouldn't be trusted. I don't know how people trust liars or think they will get justice from liars.

There should be actual proof to convict someone, physical proof, or at least two or three eyewitnesses. Not circumstantial evidence, and no one should ever be convicted on the word of one person. It is too easy to lie about someone and get them thrown away or killed, if it is just circumstantial, or just one eyewitness.

Even in the Mosaic Law code a person couldn't be convicted of a crime unless those obligations were met. Does that mean that some people will, in the short run get away with crime? Yes, but it also means that many innocent people will not be convicted unfairly.

You can't have it both ways unfortunately. Humans are not mind-readers. We should base justice, the limited amount we are able to give each other, on facts, solid evidence, and on multiple eyewitnesses. All of this will cut down on the gross injustice perpetuated upon innocent people. And trust me, if you think that injustice is not being done upon innocent all the time, you are in a fairyland, and will perhaps one day be shaken awake to the cold hard reality, when what you thought was a just system, unjustly, unrelentingly, and unmercifully comes after you, and convicts you when you have done nothing.

The death penalty is a practice best left in the past along side witch burning, blood letting, polygamy, and animal sacrifice.

reply to post by lampsalot


while I don't disagree with the majority of your list...what is wrong with polygamy? How someone chooses to live within their own walls should be of no concern to any of us.

If you want to take a harsh stance on polygamy, then witch burning may not be so inappropriate afterall. Its just a question of adults making adult decisions about what to do with their adult time.