Jurors regret convicting innocent man



By CAROL BOHLS, VELMA DIAMOND and LIZ ROLAND
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
April 18, 2009

When we were called to serve as jurors in an Austin sexual assault 
and murder case, we could never have predicted the ending of this 
story. Twelve years after we found Richard Danziger guilty of 
aggravated sexual assault, new DNA evidence revealed that Richard 
was, in fact, innocent. This shocking discovery left us confused, 
angry and wondering how this tragic error could have ever happened.

The centerpiece of the case presented against Danziger in 1990 was 
testimony provided by his friend and alleged co-conspirator, 
Christopher Ochoa. When Ochoa took the stand to testify against 
Danziger, he presented a convincing summary of events that left 
little doubt in our minds that both were guilty of this terrible 
crime. What we did not know, however, was that Ochoa’s confession and 
testimony were false — he only confessed and agreed to testify 
against Danziger after 20 intense hours of interrogation.

Unfortunately, Danziger’s case is not unique. False confessions have 
played a role in about 25 percent of the 234 DNA exonerations across 
the country. Whether because of mental incapacity, youth or 
persuasive threats, DNA evidence proved that each of these people was 
convicted of a crime he did not commit.

We were horrified to learn after Danziger’s exoneration that Ochoa’s 
interrogation was characterized by lies about inculpatory evidence 
and threats that if he did not confess and testify against Danziger, 
he would receive the death penalty. None of this came to light during 
the trial, however, because there was no record of the interrogation 
procedure. Had we been given the opportunity to see the context of 
Ochoa’s confession, including the coercive tactics that were used for 
hours against him, we would have at least had something to deliberate 
about. We did the best we could with the evidence provided to us; 
unfortunately, that evidence was dangerously incomplete, undocumented 
and untrue.

It has taken us a long time to come to terms with what happened to 
Danziger — in many ways we still haven’t. We are still dismayed at 
participating in what we can only describe as the destruction of a 
young man’s life. Not only were Ochoa and Danziger wrongly 
imprisoned, but Danziger suffered a horrible attack while 
incarcerated that left him seriously disabled for the rest of his 
life. We still share with family and friends the resounding negative 
impact this experience has had on our lives and our opinions of the 
criminal justice system.

If interrogations are recorded in their entirety — from the reading 
of rights to the end — jurors will have access to a clear, complete 
picture of the circumstances that led to a confession. This is 
essential in order to effectively evaluate the quality of that 
evidence. While many police departments have begun to record suspect 
interrogations, there is currently no requirement that they do so. 
Some things are too important to leave optional, and we think this is 
one of them. A complete record of suspect interrogations documents a 
crucial part of a criminal investigation, and it is essential for 
jurors to do their jobs well and reach justice.

Police officers who record interrogations know first-hand the 
benefits of such a policy, too. This powerful tool protects them from 
false claims of abuse and provides the best evidence possible to 
convict the guilty. By taking the step to require recorded 
interrogations, Texas can demonstrate to the public that we have 
learned from our mistakes and can begin to regain the trust that has 
been lost through misconduct and wrongful conviction. We will settle 
for nothing less than the best quality evidence possible.

Bohls, of Austin, Diamond, of Clifton, Mo., and Roland, of 
Pflugerville, were jurors in the wrongful conviction case of Richard 
Danizger.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6379625.html


------------------------------------