Focus 580; Prosecutorial Misconduct and the Death Penalty

This is focused 580 our telephone Top program. My name is David Inge. Welcome to the show. Glad to have you with us this morning. In this part of focus 580 we'll be talking about capital punishment particularly here in Illinois. In recent years the death penalty has become increasingly a topic for debate in this state since the death penalty was reinstated here in 1907. Twelve men have been executed and another 13 have been exonerated and released from death row. So many questions have been raised about the way that capital cases have been handled that Illinois Governor George Ryan announced a moratorium on executions back in January of 2000. He also appointed a commission to study the system the governor said that until he could be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois was truly guilty. No one would be put to death. Also the Illinois Supreme Court appointed a commission to look into the way that the death penalty is administered the results there have already been made public. The Governor's Commission has yet to make any formal. Recommendations the governor said that the one of the reasons for his decision to put this moratorium into

effect was some of the reporting that had been done by the Chicago Tribune and this morning on the program we have two reporters from The Tribune that did some of the stories that got people talking about the death penalty and thinking about the death penalty. Maurice Possley and Steve Mills Maurice Possley a criminal justice reporter for the paper he's worked for the Tribune for 17 years back in 99 he and another reporter coauthored a series five part investigative series showing how many prosecutors conducted themselves not in the way that perhaps we would like that series along with another on the death penalty in Illinois was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in the public service category. Our other guest Steve Mills. And he also now for several years has been writing stories about the death penalty he and other reporter worked on a big series that you might have seen in the paper that ran in the fall of 1999 about two years ago. And he also for you for his work he's been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in reporting the two of them here visiting

the campus they came down here to spend some time talking with journalism students and were good enough to come and also visit with us. And as we talk questions certainly are welcome. I know they'll do their best to answer your questions. The number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also have a toll free line and that one's good. Anywhere that you can hear us that it's 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 so 3 3 3 W I L L and toll free 800 1:58 W1. Well thanks to both you. It's a pleasure being here. The work I think the both of you have done looking both at capital cases here in the state of Illinois and elsewhere suggest that there are certain problems that seem to crop up in a lot of cases and particularly in some of those cases those 13 cases where here you had somebody who was on death row when the features of the case and the way that it was conducted were reviewed it was discovered that there were difficulties and in fact as people well know a number of people were exonerated and they were released and maybe we can talk about

some of these some of these things in no particular order. Maybe I'll start out here with the issue of the quality of defense. It would seem that if you look at the recommendations that this commission appointed by the Supreme Court has made that those people seem to think that the basic problem is bad lawyering. And what they have done is that they have recommended that their sense be a capital A capital bar that you want to make sure that attorneys that are representing people who are who may be facing the death penalty are very well skilled. They have special training in this area. They've done it before. And also there's some concern about the ability of prosecutors and defense attorneys to be able to have expert witnesses in and do forensic testing and so forth. That seems to be the thrust of the recommendations that have been made. That's certainly one of the key issues in the first series that we did about the death penalty in Illinois. We looked at 285 cases

and in 33 of those we found that the defendants had been represented by somebody who had either been suspended or disbarred at one point in their career. And the committees that are looking at the issue have picked up on that it's something that's easy to grasp that you should have somebody who knows what they're doing when you walk into the courtroom to defend your life. In some cases there have been real estate lawyers appointed to cases probate lawyers. People just out of law school and it's just the same way that you wouldn't go into surgery necessarily with somebody perhaps just out of medical school doing it on their own. You would want to go into a court room where you're on trial for your life with somebody just at a loss for somebody who doesn't do that kind of work. It's also a really key component to the overall makeup of a case because when you're a defendant coming in and you've got the juggernaut of the state car that's trying to kill you and you so you have the police and whatever investigative agencies that are involved and the prosecutors. And so

as a defendant you want or need someone who is at least going to put them to the test. And you see a lot of the prosecutorial or law enforcement abuses occur in cases where the defense is a no show so to speak where they're not there to kind of put these make these people to hold the line. And that's and that's something that really has to happen at both ends of a case. I mean if your. Not qualified or not interested in investigating the investigation itself to really test what the witnesses supposedly are going to say with the evidence supposedly shows. You're not going to be able to do a good job in court. And if you don't test them then and court of you sort of just lay down and don't really examine the evidence you're not going to know how good it is and how reliable it is. Well look at it going back to for example going back to the 99 series where at that point there were

12 people that had been exonerated as I remember the the finding was that in something like four or four of those cases there were attorneys who had been or later were disbarred or suspended so it's not obviously not the only problem. It is it is a contributing problem. One if you could look at it it's a really it's in a lot of ways it's the key problem because if you don't. If you don't have an advocate somebody who will look at the evidence you don't know. If one of the witnesses is a jailhouse snitch for example something else that we wrote about you don't know if the scientific evidence that they bring in is credible. If it was done the right way if it's reliable evidence you don't know if the police did the job the way they're supposed to do it. And if you don't have that advocate the rest of the system can really break down and that that's really what you see happen. The problem with say jailhouse snitches has become something that is

a concern is because you have so many of these situations where they were used they weren't challenged. And you know hindsight being 20 20 you see some of these cases unraveling now where a jailhouse snitch was used. And what's the reason that it got that far and that's because no one was there really kind of trying to crack this thing back when it started. Well let's talk about that because this is another thing that you looked at as that and a number of the cases again of these men who were exonerated in volved evidence or testimony that were given by guys who were in jail for other crimes clearly because they hoped that their testimony would benefit them somehow. And right on the face of that that would make you question anything that they said you'd say well OK what's in it for these guys to be giving this information and that information provided by them and a number of cases proved to be very important for the prosecution and for the conviction.

Right. I mean a jailhouse snitches credibility is questioned. It's questionable from the start. They've got something to gain if they testify the way the state wants them to. And it's so do it's a world away from somebody who sees something on the street and really is impartial has no vested interest in the case. They do. And it's very very difficult to trust what they say. And that's why the the idea to allow the pretrial deposition or taking of testimony from witnesses by either side but particularly in a jailhouse snitch situation where you are before you even get to the point where you're on trial. A judge is going to make a determination of some credibility. That's a very very important change to have in the system because it gets for the defense that allows them to have this opportunity to put someone through their paces so to speak in

front of a judge and have some initial determination of whether this person has at least passes the you know the initial threat threshold test of having you know breathing human being that can put two thoughts together that looks like they have some sense of understanding the difference between a lie and the truth and you know from their goals in those cases where To the extent that that you know the answer the question in those cases where jailhouse Does money buy the jailhouse snitch was used. Did the defense lawyer not raise the issue of the credibility of the witness. Did the judge say well. Information about the background of this person and who they are and why they're in jail we're not going to allow you to tell that to the jury or you know what with some of the circumstances surrounding this that it's that's often brought out. But when a jury hears it and we talk to a lot of jurors in doing our research they're not always able to sort of sort out all the issues and at

times the jailhouse snitch will deny that they're getting anything from further their testimony they'll say this is just you know the goodness of my heart I want to do the right thing. And you don't know if they've been fed a line. If they're getting something you know maybe six months down the line or if perhaps their family is getting a deal in some way maybe they've got you know a son or daughter who is in the system and they're going to get a break. It's often not that clear where the break is going to come if there is one. And if you did if you actually are aware first of all you are aware as a defense lawyer that this person is a prospective witness and if you actually do some investigative work you're sometimes able to crack through this and find something but that it takes some tremendous digging on your part. And as a lawyer are you going to do that or are you going to have a private investigator do that private investigator takes money I mean some of this comes down to the almighty dollar in terms of when you're a

defendant in a case. Do you have the ability to pay and how much do you think a good defense should in a capital case. I mean there are cases that Steve and Karen Armstrong is co-author on that that series of people you know getting seven thousand dollars to do a death penalty case or less and less and less. I mean and that includes you know what should be considered in these cases expert witnesses for investigation private investigation all the different costs that go into trial preparation. And by the time you come to trial I mean that money is if you actually spend it would be law. Let me just reintroduce our guests real quickly here we're talking with Maurice Possley Steve Mills They are both reporters for The Chicago Tribune. And over the past. And a couple of years now between them they've done a lot of writing about the death penalty in Illinois the mechanism of the death penalty how capital cases are handled. Some of the problems that have been cited and

there are here visiting the campus they'll be talking with journalism students today they'll be doing a brown bag today over at the College of Communications and we're good enough to come a little earlier so they could come and spend some time talking with us and of course your questions are welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. As for Champaign Urbana toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. The. Another issue and something that I I think that you're going to be talking about later has to do with misconduct primarily I think you would talk about prosecutors but also there have been some questions raised about essentially about police misconduct. Another problem or set of problems that has been cited coerced confessions and also some coercion applied to witnesses to get them to say certain things that perhaps later they might say well no I didn't really see that or I don't know anything about it but they leaned on me pretty hard and so I said yeah. Yes these are these are her problems. The kind of the history of

the series goes back to 1995 when Rolando Cruz was acquitted after his third death penalty trial. You've been convicted the first two times and each time the case was reversed and sent back and in course of that third trial there was evidence developed that suggested for the first time that there may have been some shenanigans by prosecutors and detectives in that case aimed at framing defendants and it spawned a grand jury investigation which resulted in the indictment of three former DuPage County prosecutors and four detectives. And for the first time. Certainly in our part of the country this it happened. Law enforcement specifically prosecutors were accused of framing someone and it was a death row case in addition. So it started with the Natters question how often does this happen. And the quick answer was We don't know. And Ken Armstrong really is the one who

began doing some digging and it ultimately resulted in a series on prosecutors who cheat. I examined murder cases across the country as well as specifically in Cook County and found that it happens far more often than what people would anecdotally think that prosecutors bend the rules to get convictions to get convictions. And it in involves a whole wide variety of misconduct some. It occurs in the courtroom and some that occurs outside the courtroom while cutting deals and and hiding evidence. And. Certainly as part of that the issue of bad confessions comes up. Steve and I have worked on a case over the past year that's unfolded in Chicago where four men were convicted of abduction rape and murder of a medical student back in 1906 and two of them confessed. The DNA has not come back. And it isn't these

guys. So the question is how is it that these two men. Well meant one was 14 at the time came to give what police said was a confession to something that they didn't do. And it does raise serious questions about police conduct there. They just in just a day's paper people want to look at it there's a story about right there. We have story today that talks about they finished the DNA tests on all the clothing and here is something that's a example of. When they came decided to take another look at this case in terms of the DNA testing they tested the clothes that were from the original evidence in which crime lab analyst from Chicago Police Department had identified some semen stains. And that first round of tests came back and said no we've identified two DNA profiles in here but it isn't any of these four guys. And so then I don't but now it's a caution the judge said I want every piece of evidence in this case tested and they came up with 22

more stains that had been overlooked or you pick your verb you want to use had not been found by that crime analyst back in 1996. Now is that negligence is it sloppy work. I can't tell you what the answer is on that one. But again it's another example of perhaps if someone had been there to put the make these guys timeline a little bit some of this might have cracked back then. It gets it one of these it leads one to wonder is that if there is misconduct by either police officers or by prosecutors is it the case that they believe they sincerely believe the person that has been charged is guilty and the in this is a case of the end justifying the means they say well look look this is a guy is the bad guy this guy did it. I'm sure this guy did it and we're going to put him away or it is the other extreme would be that they want to get a conviction. And one might wonder

whether they care whether that person actually did it or not. They want to get somebody behind bars. I think it's both. And I think it's. Some cases the motivations you know might be a little different. The case that we wrote about the Rosie case was very high profile medical student from downstate in Chicago and the pressure there was very high. It was a lot of media attention to the case. And so you can understand perhaps there's a motivation to push things very hard. Other cases it's not clear why that would happen. You know the sort of the garden variety murder that doesn't gain the same kind of attention. You know what would be the motivation for somebody to do something like that. And I'm not sure what it would be if it's just we need to clear cases. I think there's a sort of a two step process and some of this I think that yes I agree with that that in some cases police believe they got the right person and they won't make the evidence fit coming in and some I think it's

just as Steve said they push really really hard too hard and don't believe or don't take into account. But they can put someone in a situation where they would be so disparate despairing and beyond hope that they would actually feel that the best thing they can do is give a confession even if they didn't do it. And then the next is so that the police believe they've honestly solved it. And then it comes to the prosecutors and they just take that case and push it because they believe that the police have the police told him we've got the right guy. And so what they're going to do is make the best possible case we can because it's their job to win. You know I think a lot of people wonder you know in this works in their resent case you know how can somebody admit they did something if they didn't actually do it I mean if you put yourself in their shoes you say I would never do that. I would never

confess to something I didn't do. But we've seen enough cases where the DNA shows us that that in fact did happen. And you have to wonder Well then how did that happen what was the what were the pressures on that person. Were they simply weak or was there just an inordinate amount of pressure put on them to get them the crack. One of the things that I think if wed had been discussed as a result of the kind of reporting that you did was that there ought to be a better record made of questioning of suspects by police and someone say Well what we should do is require that all of these sessions be videotaped so that there would be a record. And I think police officers and a lot of people said no it's too complicated too expensive we don't have the money to do that they really fought that on their side. Is there anything you think that has been suggested that might address this somewhat. Well the videotaping issues interesting it's the kind of thing that I think the culture of policing naturally resists. But the Chicago police now videotaped the confession part not the entire interrogation but when the

defendant confesses if he's willing to do that and it was something that police initially resisted and now find that well we've got a videotape statement nobody can get around that very powerful. And there are some smaller departments I believe Kankakee and maybe Kane County where they do videotaped the entire interrogation and they find that it's not that difficult that we can do this and it helps in the courtroom that people have seen enough TV jurors have seen enough TV that they know that you'll say different different things you'll work different ways and they can grasp what's going on in the interrogation room and that it helps to seal a conviction and and it erases any sort of question that you know anything you know any of these shenanigans might have happened. It's befuddlement to me I mean I can understand the Steves of the culture and the mindset. But again if we're doing this right. I mean I really don't buy this money issue. OK I think we spend a lot of money.

Taxpayers get billed for a lot of things and that I don't think it would that it's an outrageous cost to think about to prevent what ultimately it's costing us. Thirty six million dollars was the tab for the Ford Heights Four case when that one finally unraveled. Tell me how many videotaping operations and interrogations rooms you could do for 36 million dollars. It's just seems to me that this idea that it's kind of like going to a restaurant and saying I'd like to see how you cook the food. And if the guy says I'm not going to let you in my kitchen because I'm afraid you won't eat here. Then it's the same kind of mindset it's like when we don't we. They're afraid. Are they afraid to jurors or judges. See the way they do their work because something bad's going to be there. Well that's the implication from my perspective. Otherwise what are you going to hide.

Just going back to we talked a little bit about the fact that there was a commission that was appointed by the Supreme Court to look at the way the cases were handled and that that indeed this commission made some recommendations and it mentioned that what they wanted to do to make certain was that attorneys that were representing people who were facing the death penalty were good. They were experienced. They would do a good job for their clients and also that there would be some resources provided to address this this other problem that we've talked about that is you if you're going to hire expert witnesses you can hire private detective if you're going to do various kinds of forensic testing. It costs money and if you don't have the money you can't do it based on you know what you know and the cases that you've looked at the kinds of changes that this commission is has has discussed would they help. They certainly will help. No doubt about it it will. The defense bar. You know the capital litigation bar that'll certainly help you'll get a more qualified

level of attorney representing capital defendants some of the other things they're talking about as well. You know trying to gauge the reliability of a jailhouse snitch. That would help. But there are some things that I don't know that you'll ever get around a lot of these cases unraveled simply because somebody came to court and lied. They didn't tell the truth. Police didn't do their job the prosecutors didn't do their job a witness lied. A defense lawyer lied and said that he'd actually done a full investigation when he hadn't. There's no way to get around sort of that malevolence you know in in human nature. You can't legislate it you can't you know have a Supreme Court rule. That's the part that will be tricky. I think that. You know the the whole DNA emergence of DNA and the power it has to certainly to exonerate people is. It's a great learning time for everyone. What it's taught us is that as great as our court system

is or seems to be that it's flawed that it makes mistakes that people are human. Whether it is malevolent or whether it is innocent just pursuit of justice goes a ride that the learning tool here is that we have to be more vigilant and we have to be more vigilant at the time. And so the leveling of this playing field I think is going to is going to help. The mere fact that it's happening in death penalty cases that's great. I think it should be even go farther than that. You get people who are being sentenced to life in prison without parole. You get sentenced to 100 years in prison. And even you know doing half of that so you can spend 50 years or if you're under the new sentencing laws you can do 80 percent or 85 whatever it is that's that's a slow death. So. You know some people have said that the best thing that can happen to you now is to get something off because

people pay attention to your case. You get sentenced to life in prison without parole. You know good bye good luck to the next one. Yeah. Well we mentioned this this this figure this is the fact that since the death penalty came back in 1977 12 executed 13 exonerated what would be your guess about the number of people that say we just here we're talking about murder. The number of people who have been wrongly convicted there. There must be some others. Is there any way sure I mean look at these four guys in the Rosetta case I mean there's four guys convicted of murder. That's four right there. Ronald Jones he was a death case he was a he was a death case. I was working on cases right now where you know we are fairly confident that we have found innocent people who are doing either you know a term of years or doing life. If you so you've got a sister We've got a stack of

you know other cases to look at still and we get letters all the time from inmates wanting us to look at their cases. They're a very good number of them where just even you know some cursory investigation tells you that something is wrong. Putting a number on it though I think that's I mean how do you how do you do it. I mean if you said 100 people were convicted of murder in Cook County and in say you know two thousand and one can I say five it would be a pure guess if somebody said how many are from. Nineteen eighty eight which is when these four guys actually went to trial and in fact one of them pleaded guilty of three more to trial there was a case if you said in 1988 and we had you know 500 people convicted of murder whatever the figures you said five of them well would people say you're crazy. I mean here here is four. And so who knows. I think that to say there is none is naive. A little bit past the midpoint here we have a caller we'll get right to our guest this morning in this

part of focus 580 more response Lee and Steve Mills they're both reporters for The Chicago Tribune. I've done a lot of writing about the death penalty here in the state of Illinois. Questions welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5. Here's Calder in Champaign County Line 1 Hello. Hi I have a series of general things maybe like sure we haven't had a call yet but I mean it's a school student call and certainly. About how you actually managed to write these stories but I how can a jailhouse net Shara and forment out of jail. Who says that I heard this guy or this guy. He did it. How can that have any credibility at all anyway I think that ought to be barred just as a matter of course I mean we have. It just doesn't make any sense to me. One of the notorious death penalty cases. I mean Abu Jamal one of the main evidence testimonial evidence is a prostitute who forgot all of her prior infractions forgiven

or something to that effect just doesn't seem like that would which would be very corroborated corroborating. Well in fact I'm sure there are some jailhouse snitches who tell the truth I mean you know you're locked up people do talk about their cases and I'm sure that a number of people do admit that they did what they're accused of. But sorting out the ones that did that when everybody is sort of starting from a base level of low credibility is difficult. A number of inmates often will have their legal papers in their cell and a number of times you know they've accused their cellmate or somebody else of coming in and looking at them that's where they get their information. You know I think one of the first things that a lawyer will tell. A guy when he's arrested and goes to jail is you know keep your mouth shut. Don't say anything to anybody whether everybody listens to that or not I don't know why I haven't didn't think of the scenario just now but what if a guy was accused of murder and he didn't want to be bothered in jail as we have lots of evidence of that happening. I was going to

say Sure I did it. You know don't mess with me you know I just cut my head but I don't know that we have a sort of culture press prosecution and all of these many different things that are sort of in a catalog of how many different ways that these things can be made whether it's a in a non-death penalty case where you're you don't even go to trial you just people cop a plea. There are so many precedents of that in fact I don't know how well statistics are even compiled. When you start getting into that I want to ask what kind of impact do you think the situation in Illinois is having in other states and said you seemed. I've actually done some investigating in other states. We've we've done a couple after the Illinois series we did a series in Texas and then we did another series that looked at

all the executions since the law came back around the country and the effect has been pretty startling actually. A number of states have begun studies of their capital punishment system. One state New Hampshire I think it was actually voted to end it but the governor vetoed it and they didn't even have anybody on death row. Texas instituted a number of reforms and other states have done the same thing. So it's had it's I think it reignited this sort of dormant debate in the country the death penalty had sort of fallen off the screen a bit. And I think this got people talking about it again. The federal government has looked at reforms as well. And I think it became an issue again and it still is one and changing in some different ways. You know what this Illinois still remains the only state that's done what Governor Ryan didn't impose this moratorium. But the fact that you had I think something like

15 states moratorium bills were introduced in the legislature. And while they didn't pass the Maira fact that they were even introduced in some states I mean there was one introduced in Texas and you know what. You know where that was. How far south that was going in a relatively short period of time but the mere fact that people are doing this kind of thing it's raised a consciousness level. A number of states have now banned the execution of the mentally retarded just in the past year. And of course that is an issue that the Supreme Court is going to re address on next year. And they've also some states have been discussing banning the execution of juveniles or offenders who commit their crimes when they're juveniles. So it's it's piecemeal but I think what's happened just in the last two and a half years is pretty startling in the history when you go back to 76 when it came back in the country.

You know we were talking earlier about the recording of confessions I believe in Illinois. I don't know how the overall bill fared but wasn't it broken out that there would be at least a videotaping of juvenile confessions or interrogation. There was a bill and I didn't make it either. No. No. Well it's that's distressing. Just one last and this is maybe a gratuitous comment but we have a judge from this district who is running for the Supreme Court I guess I'll say his name stagnant who believes that Ryan's moratorium was illegal and he said this on call in shows and he's not the only one. Well right he is not you know I was sort of it seems to me. I thought there were. I don't know if it's common law basis that it's argued that. I guess he they would argue that he could commute them all but he couldn't put them in moratorium or something like that. And just it just seems outrageous when you have the statistic of you know half of the people were Iranians we

sent in the sense that you have judges and and other people saying that it it was wrong to establish a moratorium. All right. I don't think I'm gonna go read here and I'll write. Thanks for the KO. We have somebody else here in Chicago when we get to them just a second I've just come back for a moment to the to the moratorium still in place and I believe that the governor said was that he was he was going to leave it there until the commission that he set up came back with some recommendation right there any word on when that might happen. After the first of the year is what I'm hearing. And before the primary when the primary March I guess or possibly I think they have they set a pretty tall order for themselves. They've done a lot of research and I think they've they've been really working through it. You know somebody has to get it though so you know they're going to do it. Try and do it right now. A lot of the other committees didn't sort of do the research that you might have you know you might have hoped that they would have done and that was actually one of the things that

sparked our work. But this is the governor's commission has done an extraordinary amount of work from what I understand and I think as Morrie said you know you've probably got one good shot at this and they want to do their job right. Do you think that the death penalty is likely to be an issue in the race for governor. Well. I think it could be. I mean you know referring to the caller's comment there is this business about that it's illegal. You know my response to that is they should put their money where their mouth is. If it's illegal do something about it. It's at this point I think political rhetoric it's a way of kind of raising the issue in a way a different way than coming out and saying I just want to kill people I think we should be allowed to kill people who commit crimes you know. Will it be who's to you know it's a little bit of a hot potato. It seems to me of the comments that I've seen about people from people who are running basically

all the same they sort of run along the lines of says yes we think that there are some problems with the system but we think that they can be fixed and I still I can debate X still believe in the death penalty. Nobody who's running US has said anything that would make it sound like they're even nudging close to saying well maybe you know maybe we should question the whole idea of capital punishment. That's true but that may at some point change Virginia a state that has been is supportive of the death penalty as any state a recently elected a lieutenant governor who opposes the death penalty which was pretty startling. So you know maybe somebody in Illinois will come out with that point of view as well although nobody has yet I don't think I think that's one of the things that's changed or is changing a little bit in this country that is not considered quite and I don't mean no pun intended but a death knell to your campaign to say I don't think we should kill people for committing crimes. I don't think it has quite the

baggage across the board as a general statement that it did say four years ago. We have another caller in Chicago. Lie number four right here. Well I think what I've heard this morning is fine but it seems to me you're not telling us the basic or at least a basic cause of these false convictions and not just the public itself the public like these prosecutors very ambitious prosecutors who tend to be crooked and they don't look at the qualifications of the prosecutors except that the prosecutors skim a lot of money and they believe it. Same goes for governors. Many of these prosecutors become governors and they remain crooked all the way through. We've had a number of governors who were crooked. The public doesn't never catches on have you. Have you done any research or any articles pointing to point the finger at the waste the public vote since like sluts. Officeholder is that sort of thing which might

have a decent effect. You know first I don't know that every prosecutor is crooked or not that any of them if any of them have been crooked necessarily. But no we haven't done that kind of research yet and I don't know that we necessarily Well I won't go there in terms of the public response I think one of the things that contributes to. The lack maybe of the public getting really upset with a particular individual whether it's a prosecutor or a judge or a police officer is that and the case is a perfect example. It takes a long time. These cases don't blow up right almost in the inception and cases that perhaps are now going to be caught in the early stages we may never know about. Because it just we won't get in that situation of convicting the wrong person. But there was a case now. You know these guys got convicted in 88 So here we are 13 years later

and the case is unraveling so who do you point think that well. Can I interrupt. Juror 6 No you don't have to go. After cases as far as invest in researching how the public floats that you can go to any issue or order just the general situation in the House how the public votes on the types of candidates that elects most candidates. Lie all the time but they have a track record and it is possible to see whether the sky who visited a candidate has a good chance of being a decent office Sultan and one who doesn't. To give as an instance if you recall that Clinton made a. Before the Democratic National Convention about eight years before he was a candidate for Senate was nominated for you straight years.

The speech was a terrible one. I'm not basis I wouldn't have chosen him to be a candidate for the dogcatcher undoes it turns out he was a he was Mr. Bowles and all the even though I voted for him I thought he was better. But as I now have the alternative of let me just jump in here because again I apologise to the caller because we're getting kind of short on time and get back to the I think it was my response Lee who said that you know maybe we're getting to the point where it's not necessarily people maybe are willing a candidate might be willing to say I'm not so sure I believe in the death penalty but it seems though that that you can't lose it won't hurt if you say I'm believe on being tough on crime and I'm you know I'm for the death penalty. Do we have any reason to believe that that more than anything else a candidate might say is really going to resonate with voters and that if if you decided that was you were going to drop that as a strategy you were going to be a law and order candidate. It was going to be all about being tough and you were going to be absolutely

behind capital punishment. Whether that's really going to it's going to be so advantageous that people will grab onto that as opposed to anything else that you might say. I think being says you know tough on crime is a pretty safe strategy and it's you know it's prove the test of time to be fairly successful. But what we've seen since the moratorium raises a few questions about that. In one case support for the death penalty across the country and in Illinois has dropped fairly substantially and it remains steady for a number of years. Support for the moratorium has been very high. I think it was close to two thirds or three quarters maybe support for the moratorium. And I think that shows that you might be able to go different ways then that voters maybe understand some of the more complex issues that they read enough stories and heard enough cases where the justice system hadn't worked properly in that they knew that there was a problem and need to be addressed.

I think the public may be or is in some sense coming to the point where to say that I don't support the death penalty does not automatically convert to I'm soft on crime that you can be hard on criminals and believe in a tough stance on crime and still counts the fact that you just don't think that there's a point in killing them whether it's a moral view or whether it's an economic view. I mean there's been plenty of research. There's been plenty of research done that shows how expensive it is to kill somebody. Because of the nature of the appeals process and how long it takes and you know thank goodness for some of these people that it did take a long time. You know they're going to kill the wrong people. Many years ago at this point it might be seven years ago. I mean when Jim Edgar was governor I was interviewing him. And I was interested in sort of teasing at that very point and I said I asked him a question like well we were talking about capital punishment I said well what is what a

support for the death penalty got to do with effective you know law enforcement and and going effectively after crime. And he looked at me like I was nuts and he just I just stopped. He just sort of stopped and he said Are you serious. And I said yes Governor I actually am. And he went on to you know to try to make the argument Well of course that you sort of attack him to the point you made that yeah being for the death penalty means being tough on crime and if you're not for that death penalty that must be you. Well you know. Dr Edgar had a point though it in other states where political campaigns and judicial campaigns are run differently candidates for the bench and for the governor's office have run on that very issue. I will execute people or more people or execute them faster than my opponent will. It's a very real issue in other states. And you know I will not allow these frivolous appeals no matter what it is. That's a very real issue I mean he hit on something I think and I think he knew what he was talking

about that for a lot of people it's sort of the you know it's one thing to say you know I'll extend the term for robbery from 20 to 30 years that doesn't really resonate. What does resonate is you know I will support the death penalty and we will do it we won't have these people in prison for 15 20 25 years. We're almost out of time I have several callers I'm not going to be able to take a moment apologies are we're trying at least one more here let's go to Terre Haute Indiana went to you. Hello. Yes. Concern on the fact that DN A sins is the primary way of disapproval in case you know cases. They think from one information I've been able to give is the like to say there are 30 billion parts to DNA and if you get a three or four pieces of identification that says that that guy did this thing that you know what this

mathematical deal of all. You only use a prayer for parts of 30 billion. Sing like to me it's not a very good test. Well actually I can't explain the whole science of it to you but the way they do it is it is in a way that it can distinguish between individuals and it isn't just like three or four points that they do they will work. Play running out and they do run it out in a long string. So you're there there's no doubt that it really does work. And that sound you can make the argument that if you have evidence you are linking you know evidence from a crime scene that you really can say this guy this person over here could not have done it but this person over here we think what we think is the person that that they wouldn't be letting people off death row if they didn't believe that it was exact. But it was an inexact science. I just wouldn't you wouldn't get prosecutors and judges doing it.

Well we're at the point we're going to have to finish my apologies we have a couple of people we can take but we have to leave it at that because we heard the end of the time we want to say very much so thanks to Maurice Possley Steve Mills reporter for The Chicago Tribune. Thanks very much. Thank you. My pleasure.