Lessons Learned?

The USA restored the death penalty after a four year break in 1976. In fact, there had been no executions since 1967 – the Supreme Court ruled the statutes unconstitutional in 1972 (Furman v Georgia). States amended their statutes and in 1976 the Supreme Court ruled Georgia’s new death penalty statute was constitutional (Gregg v Georgia).

Anyone on Death Row prior to the Furman decision had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment. The first person executed since restoration was Gary Gilmore (Utah January 17th 1977).

Somewhat surprisingly, all of the first five executed since restoration were white – only one fought against his fate. The other four, including Gilmore, abandoned their appeals and demanded to be executed. One – the first in Virginia for twenty years – was a former police officer turned armed robber and murderer.

Cops and Robbers

Frank Coppola was the first person executed by Virginia since 1962 (Carroll Garland on March 2nd for murder). Among the careers Coppola had in his short life (38 when he died) was police officer in Portsmouth, Virginia. He was forced to leave in 1967 after making false statements about an assault on a prisoner committed by a colleague. He had also tried to become a priest – quitting after a year – and a sports scholarship that he did not complete. He joined the police in 1965.

In the 1970s he had a new career in crime, having been sentenced to four years for burglary in 1971. Seven years later, the former prisoner committed the crimes that cost him his life. He robbed and viciously beat Muriel Hatchell to death in her home.

Donna Mills and Joseph Miltier – also an accomplice in the 1971 crime – were involved in the robbery and Coppola’s wife, Karen, was an accessory. Hatchell’s husband, Peyton, arrived during the robbery and was viciously clubbed over the head. He was severely injured, but survived.

Cops Turned Robbers

Coppola was convicted of robbery and murder on September 26th 1978. He was sentenced to death. His accomplices received long terms in prison. Coppola chose to waive appeals and went to the electric chair on August 10th 1982, over 20 years since the last execution in that state. Coppola’s execution was botched, requiring two jolts of electricity.

He was not the only former police officer to turn to crime before committing a further crime that resulted in execution. During his career as a police officer, which began in March 1920, James Power disgraced the profession (http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=899). He was thrown out just shy of three years later. He made a living by impersonating a police officer and demanding money with menaces from courting couples. On July 2nd 1927 he raped and murdered Olive Turner, the offence that sent him to the gallows on January 31st 1928.

Infamous

Over 55 earlier an even worse example occurred in Northern Ireland. Sub-Inspector Thomas Montgomery, a seemingly respectable police officer, was anything but. The officer needed money, so he tried to rob the Northern Bank on June 29th 1871, as it was closing. He murdered cashier, William Glass, with a spike. Montgomery then took charge of the investigation into Glass’ murder.

Eventually witnesses placed him at the scene of the crime an hour earlier, and colleagues discovered his financial woes. They built a case against him which resulted in his conviction after two mistrials. Montgomery was the last person executed in Omagh jail – going to the gallows on August 26th 1873.

Presumed Guilty

“I don’t care about the money,” is a frequent refrain of the innocent. “I want my name back and an apology.” Usually they get neither, because miscarriage of justice organisations and campaigners still don’t get it. Quashing a conviction is no more than half the job. The criminal justice system does not care about guilt or innocence; it never did.

An acquittal at trial is nothing more than an admission that the prosecutor could not prove the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a declaration of innocence. Appeal is no better. If a conviction is quashed, it meant that the conviction was found to be unsafe. That is not the same as a finding of innocence. Occasionally judges make sure that there is no doubt, by saying that they are not finding the appellant innocent. There is no verdict of innocence, yet that is demanded now in compensation claims.

Exoneration

Annette Hewins, Sion Jenkins, Barry George and Andrew Adams are part of a growing trend. Their convictions were quashed on appeal, yet none of them have received a penny in compensation because the Assessor decided that they had not been exonerated. The fact that there is no verdict at trial or appeal in British law that guarantees exoneration seems to have escaped politicians, eager to save pennies at the expense of those wronged by society.

The former Unionist MP, Lord John Laird, sought clarification. Laird asked the government to “issue a practice direction to criminal courts ensuring judges declare any defendant acquitted at trial, or appellant whose conviction has been quashed as unsafe on appeal, as innocent at the close of the court proceedings.”

He also asked the government “whether they will ensure that appropriate compensation and aftercare is provided to such persons?” His question and the subsequent answer from Lord Tom McNally, a Minister of State at the Ministry of justice were ignored by media expressing an interest now the Supreme Court is considering these issues.

Practice

“Practice directions in the criminal courts are a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, not the Government,” said McNally. “It has long been an important feature of our criminal justice system that a person charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. A person found not guilty is to be treated as innocent, as too is a person whose conviction has been quashed on appeal.”

But the practice is different. Exoneration is required for compensation now. “A person whose conviction is quashed on appeal may apply for compensation under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Entitlement to compensation under that provision will be considered shortly by the Supreme Court in the case of Adams.”

Actually they can’t. The abolition of the Discretionary Scheme means that any person whose conviction is quashed in an in time first appeal will not qualify under Section 133. Even if there is no doubt about innocence whatsoever, they are not entitled to anything and the government not only knows it, but refused to right the wrong. The very same minister Lord McNally said as much previously when asked to restore the Discretionary Scheme by Lord Laird.

“The discretionary compensation scheme was abolished on 19 April 2006 by the then Home Secretary and the coalition Government have no plans to reintroduce it,” said McNally. “We will continue to consider applications for compensation under the statutory scheme, Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which fully meets our international obligations.”

It also excludes anyone who had the temerity to be acquitted or have their convictions quashed on a first appeal even if they are proved innocent later by the conviction of the real perpetrator.