Why Courts Have Denied Richard Rosario's Appeal Despite Six Witnesses Claiming He's Innocent

lady-justice.JPG
mikecogh via Compfight cc
This week's feature story, about the daughter of a prisoner convicted of murder, details the legal case of Richard Rosario. Rosario has claimed that he was in Florida on the day Jorge Collazo was murdered in June 1996.

He gave his public defender, Joyce Hartsfield, a list of 13 people who could back up his alibi. Hartsfield requested funding to send an investigator to Florida to interview the potential witnesses. The judge, Hartsfield believed, denied the request. As a result, only two witnesses appeared at trial to testify that Rosario had been in Florida. The prosecutor match those alibi witnesses with two eye witnesses, and argued that the alibi witnesses were lying to protect Rosario. The jury agreed.

The judge, however, had actually approved Hartsfield's request. Hartsfield's unfortunate error formed the basis of Rosario's 2004 appeal, citing "inadequate defense representation."

prisoners-daughter-cover.jpg
Photograph by Celeste Sloman

See also this week's feature story about Rosario's daughter: The Prisoner's Daughter: What if your dad had been doing time for murder for as long as you'd known him?

In the appeal hearing, six new alibi witnesses testified to seeing Rosario in Florida around the time of the murder. These were testimonies that the jurors in the original trial should have heard. Rosario's appeals lawyer, Chip Loewenson, argued that hearing a total of eight alibi witnesses, instead of two, would have altered the jury's decision, and therefore altered the trial's result.

Judge Edward Davidowitz, however, still struck down the appeal. And a few years later, two-judge majority in a federal court upheld Davidowitz decision. The defeat shocked Loewenson, who called it "the biggest disappointment of my professional career." The federal court's conclusion also seemed to shock Judge Chester Straub, the third member of the panel, who dissented from his two colleagues, stating, "There exists too much alibi evidence that was not presented to the jury and too little evidence of guilt, to now have any confidence in the jury's verdict."

So what did Davidowitz and the two federal judges see that brought them to their rulings?

Their reasons stemmed from subtle but important differences between the New York state and federal standards for what constitutes "effective assistance" from a lawyer.

"The federal standard for allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel," Davidowitz wrote, "requires a showing that the attorney's performance was deficient and that, but for the attorneys errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."

But under New York law, "The issue is, were the trial strategies employed by attorneys
reasonable, even though they were unsuccessful?" the judge wrote. "An unexplained error or blunder by an attorney does not amount to ineffective assistance unless that error was so serious that defendant did not receive a fair trial."

To put it simply: Federal courts deem a lawyer ineffective if an "unprofessional error" probably led to a different result. New York assesses lawyers "by looking at the totality of the circumstances," not any single act.

The way Davidowitz saw it, Rosario received an adequate overall representation. He concluded that the lawyers' mistakes did not affect the outcome of the case because the additional alibi witnesses did not provide any new evidence. The jury heard from the most important defense witnesses: Torres and Seda had the baby and hosted Rosario. The other testimonies would have been redundant, the judge said.

Hartsfield "represented defendant in a thoroughly professional, competent, and dedicated fashion," Davidowitz wrote in his ruling. "There was a misunderstanding or mistake which persisted throughout the case and which the parties simply cannot explain," he wrote. "But it was not deliberate. And that does not alter the fact that [Rosario's] attorneys represented defendant skillfully, and with integrity."

Next: why the federal court upheld the state court ruling.


My Voice Nation Help
2 comments
noreenbherr
noreenbherr

ʟɪᴋᴇ Hᴇʀʙᴇʀᴛ ᴀɴsᴡᴇʀᴇᴅ I ᴀᴍ sᴛᴜɴɴᴇᴅ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴀɴʏ ʙᴏᴅʏ ᴀʙʟᴇ ᴛᴏ ᴍᴀᴋᴇ $8259 ɪɴ ᴏɴᴇ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ . ᴡʜʏ ɴᴏᴛ ᴛʀʏ ʜᴇʀᴇ 



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WWW.Jℴbs75.ℂOM

eero.iloniemi
eero.iloniemi

For the layman, the interesting point here is that none of the judges are intrested in the actual guilt or innocence of the accused: its OK to have an innocent man in jail as long as he was put there following proper procedure.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...