Man convicted of murder hopeful ruling leads to freedom Witnesses have recanted. Another man has confessed. Now, a man who was convicted in 2001 of killing a woman in his Missouri hometown is awaiting a decision from the state’s highest court that could determine whether he will be released — and finally get to spend time outside of a prison visitors room with a college-age daughter who was just a baby when he was first arrested. It will be up to the Missouri Supreme Court to ultimately decide whether 49-year-old David Robinson will go free after a special master appointed to review the case ruled last month that his first-degree murder conviction should be tossed out. In doing so, Judge Darrell Missey cited “clear and convincing evidence” that Robinson “is actually innocent of that crime.” Robinson is anxious to get out, but feels a sense of relief that someone in authority finally believes him. He thinks about his daughter, now a college student, and about being able to spend time with her and other relatives. “It ain’t been no easy task,” he said in a phone interview from the state prison in Jefferson City. “It’s been rough on me.” But he feels good now. “I’m in a good frame of mind. I’m praying they’ll go along with his recommendation,” he said. Robinson was convicted in the August 2000 killing of Sheila Box, who was shot to death in her SUV after leaving the Sikeston bar she and her fiancée owned with $300 in cash and checks. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Missey was appointed to review the case after an extensive investigation by the Southeast Missourian newspaper in Cape Girardeau called into question the actions of a Sikeston police detective. “You sit back and you think: How can David Robinson still be in prison?” said Charlie Weiss, the attorney handling Robinson’s appeal. “This is a very compelling and overwhelming case of actual innocence.” In a court filing Friday, the Missouri attorney general’s office cited several “erroneous” findings in Missey’s ruling. But it wasn’t immediately clear whether charges would be refiled if the conviction is thrown out. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Josh Hawley did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Robinson grew up in Sikeston, a city of about 16,000 people about 140 miles (225 kilometers) southeast of St. Louis. He admits that he got into trouble plenty of times. His extensive record dates to age 15, with crimes that included burglary, drug charges, and assault. But, Robinson said, “I didn’t do anything of this magnitude to deserve this treatment.” No physical evidence tied Robinson to Box’s killing. Two witnesses connected Robinson to the crime, but they have since recanted. Another Sikeston man, Romanze Mosby, confessed on tape in 2004 that he was the real killer. Mosby, who killed himself in 2009, never signed an affidavit confirming his confession, and judges refused to allow it as evidence. Robinson claimed he was at a family gathering at the time of the shooting, and three relatives backed him up in testimony. “When I first got arrested they did gunshot residue, DNA, fingerprints,” Robinson said. “It showed I didn’t have any connection to this crime. My whole case was based on fabricated and inflammatory evidence.” The investigator, Sikeston detective John Blakely, was placed on administrative leave after Missey’s ruling. Blakely does not have a listed phone number and a phone message seeking comment from Sikeston police was not returned. In court testimony, Blakely denied allegations that he framed Robinson. In his court filing, Hawley disputed Missey’s finding that Blakely “ignored or suppressed facts” to tilt the investigation toward Robinson. The city of Sikeston has asked U.S. prosecutors to review the investigation. Robinson’s mother, Jennett McCaster, said she never doubted her son’s innocence. “I want to hug him, I want to kiss him,” McCaster said. “I want to just enjoy life with him and not have to see him behind a wall and in handcuffs.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...eecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.10d1e7fc5908 Apparently the evidence in this case was never really that strong. Maybe they just wanted to find a guilty party to blame for the murder? If you look at the picture of that man, he does kind of like a "murderer". Maybe they were prejudiced by his appearance, which is very unfortunate. On the other hand, all those years in a Missouri prison may not have been kind to him, and that can certainly alter people's appearance for the worst.
Police corruption, judicial corruption - this along with so many of society's prejudices and predispositions to believe institutions rather than individual testimonies are what causes so many innocents to needlessly suffer. So sad.
It's pretty standard legal practice to not allow this sort of evidence. For example, if a witness dies their testimony will not be allowed in court, even if it was recorded on video and there were ten other law enforcement officers in the room at the time to hear the person tell what happened. There are only a few limited exceptions to this rule. The general rationale behind this seemingly strange legal rule is that the other side would not have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. I'm aware of another case where a man was convicted of rape because the judge refused to allow the jury to hear information that the woman had previously made accusations against multiple men in the past, including her own brother at one point. (The judge justified this based on a very dubious interpretation of Oregon's Rape Shield law) further discussion about when witness testimony can be allowed if the witness is dead can be found here: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-238275.html (the exceptions are pretty limited, it's probably not what most people would think)
The following is Shareef Cousin's story: I was once the youngest person in the U.S. on death row. And I was innocent. There was videotape of me in 1995, at 16, playing basketball just before the time of a murder in New Orleans' French Quarter. There was even a clock showing the time on the videotape. My basketball coach was driving me and my teammates home at the time of the crime. My airtight alibi didn't matter. The eyewitness to the murder, who was on a first date with the victim, told the police she was not wearing her contact lenses or glasses and could only see shapes -- critical information that the prosecution withheld from my attorneys. She was pressured to change her story. At my trial, she identified me as the killer and told the jury, "I will never forget that face." A detective said two other witnesses identified me as the killer, but it later came out that he had lied to get the arrest warrant. The prosecution pressured another witness into saying he heard me brag about the murder, which was untrue. As a teenager on death row, I often had nightmares of my own execution. Even though I was innocent, death seemed very close to me, and my mind would light up with images of my being strapped to a gurney, the sound of poison coming from a machine and being pushed through my veins. Four years after being sentenced to death, I heard on TV that the murder charge against me was being dropped. The Louisiana Supreme Court later disciplined the prosecutor, Roger Jordan, and gave him a three-month suspension. The suspension was waived, however, on the provision that he not engage in any more ethical breaches for a year. I was 17 years old when I was sentenced to death and 20 when I was exonerated in 1999. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/13/opinion/cousin-death-row/index.html
This forum is filled with far right pundits who always condemn anyone who always defend cops no matter how much wrong they do. Let's see what they have to say here. As for me, I say take those cops who wrongfully put this innocent guy in prison and put them in the electric chair. That will serve as a great lesson to those criminal cops, their defenders, and remind us as to what is the proper role of the 2d Amendment.
I think what happens many times is they think they have caught the one responsible for the murder, so they want to make sure he gets convicted. Unfortunately the unethical actions of each participant committing an unethical act snowball. The first fudges things to make the suspect look a little more guilty, then that makes it look like they are probably guilty to the second player so he fudges something else. And so on. All the way up to the prosecutor who's job is to make the defendant look like the most evil person in the world if they think the defendant is guilty. But of course, each participant is doing these things without the full knowledge of all the others.
