
http://webb.senate.gov/contact/http://webb.senate.gov/contact/
State Supreme Court Denies Washington’s Plea for Release
By Annette Jones
The Winchester Star
Convicted murderer Jeffery Franklin Washington’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been denied by the Virginia Supreme Court.
A writ of habeas corpus is a legal request that the person in custody be released from jail because the custody is unlawful due to fatally flawed legal procedures.
Washington, the convicted trigger man in the 1994 drug-related murder of Carlos Marshall, had hoped to have his conviction overturned.
According to the request filed by Washington, D.C., attorney William Moffitt, Washington claimed that witnesses against him were coerced into giving damaging testimony by representatives of Winchester Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul H. Thomson.
The one-page ruling issued Tuesday by the state Supreme Court said the justices didn’t find any merit in the complaints raised by Washington.
Ever since Washington entered his Alford guilty pleas, his father, Franklin Washington, has embarked on a letter-writing campaign to public officials highlighting what he saw as illegal activity in the Winchester Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office regarding his son’s prosecution.
Franklin Washington also has maintained a vigil in front of the Winchester Public Safety Building on North Cameron Street trying to keep his son’s case in the public eye.
Jeffery Washington was identified by police as the man who formed a plan to robbery Marshall of marijuana on Aug. 16, 1994, and as the man who fired the shot that killed the 22-year-old former Shenandoah University basketball star. Washington was sentenced to 70 years in prison.
Also convicted of Marshall’s murder were John Doleman, Rudolph Powell, William Beamer, and Shawn Polston
By Laura Arenschield
The Winchester Star
A Winchester man’s decade-long fight to reverse his murder conviction hit another roadblock on Thursday in Winchester Circuit Court.
Jeffrey Franklin Washington, 32, who pleaded guilty 10 years ago to killing and robbing a 22-year-old Winchester man, has spent the time since then trying to get his trial thrown out.
His most recent attempt began last December, when he filed a lawsuit charging that a city prosecutor — now a local defense attorney — and his defense attorney — now a 26th Circuit Court judge — worked together to trick him and the court system.
But retired Circuit Court Judge Herman A. Whisenant Jr. of Manassas said on Thursday that Washington’s accusations are not true.
He dismissed Washington’s suit, leaving the convicted killer with few options.
“He can appeal the court’s decision today to the Virginia Supreme Court,” said David B. Hargett, Washington’s attorney for the suit. “Beyond the Supreme Court, if we appeal and are denied, it would take additional new evidence for him to get a new trial.”
Had Washington been convicted of capital murder 10 years ago, and had a Winchester Circuit Court jury decided he deserved it, he could have been executed.
Rather than risk that outcome, Washington, then 23, and his attorney, John R. Prosser, opted for a plea bargain with then-Winchester Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul H. Thomson.
Washington pleaded guilty to eight charges, including first-degree murder, for the shooting death of Carlos Darnell Marshall, who lived on Woodstock Lane.
He entered Alford pleas, a legal option that allowed him to admit that prosecutors had enough evidence to convict him, but to maintain that he did not commit the crimes.
Circuit Court Judge John E. Wetsel Jr. sentenced him to 70 years in prison, the maximum allowed under the plea bargain.
Because Washington was convicted and sentenced before Virginia legislators abolished parole, he could be released before he serves the full prison term. According to the Virginia Department of Corrections, Washington is eligible for parole in November 2006.
During Thursday’s hearing, Haggert argued that Washington agreed to the plea deal because he was afraid he would be convicted of capital murder.
Haggert said Washington also pleaded guilty because police and prosecutors intimidated and threatened witnesses who would have said Washington did not kill Marshall.
Washington was not in the Joint Judicial Center courtroom on Thursday, but participated in the hearing via speaker-phone from Buckingham Correctional Center, near Dillwyn, where he is being held.
He said prosecutors offered his co-defendants lighter sentences in exchange for their testimony against him.
Five men, including Washington, were arrested and charged in connection with Marshall’s death.
Washington was the only one found guilty of murder.
Washington said on Thursday that one of the other four men, John Paul Doleman, made a videotape re-enacting the murder for police investigators, and that the video “never placed me at the crime scene.”
But Assistant Winchester Commonwealth’s Attorney Marc H. Abrams said the evidence showed that Washington killed Marshall. All four of the other men at Marshall’s home that night said Washington was the killer.
[Editor's Note: See other article that states:
Also convicted of Marshall’s murder were John Doleman, Rudolph Powell, William Beamer, and Shawn Polston ]
Also NOTE error of journalist... An Alford Plea is NOT an admission of Guilt, rather an admission of likely being convicted. Due perception of abandonment or less than zealous defense by his defense attorney John Prosser, now "rewarded" with a judgeship, and the manipulation of evidence by the Winchester Criminal Justice system, it was a rational decision by Washington to accept the Alford Plea of No Admission of Guilt but to accept a sentence so to live to be able to appeal the injustice to date rendered.]
"Ever since Washington entered his Alford guilty pleas, his father, Franklin Washington, has embarked on a letter-writing campaign to public officials highlighting what he saw as illegal activity in the Winchester Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office regarding his son’s prosecution.]
[Then again NOTE: that one witness did a video "re-construction of the crime" where Jeff Washington was NOT part of the video. ]
“I think the evidence was very strong — very, very strong — in this particular case that the right person was convicted,” Abrams said.
Winchester prosecutors are pleased with Whisenant’s decision, he said.
“Frankly, it’s been very frustrating to be retrying aspects of cases that took place 10 years ago,” Abrams said. “At some point, there needs to be finality. We can’t just have somebody make a new allegation years down the road and then retry old cases.”
Citing a new analysis of genetic evidence, Virginia's Governor today pardoned a man who had served six and one half years on a rape conviction.
Seven hours later, Walter T. Snyder Jr., 27, walked out of the prison here into the arms of a son, Terrell, who was 1 when his father was arrested. "I'm not bitter," Mr. Snyder said, blaming what he said were overzealous detectives. "Man is so unjust, man to man."
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder said Mr. Snyder was exonerated by a test of DNA from the semen left on the victim. "In the absence of that DNA, the evidence would have been pretty damning," Mr. Wilder said in Richmond. "If it can be used to convict, it must also be used to protect the innocent."
Mr. Snyder's lawyer, Peter J. Neufeld of Manhattan, said he would seek compensation in the courts and Legislature for the "lost years of his youth." Prosecutor Sought Release
The case was unusual because the prosecutor petitioned for Mr. Snyder's release. "Had that evidence been presented at trial, he would have been acquitted," said John E. Kloch, the Commonwealth's Attorney of Alexandria.
"There's only one person who knows whether he committed this crime and that's Walter Snyder," Mr. Kloch said. "But with this evidence there's reasonable doubt in my mind."
Although the DNA test results were complete in December, Mr. Kloch defended the delay in releasing Mr. Snyder. "Virginia is a very cautious state," he said. "Sometimes a citizen can suffer because of that."
The victim of the crime, who now works as an accountant for a home-building company in Northern Virginia, said in an interview that she remained convinced that Mr. Snyder was her assailant. "I can't believe that seven years pass, then pull out a Baggie of evidence and say, 'He's not the one,' " she said. "I have been living in forgiveness. Now everything I had settled in my life is in question." Reaction From Jurors
Three of the 12 jurors who convicted Mr. Snyder said the new evidence warranted his release. "This leads you to wonder how many other errors have been made in other cases," said Walter T. Corson 2d, an environmental policy analyst who was on the jury.
Mr. Snyder had lived with his parents in Alexandria, just outside Washington. He was convicted in 1986 of raping a neighbor who reported that a man with a "puppy dog face" came through her open window and assaulted her until she faked having a heart attack.
Mr. Snyder's mother, Edith L. Snyder, a postal worker who was rearing Terrell, spent $90,000 in most of her spare time trying to free her son. She began researching genetic fingerprinting after Mr. Snyder learned about the process while reading a magazine article in prison. In 1990, a laboratory examining evidence from the Alexandria rape found too little DNA to evaluate. In December, a new technique determined Mr. Snyder was not the attacker.
In issuing the pardon, Mr. Wilder criticized a state law that prevents convicts from introducing new evidence of innocence more than 21 days after their initial appeals are exhausted. "This matter should never have been on the Governor's desk," Mr. Wilder said.
The unconditional pardon means Snyder may file a petition with the state to expunge his record of the conviction, Mr. Kloch said.
Genetic fingerprinting, which has been used primarily by prosecutors since being introduced in United States courts in 1986, has become a tool for the innocent. Several authorities in the field said Mr. Snyder was the latest of about 12 convicts who had used the technique to clear their names since 1990.
"Within months, we will see a tremendous demand for testing," said Dr. William C. Thompson, a criminology professor at the University of California at Irvine. "Word is getting around that this is possible. You wouldn't need a very high rate of false convictions to have an awful lot of people in jail who are not guilty."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDA1331F936A15757C0A965958260