http://www.justiceontrial.org/blog/ - <strong> “ACTUAL INNOCENCE” --- IRRELEVANT TO THE COURTS?</strong>

“ACTUAL INNOCENCE” --- IRRELEVANT TO THE COURTS?

Posted by: Justice On Trial

If a convicted person can show evidence of his claim of innocence, will the courts listen?

Probably not. Former Live Oak, Florida resident, Roy Wilford Minton, in the 14th year of a life sentence for a crime he claims he did not commit, submitted to an extensive polygraph test in March. Dr. Louis Rovner, one of the top five polygraph examiners in the U.S., confirmed Minton’s claim of innocence: "After reviewing, analyzing and evaluating the polygraph test, there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Minton was telling the truth when he denied sexually molesting his stepdaughter."

Polygraph examinations, if stipulated to by the defense, prosecution and court can be admitted as evidence, and often are, in many states, including Florida. The polygraph is now used extensively, especially in sex offender cases, in the state of Florida, to verify there have been no re-offenses.

However, in spite of the prevalent use of such examinations at many levels of law enforcement and in the court system, since Minton’s exam is only evidence of “actual innocence” (as differentiated from a verdict of guilt or innocence resulting from a “fair trial”) the courts may consider it irrelevant. William Kent, a prominent Jacksonville attorney, said it best: “…The courts are not receptive to claims of actual innocence as a basis for relief - - - I know that is crazy but that is what the courts say.”

Previously, Minton claimed ineffective counsel at trial since his court-appointed attorney failed to present the evidence proving that Minton was never alone with the alleged victim and, because of his physical anomalies, could not possibly have performed the acts described in court. Moreover, Minton can prove that the place where the acts were alleged to have occurred did not exist at the time of the incident and photo-verified that the physical conditions in another area that was similar to what the victim described rendered it a physical impossibility for the acts to have occurred there. There is no DNA or other direct evidence linking Minton to the crimes and the medical examination of the victim failed to indicate the alleged acts ever occurred in the way described by her.

Minton’s attorney also failed to present to the jury the body of evidence pointing to coercion of the victim by the investigators who questioned her, some of whom were unqualified to conduct such interviews. The release of the 22nd defendant wrongfully convicted in the Kern County, California child molestation trials, is indicative of law enforcement fervor to convict overriding psychological prudence in the handling of children who are being questioned. In addition, the jury at Minton’s trial was never presented with the evidence of additional coercion by family members, some previously convicted of sexual crimes, who had opportunities to have molested the victim during the times and at the place alleged by the victim.

A new writ of habeas corpus will soon be filed on Minton’s behalf in the hopes the courts and prosecutors will consider the issue of Minton’s claim of, and significant evidence indicating, his actual innocence.

For more information on this case, contact Justice On Trial, 877-275-9463 or Info@JusticeOnTrial.org.