In our area we have recently seen the conviction of what most people would consider to be monsters. There was Wayne Lyle, who came to court initially last week and could not plea coherently because he was crying too hard. After the tears dried at the next hearing, he admitted to the CSC against a 9 year old girl and added another older victim.
Perhaps more horrendous was the crime that Dalton Willard was accused of and admitted to in court two weeks ago. In Grant Township (Mason County), he lured a 9 year old boy into a house where he proceeded to sexually assault him. Immediately afterwards, the boy told his parents of the crime, and Willard was eventually picked out of a line-up.
Cases such like these are just an example of what goes through our court system every week. In both cases the victims were young, but the charges were very credible and immediate. The punishments the perpetrators will get will be well deserved. But then there are other case where you begin to wonder whether our local justice system is maybe too zealous in getting perpetrators of a crime, when perhaps the crime has never been committed, or is based on a flimsy foundation.
Twelve local jurors convicted Sean Phillips of secretly confining his 4 month old daughter, Baby Kate Phillips, without ever being able to determine what exactly has become of her. Twelve new jurors should be getting the chance to weigh the evidence (including any new evidence that has since surfaced) of whether a murder charge is indicated.
The lack of a body and weak circumstantial evidence will be a big hurdle to jump, but many observers of the first trial were summarily surprised by the guilty verdict handed out. The elements the State had to show for 'secret confinement' were set at a rather low threshold, and whether the State can show a "confession" letter of Phillips to the baby's mother indicates the harsher murder charge in the upcoming trial will be interesting to see.
More instructive of prosecutorial zeal on an alleged perpetrator happened in the recent Todd Lane Johnson charges of CSC against a minor. Johnson coached soccer at Mason County Central (Scottville) Schools, and a former MCC student last year came out with charges that she had been molested by Johnson since she was 13 years old, off campus.
Although the MCC Superintendent said he conducted an internal investigation (without any evidence of having did so) and the Mason County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) ducked FOIA requests about the case so as not to 'tamper with the jury pool', public statements were made that did just that. Sheriff Cole said "It (the sexual relationship) was ongoing for several years and started when the player was 13." The now-21 year old woman later admitted to the court that everything was a fabrication, she made the whole story up for reasons known only to her.
Instead of her life being forever damaged by Johnson, his life was forever damaged by her baseless allegations. He was lucky enough to have had her recant at the last minute; if she hadn't we may have had an innocent, civic minded person in prison now.
An investigator needs to be wary when a victim comes out many years after the fact to point fingers for a crime whose occurrence can likely not be proven with any substantial evidence. You are relying on the testimony of a victim who has supposedly been too scared to come forth, with memories, facts, and motives that may not be the too clear. Something, whether it was via counseling or an event, has triggered them to come forth and tell a very personal story to strangers many years later.
The investigator has to make a judgment as to the veracity of the allegations, and if there is not a lot of collaborative evidence but credible testimony by the victim, he must seek the person out who may have committed the crime and check his veracity. Who wants to let a perpetrator of a heinous crime not receive their due punishment? But are we willing to use the power of the State to bear in making an innocent man into a guilty party twelve years after the fact. This may have very well happened in the case of Frederick Lewis.
The Background of the Frederick Lewis Case
In August 16, the public learned of Mr. Lewis when he rejected a plea deal, as reported in the MCP:
Frederick Lewis was arrested on Feb. 12 following an investigation by the Michigan State Police. He was charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct first degree involving a minor under the age of 13. The incidences allegedly took place when the alleged victim was between the ages of 7 and 11, she is now 18. The woman, who now lives in Baldwin, is a relative of Lewis’ and was living in the same Custer Township house during the alleged incidences.
Earlier this week Lewis turned down a plea agreement from Mason County Prosecutor Paul Spaniola. The agreement would have dropped the two counts of CSC first degree and charged Lewis with CSC second degree instead with a sentence of four to 15 years.
A 31-year-old man from Mason County accused of sexually abusing a girl under the age of 13 has accepted a plea agreement, sparing him from the potential of life in prison. Frederick Lewis of Scottville was charged originally with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, that would have resulted in life sentences, for alleged sexual abuse that occurred from 2001-2004. Lewis appeared in court recently to accept a plea deal that changes his charges to criminal sexual conduct, second degree.
<-- Frederick Lewis and his attorney
One would believe justice was served, and a foul criminal not unlike Wayne Lyle and Dalton Willard was finally off the streets. The whole situation had pretty much flew under my radar; I hadn't known Mr. Lewis, and like the vast majority of consumers of the local media, his actions spoke for him. But then others familiar with the case brought some things to my attention concerning this particular case, and now I am left wondering whether the juggernaut of justice in Mason County has made another victim out of a virtuous person, like they did in the Todd Lane Johnson situation.
Both cases involve the testimony of a person that the alleged perpetrator had a modicum of control over, coming out many years later to reveal they were used sexually by them when they were minors. Investigators assumedly questioned Johnson-- who knows when the MCSO shields their records-- and Johnson assumedly maintained he was innocent. As they went to trial, however, he had to worry about potentially serving a lot of years behind bars. The temptation of a plea deal to minimize those years had to have been playing in his mind. Lucky for him one was never accepted, because the State had thrown all of its trust behind a woman who had made up a story.
Frederick Lewis, facing an insistent accuser and what amounted to a 'confession', decided finally in October to accept the lesser charge. The question remains, however: "Is he guilty?". Two people know the answer to that question, but they both have different stories.
Her Story
The victim in this story, I will call her 'Y', is definitely a victim of someone close to her at a very tender age. As early as when she was five she was sexually used by her 11 year old cousin, documented back in the year 2000 in a hospital report:
Following some abnormal behavior by her daughter less than a year after this revelation, her father had 'Y' evaluated. Excerpts therefrom:
'Y' would be in and out of counseling during her formative years over this action by her older cousin, spending time with her father and stepfamily (Frederick included) for a few more years. Over these years, is when the molestation is supposed to have happened with Frederick. This would only be brought to light this year, after more changes had taken place in 'Y's life.
In the summer of 2012, 'Y' moved from her father's household to her mother's. Her mother has been diagnosed as bipolar, and had 'Y's cousin (the one who molested her when she was 5) living with them until she had found out about the past abuse of her and her brother. 'Y' had taken an overdose of pills in January 2013 because of all the stress involved, as these excerpts from a Community Mental Health report indicates:
The final service section of this CMH report was signed on February 7, 2013. Less than a week after that, 'Y' accused (for the very first time) that Frederick Lewis had engaged in criminal sexual contact for years with her when she was very young. The Michigan State Police was sent to investigate whether the allegations had any merit; Trooper Jeffrey Hammond interviewed 'Y' and then went to Mr. Lewis to investigate his involvement. In the transcript of the interrogation he conducts with Frederick shortly after this, Trooper Hammond never mentions any knowledge of 'Y's past, or her known sexual abuse at roughly the same time by her cousin.
Frederick Lewis' Tainted Confession
According to Lewis and his girlfriend, an admitted victim of her own sexual abuse from the past who believes to this day in Frederick's innocence, Tpr. Hammond came to their residence on the morning of February 12, 2013 waking him up after he had been up most of the night. Hammond invited Lewis to go to the Pere Marquette Fire Department to be interviewed about the allegations which had been made by 'Y'. Hammond declined to hold the interview at the residence, he insisted that they 'voluntarily' go to the PMFD, waiting for an answer as he rested his hands on his service revolver and taser.
Believing it was an offer he could not refuse, Frederick assented and was driven by his girlfriend to the PMFD after Hammond left in his cruiser to go there. When he got there, the girlfriend was denied entry to the interrogation. Hammond went out of his way to tell Lewis he was not under arrest, and implied he wasn't being detained, but the transcript reveals him using some sort of unnamed law and legal purpose that prevented her from being in the room even at Lewis' request:
So a tired Lewis was placed in a room alone with a Trooper, and the questioning began. Throughout the 'interview' Hammond never gives Lewis his Miranda Rights, nor does he intimate that Lewis has the freedom to leave without doing the interview, and not be arrested. In fact he often gives Lewis two alternatives: 1) to admit the events happened and receive leniency or 2) to admit that nothing happened, in which case the law would bear full on him as the other side has 'scientifically proven' their case already.
And not much later:
Fred rarely gets to complete a sentence, and so the backstory of 'Y's CSC at her cousin's never sees light. He does note that the original time period 'Y' used was during a time he had a convenient alibi. This bit of exculpatory data didn't spark much interest in Trooper Hammond:
Even after Lewis relates some of the past allegations 'Y' has made which include her biological father and others (that are part of the record that the trooper shows no knowledge of), Hammond continues the hammer:
Young victims of molestation can often displace the aggressor and transmit false memories, even enough to pass a polygraph. Hammond further insists on the given account by 'Y' as incontrovertibly fact. The only thing to determine is if it was forced, or something else. Even though his younger brother corroborates Fred's version it is used to further press the issue when he says she was in Fred's room cleaning it on occasion.
Fred continues to be harangued by the trooper, who stresses a point he has made implicit throughout most of the interview: that either Frederick is a sick pervert who forced himself on this girl or someone who gave in to base instincts:
A couple minutes more into the interview, it is condensed by Hammond into two choices, where confession works out best for all:
And if it wasn't completely clear:
And over the next hour, with the threat of hard jail time if he didn't confess because of all the scientific proof of his guilt, Frederick Lewis listened to what he needed to do, so that he could have the best result for his future. With the promise of a lighter sentence and counseling if he capitulated, he agreed to the lesser of two evil choices he was given.
Epilogue:
Most of us do not know Fred Lewis or 'Y', myself included. But his story is at least a cautionary tale to those who are not sure of their rights when dealing with police officers. Lewis could have left at any time, however, this knowledge was not passed to him. He could have asked to have a lawyer present, or even his girlfriend present (which was denied, as surely as was any mention of anything close to a Miranda Warning). He could have went silent, and it would not have been used against him any more than if he decided to cite the "Gettysburg Address" instead of answering any questions.
Beyond this, it was found out later that there was no 'juvenile polygraph' administered to 'Y', and her testimony was accepted at face value, under no duress. Unlike the antagonistic and threatening interview Fred received.
Much of what Hammond offered wasn't true, police officers do have the right to exaggerate and lie in the course of interrogations, but according to Hammond this was not an interrogation. Nobody else has corroborated her story about Fred, nor have the officials thought that her debasement at the age of five to her young cousin, along with her psychological problems that led to an attempt on her life earlier this year, had any effect on Trooper Hammond's tactics in holding this interrogation.
According to police officer.com the law when it comes to police lying to suspects to get confessions: •Courts agree due process requires that confessions be voluntary. That means they can't be coerced. •Courts agree coercion can be psychological as well as physical. •Most courts agree they'll decide whether the confession was voluntary or coerced based on a "totality of the circumstances."
Totality of the circumstances can include: •Police conduct - what officers say and do and how they say and do it, e.g., the length of the interrogation and whether police offer refreshment or breaks. •The environment - e.g., are police questioning the suspect in a 6' X 8' windowless room where they stand between him and the only exit? •The suspect's age and mental status. •Etc. - anything else that bears on the coercive nature, or not, of the interrogation.
The main evidence against Frederick Lewis is that he has a signed confession by himself admitting to what he thought would get him out of doing hard jail time, as proposed by Trooper Hammond. Hammond's tactics did get a confession, but was it legit or forced out of an innocent man? This is probably enough to convict in a court and area known to be hard on crime. But is it the truth, and will we see justice for either party here?
Over two weeks ago, I sent a FOIA request to the Michigan State Police asking about their policies/training manuals on interrogation of suspects and for the training that Trooper Hammond had in this regard. Contrary to that act, I have received nothing from them in return, only a notice that the FOIA Coordinator is on break until December 2nd.
Frederick Lewis goes to court at 9:00 AM on Tuesday, December 3rd to find out how long he goes to prison for one count of CSC second degree based on the allegations of 'Y' and the plea deal he was forced to take after signing the confession he was forced to make. He will have a scarlet 'sex offender' label with him for likely the rest of his life once he does get out. I have a gut feeling that he may be innocent, and the system may be guilty.
We need not go beyond our own courthouse for a classic case of this, Jasper. A young woman claims she was carrying on a sexual relationship with the coach of MCC Girl's Soccer for years. She goes to the Mason County sheriff, files a report, and the coach gets investigated and raked through the coals (Coles?) as far as his reputation is concerned. Kim Cole even declares as factual on page one of the COLDNews that the coach carried on this relationship for years and goes through the woman's version of events.
It goes to court, the coach wisely denies any kind of plea deal, and the woman recants her story. From some extra background I have received, it's a wonder that the prosecution took it as far as they did with all the inconsistencies. Here, the charges look even less believable, but you have to counter a coerced confession, gotten through making threats against a learning disabled young man to either: 1) not confess and receive a harsh punishment or 2) confess and just receive a token punishment and counseling. All without any Miranda warnings in what was a custodial interrogation.
Your post proves my point. I recall this case! It is beyond maddening people make these "accusations," and the accused are automatically assumed "guilty," without any evidence.
Filing false police reports is punishable under some law? Why are these laws not enforced???
You guys are maddening and incredibly inaccuratem you have sealed medical records that are illegal for you to have anf the way you got them was also illegal becasue they "custodial" parents also had no right to them. It is not public knowledge. Also the information you are being given and so willingly listening to is from Fred's mother of course she believes he is innocent. As for the cousing thats none of your business and is also sealed record. Were talking about a little girl who not only was taken advantage of once on her life but by two different people. Is that all it takes you just got to rape a previois rape victim and everybody beleives your innocent. Im personally disgusted with all of you and your accusations and
false information.
We're talking about a 6 year old chold whos life was threated if she ever told. A child who even though fred was no longer in the home lived with her father and freds mother. Going through this case ten years later was hell enough but if she had come forth earlier in her life when she still lived with her father and step mother her life wouldve been a bigger living nightmare. As you can read in above comments his mother is a little psycho. When thw girl got the chance to get out of that home to better her life by moving to her mothers closer to a better college she did. She had a really hard tjme adjusting to being at her moms i steaf of her dads because she loved and missed both of them. The step mother may not be her real mother but she raised her and holds a very special place in her heart and it hurts the most that in order to have justice she had to lose her and barely can see her father because she is not allowed in his home because of the conflict. These issues and stress of school and college are what made the victim overdose where she was forced into mandatory couseling. Where she then finally admitted to all the bottled up pain. The fact that none of your information is correct is very aggravating and your source of information is lying to protect her son. He repeatedly switched lawyers and if there had been any evidence he was innocent he wouldnt be in prison. There is lots of evidence that he is guilty. He also admitted guilt repeatedly and even tried to say that the victim raped him. Can u imagine a 6 year old little girl raping a 19 year old man.
My sources, as noted, are clinical records signed by medical professionals a decade closer to the time of the alleged improprieties. It would be foolish to base a belief of a person's innocence solely because the mother of that person thinks that person is innocent, I am not doing that here, nor is anyone else I know of.
The only 'evidence' to date that Frederick has done what has led him to hard prison time is the testimony of one person, who we can both admit, had their own issues at the time that led them to choose a dangerous path for themselves. You seem to believe that college and school pressures were roughly equivalent to the internal conflict in keeping the past deeds secret in the mind of this woman, and that in itself is revealing.
As for the coerced confession in a custodial interrogation, he was stripped of basic rights, raped by the system into putting down on paper what they wanted him to write and in my re-reading of the interrogation transcript, has not what you mentioned about him saying that she raped him without a stretch of the imagination. You are, as always, free to offer your proofs.
But there really is no need to fabricate any case further, he is serving his time in prison for deeds real or imagined, that he flatly denied before he was told that the woman's lie detector test was incontrovertible evidence against him and his only hope for leniency was to confess to a crime that may have been as real as that supposed lie detector test.
I think it would be heinous for society to allow a child molester to remain free when there is enough evidence to convict him, but it would be even more heinous for society to put one innocent man behind bars based on an illegal interrogation and the mercurial memories of a troubled teen many years later.
I can't imagine what a heavy burden it would be to have knowingly accused someone else of a heinous crime that never happened and as a result the accused is thrown into prison for many years with their good name forever tarnished. I can't imagine hating anybody so much that I could do such an unscrupulous act, but there are people in this world who have no such reservations.
Did that happen here? Only Frederick and the victim know for sure, and at least one of them is not telling the full truth. Thanks for your input, Kelly.
I didnt change anything. He has his information wrong.i dont care if you know who i am. Your twisting mt words first of my information never changed you guys have your information. Also never said i didmt know thomas rees of course i do he is my cousin. They were no longer my legal guardians and i never wanted the family split up did you miss that part i love bonnie more then anything she raised me i would never want to lose her. It breaks my heart that she will have nothing to do with me. Oh and lets not forget i didnt know trooper Hammond had never met him before all of this. I guess if you were engaged to him i feel sorry for you but just because your child rapist fiance is behind bars for crimes he did commit does not mean you should attack me.
This sad story came out of Grand Rapids just yesterday:
Her testimony helped send an innocent man to prison for sexual assault for 17 years. Now, the woman who kept the secret for more than 23 years is telling her story.
“Everything I try to do good. It just never worked. It was just something that was eating at me,” the now 34-year-old victim, who 24 Hour News 8 is not naming, said on Wednesday.
She has admitted to helping frame a then-16-year-old neighbor for her 1991 rape. The Kent County Prosecutor’s Office said last week that Quentin Carter had been wrongfully convicted of the criminal sexual conduct charge, for which he spent 17 years behind bars.
The victim was just 10 years old when the assault happened. Her mother had become involved with Aurelias Marshall and he moved in with the mother and daughter. The victim described him as controlling and abusive.
“He came in to the household and everything changed,” the victim said.
The rape and beating — allegedly at the hands of Marshall, authorities now say — prompted the victim’s mother to take her to the hospital in October 1991. Police got involved, but Marshall had control over the victim and her mother.
Marshall came up with a name on some discarded mail while going through a neighbor’s garbage, the victim said, and decided to pin the assault on Carter, who lived nearby.
“They wrote out what they wanted me to say, and who were involved and what was suppose to have transpired,” the victim said, describing the plan she claims Marshall and her mother formulated.
The victim said Marshall had a vicious way to guarantee his freedom:
“He beat me until I said that Quentin did it,” she said.
Carter was just 16 when the victim’s testimony in court led to a guilty verdict.
“It was hell because I was sitting on the stand and I knew it wasn’t real,” the victim said.
Carter served 17 years in prison. His minimum sentence was six years, but he was repeatedly denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, take part counseling programs for people convicted of sex crimes and didn’t show remorse.
The prosecutor’s office has filed a motion to set aside Carter’s conviction, but it has not yet been approved by a judge. Until it is, he will remain on the state sex offender’s registry.
But for years, the victim hid the truth that could have set Carter free. If given the chance, what would she say to him today?
“I really don’t know what I’d say. Because an apology just ain’t enough,’ said the woman, demonstrating the stark reality of one lie and its devastating affect on two lives.
She doubts he would even accept any attempt to apologize.
“You can’t just apologize to somebody being what he went through,” she said. “You can’t.”
While Carter spent 17 years in prison, the lie created the victim’s personal prison.
“If you’re going through something like this, don’t hold it. Just don’t hold it. Because if you do, you’re going to live with a nightmare for the rest of your life,” she said.
Her advice to others who might find themselves in a similar situation is to find someone who will listen “and is willing to give you help, and just supporting you.”
LANSING, MI — When Donya Davis left prison after serving seven years for a crime he didn't commit, the state of Michigan gave him a parting gift: His own ID and four condoms.
"That was my 'coming home' package. Nowhere to stay, not even a hotel for three days so you can at least get a chance to breathe," Davis, a 28-year-old from Detroit, said of his release last June. "No, it's go home, out in the streets."
Davis had been sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2007 after a sexual assault victim identified him in a police lineup. Post-conviction DNA testing, requested on his behalf by the Cooley Law School Innocence Project, linked another man to the crime.
He was released last summer when his defense attorneys won a motion for a new trial and, in November, prosecutors dismissed the charges against him.
While Davis was behind bars, his mother was on the outside fighting for her son. She helped support his kids, tried to provide for him in prison, spent her savings on attorneys and eventually had to give up her home.
Davis has had a hard time finding a job due to the stigma of the case, he said. He and his mom, a registered nurse, are both now living in his grandmother's basement.
"I've never been angry, just disappointed," Denis Larry, Davis' mom, said as she fought back tears. "I'm one of those people that believes in the system, and all the way to the end, I kept saying 'It won't happen. Somebody's going to say this is incorrect.'"
Davis and a group of other wrongly convicted exonerees traveled to Lansing on Tuesday for a hearing on House Bill 4536, a bipartisan proposal that would see the state compensate them for their time behind bars.
Under the proposal, as introduced and advanced to the House floor in a 8-0 vote by the Criminal Justice Committee, they could qualify for $60,000 for each year spent in prison, along with economic damages and attorney fees.
A person seeking reimbursement would have to prove he or she was convicted of a crime, spent time in a state correctional facility and was later exonerated as a result of new evidence. By accepting the compensation, that person would waive his or her right to sue the state.
Thirty states and the federal government provide some form of compensation for wrongful imprisonment, according to sponsoring Rep. Stephanie Chang, making Michigan and outlier.
"When an individual is proven innocent after years of wrongful incarceration, the least they should expect is a state that wants to help make it right," said Chang, D-Detroit.
The wrongfully incarcerated don't just lose time, according to Sen. Steve Bieda, D-Warren, who has championed compensation legislation for years. Their job skills fade, relationships are damaged and they don't qualify for felon re-entry programs.
"The lives and reputations of these individuals have been devastated as a result of being in prison for a crime they did not commit," he said, "It's time for the state to do the right thing."
It's believed that 55 people exonerated from previous convictions have been released from Michigan prisons since the late 1980s.
Similar legislation has made it out of committee in previous sessions only to stall on the floor, but David Moran of the University of Michigan Innocence Clinic said he thinks there is "real momentum" this year.
Supporters were encouraged when Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, in his special message on criminal justice reform last month, called for legislation to help exonerees "get back on their feet" after a wrongful conviction.
Lawmakers on the House panel appeared to embrace the compensation concept, but there was some debate over funding. The bill does not include an appropriation, meaning lawmakers may have to budget out money for the program in the future.
"I'd hate to have something brought into law without funding, otherwise it's just an empty shell," said Rep. Kurt Heise, R-Plymouth Township, who chairs the committee.
Bieda estimates compensating the wrongly convicted could cost the state $15 million in year one, but he said those costs would fall significantly in future years once a backlog is cleared. Less than two wrongly convicted inmates are exonerated each year, he said.
The state may have already saved some money by removing innocent residents from prison, according to state Rep. Martin Howrylak, R-Troy. It costs an estimated $34,800 a year to incarcerate an individual in prison.
"$60,000 seems a little low to me," said Howrylak, noting time behind bars means less time with a spouse or child. "Do you think your life is worth more than $60,000 a year?"
Jonathan Oosting is a Capitol reporter for MLive Media Group. Email him, find him onFacebook or follow him on Twitter.
There was another case in the Grand Rapids area regarding a house fire that killed a man's wife and children. This man(father) was accused of intentionally setting the fire. He spent years in prison, while claiming his innocence. He was released from prison Iast year, after it was discovered he could not have committed the crime he was accused of. I will find a link to this sad story of many people that are falsely imprisoned.
Prisons are full of men and women who claim they’re innocent.
Imran Syed has made it his life’s mission to prove that some actually are, and that their cases are both tragic and fixable.
“The reason we struggle to do this kind of work is because people don’t really know enough, and if people knew enough, they would definitely be on the side of the innocent person who is trying to get out of prison,” said Syed, a staff attorney with the University of Michigan Innocence Clinic, which has helped secure the release of 25 innocent prisoners since it began in 2009. “So that’s why I’ll do anything I can to raise awareness about these cases and how tragic they are, and how random they are.”
Syed, 27, looks forward to being the keynote speaker at a Law Day event at the Country Club of Jackson on May 1 because he is eager for more people to realize the tragedy of these situations, as well as the fact that something can be done.
Syed will talk about his work as a staff attorney and teaching fellow at the University of Michigan Innocence Clinic, and some of the big, eye-opening cases.
While it’s a wonderful thing to free the innocent, it’s far better for the injustice to never have occurred in the first place, said Syed.
“I find that when I do these talks, people aren’t even aware of what our clinic does and of our more significant cases,” he said.
These cases have nothing to do with what kind of person the defendant is, he said.
“We make mistakes in life—prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, everyone does,” said Syed. “If there’s no way to correct them, then there are some massive injustices just sitting around.”
Syed was a University of Michigan law student in 2010 when he first learned about David Gavitt. In 1985, Gavitt was a 26-year-old husband and father of two when a fire broke out in his Ionia home after he and his wife had gone into their bedroom, leaving the television on and candles burning in the living room.
Despite Gavitt’s attempts to rescue them, his wife and two daughters were killed in the fire, and Gavitt was eventually sentenced to life in prison as an arsonist and murderer.
He then spent the next 27 years in prison wondering who had killed his family. After all, the prosecution had proved it was arson, and even his own defense attorney hadn’t challenged the state’s determination that an arsonist had started the fire.
As it turned out, no one had set the fire. Syed’s team closely examined the science used to convict him, and proved it was junk; that there was no evidence of arson, and that it was most likely accidental.
A few decades ago, experts made false assumptions about how fires behave, and the usual investigative process was thereby skipped, Syed said. So for many years, people involved in those fires were sometimes wrongly imprisoned. And while not every one is innocent, Syed believes that every one does deserve a fresh look at the case now that it is known that the scientific underpinning of those assumptions was completely false, and that arson fires and accidental fires can leave behind the same physical markers.
On June 6, 2012, Gavitt was released from prison, with Syed at his side.
The single biggest thing to reduce wrongful convictions in this state would be to form an organized, independent public defender office across the street, he said.
He doesn’t like the county-by-county model, but said Washtenaw County’s Public Defender Office is not only unique, but immensely better than other counties.
“Having an independent office the way Washtenaw County does would be far, far better for a county like Wayne than just having cases assigned at the judge’s whim, which is what happens right now,” he said.
Some cases involve junk science, jailhouse snitches, lying witnesses, and ineffective attorneys.
He hopes the case of David Gavitt will prove that such injustices happen to ordinary people just like them.
“The fact that a case like David Gavitt’s can be won today says something good about our state,” he said. “It says that we don’t slam the door on people like this.”
Right now, the Michigan Innocence Clinic is helping a Battle Creek man, Andrew Babick, who is serving a life sentence for the 1995 fire which led to the deaths of two children. Syed said the evidence of arson was again, junk science.
“He’s done enough time in prison for something he didn’t do,” he said.
Syed, of Canton, had a job with a Detroit law firm all lined up when he was graduating, but when the fulltime staff attorney at the Innocence Clinic came up—with a salary of less than half of what the other job paid—he jumped at it.
“The legal profession gets a bad rap for greedy lawyers doing disgusting things,” he said, “when the reality is that there are a lot of people in law school who are here for the right reasons.”
This is such a sad story! And the first thing this man(father, husband) after his release was visit the graves of his wife and children!
ONIA, Mich. (WZZM) - A man who spent 26 in prison for the arson deaths of his wife and two young daughters is suing Ionia County police and prosecutors for obstruction of justice and malicious prosecution stemming from a 1986 conviction based on faulty evidence.
David Gavitt was sentenced to life in prison for starting a fire in March,1985 that killed his family. Prosecutors say he used gasoline to start the fire, but tests conducted four years ago proved otherwise.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, says the defendants conspired to create a false case against Gavitt, 56, who now lives in Portage.
"He didn't do anything wrong,'' attorney J. Paul Janes said. "The government convicted him of a crime that didn't occur, and put him away for 26 years in prison and threw away the key.''
Fire investigators suspected arson because of burn patterns inside the house. A State Police crime lab test on carpet samples showed traces of gasoline, but subsequent tests done on behalf of the Innocence Clinic proved otherwise, Janes said.
Gavitt, 26 at the time, suffered burns and severe cuts to his arm and burns trying to save his family from the March 9, 1985 fire at 515 N. Johnson Street in Ionia. His wife Angela and his 3-year-old and 11-month-old daughters were found dead in the girls' bedroom.
Friday marks the two-year anniversary of Gavitt's release from prison based on efforts by the Innocence Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School.
Gavitt is having a hard time adjusting to life outside of prison, Janes said, noting his client didn't receive transitional services afforded prisoners released on parole. "They just said 'there's the door, you're on your own,''' he said. "It's terrible.''
The suit alleges that a state police fire marshal wrongly concluded Gavitt was an arsonist, even though there was no evidence of financial motive, eyewitness testimony or known criminal behavior.
Errors like what happened in Gavitt's case are not isolated, Janes said. The state police in 1981 conceded fire debris samples were being contaminated when investigators put the samples in plastic butter containers. And in 1985, vapors from liquid toner in a new office copy machine was found to be skewing test results, he said.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, is one of two filed this year against arson investigators.
A Cadillac man convicted of burning down his house in 2008 spent six years in prison before he was freed in January. He's suing the state for withholding evidence.
"David stayed in prison for 26 years,'' Janes said. "It doesn't stop. Once they knew there was a problem in their system they had an obligation to disclose it to David and his attorneys. They never did. He proved his innocence, now we need to figure out why the system got it wrong.''
