American_Trotskyist
24th April 2005, 08:34
Quatman tells his version of California death row retrial case
Posted: Thursday, Apr 07, 2005 - 09:29:38 am PDT
By CHRISTINE HENSLEIGH
Whitefish Pilot
In a case that continues to be a potential Pandora's box for Alameda County Attorney's office and the inmates they sent to death row, Whitefish attorney Jack Quatman steadfastly holds to his version of events, despite a ruling by a California Superior Court Judge that stated the evidence he presented was untrue.
Quatman testified for one day during the five day evidentiary hearing regarding a request for a retrial for Fred Freeman. Quatman successfully prosecuted Freeman and won his death penalty in 1987. His testimony was part of a evidentiary hearing and not a trial. The hearing was ordered after Quatman submitted the five page affadivit to Freeman's lawyer.
At the center of a media frenzy is a singular paragraph in Quatman's affidavit stating that presiding Judge Samuel Golde advised him that people of Jewish descent would never sentence a man to death. The five page affidavit also outlined Quatman's concerns as to the competency of Freeman's attorneys and that the fact that Freeman was deaf affected his understanding of the case.
The attention paid to the paragraph pertaining to jury selection was a surprise to Quatman, who considered other aspects more pressing.
President Bush
is fighting
frivolous
lawsuits
The President agrees the only way to stop this crisis is for Congress to pass common-sense medical liability reform now!
Save the U.S. Healthcare System.
Click here.
"My problem with the case was that his lawyers did a horrible job and that's not fair. Who knew that (jury selection) would be the issue?" he said.
The judge limited Quatman's testimony regarding prejudiced jury selection to only the Freeman case; Quatman maintains that such practices were common in the county attorney's office. Because of the limited scope of the hearing, evidence to support Quatman's claims of system wide prejudice was not allowed.
"The facts are there, the statistics are there," Quatman asserted in an interview Tuesday evening, citing an independent study by defense attorney Lawrence Gibbs that found Jewish jurors were excluded in 93 percent of California death row cases and that a statistician stated that the odds of that occurring as one in 5 million.
As proof of the practice, Quatman pointed to the fact that he passed along Judge Golde's statement during a highly rated 1993 symposium on tactics for death row prosecutions to a group of 200 lawyers, including a co-instructor from the San Mateo district attorney's office who was aware that such practices would invalidate a trial.
Quatman and Golde were portrayed by the media and the state's attorney as "colluding" to send Freeman to death row. Quatman described the statement as "paternal advice". Quatman considered Golde a friend and mentor.
Because death penalty juries must reach a unanimous decision both on a defendant's guilt and the penalty of death, each juror is crucial to a victory.
"That one juror makes all the difference. Defense attorneys count on it, and prosecutors fear that," explained Phyllis Quatman.
Phyllis Quatman, who served as her husband's lawyer in court, characterized the decision by the court as defensive of the California system.
"They don't want to open the door. They've invested everything in these (death penalty) cases and they don't want to see them overturned," she surmised, noting that death penalty prosecutions require extensive resources and labor.
According to Quatman, the attacks used to discredit him, waged largely in the media and by the Alameda County Prosecutor's office, have been damaging.
"Because of the tenor of the stuff in the media, people have been coming up to me at the gym and wondering if I've been disbarred," Quatman said.
City judge Brad Johnson testified on Quatman's behalf; local attorney Sean Frampton testified for the state and against Quatman. In an unusual twist, Kalispell attorney Dave Stufft was originally slated to testify against Quatman for the state, but ended up testifying on behalf of Quatman.
Quatman opened this Pandora's Box after a casual conversation with a friend and mentor of his wife set off tales of old legal battles. The attorney, Scott Kauffman, was visiting for his work on the California appellate project where Phyllis Quatman represents indigent defendants on death row. Kauffman asked if Quatman would consider talking to Freeman's lawyer.
Quatman hesitated at first, stating that he didn't want to "burn his old office or Stan Golde". But after a couple of weeks of consideration he decided to come forward. Despite the harsh treatment by the media and his former colleagues, Quatman is not recanting his statements.
"It's a guy's life. Given the nationwide bad press, it's hurt us. But you've got to do what is right," he asserted.
Transcripts of the hearing will now go to the California Supreme Court, who will make an independent decision on the whether or not to grant Freeman a retrial. Quatman's testimony will also be reconsidered at that point.
Though Quatman's testimony is officially concluded for the Freeman case, his statements will continue to haunt California prosecutors because it can be used for other death row inmates seeking a retrial. On March 9, Quatman was petitioned for another appeals case.
While an official ruling has been rendered, the sentiment stated in that single paragraph may not go away.
"I don't think this will go away with the judge's ruling," Phyllis Quatman stated, noting the personal cost of his testimony, "There's been nothing but downside for Jack coming forth and telling the truth."
http://www.whitefishpilot.com/articles/200...news/news02.txt (http://www.whitefishpilot.com/articles/2005/04/07/news/news02.txt)
I found this last night searching google, it seems like Serpico all over again to me.
Posted: Thursday, Apr 07, 2005 - 09:29:38 am PDT
By CHRISTINE HENSLEIGH
Whitefish Pilot
In a case that continues to be a potential Pandora's box for Alameda County Attorney's office and the inmates they sent to death row, Whitefish attorney Jack Quatman steadfastly holds to his version of events, despite a ruling by a California Superior Court Judge that stated the evidence he presented was untrue.
Quatman testified for one day during the five day evidentiary hearing regarding a request for a retrial for Fred Freeman. Quatman successfully prosecuted Freeman and won his death penalty in 1987. His testimony was part of a evidentiary hearing and not a trial. The hearing was ordered after Quatman submitted the five page affadivit to Freeman's lawyer.
At the center of a media frenzy is a singular paragraph in Quatman's affidavit stating that presiding Judge Samuel Golde advised him that people of Jewish descent would never sentence a man to death. The five page affidavit also outlined Quatman's concerns as to the competency of Freeman's attorneys and that the fact that Freeman was deaf affected his understanding of the case.
The attention paid to the paragraph pertaining to jury selection was a surprise to Quatman, who considered other aspects more pressing.
President Bush
is fighting
frivolous
lawsuits
The President agrees the only way to stop this crisis is for Congress to pass common-sense medical liability reform now!
Save the U.S. Healthcare System.
Click here.
"My problem with the case was that his lawyers did a horrible job and that's not fair. Who knew that (jury selection) would be the issue?" he said.
The judge limited Quatman's testimony regarding prejudiced jury selection to only the Freeman case; Quatman maintains that such practices were common in the county attorney's office. Because of the limited scope of the hearing, evidence to support Quatman's claims of system wide prejudice was not allowed.
"The facts are there, the statistics are there," Quatman asserted in an interview Tuesday evening, citing an independent study by defense attorney Lawrence Gibbs that found Jewish jurors were excluded in 93 percent of California death row cases and that a statistician stated that the odds of that occurring as one in 5 million.
As proof of the practice, Quatman pointed to the fact that he passed along Judge Golde's statement during a highly rated 1993 symposium on tactics for death row prosecutions to a group of 200 lawyers, including a co-instructor from the San Mateo district attorney's office who was aware that such practices would invalidate a trial.
Quatman and Golde were portrayed by the media and the state's attorney as "colluding" to send Freeman to death row. Quatman described the statement as "paternal advice". Quatman considered Golde a friend and mentor.
Because death penalty juries must reach a unanimous decision both on a defendant's guilt and the penalty of death, each juror is crucial to a victory.
"That one juror makes all the difference. Defense attorneys count on it, and prosecutors fear that," explained Phyllis Quatman.
Phyllis Quatman, who served as her husband's lawyer in court, characterized the decision by the court as defensive of the California system.
"They don't want to open the door. They've invested everything in these (death penalty) cases and they don't want to see them overturned," she surmised, noting that death penalty prosecutions require extensive resources and labor.
According to Quatman, the attacks used to discredit him, waged largely in the media and by the Alameda County Prosecutor's office, have been damaging.
"Because of the tenor of the stuff in the media, people have been coming up to me at the gym and wondering if I've been disbarred," Quatman said.
City judge Brad Johnson testified on Quatman's behalf; local attorney Sean Frampton testified for the state and against Quatman. In an unusual twist, Kalispell attorney Dave Stufft was originally slated to testify against Quatman for the state, but ended up testifying on behalf of Quatman.
Quatman opened this Pandora's Box after a casual conversation with a friend and mentor of his wife set off tales of old legal battles. The attorney, Scott Kauffman, was visiting for his work on the California appellate project where Phyllis Quatman represents indigent defendants on death row. Kauffman asked if Quatman would consider talking to Freeman's lawyer.
Quatman hesitated at first, stating that he didn't want to "burn his old office or Stan Golde". But after a couple of weeks of consideration he decided to come forward. Despite the harsh treatment by the media and his former colleagues, Quatman is not recanting his statements.
"It's a guy's life. Given the nationwide bad press, it's hurt us. But you've got to do what is right," he asserted.
Transcripts of the hearing will now go to the California Supreme Court, who will make an independent decision on the whether or not to grant Freeman a retrial. Quatman's testimony will also be reconsidered at that point.
Though Quatman's testimony is officially concluded for the Freeman case, his statements will continue to haunt California prosecutors because it can be used for other death row inmates seeking a retrial. On March 9, Quatman was petitioned for another appeals case.
While an official ruling has been rendered, the sentiment stated in that single paragraph may not go away.
"I don't think this will go away with the judge's ruling," Phyllis Quatman stated, noting the personal cost of his testimony, "There's been nothing but downside for Jack coming forth and telling the truth."
http://www.whitefishpilot.com/articles/200...news/news02.txt (http://www.whitefishpilot.com/articles/2005/04/07/news/news02.txt)
I found this last night searching google, it seems like Serpico all over again to me.