Practice Areas

• Auto Accident
• Business Litigation
• Criminal Defense
• Will Contest

Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

(UPDATE: Datline NBC ran a story based on the events below. Click here to watch)

Anyone who has seen an episode of Cops is aware of that staple of the American criminal justice system: “All suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty.” Yet, deep down, what are you really thinking when you see the cops show up to arrest someone? Let’s be honest, a lot of people assume that once a person is charged with a crime, they are probably guilty of it.

This assumption of guilt is one of the biggest problems we face today in the criminal justice system. Why? Because the assumption of guilt completely ignores the spirit and purpose of the burden of the State to prove a suspect to be guilty. Not every suspect is guilty. Not every lead is correct. Not every charge will wind up with a guilty verdict. The reason that you and I enjoy the right to a jury trial is because one of the most important principles of this country is that of liberty. To take away a person’s liberty is one of the most drastic steps the State can take against a citizen. Putting a person in jail is a deprivation of his or her liberty. That is why the burden of proving guilt is so important.

You’re probably thinking that this is just spin from a criminal defense attorney. Some of you probably think that people charged with crimes were probably up to no good, and it’s fair to assume they are guilty. After all, it’s not like people are wrongfully charged or give false confessions…right?

Wrong.

I’d like to share a story with you about an unfortunate series of events that happened just south of us in Omaha, Nebraska. In April of 2006, Wayne and Sharmon Stock were found shot to death in their rural home. The local authorities didn’t’ have many leads, so they focused on family members, and ended up focusing on Matt Livers.

Matt is mildly mentally retarded, and has no experience dealing with the police before. Matt is easily intimidated, and very impressionable. The investigating agents allegedly interrogate Matt for nearly 18 hours. The agents try every trick in the book. They tell Matt that he will get the death penalty if he doesn’t confess. They tell Matt he failed a polygraph test, even though he didn’t. They lie about evidence and tell him they know he was at the home when the murders happened.

So here sits Matt. Matt can’t really understand what is going on around him. He wants to please the agents, and wants to help in any way he can. Matt is hungry and thirsty after hours of being questioned, but the agents don’t give him food or drink. Matt is cold, but the agents do nothing to make him more comfortable. Finally, after 18 hours of questioning, Matt confesses to the murders of Wayne and Sharmon Stock, and implicates his cousin Nicholas Sampson.

The thing is, Matt isn’t able to provide many details about what happened. The facts he gets right are those he learned from relatives. The only way he gives a full confession by being spoon-fed the details. At this point, there is absolutely no evidence linking Matt to the killing. However, agents eventually find DNA from one victim (Wayne) in the car of Will Sampson, Nicholas Sampson’s brother. The car is identified by Matt as the car he was driving the night of the murder. Interestingly enough, however, the DNA was not found in the car on the first inspection. It is only at the second inspection, using a wet swab, that DNA is supposedly found.

Less than two months after Matt is arrested, evidence inside the home leads investigators to a Wisconsin couple, Gregory Fenster, and Jessica Reid. The investigators find a ring owned by Jessica, and DNA on a marijuana pipe found at the scene links to Jessica and Gregory. The victims’ DNA is also found on Jessica’s shirt. The two both confess, and neither mention Matt being involved in the murder. The investigators charge the couple with murder, but still don’t drop the charge against Matt.

It isn’t until December, after Matt spends over seven months in jail, that the charges are finally dropped against him. The authorities cited lack of evidence. In fact, a CSI agent was investigated on federal charges of mail fraud and falsifying records. In turns out that the DNA evidence linking Matt to the murders may have been completely fabricated. Therefore, there was never any actual evidence linking Matt to the murders in the first place.

It is 2007, and Matt has been released. Matt was wrongly accused. His confession was almost certainly false. There is no evidence to tie him to the murders, and the real murderers have provided full confessions plus DNA evidence. Yet, everyone in the community has already condemned him. His own family won’t speak to him. Matt is completely isolated and alienated. Try putting yourself in Matt’s shoes. Can you imagine being in jail for seven months for a crime you didn’t commit?

It is important to keep facts separated from allegations, but we do know some important facts about this case. For instance, we know that the Omaha Special Prosecutor stated that the CSI agent Kofoed knowingly created fake documents and intended to use those documents as evidence against Matt. Kofoed was charged in federal court with mail fraud and falsifying records, but was acquitted. He still faces a tampering with evidence charge. We also know that Matt was charged for murder and faced the death penalty, that he was falsely accused, that he falsely confessed, and that he recanted his false confession.

How did this all happen, and what can we learn from this story? There are many important lessons to learn here, but I would really like to focus on just a couple. First, investigators are human. Investigators make honest mistakes, and frankly sometimes they make dishonest ones too. The police want to catch the bad guy. They try their hardest to do so, and sometimes they simply try too hard. Interrogating a suspect for 18 hours is trying too hard. Lying to a suspect, intimidating him with false evidence, and threatening him with the death penalty is trying too hard. Keeping a suspect in jail for seven months even after the true murderers have been apprehended is trying too hard.

False confessions and fabricated evidence are more common than you may think. These types of things don’t just happen in New York or L.A., they happen here too. The next time you read about a person being charged with a crime, don’t just assume that he is guilty. Give him the presumption of innocence that he rightly deserves. Think of the consequences of the presumption of guilt. Think of the alienation and isolation that will happen to that person who may have been wrongly charged. Most of all, think of Matt.

More