GIST: "Prosecutors say the DNA evidence that recently overturned a Simi Valley double-murder conviction that stood for nearly 40 years is a stark reminder about why they continue to review old cases. Craig Coley was released from prison in November after Simi Valley police uncovered new DNA evidence when the agency reopened the murder investigation in 2016. He was ultimately exonerated of the November 1978 killings of his ex-girlfriend and her young son. He was pardoned by Gov. Jerry Brown.  The DNA technology that was used to free Coley was not around when he was being investigated. The scientific advancements prompted some district attorney’s offices to create conviction integrity units to review cases that may have had similar outcomes.  Ventura County launched its unit in October 2012, and it had a hand in freeing Coley. “In Ventura County, the DNA exonerations nationwide have been an eye-opener for us,” said Special Assistant District Attorney Michael Schwartz, who oversees the unit. “It’s not just a theoretical possibility. That’s humbling as a prosecutor to realize that.” In light of Coley’s exoneration, a training day for prosecutors is planned this month so they can review overturned cases and learn how to avoid those mistakes, Schwartz said.  Schwartz, who has been a prosecutor since 1979, is one of four prosecutors assigned to look into written claims of factual innocence, a legal term that means there is no probable cause to believe a defendant is guilty, he said. Nonprofits like the Innocence Project, founded in 1992, were formed to exonerate wrongfully imprisoned people, thanks to the new science.  Alex Simpson, associate director of the California Innocence Project, said the emergence of these conviction integrity units is a “fairly recent phenomenon” and is, hypothetically, a step in the right direction. However, the efficacy of these groups depends on the philosophy behind the organization and the resources dedicated to them, Simpson said. Ventura County Public Defender Todd Howeth said it is “encouraging” that the district attorney’s office and other prosecutors have taken the step because better DNA technology has exposed flaws in the criminal justice system.  “Technology has made it more difficult to close our eyes to injustice and the knowledge that terrible mistakes have been made and they need to be corrected,” Howeth said.  Little by little: According to the National Registry of Exonerations — a project developed by five universities including UC Irvine — there were 29 of these conviction integrity units across the country as of 2016. Ventura County has one of seven district attorney’s offices in California to have them.  The concept for the units started in 2000, according to a 2016 article by attorney Inger H. Chandler in the American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice magazine. During that year, nationally recognized DNA expert George “Woody” Clarke served as a San Diego County prosecutor and sent letters to convicted people offering to test the DNA evidence in their cases.  A few years later, Santa Clara County formalized a conviction integrity unit, Schwartz said. It eventually closed due to budget cuts but was re-established in 2011, according to Chandler’s article. In 2007, Dallas County, Texas, started its own, Schwartz said. After that, “little by little” other jurisdictions started doing the same, he said.  As the creation of these units has increased, the national Innocence Project has developed a set of guidelines or best practices for them, Simpson said.  While the organization recognized that the size of a district attorney’s office is a factor in the creation of these groups, the group suggested that the people assigned to do these reviews be working on them full-time, Simpson said. An independent panel consisting of a prosecutor, public defender and neutral party was also recommended, Simpson said.  Ventura County’s unit does not meet these two guidelines. There is no such panel and the four prosecutors are not exclusively assigned these cases, Schwartz said.  Reviewing claims. Since it became formalized, Ventura County’s unit has reviewed 32 claims, and all have centered on science that prosecutors had previously not been made aware of, Schwartz said. There are still seven claims being reviewed, a process that can take a year or more, Schwartz said.  According to the unit’s policy, it is the burden of the defendant to present new evidence and/or proof.  For the most part, the unit does not deal with legal procedural issues such as jury selection, search-and-seizure issues and incompetency of counsel.  “I think the appellate process is adequate to deal with procedural issues so our concern is to ensure that there isn’t anyone whose factually innocent whose in prison,” Schwartz said.  But those issues can be taken into consideration if they have a bearing on whether someone is guilty or not, he said. Simpson, from the California Innocence Project, said he could not comment specifically on Ventura County’s unit, since he is not familiar with its policy or how it works. But he worked for years to free Michael Hanline, who was accused in another Ventura County murder from 1978. His case was overturned in November 2014.
New DNA testing of crime scene evidence found material that came from a man who was not Hanline or his alleged accomplice. It contradicted the prosecution’s theory presented during the trial.  Before Coley, Hanline’s case was the first time the DA’s office recommended setting aside a conviction.  Simpson did praise Ventura County for taking the Hanline case seriously once the California Innocence Project presented prosecutors with the new evidence. Not just DNA:  In conviction integrity cases, a variety of issues can come to light, Schwartz said. Some brought to prosecutors’ attention include eyewitness identification, the reliability of confessions and plea bargains, Schwartz said.  “The DNA can be the most definitive proof that you’ve got the wrong person, but in a case like Hanline and Coley, the DNA aspect was really only one aspect of it,” Schwartz said.  That’s why these reviews should not be limited to certain kinds of claims, Simpson said.  In Coley’s case, an eyewitness’ observation of what appeared to be his truck leaving the scene of the crime was later debunked. Authorities cited the DNA and the misidentification as evidence for their support of Coley’s clemency petition.  Misidentification is a leading factor in wrongful convictions, Simpson said. In Hanline’s case, there was also evidence that should have been disclosed to him during trial. Howeth, the public defender, referenced the failure to provide the defense with that sort of exculpatory evidence as one of the reasons why false convictions occur.  There can be other problems presented to the unit that don’t necessarily come from defendants or their attorneys.
The FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice acknowledged in 2015 that the FBI’s microscopic hair analysis experts gave flawed testimony in cases before 2000. Local prosecutors are involved in a project to identify which cases those experts testified in.  Locally, problems in the sheriff’s crime lab have also prompted some review, Schwartz said.  It happened after a fingerprint expert failed to pass a required annual proficiency exam. There was also a criminalist who made “critical mistakes” when doing DNA testing, Schwartz said. However, a strict supervising policy of these results means they’re checked before they are admitted as evidence during trial, said Nivan Gill, the lab’s director. Upon further review, neither the previous nor current court cases were affected by the mistakes, Schwartz said.  But even amidst the checks and balances put forth during the conviction integrity movement, justice is not swift.  Coley maintained his innocence from the minute he was arrested to the day he was released from prison. He had retired Simi Valley police detective Mike Bender by his side championing his cause for nearly three decades. Bender took the case to the Innocence Project, but it went nowhere. It was the same story when Bender took the case Ventura County prosecutors in 2009, a time when they were informally doing conviction reviews. Prosecutors closed out the complaint in 2011 and noted there wasn’t any significant new evidence, so they did not take a deeper look into the case, Schwartz said.  “I certainly wish we would have, because he spent an extra six years in prison,” Schwartz said.  The Ventura County District Attorney's Office and the Simi Valley Police Department are recommending the immediate release of Craig Richard Coley. "

The entire story can be read at: