New Jersey disgrace: Still no justice for Larry Peterson

A big official interest in ass-covering but no interest in justice. I last blogged on this case on Dec. 18 last year

The state of New Jersey owes Larry Peterson a six-figure apology. Throughout Peterson's ordeal - convicted in 1989 of a murder he didn't commit, imprisoned wrongfully for 17 years, freed in 2005 after DNA tests exonerated him - nobody in authority has had the decency to tell him, "We're sorry." Worse, when Burlington County Prosecutor Robert Bernardi finally agreed not to seek a new trial, he went out of his way to imply that he still believed Peterson was guilty. Now Peterson is suing New Jersey under a 1997 state law that allows people wrongfully imprisoned to be compensated $20,000 for each year they spent behind bars.

Paying out is the least that the state can do for Peterson. This rarely used law was born of compassion, but in practice it throws a tall legal hurdle in Peterson's path: Even though DNA tests cleared Peterson of the crime and a judge dismissed the charges, the law requires him to prove in court with "clear and convincing evidence" that he is innocent. "Not guilty" means a prosecutor couldn't prove the case. "Innocent," in this case, means the accused essentially must disprove a charge lodged 20 years ago. "It places an incredibly high burden on someone who was wrongfully imprisoned," said Peterson's lawyer, William Buckman.

The DNA of another man was found on murder victim Jacqueline Harrison, but that man has never been identified. And there's no indication that anyone in law enforcement is looking for him. If the state Attorney General's Office disputes Peterson's lawsuit vigorously, it could take several years to resolve. Instead, the state should finally show Peterson the compassion he deserves and work to settle his claim quickly.

Buckman also has filed a civil-rights suit in federal court on Peterson's behalf against the Burlington County prosecutor, the state police crime lab and detectives involved in the prosecution. Among the excellent questions this suit seeks to answer:

Why were the victim's hairs identified by a state crime-lab technician during the trial as belonging to Peterson? Why did investigators allow a witness to "overhear" them discussing details of the crime before he implicated Peterson? And why was Peterson kept in prison for six months after DNA tests showed he was the wrong man?

Peterson's lawyer should pursue those answers to make sure an injustice like this one never happens again. In the meantime, the state should recognize its moral and legal duty to say, "We're sorry" for the many years of freedom it took from Peterson.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)