Mom exonerated after 13 years in prison for killing daughter

[LiberalNation]

This woman got screwed by our fucked up justice system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_re_us/mother_exonerated;_ylt=Amvh7KFBlyck8JzF8exnOEgDW7o F

BUFFALO, N.Y. - A woman who spent 13 years in prison after being convicted of strangling her 13-year-old daughter has been exonerated by forensic evidence showing she died of a cocaine overdose, a prosecutor in the case said Wednesday.

But even as the district attorney announced that the death of Crystallynn Girard was not a homicide and could not be prosecuted, her now 44-year-old mother, Lynn DeJac, insisted that a former boyfriend was responsible.

"It's not going to stay like this. My daughter was not a drug user ... My daughter was murdered. There's no question my daughter was murdered," she said, adding she has not yet considered whether to sue anyone over her conviction.

She was released from prison and her second-degree murder conviction overturned in November after newly analyzed DNA evidence placed DeJac's former boyfriend, Dennis Donahue, in the bedroom of her daughter around the time the girl died.

Prosecutors had been planning to retry her this spring, saying the DNA found in her daughter's body and bed did nothing to refute the circumstantial evidence that led a jury to convict DeJac of killing the girl after a night of heavy drinking.

It was in reviewing evidence for the upcoming trial that the prosecution's forensics experts made the stunning find that the girl died of "acute cocaine intoxication" and was not slain, Erie County District Attorney Frank Clark announced.

Cocaine was found in the girl's system at the time of her death, he said, but it was ignored at trial because prosecution and defense lawyers thought the amount too small to be relevant.

All charges against DeJac will be dismissed, Clark said.

Donahue remains in custody awaiting trial in the strangulation of a woman in 1993 and has been described as a person of interest in a 1975 strangling. He couldn't have been prosecuted in Crystallynn's case anyway because he had immunity for testifying against DeJac in 1993.

[Sitarro]

How would you change our system? If called to do so, will you serve on a jury or come up with an excuse to get out of it?

[LiberalNation]

I'd serve on a jury no prob.

[manu1959]

so the entire system is fucked up.....well lets just let everyone out of jail because they are all probably innocent and eliminate the entire justice system....

[LiberalNation]

Didn't say that but the attorneys generals and cops doing a bit better investigating and actually knowing what the person died of before pressing murder charges might help. Seems like they play lets pin this on somebody/anybody and if you can’t afford a top-notch lawyer you’re screwed.

Or is locking up vast numbers of innocents worth catching a few extra bad guys......

[JohnDoe]

Didn't say that but the attorneys generals and cops doing a bit better investigating and actually knowing what the person died of before pressing murder charges might help. Seems like they play lets pin this on somebody/anybody and if you can’t afford a top-notch lawyer you’re screwed.

Or is locking up vast numbers of innocents worth catching a few extra bad guys......

no, we have a presumption of INNOCENSE in this country and supposedly in our justice system.

This allows some guilty to go free....we accept this fact, in order to not put an innocent person in jail.....

THIS IS WHAT i was taught about OUR Justice system....

And yes i agree LN, the prosecutors could have determined the cause of death before pinning the crime on an innocent person.

jd

[Immanuel]

Didn't say that but the attorneys generals and cops doing a bit better investigating and actually knowing what the person died of before pressing murder charges might help. Seems like they play lets pin this on somebody/anybody and if you can’t afford a top-notch lawyer you’re screwed.



I don't think that is the case, but the police and investigators are human. They do make mistakes. They do sometimes let their gut instinct take over and sometimes accuse... leading to conviction, the wrong people.

You are definitely right about having a top-notch lawyer. If you can't afford a good lawyer then you are screwed, because the prosecutor will eat you and your attorney for breakfast.


no, we have a presumption of INNOCENSE in this country and supposedly in our justice system.

This allows some guilty to go free....we accept this fact, in order to not put an innocent person in jail.....

THIS IS WHAT i was taught about OUR Justice system....

And yes i agree LN, the prosecutors could have determined the cause of death before pinning the crime on an innocent person.

jd

No, we don't have a presumption of innocense. Not in the way our legal system works. The ideal situation is that an accused is presumed to be innocent until he/she is proven guilty, but that is not how our system works. Actually, it is quite the opposite.

Yes, sometimes the guilty get off. Sometimes they hire the right attorney or have him/her hired for them. Sometimes the police and investigators make mistakes and a guilty man walks. But he is not presumed to be innocent in the court's eye, just damned lucky. But, at the same time, innocent people do not always get off. Sometimes the innocent suffer because of our system and in those cases once again it is written off to damned luck... only this time bad luck.

Immie

[Monkeybone]

wasn't really the Justice sytem on this one, it was more that it took science and techniques 13 yeras to catch up.

but i do agree that our views of accused ppl have been flipped from the way that they should.

[Mr. P]

I don't think that is the case, but the police and investigators are human. They do make mistakes. They do sometimes let their gut instinct take over and sometimes accuse... leading to conviction, the wrong people.

You are definitely right about having a top-notch lawyer. If you can't afford a good lawyer then you are screwed, because the prosecutor will eat you and your attorney for breakfast.



No, we don't have a presumption of innocense. Not in the way our legal system works. The ideal situation is that an accused is presumed to be innocent until he/she is proven guilty, but that is not how our system works. Actually, it is quite the opposite.

Yes, sometimes the guilty get off. Sometimes they hire the right attorney or have him/her hired for them. Sometimes the police and investigators make mistakes and a guilty man walks. But he is not presumed to be innocent in the court's eye, just damned lucky. But, at the same time, innocent people do not always get off. Sometimes the innocent suffer because of our system and in those cases once again it is written off to damned luck... only this time bad luck.

Immie

Sure we have the presumption of innocences, if we didn't there would be no need for a trial. :slap:

[Immanuel]

Sure we have the presumption of innocences, if we didn't there would be no need for a trial. :slap:

When a prosecutor has you in his sights, trials are mere formalities. Especially if you don't have a damned good defense attorney. :slap:

Immie

[Mr. P]

When a prosecutor has you in his sights, trials are mere formalities. Especially if you don't have a damned good defense attorney. :slap:

Immie

A formality in which the prosecutor must still prove guilt. Sure some overstep the bounds (Duke Lacrosse player case comes to mind) of the process but that's not the common practice. Overall one is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution and found guilty by the jury or in some cases the Judge.

[Immanuel]

A formality in which the prosecutor must still prove guilt. Sure some overstep the bounds (Duke Lacrosse player case comes to mind) of the process but that's not the common practice. Overall one is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution and found guilty by the jury or in some cases the Judge.

I would say that you have never been accused. If you had, you would not feel this way.

Immie

[Mr. P]

I would say that you have never been accused. If you had, you would not feel this way.

Immie

Never have been arrested, but I have had a very close relationship to the legal world for over 18 yrs. It is not as evil as many would want you to think.

[Immanuel]

Never have been arrested, but I have had a very close relationship to the legal world for over 18 yrs. It is not as evil as many would want you to think.

I was not arrested either, but I was accused and I had to prove my innocense. I was definitely presumed guilty as charged by everyone involved.

I never said it was evil. Simply that we are not presumed innocent as many would have you believe.

Immie

[Mr. P]

I was not arrested either, but I was accused and I had to prove my innocense. I was definitely presumed guilty as charged by everyone involved.

I never said it was evil. Simply that we are not presumed innocent as many would have you believe.

Immie

A prosecutor took you to trial? Without cause? I'd like to hear about that.

[Immanuel]

A prosecutor took you to trial? Without cause? I'd like to hear about that.

No, it didn't go that far. We had proof that exonerated us before we got that far. Stacks and stacks of it. And it was Child Protective Services not a prosecutor and no, it was not anything to do with molestation of children or anything like that. We, my wife and I, were accused falsely of neglecting our son because he had a rash from the day he was born until he was potty trained. It wouldn't go away. Anyway, one day our child care provider decided we weren't doing enough. The next thing we knew, the State is knocking on our doors threatening to take our three kids away.

Thank God our doctor kept accurate medical records. Eight inches of medical reports and receipts for perscriptions saved our children.

You are not innocent until proven guilty. You are guilty until you prove your innocense. We had absolutely ZERO rights!

Immie

[Mr. P]

No, it didn't go that far. We had proof that exonerated us before we got that far. Stacks and stacks of it. And it was Child Protective Services not a prosecutor and no, it was not anything to do with molestation of children or anything like that. We, my wife and I, were accused falsely of neglecting our son because he had a rash from the day he was born until he was potty trained. It wouldn't go away. Anyway, one day our child care provider decided we weren't doing enough. The next thing we knew, the State is knocking on our doors threatening to take our three kids away.

Thank God our doctor kept accurate medical records. Eight inches of medical reports and receipts for perscriptions saved our children.

You are not innocent until proven guilty. You are guilty until you prove your innocense. We had absolutely ZERO rights!

Immie

You have to admit that Social services are NOT the Justice system though. They would have needed a court order to take the kids...here they would anyway. They blow a lot of hot air gathering info to take to a judge to get that order. It sounds like they didn't have it.

[Immanuel]

You have to admit that Social services are NOT the Justice system though. They would have needed a court order to take the kids...here they would anyway. They blow a lot of hot air gathering info to take to a judge to get that order. It sounds like they didn't have it.

They didn't but they scared the Sh!t out of us. I expected the agent to come in with guns blazing!

They are also an arm of the government as is the justice system. In fact, they work underneath the Justice system so they are part of it.

Immie