Man Framed by Prosecutor Released After 29 Years in Prison Seeking Lawsuit
19 year old, Charise Kamps, was found raped and strangled to death in her apartment in June 1980.
Ralph Armstrong told the police that both of them were at the apartment alone doing cocaine before leaving to go see friends around 9:30 pm. Police said that they learned that Armstrong owed Kamp's boyfriend $400 and witnesses saw Armstrong handing Kamps money that night. However, the money was not found in the apartment, and Armstrong deposited $315 in his bank the next day.The defense argued that he got the money from his brother.
One of the neighbors saw a lean, muscular man about 5 feet 5 inches tall with long, dark hair drive up to the apartment. Before the identification process, the police had the witness hypnotized. He was shown a photograph of Armstrong, and After being hypnotized, the witness changed the height of the man he saw.
Later at a lineup to have the witness select the man he saw, he chose Armstrong. The other people in the lineup were police officers in wigs. Armstrong and his attorney believed and confirmed that the lineup was rigged.
The lead investigator, John Norsetter, and the prosecutor concealed, ignored, and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated Armstrong. Norsetter didn't test the murder weapon, a bathrobe belt, for DNA evidence. Instead, he tested the semen on the bathrobe for DNA. The DNA was found to be a secretor type that matched Armstrong, but also Kamp's boyfriend, and 80% of the population. The lab wasn't able to make a clearer analysis because the technology wasn't available back in 1980.
The innocence project got involved in 1993 and more advanced DNA testing was done in 2001. The Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 2005, which allowed him to have a new trial.
While his new trial was underway, it was found out that in 1995 a woman testified that Armstrong's brother, Steve, told her that he had murder Kamp. The defense didn't find out about the woman until 2007. She said that he confessed to Norsetter, but he did not report the evidence and ignored the lead. Steve Armstrong disappeared after the murder, and he died in 2005. Norsetter claimed that the source wasn't credible, so he didn't think that he had to disclose it to the defense or the court.
Further DNA tests were going to be done, but Norsetter illegally asked for extra DNA tests and did not tell the defense attorneys. In doing so, he destroyed any remaining biological evidence..
Since evidence was destroyed and the prosecutor withheld evidence from the defense for such a long time, there was enough proof that "Armstrong's due process rights had been irreparably compromised." A state circuit judge dismissed the case against Armstrong in 2009, and prosecutors decided not to appeal, so he was officially cleared.
The Seventh Circuit court of appeals is allowing Ralph Armstrong to file a civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor and crime lab who framed him for rape and murder. Armstrong is seeking $58 million for wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
Comments from Allen:
In any criminal prosecution, the state has the obligation to turn over any evidence that it becomes aware of which can help the defense. The prosecutor's job is not to seek convictions, but justice. In theory, the prosecutor should be just as satisfied to find a suspect is not guilty as he is to discover damning evidence against a suspect. In practice, however, prosecutors often get "invested" in their version of the facts, and go on a crusade to prove one person is guilty, despite evidence to the contrary.
That is acceptable, so long as the defendant has access to the same evidence as the prosecutor.
It is not acceptable for any prosecutor to hide or destroy evidence. If any material exculpatory evidence is destroyed by the prosecutor, the judge has no choice but to dismiss the charges against the defendant "with prejudice," meaning he can never be tried again on those charges.
That issue aside, the tougher issue is how Mr. Armstrong will be made whole in a civil suit. In Idaho, under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, a person such as Mr. Armstrong would not be allowed to file a tort claim against the State of Idaho or any government entity or employee for false imprisonment, false arrest or malicious prosecution. In addition, even if that were possible, Mr. Armstrong would have had to have filed a "Notice of Tort Claim" with the city, county or state responsible for violating his rights within 180 days of his incarceration, meaning he would have had to have filed such a claim back in 1980.
This is further complicated by a rule in Idaho that wrongful incarceration (for example, in cases in which the Idaho Department of Corrections has let people languish in prison after their release date; yes that has happened many times) has a two year statute of limitations, which has been interpreted to mean you must file your complaint within 2 years of each day you claim you were wrongfully incarcerated. This means someone who was in prison for 29 years, like Mr. Armstrong, would have had to have filed his lawsuit by 1982 to have collected for all of the time he spent incarcerated. If he waited until 1 day before the two year anniversary of his release from prison, he would have been able to collect for, at most, one day of that period of incarceration.
In Idaho, there would have been no recovery for Mr. Armstrong other than a federal civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Idaho Tort Claims Act does not apply to federal causes of action. However, these claims may only be brought against individual persons, not the state or city or county, as the United States does not have the power to pass a law that makes a state governmental body pay out money in damages. It does, however, have the ability to make individuals who violate your civil rights pay money to you.
Idaho officials are generally covered by $500,000 in insurance. I would not expect a person in Mr. Armstrong's shoes to be expecting a $58 million payday in a suit against an individual who has violated his civil rights had this happened in Idaho.
Idaho law is woefully inadequate when it comes to compensating persons who have been wrongfully incarcerated. The Idaho Supreme Court has let victims down, and the legislature has also abandoned victims of this kind of mistreatment. I was at a national seminar this year in which this topic was discussed, and other states do not treat their victims as badly as Idaho, and they do allow suits to proceed under state law against the perpetrators of this injustice.
Sources for more information:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment/ralph-armstrong
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D05-11/C:13-3424:J:Flaum:condis:T:fnOp:N:1549828:S:0
http://murderpedia.org/male.A/a/armstrong-ralph.htm
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/2015/07/wrongful-imprisonment/
http://www.wkow.com/story/10826245/1980-rape-and-murder-case-against-ralph-armstrong-dismissed
Ralph Armstrong told the police that both of them were at the apartment alone doing cocaine before leaving to go see friends around 9:30 pm. Police said that they learned that Armstrong owed Kamp's boyfriend $400 and witnesses saw Armstrong handing Kamps money that night. However, the money was not found in the apartment, and Armstrong deposited $315 in his bank the next day.The defense argued that he got the money from his brother.
One of the neighbors saw a lean, muscular man about 5 feet 5 inches tall with long, dark hair drive up to the apartment. Before the identification process, the police had the witness hypnotized. He was shown a photograph of Armstrong, and After being hypnotized, the witness changed the height of the man he saw.
Later at a lineup to have the witness select the man he saw, he chose Armstrong. The other people in the lineup were police officers in wigs. Armstrong and his attorney believed and confirmed that the lineup was rigged.
Armstrong was arrested and tried before a jury for the rape and murder of Kamps. The forensic analyst testified about several hairs that had been found on or near the body. She identified some of them as being neither Armstrong's or Kamps'. However, in the prosecutor's closing arguments, he said that the hairs on the robe were Armstrong's. Another analyst found blood under Armstrong's nails, but she could not determine any characteristics of the blood. Again, the prosecutor said that the blood under Armstrong's nails came from Kamp.
The lead investigator, John Norsetter, and the prosecutor concealed, ignored, and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated Armstrong. Norsetter didn't test the murder weapon, a bathrobe belt, for DNA evidence. Instead, he tested the semen on the bathrobe for DNA. The DNA was found to be a secretor type that matched Armstrong, but also Kamp's boyfriend, and 80% of the population. The lab wasn't able to make a clearer analysis because the technology wasn't available back in 1980.
The innocence project got involved in 1993 and more advanced DNA testing was done in 2001. The Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 2005, which allowed him to have a new trial.
While his new trial was underway, it was found out that in 1995 a woman testified that Armstrong's brother, Steve, told her that he had murder Kamp. The defense didn't find out about the woman until 2007. She said that he confessed to Norsetter, but he did not report the evidence and ignored the lead. Steve Armstrong disappeared after the murder, and he died in 2005. Norsetter claimed that the source wasn't credible, so he didn't think that he had to disclose it to the defense or the court.
Further DNA tests were going to be done, but Norsetter illegally asked for extra DNA tests and did not tell the defense attorneys. In doing so, he destroyed any remaining biological evidence..
Since evidence was destroyed and the prosecutor withheld evidence from the defense for such a long time, there was enough proof that "Armstrong's due process rights had been irreparably compromised." A state circuit judge dismissed the case against Armstrong in 2009, and prosecutors decided not to appeal, so he was officially cleared.
The Seventh Circuit court of appeals is allowing Ralph Armstrong to file a civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor and crime lab who framed him for rape and murder. Armstrong is seeking $58 million for wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
Comments from Allen: In any criminal prosecution, the state has the obligation to turn over any evidence that it becomes aware of which can help the defense. The prosecutor's job is not to seek convictions, but justice. In theory, the prosecutor should be just as satisfied to find a suspect is not guilty as he is to discover damning evidence against a suspect. In practice, however, prosecutors often get "invested" in their version of the facts, and go on a crusade to prove one person is guilty, despite evidence to the contrary.
That is acceptable, so long as the defendant has access to the same evidence as the prosecutor.
It is not acceptable for any prosecutor to hide or destroy evidence. If any material exculpatory evidence is destroyed by the prosecutor, the judge has no choice but to dismiss the charges against the defendant "with prejudice," meaning he can never be tried again on those charges.
That issue aside, the tougher issue is how Mr. Armstrong will be made whole in a civil suit. In Idaho, under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, a person such as Mr. Armstrong would not be allowed to file a tort claim against the State of Idaho or any government entity or employee for false imprisonment, false arrest or malicious prosecution. In addition, even if that were possible, Mr. Armstrong would have had to have filed a "Notice of Tort Claim" with the city, county or state responsible for violating his rights within 180 days of his incarceration, meaning he would have had to have filed such a claim back in 1980.
This is further complicated by a rule in Idaho that wrongful incarceration (for example, in cases in which the Idaho Department of Corrections has let people languish in prison after their release date; yes that has happened many times) has a two year statute of limitations, which has been interpreted to mean you must file your complaint within 2 years of each day you claim you were wrongfully incarcerated. This means someone who was in prison for 29 years, like Mr. Armstrong, would have had to have filed his lawsuit by 1982 to have collected for all of the time he spent incarcerated. If he waited until 1 day before the two year anniversary of his release from prison, he would have been able to collect for, at most, one day of that period of incarceration.
In Idaho, there would have been no recovery for Mr. Armstrong other than a federal civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Idaho Tort Claims Act does not apply to federal causes of action. However, these claims may only be brought against individual persons, not the state or city or county, as the United States does not have the power to pass a law that makes a state governmental body pay out money in damages. It does, however, have the ability to make individuals who violate your civil rights pay money to you.
Idaho officials are generally covered by $500,000 in insurance. I would not expect a person in Mr. Armstrong's shoes to be expecting a $58 million payday in a suit against an individual who has violated his civil rights had this happened in Idaho.
Idaho law is woefully inadequate when it comes to compensating persons who have been wrongfully incarcerated. The Idaho Supreme Court has let victims down, and the legislature has also abandoned victims of this kind of mistreatment. I was at a national seminar this year in which this topic was discussed, and other states do not treat their victims as badly as Idaho, and they do allow suits to proceed under state law against the perpetrators of this injustice.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen work with cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.
Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.
Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.
Allen Browning is an Idaho Falls attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI) , Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.
Sources for more information:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment/ralph-armstrong
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D05-11/C:13-3424:J:Flaum:condis:T:fnOp:N:1549828:S:0
http://murderpedia.org/male.A/a/armstrong-ralph.htm
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/2015/07/wrongful-imprisonment/
http://www.wkow.com/story/10826245/1980-rape-and-murder-case-against-ralph-armstrong-dismissed
Comments
Post a Comment