Copyright(c)1998-2007 Lisa Sullivan, all rights reserved.
No money was solicited for this endeavor.
This site was originally published in a different format for the purpose of assisting Nick Yarris gain support for his case while incarcerated, and to illustrate to the public the reality and horror of a wrongful conviction. This case does that and more. It illustrates how easily it can happen. In January of 2004 Nick was finally exonerated by DNA testing and there is no need for "support" for his case any longer.
Time is a factor in making adjustments to this website. Even as I write this I can see how I am redundant. I simply need to publish these words of explanation and apology while I have other obligations to attend to. This continues to be a work in progress with regard to graphics and layout.
Initially after his exoneration, Nick demanded that I turn this work over to another party. I refused. I felt, firstly, that he had no right to make demands of me because, he did not write this. There was a section on the site for a time that he did write called “Nick’s Story Told In His Own Words”, which I promptly removed and emailed to him as a file. Secondly (and probably most importantly), I felt that the material would be altered and that would defeat my primary purpose for putting it online in the first place. The case is significant without embellishment. After the "demands" stopped, I made the offer to give this site to Yarris and he refused it. I have no control over nor will I take any responsibility or apologize for his feelings about what is written here or why. The writing up of this case took years of my life, and the effort has by proxy been a part of my children's lives. His argument is that he “did the time”. While I acknowledge that, I believe that he has forgotten that I, along with many supporters did their best to make his situation known and to do anything we could to ensure that he did not “do the time alone”. I refuse to remove this work because of a disagreement about the “use” of his name. There is no glory, fame or sensationalism in writing up this case, nor is there any financial gain. I keep this case online for reasons already explained - because this is something that matters deeply to me.
This case is a matter of public record.
Regarding the people involved in this history and the publishing of their identities; I wish to protect them now for their sake, because I don't believe they need to be exposed and thrown to the dogs for all time in print for their part in what happened. Most of the people involved did the best they could at the time. Some of them did not. Those people not only have to live with what they did, but some of them will answer before a Judge for their actions.
I am removing the names of some of the people involved because by publishing this, they do not have the opportunity to give their side of the story. In short, although documentation supports the way this case is presented, the fact is, that I do not, nor does Yarris KNOW what motivated his attorneys, the DA, or the witnesses for handling themselves the way they did. Sometimes, people do not understand the gravity of the consequences of their actions. Sometimes people do the wrong things for what they believe are the right reasons. Some people are callous, and some people are just ill-informed. It is important to acknowledge that people make mistakes. Unfortunately, some mistakes can cost a human being their very life. I don't believe replacing the actual names will take away from the impact of what has happened. “Shaming” those involved and “trying them in the media” is unethical and I apologize for having published their names in the prior presentation of this material. I also honestly need to say that Nick Yarris is in my opinion also responsible for what happened to him. He can say that he was a drug addict. While that is a consideration, it is not an excuse. He is also accountable for manipulation of the system which brought about his incarceration. He is not a hero. The perserverance he displayed in pursuing his release is admirable, but not unique. He was lucky enought to have had DNA as a factor in the case, or he might well still be in prison, or dead.
I have reported the events to the best of my ability, but you must create your own hypothesis regarding motivation and causation. I want to give those people involved and the reader this respect. I can tell you that I am very proud of at least one attorney who handled Yarris' case early on (DFS ATY #1) who went on to do something wonderful in his career and set a precedent for attorney/client priviledge. Wow! It took alot of character and courage to take a stand for ethical practices. Every citizen has benefitted from his actions.
Mistakes that are made - even grave ones, do not define a man. What a person does to right themselves and strive toward their ideals today, defines a man and his work. As for the witnesses who were manipulated? They trusted authority. Dealing with death is difficult to comprehend and society has a need for justice. To be an attorney, a witness, a juror or a judge requires the deepest sense of respect and responsibility. I believe that some felt and acted with that ethic and some did not fully appreciate it.
This website was written using court transcripts, appeals and relevant documents while Nick Yarris was on death row. At the time of its original publication, Nick provided me with these documents. Some of the accounts could only have come from Nick and he did give me information as such. I can say however, that with regard to those accounts that they are verifiable by other people involved or who were also present. My presentation does not represent the interest of Nick Yarris, but does reflect history as an example of a wrongful conviction in the Pennsylvania court system.
Furthermore, this website is in no way affiliated with Nicholas Yarris, The Innocence Project, Reprieve or any other organization. The contents do not in any way reflect their views and is not meant to be a representation of their work. For further information on Nick Yarris and his life since his release, please visit his website: www.nickyarris.com.
I'd like to thank my friend Marlene Casias for all of her generous help and long hours rebuilding this site from my original in 1998 when I lost it in 2002 because I simply had no money to pay my webhost. Marlene has very strong ethics and I appreciate her work very much. You can view my original format at www.webarchive.com. The format Marlene put up has been reworked. She saved the loss of the material and years of work for which I'm grateful. The original site was located at www.humanwaredesign.com/yarris, then moved to www.just-rain.com/yarris. Some of the links no longer work, but the basic original site exists there.
When I met Nick Yarris in 1998, I did not know that he was an innocent man. Months later when I read through his paperwork, Mitch Berg and my son Will Wolff stepped up to help me get the case online and deserve my heartfelt thanks as well. Mitch and Will spent hours supporting my writing efforts by showing me how to put together a website, answered endless questions, edited for me, and both put in many hours helping me on the computer. In that sense it really was a family effort.
Regardless of who Nick Yarris is today, or was yesterday, I made this decision to write up this case online, because this case and the progression of abuse and the vulnerabilities of the legal system is ultimately what we’re looking at.
I don’t believe that even one life is an acceptable sacrifice. If we are outraged enough as a society to prosecute a person for murder for the sake of a wrongful death, then a wrongful conviction resulting in capital punishment is unacceptable by our own standard.
Lisa Sullivan, February 2007
More thoughts on Capital Punishment:
For the Framers of the Constitution, the protections and guarantees of individual rights were worth dying for. Troops and patriots throughout our nation’s history have died defending them. Some of the Amendments were not added until after the Civil War, ending slavery and extending individual liberties to all. It took 100 years before slavery was abolished. It was another 100 years before the Civil Rights movement integrated society.
Our legal system – although built on a beautiful Constitution – is very human in its handling, not divine. Justice, operationally, is often neither simple nor always timely.
The scope of the death penalty debate is far more then the moral question of, “shall we execute the guilty?” With the information we have today, the question has also become, “shall we execute the innocent?”
I am an advocate of Life Without Parole. I believe this is an alternative to the death penalty that not only allows for justice, but also protect the rights of the wrongfully accused.
I am not forgetting the victims, or their families. There are no words to adequately describe their loss, or what they are feeling. They are injured personally, but they are also a reflection of greater society. Some families feel that execution will bring them closure. Many however, did not experience closure after an execution although they were certain that they would.
There have been many cases in the US where the victim’s family has pleaded with a judge or jury not to impose a death sentence on the convicted killer because, they argue, it adds to their distress – the execution prolonging or compounding their trauma. Some argue that the victim themselves did not support the death penalty. Those requests are largely ignored for the sake of greater societal interests at this point. The court system is primarily interested in protecting society as a whole. I am not advocating this practice but acknowledge that this is the position of the court. I personally don’t agree with it. I believe society can be protected very well by incarceration without execution. The numbers will also show that keeping a person in prison for life is less expensive to the taxpayer than the cost of capital case appeals and execution.
The American Bar Association supports moratorium for that very reason, as does most of the western world.
The United States is the 4th largest executor of criminals in the world. Some say that a murderer deserves no mercy under any circumstances. I’m not going to argue that point.
The statistical order is: China, Iran, Vietnam and the United States. I personally feel that in one significant way, Iran is more humane in that if a relative of the victim decides to forgive the condemned, the execution does not happen.
There are 12 states which do not impose capital punishment in the US. The numbers show that the crime rates for these states is not higher than in those that do impose capital punishment.
Financial statistics brought from both sides of the issue support both sides of the issue – in other words, it may be cheaper to allow a convicted murderer to live by showing the cost to the taxpayer per year to house them. Abolitionists can also show that the millions spent on the actual act of execution far outweigh the cost of mercy. Pro-death penalty supporters can bring a range of cost per year with variables that they feel, along with trimming execution costs by limiting the appeals process is less costly than housing an inmate for life. Basically, both sides have statistics and financial reports to support their position. I’m not going to argue that point either. I do have an opinion, but I would rather share other observations I have made regarding the death penalty debate.
Some people have said that the system “works” because Nick finally got DNA results that exonerated him.
This is not so.
Ask yourself what might have happened if the testing on degraded evidence had not been successful?
The trial itself was as much a sham as any petty manipulation Nick attempted to produce to get himself out of jail. While the motivations were obviously different, the methods used by both Nick and the prosecutors to affect the investigation got in the way of the truth. The apparent difference was with exception to the fact that the guys not wearing cuffs were expected to act with integrity and professionalism.
As a result of Nick’s twenty-two year struggle, he has only now realized some form of satisfaction, and that because of science. He was in the last stages of his appeals. The difficult and often discouraging fight Nick and his lawyers have fought is what this is all about, and what our focus should be.
The trial and sentencing in 1982, and the decisions on the subsequent appeals is an example of what can happen within our legal system. With 164 exonerations to date, we need to accept responsibility for these situations and address them. Americans need to stop looking at this as abstract and distant. These are real people – your neighbors. It could be you or someone you love.
SCOTUS has, in recent years, ruled on mental retardation, rape, jury sentencing v judges, and on banning the executions of juvenile offenders. Those rulings have been a tremendous step forward for the United States. The debate on medical ethics - the involvement of physicians in the execution process, and the lethal injection process itself is on trial in our high courts and nation’s headlines.
Time and new technologies are bringing changes to the law.
In Koramatsu v United States, 323 U.S.214, (1944),(a case brought by a Japanese American citizen who fought as an American soldier and protested the encampment of his family after Pearl Harbor), SCOTUS, although knowingly denying an American citizen his First Amendment rights had a very important factor to weigh in their decision. They felt with the threat of invasion by Germany on our east coast, coupled with the attack on Pearl Harbor and the vulnerability of the naval fleet having been injured in that attack, that fear of ancestral loyalties could potentially outweigh national loyalty by it’s Asian American citizens. In essence they ruled against Koramatsu with careful wording, citing that the US had a compelling national interest that outweighted Mr. Koramatsu’s individual rights during wartime. They admitted that in this decision there was no fairness to this man or Asian Americans. They were careful to issue a warning of close scrutiny for future decisions of this nature, citing this particular special circumstance. A phoenix did arise from this difficult decision however, as this case became the cornerstone for civil rights litigation in the 1960’s. At 9/11, we did not gather all Arabic American citizens; displace them into internment camps in an effort to protect the country as we did the Japanese Americans in WWII after Pearl Harbor.
Why? We have better technology today. There was no need to. If we had the communications technology in 1941 that is available today, Pearl Harbor would most likely not have happened, or we would have known long before enemy planes crossed into American coastal waters.
How does this tie into the death penalty debate?
Because, similarly, we have better technology today to more accurately try criminal cases and more effectively affect justice with better, more advanced forensics and new tools. We need to acknowledge them in the law consistently, and use them. If a jury was presented with certain evidence twenty years ago and came up with a guilty verdict, but we can say today that a new procedure may produce a different, more accurate result, it is simply ridiculous to cling to the argument that testing isn’t necessary because they came up with the guilty verdict based on what they had. People’s lives are at stake and there is no room for error in an execution. People argue the cost, and what of it? If initially at trial or on appeal these techniques are used without a struggle, we’d be better off financially.
President Bush made DNA testing available in every applicable FEDERAL case. His statute did set a precedent for state decisions, but it has no direct jurisdiction on a state capital case, rape case etc...unless an element of the crime crossed state lines.
There are problems again in that some judges will allow testing, but the wrong type, or, as in Yarris’s case, the designated lab is not equipped to do the type of testing needed. This happened in an Alabama case again this year.
Another situation is the exclusion of evidence that, with testing could answer any question of guilt or innocence. This also happened in the Yarris case.
The number of wrongful convictions is climbing. Statistics show that 1 in 7 on death row has been wrongfully convicted.
Here is an even more stunning truth: Those numbers are based only on the cases we know about. The ones lucky enough to find financial assistance, or were granted the right to DNA testing, etc….
Think about it.
Some of the biggest issues that surface in appeals have a link to funding.
Defendants are predominately indigent. The prosecution has virtually unlimited funds to try a case, plus the power to decide what the charges will be. The funding for a court appointed defense is extremely limited in comparison.
The willingness to spend on a conviction but not on a defense is glaringly evident. The quality of subsequent appeals are further limited by funds.
1 in 5 inmates have the chance that Nick Yarris did when his case was taken on by the Federal Defenders Association in Philadelphia. Had initial funding been available to defend Nick in 1982, perhaps the real killers of Linda Mae Craig would not have been allowed to walk the streets for twenty-two years, the Taborelli family business might not have been destroyed, and the Yarris family might not have had to endure the torture of having to fight an overwhelming opponent in the American justice system. Both of these families suffered indignities in court and in the community for years. We still don’t know who the killer of Linda Craig is. This misappropriation of funds put citizens at great risk. It's just bad for everyone.
Consider the John Spriko case in Ohio (www.johnspirko.com). This man had an execution date and the physical evidence had not been tested. There was an international outcry for justice. The former head of the FBI, William Sessions protested publicly in a letter to the Governor saying that this case is fundamentally damaged, and called for a stay. The Attorney General for Ohio, Jim Petro conceded the state’s position, and is allowing testing on the evidence. Without the unprecedented pressure from the Dayton Daily News, the FBI, and the international community, this execution would have gone forward unchecked. The DNA testing is to date unfinished although Mr. Spriko has a new, July 2006, execution date. It remains to be seen if he will receive yet another stay.
Perhaps DNA isn't even a factor in the case? Take a look at Kenny Richey in Ohio (www.kennyrichey.org), who has had to jump through multiple hoops at a snails pace to get the courts to care more about the forensic evidence and facts, than keeping him in his conviction.
The world is watching.
Tony Blair, the Pope and many others have appealed to Governor Taft to no avail. His fight goes on, with renowned experts standing ready to testify on his behalf. Ohio continues to refuse to hear his case. It is now before the Circuit Court for the second time...
The bottom line is that there is a need for moratorium while we sort out these problems.
Despite whatever is "wrong" in this country, I feel lucky to be here.
Dedicated men and women are spending their lives working to see that the margin for error is minimized as much as possible.
Nick's legal team is made up of incredible people who have worked their hearts out pro bono to not only help Nick, but to advance the current system and move us as a nation closer toward the mark.
Our nation's history is reflected in the law. Early Constitutional decisions would not hold up today. New cases that challenged laws that were no longer appropriate now prevail. We no longer adhere to early rulings on segregation, as they were wiped out when challenged in Brown v Board of Education. Similarly, it is necessary to bring higher standards into practice inside the courts with regard to capital punishment. I am not referring specifically to race, but to financial ability, technology and accessibility.
Attorneys working pro bono, activists and organizations give their energy, time and hard work to this end. Because of their efforts, my heart is full of hope. I believe we are seeing that the citizens of this country are looking harder at this issue than they did previously.
Due to the strength of their convictions and willingness to face opposition our justice system moves forward.
I am enormously proud of people like Governor Ryan in Illinois who put his career on the line to make sure we looked at this issue, even at the cost of his reputation by colleagues and citizens with opposing viewpoints. He did not choose a comfortable retirement. He risked conflict in his own life to bring the issue to light by acting on his convictions. In this day and age, that's one way to lay down your life for your brother, "brother" in this instance meaning ALL of us, not just the wrongly convicted.
I also admire Mary Taborelli who got on the stand in the face of social outrage and bravely told the truth - that Nick Yarris was with her in her family’s store during the time of the murder. I admire the character of the Taborelli family who was financially destroyed by social boycotting, were forced to sell their store and literally move.
This is another example of the type of secondary victims of a wrongful conviction – the sufferings of people that you will not read about in the news. These are great American people and deserve our respect and our thanks. Social outrage and mob mentality still exists in this country. The strength of the group and the need for answers often influence and affect trials, and unfortunately the media at times fuels this. The Taborelli family supported their daughter while she held fast to the standard of truth in that courtroom. They were not vindicated for 22 years. I am grateful that DNA testing was accessible and that their vindication did finally eventually occur.
We are a proud country. We must not settle for less than we're capable of.
One way to look at it is that the more accurate we are in our convictions, the safer we will all be.
I hope you take the time to read the entire case and that it prompts you to ask questions and examine, no matter what your view may turn out to be. Its a part of our lives in this country and we need to know as much as possible. It affects all of us, and it will affect our children.
Best regards,
Lisa (Berg) Sullivan, June 2006
Links to Death Penalty Information
DISCLAIMER
The following links are for sites that I (Lisa Sullivan) endorse. They do not necessarily reflect the endorsement of Nicholas Yarris.
