A Logan woman could be the first in the state to be exonerated of a murder conviction under a new Utah innocence statute.
Debra A. Brown, 53, who was convicted of capital murder in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison, appeared in Ogden's 2nd District Court on Tuesday in a white prison jumpsuit for the first day of testimony in an evidentiary hearing that may ultimately clear her of the murder of Lael Brown.
Debra Brown, who is not related to but worked for the victim, told police she went to the man's home in Logan on Nov. 7, 1993, to check on him when he didn't meet her for coffee. Brown was found shot to death in his bed with three bullet wounds to his head. Debra Brown called police to report the death then became a primary suspect in the case and was arrested 10 months later. A 12-member jury convicted the woman of aggravated capital murder in 1995.
In 2002, Brown's case got the attention of the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center - a Salt Lake City-based nonprofit legal clinic that works to correct and prevent the conviction of innocent people.
"The police did not do a thorough investigation," Alan Sullivan, attorney for Debra Brown, said Tuesday in his opening statement. "This sheds significant light on the reliability of the circumstantial case presented to the jury."
But the state Attorney General's office is putting up a fight, arguing that Brown is legally guilty and has no right to the presumption of innocence.
"The best she can say is: It wasn't me and it might have been someone else," said Assistant Attorney General Scott Reed in his opening statement. "The case is a montage of speculation, surmise and conjecture. ... She does not have any scientific or irrefutable evidence."
After 2nd District Judge Michael DiReda hears both sides in the hearing, he'll decide whether or not to vacate Brown's original 1995 criminal conviction. If that happens, explained Reed, Brown will be released from custody and entitled to monetary compensation equivalent to approximately $35,000 for each year she was incarcerated.
Former RMIC director Jensie Anderson testified that in 2008, she gained access to Logan Police Department's evidence of the case. She said that after reviewing the material, she found some aspects of the original trial that didn't match up with the evidence. The RMIC conducted an eight-year, independent investigation and filed a post-conviction relief petition on behalf of Brown. The petition is allowed under a new law passed in 2008.
Sullivan said the Logan Police Department conducted a "completely inadequate investigation" of the homicide.
Sullivan called former Logan police officer Eric Collins to the stand, who was one of the first patrolmen to arrive at the murder scene back in 1993. Sullivan asked the now-retired police officer questions about how police handled evidence at the crime scene. Collins said, by answering Sullivan's questions, that he collected no trace evidence from the crime scene, walked through blood spatters on the floor, used the home's phone and disturbed the body before detectives arrived.
Sullivan also said an officer opened a bathroom window at the crime scene to ventilate the home because it was hot. However in Brown's trial, prosecutors told the jury all the windows in the home were painted shut and that entry could only be gained with a key since there was no sign of forced entry.
Jurors were also told, according to Sullivan, that Debra Brown was the only other person with a key to the home. But it was later discovered that one of Lael Brown's family members had gained entry to the home at previous times and had stolen money from the man.
During Brown's trial, prosecutors argued that Debra Brown admitted to forging checks belonging to Lael Brown, which they painted as a murder motive.
Sullivan says Logan police received several leads following the murder that a man named Bobby Sheen was responsible for the crime. Police, however, never looked further at the information, he said.
Former Logan Police Det. Michael Vaughn, who was the lead detective on the case, also testified Tuesday. He was shown copies of his own notes from the case, on which he compiled a list of other possible suspects. Second on the list was Sheen's name. The man committed suicide in 2007. He was a tenant of Brown prior to the murder.
---
E-mail:
raider posted at 3:16 pm on Mon, Jan 24, 2011.
Well maybe they should take the money from that little prison west of logan .That we so despertly need'ed Iwonder how many inmates are from C.V ? Not many
people's court posted at 12:04 am on Sun, Jan 23, 2011.
So I'm just wondering if she is freed and paid the "we're sorry money". How much of that will be taxed - as a member of "we the people" I think it should be tax free - not paid by the State at a given discount.
raider posted at 2:54 pm on Sat, Jan 22, 2011.
Mike M Nope
Bluto posted at 8:36 am on Sat, Jan 22, 2011.
Oh, recently evicted ... what does that have to do with anything? Sorry, didn't catch the correction ...
He was recently evicted and she admits to forgery involving thievery from the deceased ... Not sure that is painting a picture of 'factual innocence'.
I'm more concerned with his name thrown out there in this poorly-written article than his name coming up in court, anyway. Why not the other potential killers? Why just this one? Because it's someone's best guess as to who dunnit?
Bluto posted at 8:32 am on Sat, Jan 22, 2011.
Ok plebian,
If it's too late to prove who did it, why bring up any names as suspicious? Lots of money? Maybe she paid him to off the dude? Who knows who cares ... can't prove any of it at this point.
That is all hearsay and conjecture ... a friend saw ? You mean one of Deb's friends? A girlfriend? You mean an ex maybe? Vehicle MAY have been seen? He was convicted on another charge? So was she, right? It all sounds ironically like the same sort of 'evidence' that put her in prison in the first place.
OJ is probably more likely to have done this than she. If her trial wasn't improper, that won't help her one bit.
pleblian posted at 12:47 am on Sat, Jan 22, 2011.
correction, not convicted, evicted.
pleblian posted at 12:47 am on Sat, Jan 22, 2011.
Bluto,
Bobby Sheen was one of four primary suspects. A friend saw him with the weapon and was told where he stashed it. Sheen also told his girlfriend about. Sheen's vehicle may have been seen at the home. Sheen had recently been convicted. He was seen months later with "a lot" of cash.
Thus, the more likely Sheen did it, the less likely Deb Brown did. That helps establish "factual innocence".
It's too late to prove who did it. But not to late to prove who didn't.
Bluto posted at 9:21 pm on Fri, Jan 21, 2011.
I mean why mention 'Bobby Sheen'? If the case against Brown is to be thrown out for being completely circumstantial, wouldn't the evidence against Brown be equally circumstantial?
There seems to be no hard evidence in the case and that's the problem defendants are presenting. Why mention another name with this circumstantial case at all?
If they could prove someone else did it, they already would have. It sounds to me they won't be able to prove who did it no matter what happens to Brown.
Bluto posted at 9:16 pm on Fri, Jan 21, 2011.
If my name were Bobby Sheen I'd be ticked off at this article.
On the other hand, when an assistant attorney general says, "The best she can say is: It wasn't me and it might have been someone else," I become suspicious.
If she didn't do it, she can proclaim with confidence and quite loudly that she didn't do it and someone else IN FACT did. What a stupid statement from the attorney general's office. If she says she didn't do it OF COURSE she's saying someone else did ... there is no 'might' about it!
If she didn't do it, $35k/year is not enough. You can't make her the young, free woman she was just before she discovered her friend shot.
If she did it ... let her rot.
Working Dude posted at 4:27 pm on Fri, Jan 21, 2011.
If I ever get asked by a Logan policeman why would I want a lawyer if I've done nothing wrong, my answer will be "Debra Brown". Not that a lawyer saved her though. There are innocent people in prison.
pleblian posted at 10:46 pm on Thu, Jan 20, 2011.
nevermind, posted on other link
pleblian posted at 10:04 pm on Thu, Jan 20, 2011.
Recall also, that this case was originally tried as a capital homicide.
Deb Brown could have been put to death already. I've never been against the death penalty. But this case has re-opened the issue in my mind.
pleblian posted at 10:02 pm on Thu, Jan 20, 2011.
I've followed the case closely, and am familiar with many, many of the facts. I previously posted what I thought to be the presentations thus far this week, but the post was taken down.
Either way, it is very clear that if this case was tried again, there would be reasonable doubts. In fact, reasonable jurors might even believe her innocent.
So, if a defense attorneys duty is to defend his client the best he is able, within ethical bounds...(in this case, that defense has been second guessed and monday morning quarterbacked critically), and the prosecutor's job is to pursue justice, within ethical bounds. What happens if Deb Brown loses?
The standard to be found factually innocent is very high. You have to prove she didnt do it. I don't think they have done that. It is nearly impossible to do that.
But, if the prosecutor is reasonable, he must hold serious reservations about her guilt. Will they protect justice? Doesn't their duty pertain to freeing the innocent as well as prosecuting the guilty? The way the State has fought the freeing of Deb Brown, seeking to block it with procedural hurdles instead of arguing the substance, makes me wonder if they care more about avoiding hundreds of pro se applications for hearings than the life of the wrongly convicted.
Remember, wrongly convicted does not necessarily mean innocent, it means not guilty. Clearly, Deb Brown is not guilty. Likely, she is innocent.
pleblian posted at 9:51 pm on Thu, Jan 20, 2011.
my previous comment was taken down. I don't know why.
Mike_M posted at 9:38 pm on Thu, Jan 20, 2011.
Raider do you have anything contributive to say about out the ongoing court proceeding? [smile]
raider posted at 4:15 pm on Thu, Jan 20, 2011.
C X Hang Willmore
Opinion123 posted at 8:32 am on Thu, Jan 20, 2011.
I just have to say 'It's About Time'! Having spent 2 years in the State Prison with Ms. Brown, I can say with a very strong conviction this woman is innocent. I spent many hours with her, and we even discussed her conviction. Now let me just say, most people who are incarcerated will admitt to their crimes, and some do not - and it's pretty easy to establish truth from their own realities. I strongly believe this was a mis-justice.
Not once did I hear Ms. Brown condem the prossecution - she admitted her guilt to the checks - but maintained her innocence for the crime of murder. She has a very strong religious belief and just stated that if that is the way it was supposed to be, then there must have been a bigger plan for her. I can honestly say that while incarcerated she's not letting that time go to waste. Religious studies, academic studies and working everyday.
This is definitely a situation you want to put behind you when it's over with, but I have to say I took a little piece of Ms. Brown home with me - she gave me hope of a better tommorrow, but most of all... she gave me a friend!
I just pray that the truth comes out and she is able to recapture her family.
Colonel X posted at 9:53 pm on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
Hmmm. This brings about an interesting question. If Ms. Brown is freed, what will become of Judge Wilmore, the prosecutor in the original case?
ataylor posted at 9:36 pm on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
Although I've never met Deb Brown, I know a great deal about this case. I've read the transcripts from both the preliminary trial and the actual trial. I've had conversations with many of the family members and friends. I had a long conversation with one of the main witnesses (who is also testifying in this hearing). I know the individual who was very material to the trial with regards to ballistics. And I've talked with many Cache residents about this case.
If there was ever a miscarriage of justice, it was this case and this defendant. There is absolutely no physical evidence nor eyewitness testimony that was ever presented at trial which links her to this crime. The circumstantial evidence that was presented requires a huge leap of faith and was so full of holes, that it is amazing that grown men would present it when another human being's life was hanging in the balance.
That a weapon as fine as a Colt Woodsman .22 would jam two out of five shots is strange - therefore was it even the gun in question? That Deb Brown was the only person whom Lael Brown had ever given a key to is unknowable; when you stop to think that the only man who could truly answer this question - Lael Brown - was dead.
That the bank statement (I believe it was December's), mysteriously disappeared when in fact all the bank statements were in the hands of Lael Brown's son for months after the crime should have no bearing on the case because the evidence was tainted and never in the hands of police until months after the crime.
These questions alone would speak to reasonable doubt; but then when you add to it that Deb Brown passed a lie detector test, the results of which were not allowed into evidence at trial because Deb Brown never had an attorney at her side through 18 some odd police interviews and interrogations, and therefore no one to stipulate that if the outcome was in her favor, it would be allowed as evidence. (Because she did indeed pass a lie detector, and that it was reported in the Herald Journal, this was the reason prosecutors asked for a change of venue and the trial took place in Brigham City. In fact Deb did not even meet her court appointed attorneys until less than a week before the trial) When you take all this into account, you have to wonder what in the world the prosecutor was smoking?
Especially when, in his closing arguments, the prosecutor put the question to the jury "If she didn't do it, then who did?" Clearly, neither he nor the jury had much of an understanding of the Constitution of the United States, or the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty".
Of course, it's going to come out now how bad this investigation truly was and how irresponsible the those who brought the charges really were. It's also going to come out how poor her defense was and how simply ill prepared they were. Unfortunately, because of the letter of the law that grants this particular hearing, Deb Brown has to literally prove her absolute innocence rather than a reasonable doubt, and so now twice, she has been persecuted outside the penumbra of the Constitution.
If you ever were to read the transcripts - to see how the medical examiner changed the time of death between the preliminary and the trial to fit the prosecution's imagination and constricts. if you were to see that you, or anybody you know, could be charged with murder for simply leaving some soup on an old mans doorstep - and then through the most bizarre of circumstance be convicted: you would truly wonder if this is the country you were taught about throughout your schooling
If she is not freed, this will be only the beginning, because some intrepid writer will be able to take the facts and the persecution of this case and weave a tale that will make Utah - and Cache Valley in particular - look like absolute fools. Deb Brown should be freed immediately. The only reason she has not, is because those who put her there would have to accept their own guilt and duplicity in convicting an innocent person simply because they could.
raider posted at 7:17 pm on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
35GRAND A YEAR Sue the heck out of state > As far as cops being human they better make sure when it comes to life sentences. I,ve got 2 friends that used to be lcpd .They both quit cause of the dishonesty within polioe force
people's court posted at 2:05 pm on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
ustcould
I think that's why it was followed by a question mark. It's not a statement.
Lawyers - I'm with you on that one, however usually the stereotype is a given. Most expect lawyers to lie, cheat, steal, whatever lawyer joke you can think of; so guard is up. Police on the other hand - the stereotype is the always tell the truth, do what is right, they are there to help, etc, therefore guard is down. When defendant A's testimony is up against Police Officer B's testimony I'm sure you don't have to be a rocket scientist to bang out that conclusion.
I'm eager to see the out come of this hearing.
ustcould posted at 12:55 pm on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
people's court - actually I am with you on that. I know of several who’s names have been plastered on the news for an allegation and then when it is proven false we hear little or nothing.
The headline is BAD as well, making your conclusion and
that of the legal system for us.
And as for police, they are human and they do not get my undivided support but I will not make up my mind on hear say and one article.
My Point was: Lets wait till the outcome and let the legal eagles do their work.
BTW - I have more "holier than thou faith without question undivided support" for Law Enforcement than Lawyers most of the time.
people's court posted at 11:35 am on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
ustcould - do you mean like most do when someone is arrested? Interesting to see the tables turned isn't it? The holier than thou faith without question undivided support of law enforcement .. is it possible ... they made a mistake? *gasssssp*
ustcould posted at 10:50 am on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
This is an example of a BAD headline.
You are told the conclusion before
anything has happened.
This is a good law, and possibly
a good use of the new law.
We need to sit back and let the law work now.
Some are sitting back and double guessing
I see / read some finger pointing, blasting
the past investigation. This seems to me
to be out of place until the trial is over
and a verdict is announced.
Trying to make a case from what you
read from a new article is a little like
claiming to be able to build a house
because you saw one on TV and you
once bought a 2x4 from Lowes.
let freedom ring posted at 9:36 am on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
All i can say is WOW they royally screwed up its good that Collins is retired or omg they would run him out of town on a rail but at least he manned up and admitted they all screwed up huh. Now not only have we housed Debra and supporter her since she was arrested but if she is set free the state gets to pay 35,000 a year for every year she was(supposedly) wrongfully incarcerated. no wonder the attorney generals office is in a dither the state will end up paying her out the butt. Maybe they out to pass that fee on down to Logan city p.d. and get some men that will do there job it scares me to think that kind of mentality really does exist and the majority of these idiots are still working there [thumbup][thumbup] to the L.C.P.D. [censored]
WallyFatBoy posted at 8:16 am on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
Well, well, well good ole advoc8nt is all over this one. Maybe he should be persecuted and jail for wrongfully impersonating a human being.Enough of your dribel tommy me boy.
hlgrant posted at 8:12 am on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
Great job Logan Police department! Sorry that you had a "long day" and couldn't collect any evidence or interview any other suspects. The shoddy police work had costed this woman the last 17 years of her life. Forgery does not equal murder.
Thank god that she is being given a chance to prove that the wrong person was convicted. I can't wait for the day when Deb is free!
advoc8 posted at 12:45 am on Wed, Jan 19, 2011.
Maybe her case was before prosecutor Scott Wyatt's changeover to feminism: all men guilty as accused - all women innocent...???
Either way, no man or woman should ever be railroaded by bad PC prosecutors and gang members.