(2 of 3)
For one thing, Betty Baldwin now spoke up and recanted her 1956 story. Then there was Miller's landlady; in 1956 she had refused to aid his lawyers after the prosecution told her that she had a constitutional right to silence. Now she testified that Miller had been asleep in his room at the time of the crime. As for the pubic hair, it was not Miller's—and Ramsey did not offer it as evidence at the original trial. For the first time, a chemist hired by the defense was allowed to analyze the shorts. He tested threads from all ten rust-colored areas—and found that the stains were paint. He found "no traces of human blood." The state contended that "everybody" knew about the paint at the trial.
When Miller's case eventually reached the Supreme Court, Justice Potter Stewart said that the state's contention was "totally belied by the record." Stewart pointed out that the prosecutor plainly implied at the trial—and the jury believed—that the shorts were encrusted with only one substance, the child's blood. Yet even if there was blood on the shorts, there was little evidence to connect them with the crime and none whatsoever to connect them with Miller.
Last week Ramsey still insisted that there had been blood on the shorts, while conceding that "perhaps" he had made "only one mistake"—not telling the jury about the paint, which he admitted he knew all about during the trial. Indeed, Ramsey kept quiet about the paint for most of the decade that Miller spent on death row for a murder that remains unsolved.
Rare Approval. What is the reckoning for a prosecutor who knowingly uses false or misleading evidence to help gain a conviction? Usually nothing. All the same, many lawyers across the country are urging professional action against Fellow Lawyer Ramsey, who is now a trust officer for a central Illinois bank. Last week the Illinois Bar Association grievance committee scheduled the matter for consideration April 1. If a bar association believes a lawyer guilty of unethical conduct, it can recommend censure, suspension or outright disbarment. But a state court, usually the highest, must approve—and such cases are rare. Of the nation's 313,000 lawyers, only 86 were disbarred last year.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has reversed dozens of convictions that were based on prosecutors' dubious tactics. But such reversals commonly occur years after a prosecutor has left office, and time seems to immunize the offender. Examples:
> In 1940, Henry Napue was convicted for his alleged part in killing a policeman during a Chicago tavern holdup. Napue was fingered by one George Hamer, already serving 199 years for the crime, who testified that he had received no promise of special consideration in return for his testimony. Not until 1959 did the Supreme Court reverse Napue's conviction, ruling that the prosecutor had allowed Hamer to lie on the stand after promising to try to get his sentence reduced. No action was taken against the prosecutor.