In 2002, 13-year-old Ronnie Swain told authorities that he had also been victim of sexual abuse. He accused his adopted mother, Lorinda Swain, of performing oral sex on him every morning. Swain was arrested, charged, and convicted of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. She was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison.
Soon after she was convicted, though, Ronnie recanted his testimony. He said he made up the sexual molestation allegations so that he would not get in trouble for inappropriately touching his three-year-old niece. From Deadline Detroit:
For years, according to David Moran, the co-director of the Innocence Clinic at the Ann Arbor law school, Swain’s legal team has been trying to get the Calhoun County prosecutor to meet with Ronald Swain and hear from him why he lied at trial and why he’s urging the courts to do the right thing now.
“He’s passed polygraphs, gone to the police, gone to the press, gone to lawyers, gone to the public and said it just did not happen,” Moran says. “We want the prosecutor to just meet with him.”
The prosecutor, however, has always refused.
Since her conviction, Swain has filed countless appeals and motions for relief and fought repeatedly to get a new trial. In 2009, her request was finally granted by the trial court, who granted defendant’s motion for relief from judgment and set aside her four convictions. The Court of Appeals reversed. The trial court then again granted the motion based on newly discovered evidence, the interests of justice, and defendant's actual innocence. The appellate court reversed again.
On Wednesday, the case finally went in front of the Michigan Supreme Court. The result will huge implications—not only for Swain, but any defendant who is likely innocent. Swain is represented by the Michigan Innocence Project, and her case rests on two main arguments—she is not guilty, and prosecutors "kept critical evidence from her defense team that could have helped persuade the jury she was not guilty."
She has a solid argument for both. No physical or circumstantial evidence existed in this case, and Swain's conviction was solely based on the testimony of two people—Ronnie and Deborah Charles, an inmate that testified that Swain had confessed to her. Ronnie has recanted, and it turns out that Charles was a completely unreliable witness. Not only did she have 24 felony convictions and 12 known aliases, she also had "a history of rummaging through other inmates’ files to gain knowledge of their cases and had been investigated by the Department of Corrections."
Ronnie claimed that the abuse happened every morning in their home as his brother Cody waited for the school bus. According to Ronnie, Cody would yell for him once the school bus was a few doors down, and he would run out to catch the bus. But Cody testified that they almost always waited for the bus together, countering Ronnie's claim. What's more, during her first trial Swain repeatedly requested that her lawyer talk to the bus driver and the other passengers to prove that the boys always waited for the bus together. But her lawyer never spoke to them and that evidence was never presented.
There's more as well. Even at the time of the original trial, Ronnie told two family members he had made the story up. "I don't think he had any idea the consequences of his lie," said Ronnie's grandfather. From Proving Innocence:
Ronnie’s biological grandmother has stated that she knew Ronnie was lying from the beginning. And there is scientific weight in the testimony of Dr. Thomas Keith who administered her polygraph and Dr. Steven Miller, who stated "I've worked on over 3000 evaluations in sex crime cases. I have no doubt whatsoever that she is innocent."
Prosecutors also failed to turn over important evidence in the case. From Michigan Radio:
[H]er trial defense team decided not to call her ex-boyfriend, Dennis Book, to the stand. Book lived in the home during some portion of time when the abuse allegedly occurred, but by the time the trial rolled around, Swain and her ex were estranged and pretty hostile.
Yet since then, Swain’s new attorneys have discovered that a detective spoke with Dennis Book on the phone before the trial, and the ex-boyfriend told the detective he knew Swain hadn’t abused the child.
Swain’s attorneys are now arguing that, because the prosecutor didn’t tell the defense about this phone call with Book, the defense had no way of knowing he was actually a strong witness for the defense, despite the hostility.
Prosecutors are required to turn over evidence that supports a defendant's claim of innocence. But in this case, like many others, they kept that testimony to themselves.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the case. From Fox 17:
"I’m trying to understand how it is a live-in lover who was there during the mornings was newly discovered as a defendant," asked Chief Justice Robert Young.
Attorneys for the state argued the validity of the newly-claimed evidence. Calhoun County assistant prosecutor Jennifer Kay Clark told the court the case is beyond appeal because the presumption of innocence is gone after the jury’s verdict.
Clark makes an important point—once a person has been convicted, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant, which makes sense. But as a result, it is almost impossible for the wrongly convicted to get relief from a conviction—especially after its been affirmed by an appellate court.
It is not enough to demonstrate reasonable doubt. The “actual innocence” standard requires a defendant to show that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found [the defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” While the rule seems reasonable, courts have taken it to the extreme, and case law demonstrates that such a standard is virtually impossible to meet.
It is also not enough to show prosecutorial error, that error must be monumental. And even if one was to meet the actual innocence standard or demonstrate real prosecutorial error, they still may not stand a chance. Often, small and confusing procedural details are enough to prevent a defendant from getting justice, even when real evidence of innocence exists.
The court should, of course, require solid evidence before overturning a conviction or granting a new trial. In this case, such evidence exists. Not only does the prosecution no longer have a real case—their main witness has recanted, after all—Swain's team also has additional evidence of her innocence. The defense has new witnesses and both sons have testified in her defense. Yet still, Swain is facing an uphill battle.
In situations like this one, a new trial is more than warranted. Our criminal justice system should, as Michigan Radio frames it, "offers a legal path to freedom for someone who’s probably innocent."
Currently, Swain is out on bond after a trial court granted her motion for relief from judgment. Now the Supreme Court will look at whether or not that motion should have been granted. If the court rules in favor of the prosecution, Swain will go back to prison to serve the rest of her sentence. From Detroit News:
An amicus brief has been filed by several former state and federal prosecutors who have reviewed the case and are convinced the prosecution is allowing procedural arguments to prevail. “Lawyers, and prosecutors in particular, have an affirmative obligation to act in furtherance of justice,” the brief states. “No evidence should be sufficient to decide the guilt of a person who is actually innocent.”
If Lorinda Swain's conviction stands, it will not only be a tragedy for her, but every other wrongfully convicted defendant.