Posted on 02/16/2006 6:47:57 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The investigator accused of fabricating juror statements in a bid to win clemency for a man condemned to die Tuesday is under investigation for previous cases she worked on for a state agency that defends death row inmates.
Investigator Kathleen Culhane, whose worked is being questioned in the case of Michael Morales, was employed by the Habeas Corpus Resource Center between 2001 and 2005, the agency said Thursday.
Culhane generated what prosecutors believe were bogus juror declarations from six jurors saying Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should spare Morales, who raped and murdered a 17-year-old Lodi girl in 1981.
Although her work was regarded as high quality, the center said in a statement that it would review her past cases. Executive Director Michael Laurence declined comment.
Morales' attorneys, former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr and Los Angeles attorney David Senior, questioned the authenticity of the declarations Culhane said she obtained and withdrew them from the clemency petition.
The California Attorney General's office and prosecutors in San Joaquin County, where the girl was killed, said they were fakes. Some jurors told state investigators they never spoke to Culhane and wanted Morales executed. Juror names were not part of the public record.
Culhane declined to speak with The Associated Press last week and her San Francisco phone was disconnected Thursday. The address listed on a business card she left with one juror led to a San Francisco business that rents post office boxes.
The California Department of Consumer Affairs said she was not a licensed investigator.
Her attorney, Stuart Hanlon, said Culhane committed no wrongdoing and that there was no discrepancy with the signatures she submitted and the ones obtained by state investigators.
"We're comfortable that she didn't do anything wrong and we want to investigate the case," Hanlon said.
Chuck Schultz, a San Joaquin County prosecutor who is urging Schwarzenegger to deny clemency, said the documents were forged and some signatures were misspelled. He doesn't believe Starr or Senior knew they were submitting allegedly false documents, but accused them of sloppy work.
"Maybe they thought we were nothing but a cow county out here," Schultz said. "I think there was a little bit of arrogance out there, too."
Starr and Senior said they did not know they were submitting questionable evidence to the governor.
"We're deeply concerned and distressed that this issue has arisen in the first instance," Starr said, but he refused to comment directly on what happened.
He said he was not concerned about his reputation but was focused on Morales winning a reprieve. He and Senior took Culhane's word "in the best of good faith" that her work was authentic.
Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara School of law professor, said there was no ethical breach by either lawyer because they trusted an investigator who signed sworn declarations that she was telling the truth. In addition, Culhane worked four years at the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, which gave her work high marks.
"It's a lawyer's worst nightmare. You rely on people you trust and it turns out your reliance was misplaced," Uelmen said. "Unfortunately, these kinds of things do impact on people's reputations."
The declarations submitted by Culhane said Morales deserved clemency because some of the testimony at his trial may have been fabricated. Starr and Senior also withdrew a statement allegedly from Morales' former roommate, who testified at trial that Morales practiced choking her before trying to strangle Terri Winchell.
Culhane said the woman told her she was coerced to testify. That witness later told state investigators she was not coerced and stood by her testimony.
Senior appears to have changed his tune, and Starr has finally climbed out from under his rock.
Now what did they know, and when did they know it.
San Francisco, CA, February 15, 2006The Habeas Corpus Resource Center (HCRC) is aware of recent media reports concerning the investigation conducted by Kathleen Culhane on behalf of Michael Morales. Ms. Culhane was employed by the HCRC as an investigator between October 2001 and June 2005. At the time Ms. Culhane joined HCRC she was an experienced, highly-recommended capital case investigator. Ms. Culhanes work product was regarded as being of high quality, and HCRC has had no indication that the information she obtained on behalf of HCRC clients could be subjected to valid criticism.The Center has a "ca.gov" web address so I guess this is another taxpayer funded entity? From their website:Pending resolution of questions raised with respect to work performed on behalf of Mr. Morales, HCRC will review Ms. Culhanes work product at the HCRC to verify that it met the high standards of integrity and reliability HCRC demands of any and all evidence we submit to state and federal courts.
The Habeas Corpus Resource Center (HCRC), located in San Francisco, provides counsel to represent indigent men and women under sentence of death in California. The HCRC's mission is to provide timely, high-quality legal representation for indigent petitioners in death penalty habeas corpus proceedings before the Supreme Court of California and the federal courts.
She's a lib. She's a lawyer. Her lips moved. Case closed
BTTT
Hanlon... the man who spent half-a-lifetime getting Black Panther Geronimo Pratt out of jail.
Just hang him now.
So, Kathleen Culhane is not an attorney, not a licensed investigator, and operates out of a post office box.
Despite that, the arrogant Senior defended her work product without even double checking.
Amazing.
Are you kidding? Now he'll argue he didn't have competent representation and try to start the process over!
Has any attorney ever seen any wrongdoing in their client?
I really wonder how often this has been being practiced on us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.