Oklahoman Editorial 2001-06-04

WHO IS Barry Scheck and where he does he get off telling Oklahoma how to conduct its business? Is he a carpetbagger and opportunist, a showboat East Coast lawyer who's now focused on Oklahoma because our criminal justice system has been in the national spotlight of late?

Or is he a concerned man of justice who simply wants to ensure that no
innocent man is serving life in prison or sitting on death row because of poor forensics work? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Scheck is director of the New York-based Innocence Project, which provides free legal assistance to inmates challenging their convictions based on what they believe is faulty DNA evidence. Of course, virtually every inmate claims innocence, citing whatever excuse they can. A few -- probably much less than 1 percent -- actually are
innocent.

Scheck insists that the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation should not be
probing allegations of incompetence on the part of suspended Oklahoma City police chemist Joyce Gilchrist. Scheck claims that the OSBI and one of its own
chemists have competency problems of their own. The OSBI is named in a federal lawsuit to that effect. Care to guess the name of one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit?

Scheck may have good intentions, and we're sure that some inmates need and
deserve the assistance his organization provides. But he's arrogant beyond a
reasonable doubt in telling Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson how
to conduct his business or assuming that the state is incapable of sifting through the faulty forensics claims.

Allegations against Gilchrist are being thoroughly investigated. Like the inmates
before they were convicted, she has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Scheck apparently doesn't see it that way. In his eyes, Gilchrist and the OSBI chemist are guilty. Period. No appeal.

Perhaps they are guilty. The truth will come out. Meanwhile, we wonder why
high-profile attorneys such as Scheck never seem to get involved with defendants at the trial level, where their assistance would be the most valuable. Why do they only step in at the highest level of appeals? Is it because the publicity (and subsequent opportunities for fund raising) far outweighs the time they must spend? Why not slug it out in the trial courts by assisting, pro bono,overworked and underfunded public defenders? Is it because they get more sympathy from liberal appellate judges and media celebrities than they do from juries made up of average folks?

Oklahoma has recently taken some much-needed steps to provide more funding for its public defenders. Some inmates who feel they never got a fair trial or had inadequate representation will welcome the news that Barry Scheck is so focused on Oklahoma. They shouldn't get their hopes up.

As soon as the criminal justice system of another state calls for his services --
or another high-profile scandal breaks out elsewhere -- he will be gone. He's
obviously too important to get involved with Oklahoma defendants before they're found guilty.

Scheck has offered to "help" Oklahoma investigate cases in which allegations of fraudulent forensics have been made. No thanks, counselor. The state is quite
capable of sorting this out fairly and promptly. The Legislature has appropriated
$725,000 for the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System to examine questionable
cases, and other steps have been taken to help indigent defendants make a
better case at trial.

The current uproar over forensics and shortcomings in the state's criminal justice system will pass. A few inmates may be released, as was Jeff Pierce.Most will not, because they are guilty beyond doubt. Scheck will move on to greener pastures, and the average indigent defendant will get more help than before in Oklahoma.

This won't be due to Scheck or his organization. It will result from the state's recognition that justice is ultimately best served if all defendants are given the tools they need to try to establish their innocence at the trial level.

I know it may not do much good but We should let the Oklahoman know we think someone from out side should be involved with the investigations.