home

"Black Widow" Murder Conviction Overturned

By Jeralyn, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Cynthia Sommer spent the last 2 years and 4 months in jail. She was convicted in 2007 of murdering her Marine husband by poisoning him with arsenic.

She left jail today after new tests showed there was no arsenic. The prosecution moved to dismiss all charges against her.

Her defense lawyers point out:

“No one should say that this system worked,” he said. “This dismissal wasn't because of the prosecution's efforts; it was done because the defense demanded it.”

< Friday Open Thread | Post Debate Poll: Hillary Gains >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    "Black Widow" Murder Conviction Overturned | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    She was punished... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    ...for not being a "good" woman. She had sex, she got breast implants, and she didn't grieve the way society said she should. My mother remodeled her bathroom with my father's insurance money. We talked her into it - she needed the distraction. Fortunately, there was no question of my father being murdered.

    The system DID NOT work (none / 0) (#11)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:32:29 PM EST
    And the system DOES NOT work. (Also glad your Father was not murdered).

    People routinely have a year before trial taken from them. If they are found guilty, the get credit for the time. If they are found innocent - oh, too bad, you lost your house, your car, your job, your wife. Oh well, system worked. At least we didn't put you before a military tribunal and execute you.

    We need a law that prosecutors who bring these charges get to spend the same amount of time in a SuperMax prison and have to register as sex offenders if they ever get out. Better yet, give them the death penalty and force them to get a habeas heard by a federal court. Good luck with that.

    Our system operates under the "no blood, no foul" rule. The incentives are all wrong.

    "Probable Cause" covers it all up. We found you guilty before we found you guilty so nah-nah, system looks out for its own.

    Do you know of any lawyers who are trying to do something about this?

    (Sorry for the snarky tone, but this struck a nerve about fundamental injustices in the legal system).

    Parent

    Is this the woman (none / 0) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    that was out partying days later and that's why they thought she was guilty?  

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by scribe on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:11:10 PM EST
    One of the commenters over on the main article (from the San Diego paper) blamed the conviction on "legal talk shows (Nancy Grace)" and "party like its 1999" propaganda.

    Question (to the rest of the audience):  Was this one of the cases the excreable Nancy Grace flogged on her show?  Because, if it were, that would make her a repeat offender when it comes to railroading innocent people, IIRC.

    Parent

    I saw this on 48 Hours Mysteries (none / 0) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:10:42 PM EST
    (love that show) and she seemed a bit clueless but not exactly guilty.

    Jeralyn how often do forensic toxicology reports (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    get distorted this badly?

    I used to have faith in them.

    I watched the local coverage... (none / 0) (#6)
    by nic danger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    and on court t.v.,and i thought she was innocent.one of our local morning shows had her attorney on and he was saying how the d.a. had botched the case.here is some video from last night where he also lays out his problems with the prosocution.

    Yes, but who pays for.. (none / 0) (#7)
    by jazzcattg1 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    this woman's 2.5 years of life wasted?  Cops?  Prosecutors?

    Her first defense attorney. (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:59:02 PM EST
    He messed up big time.

    Parent
    whose fault? (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:26:40 PM EST
    Neither cops nor prosecutors convicted her.  She was convicted by either a judge or a jury (she chose which one she wanted).  

    The prosecutors and the jurors are to blame . . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by txpublicdefender on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:08:01 PM EST
    The prosecutors never should have charged this case.  The original testing that found the arsenic never made sense because it was found in his liver and kidney samples (but in drastically different amounts) but not in his blood or urine.  Physiologically, that makes no sense.  The only explanation for that was that the samples somehow were contaminated.  Even when every other expert in the field said that the results were unreliable, they still pursued the case, put on those results, and attacked the defense experts who were testifying truthfully and accurately.  They had decided she was guilty already, and instead of following the evidence where it logically took them, they did everything they could to explain the evidence away in order to still "prove" she was guilty.

    The jury in this case did a terrible job.  I know it can be difficult to decide in a battle of the experts, but in this case, it actually seemed completely straightforward.  Unfortunately, they likely convicted her based on all the evidence of her partying and sleeping around after her husband died.  That type of evidence is bunk, but jurors seem to rely on it in case after case.  I wonder what they are thinking about their verdict now.

    Parent

    Malicious Prosecution (none / 0) (#12)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    I followed this case.  Laura Gunn employed a tactic that worked.  She took the jury into such a deep level of detail that nobody could decipher the evidence.  She confidently put up 3rd rate environment lab "experts."  She had a judge who clearly didn't understand the science and who gave her every break imaginable.  Then, she put on several witnesses who were forced to testify about their sexual encounters with Cynthia.

    It was a circus.

    She was told by the top arsenic specialist in the country exactly what was discovered:  The environmental lab screwed up, the results were tainted, and she proseucuted with a vengence anyway.  

    I noticed she didn't have the guts to announce that she was wrong.

    "Black Widow" Murder Conviction Overturned | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment