U-M Innocence Clinic urging Michigan Supreme Court to get involved in sex-abuse conviction case
A Calhoun County woman will remain free on bond while lawyers try to persuade the Michigan Supreme Court to get involved in a sex-abuse conviction that fell apart because of new evidence, the Associated Press reports.
Lorinda Swain is being helped by the Innocence Clinic at the University of Michigan law school.
A judge in Battle Creek erased Swain's 2002 conviction and granted a new trial in a case involving her adopted son. But the state appeals court reversed the decision two weeks ago.
A judge today said Swain can remain free while she appeals to the Michigan Supreme Court. The prosecutor wanted her in jail.
In 2002, Swain was convicted of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
As AnnArbor.com reported in September, after Swain's then-13 year old adoptive son was accused of sexually abusing a young cousin, the boy said he'd been abused as a youth by Swain. Swain was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison.
The Innocence Clinic's students were able to track down witnesses who refuted the boy's statements. In November 2007, the boy, now an adult, recanted his testimony in a notarized statement.
A question for the Supreme Court is whether Swain has run out of appeals.
The U-M Innocence Clinic was founded in January 2009.
- Reporting by the Associated Press and AnnArbor.com.
Comments
Mick52
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 3:31 p.m.
This is one of those stories, that while somewhat interesting leave a reader with many questions - more detail would be nice. This offender's son, who is a child abuser has recanted his testimony. Joran Van der Sloor recanted his confession too. I would not be surprised that a person would seek to get his mother released from prison. Also of question are these witnesses who were tracked down and refuted the boy's statement. So were these people witness to his mother abusing him? Was that his testimony at the time of the original trial and what was their prior testimony if they were witnesses? This makes me wonder how these witnesses could refute what statements. Perhaps this organization is righting a wrong but its hard to determine what is going on here. I hope this story was not written from a press release from this "Innocence Clinic."