CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Should a man currently serving a 70-year prison sentence for the rape and robbery of an 83-year-old Harrison County woman in 2001 have had access to exculpatory evidence that came to light, even though he had already entered a guilty plea?
That was the question before the State Supreme Court Tuesday regarding the case of Joseph Anthony “Joe” Buffey.
During the proceedings in February 2002, Buffey was reportedly advised to enter into a plea deal the state offered under the presumption his sentence would be worse if he did not accepting.
His blood had been sent earlier for DNA testing, which was completed in April. However, the results were not sent to Harrison County until July when the plea agreement was accepted in May.
Presenting on his behalf, Al Karlin, a lawyer out of Morgantown assisted by the New York-based Innocence Project, argued that even though there is not federal or state precedent on this matter, there are cases in other states that would agree with their position.
“There are three higher courts, at least in opinion or one way or another, that have indicated that they would follow the position we’re arguing –that is exculpatory evidence has to be disclosed in the plea state. That would be Utah, Nevada and Texas.”
Should West Virginia’s court agree, it would allow Buffey to withdraw his plea by extending the rights in Brady v. Maryland –a 1963 federal case that ruled withholding exculpatory evidence from a defendant on trial violates due process– to the plea stage.
The state, represented by special prosecutor David Romano, argued that Buffey’s case is different because he knew DNA testing was being conducted but chose to enter the plea anyway.
He specifically cited the case of United States v. Ruiz, where a woman in California arrested on drug crimes was involved in a “fast-track” plea deal but later argued she was entitled to “impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses.”
“If the defendant did not know that there was testing being done on the DNA, it may be a different story,” Romano said. “When the defendant is aware of it, knows he can wait for the testing but decides to voluntarily enter into a guilty plea and admits under oath what he’s done, that’s what Ruiz is all about.”
Karlin explained the reason Buffey chose to enter the plea agreement and plead guilty was due to the threat of a harsher punishment, which can lead to the truly guilty party remaining on the streets.
“That’s exactly what happened in this case,” he said. “If this had been handled in 2002 correctly, I suspect that there would have been a very close look at whether or not Joe Buffey was really the perpetrator of this horrible crime, a look that might have turned up Adam Bowers in 2002.”
Bowers, who lived a few houses down from the victim and at one time was her paper boy, was charged with the crime, went on trial and was found guilty largely due to the DNA evidence.
The state maintains a two-suspect theory and Buffey used a condom, which would explain why his DNA was not found on the victim.
Seemingly, the majority of the justices were leaning toward the argument presented by Buffey’s representation.
Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman, who proclaimed herself as one of the more conservative judges when it comes to violent criminals on the bench, described the proceedings back in 2002 as relayed to her as a “bad movie” that started with no one altering Buffey to the fact the DNA testing was completed before sentencing.
“On top of that, you get the bad advice your lawyer gave you about ‘You’re not going to get any more time anyhow.’ Then you get the, weren’t there misrepresentations or misstatements made by the authorities to the grand jury? The ‘so called’ confession had so many inconsistencies with what the victim said occurred…It just really comes out a mess.”
Justices also inquired if they were to allow Buffey to vacate his guilty plea, would the state’s case be impeded in anyway should the opt to take it to trial and what other evidence the state had besides the confession.
Karlin closed his presentation to the court Tuesday morning by imploring them to allow Buffey the chance to use DNA evidence to clear his name of this heinous crime.
“Keep Brady alive,” he said. “In a world of plea bargains, minimize the false pleas and allow Mr. Buffey to vacate his plea and return for whatever the state wants to do. We’re ready to face it.”