Dear Mr. Booberg,

I am one of the attorneys who represents Larry Donnell Fowlkes. Thank you for your interest in Mr. Fowlkes's case.

Wrongful conviction serves nobody's purposes. Between 1982 and 1990, no fewer than eleven individuals were wrongfully convicted in Virginia of serious felonies – rape and murder – and spent a collective 118 years in prison before their innocence was officially recognized by the Commonwealth. The average time from conviction to exoneration was close to eleven years, during which time Virginians spent over $2 million to imprison these innocent defendants. The emotional costs of these wrongful convictions – to the victims, to the wrongfully convicted, and to their families – are beyond comprehension. Meanwhile, in at least some cases, the actual perpetrators remained at large or committed other crimes for which they eventually were incarcerated.

Virginia is not alone; we know that wrongful convictions have occurred in other states, and national attention is focusing on the problems that underlie these wrongful convictions. Recently, Virginia has made significant improvements in its criminal justice system, thanks to the Virginia State Crime Commission and lawmakers in both political parties. In 2002, voters approved a referendum to allow defendants an opportunity to introduce exculpatory DNA evidence post-conviction. Additional reforms signed into law by Governor Mark Warner in 2004 give defendants one opportunity to seek a “petition for a writ of actual innocence” based upon newly discovered evidence that was unavailable at trial. Most recently, the State Crime Commission released a report on Mistaken Eyewitness Identification, issuing six recommendations to improve the procedures for conducting lineups in Virginia.

Unfortunately, the good faith and hard work of the Commonwealth’s prosecutors and police are not always enough to prevent wrongful convictions. Larry Fowlkes's case proves that. While I have no doubt that Mr. Gravatt believed he was doing the right thing when he prosecuted Larry Fowlkes back in 1996, an objective review of the evidence that is available today -- much of which was never presented to the jury -- clearly demonstrates Mr. Fowlkes's innocence.

Even mistakes made in good faith need to be corrected when an injustice has occurred. I hope you will join me so that we can fight together for the release of this innocent man.

Like all prosecutors, Gravaat has two responsibilities: Uphold the law and ensure justice is done. He did neither in this case. Mr./Ms. Booberg may find him better than most in Virginia, but then that's not saying much, as a disturbingly large number of prosecutors in the South - and the country more generally - are manifestly corrupt.

I am a criminal defense attorney living in Richmond, Virginia. I have had numerous cases with Mayo Gravatt and believe that he is one of the most ethical prosecutors in the State. Unlike the vast majority of Virginia prosecutors, Mr. Gravatt has an open file discovery policy meaning that he literally gives defense attorneys his file with all of the police reports and then instructs his officers to talk openly with the defense attorney. While your report made Mr. Gravatt seem nefarious for pointing out the weakness of his witness and the contradictions in her various statements, I believe that what was likely at issue was Mr. Gravatt presented with a murder, a victim's family, a community's desire for justice and a weak case. It appears from your article that Mr. Gravatt did not cover up the weaknesses of his case, but instead pointed them out so that the jury would have the ability to fairly review the evidence before them and make an independent decision. Given the murder and evidence pointing to the defendant, Mr. Gravatt could not in good conscience have refused to prosecute the case. I can understand your viewpoint regarding wrongful conviction, and I share it, but attempting to convict a prosecutor like Mr. Gravatt does not serve our purposes.

It seems to me that the cases that are the most troublesome are those people convicted on weak or contridictory evidence. As it is likely that the Fowlkes conviction would've been much more carefully reviewed if he had been assigned the death penalty, other cases that were decided on questionable evidence seem to suffer a simiar fate.

In cases with questionable evidence, courts seem reluctant to give the death penalty, which has the unintended effect of dropping the profile of the case and therefore the likelyhood that the case and evidence will undergo a thorough review. A similar case in Illinois would be the Alan Beaman case, which wasn't covered by Gov. Ryan's mass commutation, where a conviction that relied on shaky circumstantial evidence is still looking for a court to review the case.

Berlow's article makes it clear that in America, capital punishment isn't a punishment so much as a politicized ritual of human sacrifice. It allows our politicians to establish their "toughness" at the cost of human life. It also makes the American electorate complicit in a blood rite. In Louisiana we know a little bit about the costs of such a cycle. Warner has an opportunity to further the education of the American people about what our justice system is meant to accomplish -- justice -- and what it isn't meant to accomplish -- vengeance and the infliction of ritualistic suffering on those poor, mentally ill, and/or unfortunate enough to get caught in the gears of this dysfunctional machine. Thanks for keeping this case in the public eye, Mr. Berlow.