Selwin Days was convicted. Again.  He stood accused of the murder of eccentric Eastchester millionaire Archie Harris and his live-in home health aide, Betty Ramcharan back in 1996.  From the  LoHud Journal News :

The victims were found in Harris’ blood-splattered home at 4 Berkeley Circle. Days, whose mother used to work for Harris and had accused him of molesting her, was arrested in 2001 after his ex-girlfriend tipped off police.

Days confessed to the murder at the time, but subsequently argued that his confession was false and coerced.  Back in 2001, the idea of a false confession to murder was ludicrous. Not so much today.  But this wasn’t the first time Days went to trial.  And it wasn’t the first time Days was convicted.

Days’ first trial in 2003 ended in a hung jury. He was convicted at his second trial in 2004 and given a 50-year prison sentence, which was overturned in 2009. His third trial also hung the jury, which voted 9-3 for acquittal.

The fourth jury, which began deliberations Monday, reached a verdict at 12:05 p.m. Wednesday.

At the first trial, Days’ girlfriend, Cherlyn Mayhew, testified that he bragged to her that he got away with murder.  

In 2003, Mayhew testified that Days had told her he killed two people. She changed her testimony in February 2011, when she said she couldn’t remember what Days had ever told her. Last month, she said she remembered nothing about the case – not even testifying in court earlier.

She was found in contempt and sentenced to five days in jail. Westchester County Judge Barry Warhit then declared her “unavailable” for trial and allowed her 2003 testimony to be read to jurors, as it was at Days’ second trial.

Mayhew testified that Days bragged about getting away with killing an old man and a lady who came across the scene and began screaming.

Both times that Mayhew’s testimony was read to jurors, Days was convicted.

Aside from Mayhew’s testimony and Days’ confession, there wasn’t a shred of evidence against him.  No physical evidence. No eyewitness. No forensics. Nada.  Judge Warhit ruled that Mayhew was an “unavailable” witness, and allowed her 2003 testimony to be read to the jury. 

Mind you, the report fails to say whether the judge found Days responsibility for her unavailability, or whether it was challenged on confrontation, but then, it would have been far more difficult to convict Days without it.  Ironically, when Mayhew testified live, the jury hung.  Only in the two trials where her testimony was read to the jury did they convict.

At the fourth trial, the defense sought to introduce expert testimony on false confessions but was precluded.  Interestingly, the  Court of Appeals decision in Santiago came down during trial, holding that it was error to preclude the defense from using expert testimony to explain why eyewitness IDs were unreliable when there was insufficient corroboration. 

While false confessions are obviously a different matter, both shared the problems of being overwhelmingly accepted by juries and potentially dead wrong, with substantial science behind them to show that they were fraught with error.

The prosecution, as might be expected, rejoiced over the verdict, proclaiming their absolute certainty that Days was a guilty man.  The defense, as one might expect, felt just the opposite, saying he was “100% innocent.” 

The problem, of course, is that if you try someone enough times, fudge a few details on either end of the evidence like putting in the damning testimony of Mayhew without any ability to cross-examine, and then the confession of Days, without the ability to show that false confessions happen, the chances of a conviction increase dramatically. That there were trials in the interim that resulted in hung juries, even hung in favor of acquittal, doesn’t change the calculus; each judges gets to rule on the evidence in the case before him, no matter what some bleeding heart judge ruled earlier that prevented a proper and swift conviction.

Days is taking his latest conviction stoically, vowing to continue the fight.  if he gets a fair shake from the Appellate Division, the conviction will be reversed and remanded for a new trial.  Maybe five will be the charm.  If not, there’s always six, seven or eight.