►
From YouTube: Councilman Oh on Erik Riddick 4-19-2018
Description
From the Stated Meeting of Philadelphia City Council held April 19, 2018:
Councilman David Oh (At Large) speaks on efforts to pardon Erik Riddick.
A
Very
much
council
president,
there
there
have
been
a
lot
of
issues
that
have
faced
the
city
and
fortunately
the
media
has
reported
on
it
and
I
appreciate
all
the
council
members
who
have
been
very
actively
engaged.
I
would
like
to
talk
about
something,
however,
that
that
I
came
across
last
week.
While
I
was
away
a
woman
came
and
left
me
a
booklet,
and
it
was
about
her
son.
A
His
name
is
Eric
man
and
I
agreed
to
meet
her,
but
she
wanted
me
to
read
the
booklet
and
I
did
read
the
booklet,
and
it
reminded
me
of
something
that
I
had
experienced
many
years
ago
as
an
attorney,
and
that
is
when
they
came
across
Pennsylvania's
post-conviction
relief
act
and
I'd
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
it,
because
I
will
introduce
a
resolution
next
week,
calling
upon
the
state
legislature
to
amend
and
reform
this
act.
I
have
asked
my
staff
to
contact.
A
Harrisburg
I
will
go
visit
them.
The
first
page
of
the
book
that
she
left
me,
which
is
evidence
of
proof
of
innocence,
is
an
opinion
written
by
Justice,
James
Fitzgerald,
who
especially
assigned
to
Superior
Court,
and
he
wrote
in
concurrence
or
agreement
with
the
decision
that
the
law
was
being
followed.
But
this
is
what
he
said.
A
He
said
I
write
separately
only
to
express
my
utmost
displeasure
with
the
post-conviction
relief
acts,
failure
to
facilitate
justice
in
this
case,
where
it
is
clear
to
all
that
is
likely
that
an
innocent
man
sits
behind
bars
for
no
better
reason
than
a
poorly
conceived
statute.
No
system
of
criminal
justice
is
perfect.
However,
a
system
of
criminal
justice
that
prevents
the
correction
of
obvious
errors
is
easily
improved
if
only
the
legislature
could
see
fit
to
do
it.
A
This
case,
in
summary,
is
about
a
man
who
was
accused
of
shooting
from
a
terrorist's
another
man,
a
witness,
a
single
witness
said
he
saw
him
from
a
terrorist
shoot
downward
and
killed
the
main
at
at
the
hearing.
There
were
three
alibi
witnesses
sitting
in
court,
but
the
attorney
never
called
them
to
testify,
and
later
many
years
later
after
the
conviction,
it
was
found
that
likely
the
defense
attorney
never
filed
notice
to
the
prosecution
that
they
had
an
alibi
witness
and
therefore
could
not
present
the
alibi.
A
Here
is
the
problem
with
the
with
Pennsylvania's
post-conviction
relief
act
and
I
did
run
into
this
decades
ago
and
fortunately,
for
the
person
I
represented
in
a
very
long
process
through
a
writ
of
habeas
corpus
in
the
federal
court.
The
evidence
against
him
was
found
to
be
unreliable
and
he
was
set
free.
A
The
problem
is
that
once
a
person
is
found
guilty
in
Pennsylvania
and
the
appeals
are
exhausted,
a
defendant
may
file
post-conviction
relief
and
there
are
limited
grounds.
Ineffective.
Assistance
of
counsel
is
one
newly
discovered
evidence
is
the
other.
However,
you
have
to
file
within
a
year
and
if
you
have
newly
discovered
evidence
you
have
to
file
within
60
days
of
the
knowledge
of
that
evidence
that
may
sound
simple
enough,
but
in
Pennsylvania
the
the
standards
are
too
strict.
A
They're
too
hard
it's
hard
to
overcome
these
standards,
because
for
for
ineffective
assistance
of
counsel,
it
is
different
than
medical
malpractice.
The
standard
is
that
no
competent
attorney
would
have
done
what
the
attorney
did
in
either
in
particularly
excluding
or
not
including
evidence
of
innocence,
and
that
evidence
has
to
be
of
a
certain
category
and
therefore,
if
an
attorney
committed
malpractice,
what
I
would
say
is
malpractice
that
will
not
provide
the
defendant,
an
opportunity
to
have
his
case
heard,
or
the
evidence
heard.
A
The
other
issue
is
that
in
Pennsylvania,
newly
discovered
evidence
is
not
evidence
that
you
just
find
it's
evidence
that
you
should
have
found
could
have
found
but
didn't
find
and
in
Pennsylvania,
no
matter
how
poorly
represented
you
are,
how
illogically
you
are
represented,
how
terribly
you're
represented
as
long
as
your
lawyer
told
you
what
he
was
going
to
do,
and
most
people
rely
on
their
lawyers.
You
don't
have
an
appealable
basis.
A
I
think
that
the
Pennsylvania
post-conviction,
a
relief
Act
needs
to
be
amended
so
that
people
who
have
evidence
newly
discovered
evidence,
scientific
edit
evidence,
recanting
of
evidence.
Evidence
of
attorney
malpractice
can
appeal
and
present
their
evidence,
because
the
way
it
is
right
now,
it
is
just
nearly
impossible
in
our
state.
Thank
you
very
much.