WP: DNA Exonerates Va. Inmates in 2 Rape Cases

[HOF44]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401643.html

RICHMOND, Dec. 14 -- Newly tested DNA evidence from rapes committed perhaps more than 20 years ago have exonerated two Virginians who had served several years behind bars, according to a statement by Gov. Mark R. Warner that is scheduled to be released later today.

One of the defendants served 20 years in prison for a rape in Alexandria that the new testing shows he did not commit. The other assault was in Norfolk.

[Destino]

Just what the hell do you say to a guy that you put in prison for 20 years by mistake? Is there an investigation to see what went wrong? Any possible charges if a cop or DA knowingly withheld evidence?

[SkinInsite]

Just what the hell do you say to a guy that you put in prison for 20 years by mistake?

I'm sorry and here's a check for 20mil?

[rincewind]

Just what the hell do you say to a guy that you put in prison for 20 years by mistake? Is there an investigation to see what went wrong? Any possible charges if a cop or DA knowingly withheld evidence?

Worse yet, what do you say to the family if you put the guy to death?

[HOF44]

When someone is put to death, at least in VA. All evidence is destroyed by the state. That keeps any little untidy things like this from coming up.

[TC4]

Just what the hell do you say to a guy that you put in prison for 20 years by mistake? Is there an investigation to see what went wrong? Any possible charges if a cop or DA knowingly withheld evidence?

The problem is that 20 years ago, DNA had only been available for maybe a couple years and thus, wasn't being widely used yet, and wasn't as sophistcated either

The 1st case that used DNA was in the UK in 1983, so the guy who was in jail for 20 years probally had no access to using DNA at that time:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/colinpitchfork.shtml

Colin Pitchfork

The use of forensic evidence such as DNA may seem commonplace in modern times, but it wasn't always so.

The first murder conviction that used DNA evidence to prove the guilt of a defendant involved the murder of two teenage schoolgirls.

And the forensic evidence actually proved the innocence of the main suspect.

Two teenage girls were murdered in the small town of Narborough, Leicestershire, in 1983 and 1986. These events sparked a murder hunt that was only to be resolved by a innovative DNA mass intelligence screen. This eventually led to the conviction of a local man, but not before the prime suspect was proved to be innocent.

In 1983, 15-year-old schoolgirl Lynda Mann was found raped and murdered in the Narborough area. Forensic scientists visited the scene and a semen sample taken from her body was found to belong to a person with type A blood and an enzyme profile that matched only 10 per cent of the adult male population. Unfortunately, with no other leads or forensic evidence, the murder hunt was eventually wound down.

Three years later, Dawn Ashworth, also 15, was found strangled and sexually assaulted in the same area. Police were convinced that the same assailant had committed both murders, and the FSS recovered semen samples from Dawn's body that revealed her attacker had the same blood type as Lynda's murderer.

Exoneration

The prime suspect was a local boy, Richard Buckland, who revealed after questioning, previously unreleased details about Dawn Ashworth's body. Further questioning led to his confession, but he denied any involvement in the first murder of Lynda Mann.

Convinced that he had committed both crimes, Leicestershire police contacted Dr Alec Jeffreys at Leicester University, who had developed a technique for creating DNA profiles.

Using this technique, Dr Jeffreys compared semen samples from both murders, against a blood sample from Richard Buckland, which conclusively proved that both girls were killed by the same man, but not by him. Surprised and disappointed, the police contacted the FSS to verify Dr Jeffrey's results and decide which direction to take the investigation.

Richard Buckland became the first person in the world to be exonerated of murder through the use of DNA profiling. Dr Jeffreys said: "I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have been found guilty had it not been for DNA evidence. That was a remarkable occurrence."

Leicestershire police then decided to undertake the world's first DNA mass intelligence screen. All adult males in three villages, a total of 5,000 men, were asked to volunteer and provide blood or saliva samples. Blood grouping was performed and DNA profiling carried out on the 10 per cent of men who had the same blood type as the killer.

All of the mass screening work was carried out by the FSS, a painstaking task that took six months to complete. When they discovered that no profiles matched the profile of the killer, it seemed that all possibilities had been exhausted.

A twist in the story

However, the investigation took a strange twist when a year later a woman overheard her colleague, Ian Kelly, bragging that he had given his sample whilst masquerading as his friend, Colin Pitchfork. Pitchfork, a local baker, had apparently persuaded Kelly to take the test for him. Pitchfork was subsequently arrested and his DNA profile was found to match with the semen from both murders. He was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment for the two murders in 1988.

[Destino]

The problem is that 20 years ago, DNA had only been available for maybe a couple years and thus, wasn't being widely used yet, and wasn't as sophistcated either

The 1st case that used DNA was in the UK in 1983, so the guy who was in jail for 20 years probally had no access to using DNA at that time:

All well and good. But my point is the DA "proved" beyond a reasonable doubt that these people raped someone, when in fact they didn't. How did that happen is the question I would want an answer to.

[Predicto]

The justice system is very flawed, but it is the best we have. People believe thing that aren't true, remember things that didn't happen, identify people that they have never seen. We are imperfect beings, and there is no way a trial can ever bring out all of the entire story about anything. So we muddle along, and mistake are sometimes made, even without wrongdoing on the part of anyone.

Just another reason I oppose the death penalty.

[Larry]

Dest,

I don't see anything above that says DNA was used in the original case at all. Certainly nothing that says it "proved" he did it, in error.

I think it's more a case of "he got sent up the river back when DNA was something you learned about in High School, but it had no practical uses whatsoever".

I wonder if the same kind of thing happened when fingerprint testing first started to catch on? Were a lot of folks freed, years later, after fingerprint testing? (I'd assume not, since if somebody was convicted before fingerprint testing, then there was no reason to preserve any of the evidence in an un-fingerprint-altered state.)

[Destino]

Dest,

I don't see anything above that says DNA was used in the original case at all. Certainly nothing that says it "proved" he did it, in error.

I think it's more a case of "he got sent up the river back when DNA was something you learned about in High School, but it had no practical uses whatsoever".

I wonder if the same kind of thing happened when fingerprint testing first started to catch on? Were a lot of folks freed, years later, after fingerprint testing? (I'd assume not, since if somebody was convicted before fingerprint testing, then there was no reason to preserve any of the evidence in an un-fingerprint-altered state.)

I'm not saying it was used. I'm saying that the guy didn't do it but the DA obviously proved that he did to a jury somewhere along the line. How? How do you prove someone did something if they didn't?

[Larry]

I'm not saying it was used. I'm saying that the guy didn't do it but the DA obviously proved that he did to a jury somewhere along the line. How? How do you prove someone did something if they didn't?

My mistake. You said "DA", I read "DNA".

[Predicto]

I'm not saying it was used. I'm saying that the guy didn't do it but the DA obviously proved that he did to a jury somewhere along the line. How? How do you prove someone did something if they didn't?

Happens all the time. You appeal to the passions of the jury. You convince them that even if the guy didn't do exactly what he is charged of, he must have done lots of other bad stuff. You hide exculpatory evidence, or don't even look for it because you are sure that you "have your man." Mostly, you just have a thory of the case, and you look at everything only from that point of view, i.e., tunnel vision. Or maybe the defense attorney is incompentent, or drunk, or lazy. Or maybe an eyewitness is absolutely 100% sure this is the guy, but they are wrong. The possibilities are endless.

[aREDSKIN]

The justice system is very flawed, but it is the best we have. People believe thing that aren't true, remember things that didn't happen, identify people that they have never seen. We are imperfect beings, and there is no way a trial can ever bring out all of the entire story about anything. So we muddle along, and mistake are sometimes made, even without wrongdoing on the part of anyone.

Just another reason I oppose the death penalty.

Well this all good and lovely but you left out the obvious liar that is the accuser. Maybe not in this case but in many others trumped up rape charges are too easily brought.

[jbooma]

When someone is put to death, at least in VA. All evidence is destroyed by the state. That keeps any little untidy things like this from coming up.

How interesting because Waner says in the article that he is comtemplating to use DNA for someone who was executed to see if he was quilty, but how can that be if they destroy the evidence :doh:

[HOF44]

How interesting because Waner says in the article that he is comtemplating to use DNA for someone who was executed to see if he was quilty, but how can that be if they destroy the evidence :doh:

APPEALS PROCESS

Restrictions: Virginia law sets these restrictions on the appeals process:

21 Day Rule: Once 21 days have passed after the judge signs the judgment order, the defendant may not introduce any new evidence in any of the appeals courts. A defendant is barred from raising any claims in the appeals process that were not raised during the trial.

Contemporaneous Objection Rule: This rule bars lawyers from raising objections on appeal, if they were not brought up during the original trial.

Preservation of Evidence: The circuit court is under no obligation to preserve evidence from trials once they have concluded. In most cases, the evidence is destroyed. This evidence is crucial later when appeals lawyers are fighting for the condemned man's life, especially if the evidence can prove innocence.

If the defendant raises a particular issue at trial but not on state appeal, then that claim cannot be raised in federal court later.

Automatic review: The case must be reviewed by the Virginia Supreme Court. That decision may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

State habeas corpus petition: A death-row inmate may then file a state habeas corpus petition with the Virginia Supreme Court. A habeas corpus petition is a civil action challenging a criminal conviction as unconstitutional. That, too, may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Federal habeas corpus petition: If the state habeas petition fails, the inmate then may file a federal habeas corpus petition in U.S. District Court.

Panel of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Any decision reached in U.S. District Court may

be appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Full 4th Circuit: The decision of a three-judge panel on the 4th Circuit can then be appealed to the entire court.

U.S. Supreme Court: That decision can then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[HOF44]

This is a good read.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/etc/synopsis.html

The science of DNA testing can now establish with near certainty who did or didn't commit a crime. Why, then, do inmates remain in prison despite DNA evidence which exonerates them?

"The Case for Innocence" explores this question, profiling four compelling cases where DNA evidence has been ignored, discounted, or kept secret.

One case is that of prisoner Clyde Charles. For eighteen years he proclaimed his innocence in a Louisiana rape case. But for nearly a decade, state and federal officials blocked his appeals for a DNA test. The efforts of lawyer Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project, coupled with FRONTLINE's media attention, finally pressured authorities to allow the test. It came back negative, and in December 1999 Charles was freed.

"It was surprising to me to learn that prisoners--some on death row--have great difficulty convincing the state to release new evidence which can prove their innocence," says FRONTLINE producer Ofra Bikel. "But I was stunned to find that in cases where DNA tests are conducted, and the results clearly support claims of innocence, the tests are often ignored, and these individuals remain imprisoned."

Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project have successfully exonerated more than thirty-five prisoners using DNA testing. But, DNA exclusion does not necessarily lead to freedom. The case of Roy Criner is an example.

Arrested in 1985 and charged with the rape and murder of a sixteen-year-old Texas girl, Criner was convicted and sentenced to 99 years. In 1996, he submitted to a DNA test based on advances in DNA testing. The tests came back negative, proving it was not Criner's DNA. Dissatisfied by the results, the state decided to do its own test, which also came back negative.

To nearly everyone's surprise, however, the District Attorney dismissed the tests and opposed a new trial. (see video excerpt about this decision.) And the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals supported him. Justice Sharon Keller wrote for the majority, arguing that just because the recovered DNA belonged to someone other than Criner, it did not demonstrate his innocence. She reasoned that the negative result was of little consequence. "It just doesn't mean that he didn't have sex with her."

Innocence Project co-founder Peter Neufeld says this is not a new theory. "In almost all our cases, the prosecution's theory of the case was that one person seized the woman, raped her, and then left her. Once we get the DNA exclusion, a whole range of new prosecution theories emerge."

Neufeld is one of several defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges interviewed about why not everyone in the legal system wants to examine cases of innocent people wrongfully convicted and why the system resists conceding errors and correcting mistakes.

This FRONTLINE report also highlights how safeguards once available to protect people like Roy Criner are now few and far between. In recent years, a conservative Supreme Court and a Congress eager to seem tough on crime have been radically reducing the avenues by which the wrongly convicted might be freed. As a result, the last hope for many such prisoners is a governor's executive pardon. Yet the idea of governor as safety net is a dangerous proposition, as FRONTLINE discovered in the case of Earl Washington.

L. Douglas Wilder, Governor of Virginia between 1990 and 1994, could have pardoned death-row inmate Washington, who had been convicted of a rape and murder. After ordering a DNA test, which excluded Washington as the contributor of the biological evidence, Wilder's office kept the results secret and commuted Washington's sentence to life in prison rather than granting him a pardon. Washington's lawyer was outraged when he saw the five-year-old test results for the first time only months ago. "The truth didn't set Earl Washignton free. Why?"

FRONTLINE also looks at the case of Joseph Roger O'Dell. Executed in 1997 for the rape and murder of a Virginia Beach waitress, O'Dell always claimed his innocence. The case didn't die with O'Dell's execution, as the defense, the prosecution, and the courts continued to battle over the right to test the remaining evidence in the case. Death penalty opponents wanted the opportunity to show that the state could well have put an innocent person to death. The state vehemently opposed new testing, hoping a judge would order the evidence destroyed. The prosecutor in the case agreed. "As far as we're concerned, the case is closed. Joseph O'Dell got what he deserved. He got what the law required." He added, "Is there any doubt in your mind that if this sample was analyzed...and it turned out that it was not Joseph O'Dell's blood type or DNA...that there wouldn't be a press conference held announcing to the world that the Commonwealth of Virginia had executed a completely innocent man?"

"He's right," said defense attorney Paul Enzinna. "We will shout it from the rooftops. And it should be shouted from the rooftops. Our government is an open government. It gives people information so that they can make intelligent decisions. And that's what we're fighting for." Unfortunately for Enzinna, however--and for others who sided with him--the last of the DNA evidence that could have proved O'Dell innocent was burned without further testing in March of 2000.

As for Earl Washington, Virginia governor Jim Gilmore ordered a new round of DNA tests on the remaining evidence. The tests, authorized in early June of 2000, could potentially prove Washington innocent of the crime for which he was sentenced to die.

And Roy Criner? His family and other supporters continued to argue for his innocence and campaign for his release. At the same time, a number of reporters, investigators, and lawyers continued to develop new DNA evidence and to argue for new consideration from the courts. In August, 2000, they won. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles approved Criner's release and Governor George W. Bush signed the pardon, stating that "credible new evidence raises substantial doubt about the guilt of Roy Criner."

[jbooma]

Preservation of Evidence: The circuit court is under no obligation to preserve evidence from trials once they have concluded. In most cases, the evidence is destroyed. This evidence is crucial later when appeals lawyers are fighting for the condemned man's life, especially if the evidence can prove innocence.

Thanks for clarifying that.

What was Warner talking about in the article about using DNA for a convict that has been put to death though.

This was also in the article:

Now that those tests have revealed that two more innocent men were jailed, Warner is ordering all of the files and others in state custody-- about 660 boxes that contain thousands of cases from 1973 through 1988 -- to be examined for cases that can be retested using the latest DNA technology.

[HOF44]

Generally unless the defense can get an injuction stopping it the evidence in death cases is detroyed at the time of execution.

Non capital cases are kept. They are the ones he is talking about. The reason the capital cases are detroyed is fairly obvious. Could you imagine the political fallout if a conflicting test came up after an execution??

[jbooma]

Generally unless the defense can get an injuction stopping it the evidence in death cases is detroyed at the time of execution.

Non capital cases are kept. They are the ones he is talking about. The reason the capital cases are detroyed is fairly obvious. Could you imagine the political fallout if a conflicting test came up after an execution??

I still would think the evidence for a death penalty would have to be pretty strong, do not know how you can get a conviction with evidence that the judge and jury are not 100% sure on.

[HOF44]

I still would think the evidence for a death penalty would have to be pretty strong, do not know how you can get a conviction with evidence that the judge and jury are not 100% sure on.

You would be surprised how circumstantial it can be. In bad cases its usually police and prosecution with tunnel vision combined with a poor accused person forced to use a public defender who would rather be anywhere but there.

I'm not saying there are never strong cases where the person has a good defense and is found guilty because those cases exist.

But occasionally someone is pretty much just railroaded. I used to be pro death penalty, but changed my position about 5 years ago.

[Larry]

I seem to recall the Governor of Illinois ordered a review of a bunch of death penalty cases in his state a few years back, and the results of the review suggested that around a third of the people on death row were there because of at least questionable evidence. That was why he decided that he, as Governor, didn't have faith in the entire system of trying capital crimes, and commuted the sentances of every death row inmate, statewide, to life without parole.

[endzone_dave]

If the guy was found innocent, then the woman who accused him should spend the next 20 years of her life behind bars.

[HOF44]

If the guy was found innocent, then the woman who accused him should spend the next 20 years of her life behind bars.

It doesen't have to be a case of the woman accusing him. She could have been raped, gave a general desription, and he be picked up on a bolo. Then have no alibi or a past criminal record and the police and DA run with it.