home

Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 09:46:56 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

It seems that a week rarely goes by without a new report of an innocent accused being cleared (after conviction) by DNA testing. How many innocent men and women are behind bars with little hope of release because the true criminal left behind no DNA evidence, or because it wasn't collected by the police?

Today's happy ending is about Thomas Doswell, who spent nearly 18 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit:

Doswell, of Homewood, was convicted in the 1986 rape of a 48-year-old woman at a hospital in Pittsburgh. He was 25 and the father of two young children when he was convicted.

Because Doswell truthfully insisted that he was innocent, he was denied parole four times.

Prosecutors originally opposed DNA testing for Doswell, but a judge ordered it. When the tests came back last month showing that semen taken from the victim was not from Doswell, prosecutors filed motions to vacate his sentence and have him released.

Why did this happen? As TalkLeft recently observed, eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, but suggestive identification procedures, such as those used in Doswell's case, enhance the likelihood of a mistaken identification.

The victim and another witness had picked out Doswell's photo among a group of eight shown to them by police. At the time, Pittsburgh police identified mug shots of people charged with rape with the letter "R." Doswell insisted witnesses identified him as the rapist only because the letter "R" appeared under his mug shot.

His photo was marked because an ex-girlfriend had accused him of rape, but he was acquitted of that charge. Police officials say they no longer mark photos of rape suspects with an "R."

Studies show that presenting photos sequentially, rather than in a group, reduces the chance of an erroneous identification. Of course, branding a photo with the equivalent of a "scarlet R" is so suggestive of guilt that it nearly assures a false identification. The police should be compelled to use identification procedures that are fair, not those that are designed to lead the witness to pick someone so that the police can clear the case.

Congratulations to the lawyers and staff at the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York for the great work they did on Doswell's behalf.

< Novak Breaks His Silence | Confronting Sexual Violence in Prisons >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA | 15 comments (15 topical)
    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    So when do we arrest the prosecuters?

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#2)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    In today's world, is DNA testing mandatory on all rape cases?

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Instead of pissing & moaning about past issues... why not rejoyce that science has taken us to this point were we can make sure that these incidents are greatly (if not all together) reduced? Question.... As much as the left hounds on this "innocents in jail" issue, how far are you willing to go to take DNA samples from criminals to assist in this? I'm betting (in typical lefty fashion), you all want this tool to prove someone is innocent, but heaven forbid we 'take' these samples and violate anyone's rights. Can't have it both ways can you?

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#4)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    It's not having it both ways to say that the government should not be able to take your DNA without probable cause the same way they can't search your home without probable cause. Just because you believe the technology is a valuable tool doesn't mean that every use of the technology is appropriate in a free society. That's not a "Lefty" point of view in my opinion. It's a "freedom" point of view. Also, DNA technology will never even come close to eliminating the problem of innocents in prison. There is a reason that virtually all of the DNA exonerations you read about are rape and murder cases. Those are the ones with DNA evidence. The vast majority of cases--even felony cases--involve no DNA evidence whatsoever. That is why we need to be looking at these cases that have DNA and discover what parts of the system allowed them to be wrongfully convicted. TL is right that eyewitness procedures definitely need to be changed, and judges need to start not admitting IDs that are not done in a way that is scientifically established to produce reliable results. We also need to videotape all police interrogations to help eliminate the problems with false confessions. It does very little good to just let the proven innocents go and say, "DNA is great!," if we fail to correct the problems that led to the injustice in the first place.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    bb, let me see if i've got you right: according to you, we should just forget about anyone convicted, possibly wrongfully so, prior to the introduction of DNA analysis, because that's just so last millenium? we should only concentrate on current events? interesting perspective, especially since you are so obviously not currently a guest of a penal institution. i guess the concept of justice has just gone completely over your head. an important point totally absent from this discussion so far: these wrongful convictions have allowed, for years in some cases, the actual perpetrators to continue walking loose among us, free to commit more crimes. i should think that alone would be sufficient reason to do everything reasonably possible to ensure the correct parties are tried and convicted.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    txpublicdefender... The vast majority of cases--even felony cases--involve no DNA evidence whatsoever. Yes...& that's the point... they should! We also need to videotape all police interrogations to help eliminate the problems with false confessions. That's a no brainer.. They certainly should be, and according to my nephew (who is a local homicide detective) they are here. It does very little good to just let the proven innocents go and say, "DNA is great!," if we fail to correct the problems that led to the injustice in the first place. Well I don't agree that it does "little good" to prove someone is innocent and then set free. I would say that's alot good! But I will agree we still need to fix many other issues, but it's a start.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#7)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    "Yes...& that's the point... they should!" You're missing the point, BB. If I take a gun and hold up a supermarket, where's the DNA evidence? Unless I'm so careless as to ask for a drink of water or throw away a cigarette butt, there's no DNA evidence to be collected. If I commit fraud, where's the DNA evidence? txPD's point is that in the majority of crimes, there's no DNA evidence.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#8)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    Thank you, Quaker. That was my point. DNA evidence only solves problems in a very small minority of felony cases. Also, I was not saying that it is not a good thing for an innocent person to be exonerated due to DNA. My point was that freeing that individual without looking at the systemic failures--if any--that led to a demonstrably innocent person being convicted is a waste. These cases present a rare opportunity to look at cases where science has conclusively established that an innocent person was convicted. To not use these cases for study to determine what went wrong is a shame. In that way, these DNA cases could be used to help prevent more innocents from being locked up--even in cases where there is no DNA evidence.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#9)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    18 years - what a sorrowful waste.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#10)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    I'm betting (in typical lefty fashion), you all want this tool to prove someone is innocent, but heaven forbid we 'take' these samples and violate anyone's rights. Can't have it both ways can you?
    You want "typical lefty fashion"? Here ya go. I'm about to offer an argument and then disagree with myself. Before the advent of DNA, criminal identification was made on the basis of fingerprints. Anyone arrested, charged, or convicted was fingerprinted and those prints could be kept on file. Wouldn't the same standard apply to DNA? Now comes an offshoot of txPD's argument (can't tell if it was intended or not). DNA evidence can be usefully examined in rape cases as well as in other crimes of violence where there's DNA evidence to collect. So if I'm arrested for rolling back the odometer on a used car, should the state be able to collect evidence to use against me in a future rape? Personally, I lean a little toward the latter for one reason only: a DNA sample carries more information than simple identity. From that sample, the state might deduce parentage, genetic susceptibility to disease, and more, I'm sure, that I'm not thinking of at the moment.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#11)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    When I say "I lean a little toward the latter," I intend to mean that I think the state should NOT have that power.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    Quaker.... I got the point about the lack of DNA in some cases. My point was (and you answered in a later post) that we should be able to collect DNA from persons arrested. (for future use if nothing else) As you pointed out, finger prints were taken for many years and most people (arrested or not) didn't complain about "civil rights" being violated. I see no difference with DNA samples, and as you said, this evidence is much better than some old figer print.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    bb, being arrested and being convicted are not mutually inclusive events. were that the case, why bother having trials at all? the only time DNA should be taken from an arrestee is when there is compelling reason to, solely for the purpose of that particular event. further, the only reason DNA should be kept on a state/federal file is if it actually led to a conviction, period. otherwise, why not just collect everyone's DNA, "just in case"? i am a big fan of DNA evidence, for more accurately identifying the guilty, and exonerating the innocent. however, collecting DNA from everyone arrested, regardless of its relevance to the crime, is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    cpinva... collecting DNA from everyone arrested, regardless of its relevance to the crime, is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. How so? Everyone arrested is finger printed aren't they? I know I was as a teenager. Isn't that a violation of the 4th?

    Re: Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    Assuming you weren't fingerprinted without reason, then no, your 4th amendment rights weren't violated. But a DNA sample (as quaker rightly notes) can be used to determine much more about you than just your identity. It's a violation of your right to be secure in your "person" if someone takes a sample from you as a matter of course; being booked for drunk driving, say.

    Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA | 15 comments (15 topical)