home

New Trial Prompted by DNA

by TChris

Rex Penland's two nephews testified that they were with Penland when he picked up a prostitute in Winson-Salem in 1992.

The Sapp brothers testified that Penland drove Alford to a logging road in Stokes County, a mostly rural county north of Winston-Salem along the Virginia border, where he raped her, instructed his nephews to tie her to a tree, then stabbed her to death.

Penland testified that he was drunk and passed out. The jury believed the Sapp brothers, and Penland was sentended to death. New DNA evidence casts doubt on Penland's involvement.

DNA testing shows that the only blood on Penland's knife was his own and that Penland's semen was not present in a swab taken from Alford's corpse.

Penland used the new evidence to seek a new trial. The prosecution urged the judge not to "chase the DNA rabbit." The prosecution argued that the defense argument amounted to "It could have been this way, it could have been that way." Yet the DNA would seem to make clear that it couldn't have been the prosecutor's way; that is, it couldn't have been Penland who raped the woman.

While the judge thought a jury might convict Penland again on the strength of the Sapps' testimony, he did the right thing by granting Penland a new trial.

< Soldier Sentenced in Death of Iraqi | 'Administrative Error' in Iraq Press Release >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: New Trial Prompted by DNA (none / 0) (#1)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    Yet another shining example of the righteousness of the murder penalty.

    Re: New Trial Prompted by DNA (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    This is just one of the many reasons why America needs to get rid of the death penalty.

    Re: New Trial Prompted by DNA (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    This is unbelievable! DNA proves that he was not the rapist (and the blood of the woman is not on his knife), and both the prosecutor and the judge say "so what?".