home

DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 12:47:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Our second innocence case of the day (the first one is blogged here) involves Scott Fappiano, who was released today after serving 21 years for raping a police officer's wife. DNA tests established that he didn't do it.

Fappiano was arrested and first tried in 1984, despite blood-typing tests that failed to link him to cigarettes and stained clothing left at the crime scene. The main evidence against Fappiano was an identification by the rape victim, although he was five inches shorter than the 5-foot-10 attacker first described by the woman. The police officer, after viewing the same lineup, did not select Fappiano.

Fappiano's first jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of acquittal. This is the poster case for the argument that charges should be dismissed after a jury hangs. The government should get one chance to convict, and that's it. Another trial increases the likelihood that an innocent man will serve time.

This is also the second post of the day to praise the Innocence Project for its good work in freeing an innocent man. How sad it is that it took 21 years for justice to arrive.

< Paging Dan Quayle | Signing Statement Allows Cronyism to Thrive at FEMA >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again | 13 comments (13 topical)
    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 01:37:50 PM EST
    Another trial increases the likelihood that an innocent man will serve time.
    There's got to be a more nuanced argument. Just having the first trial increases the likelihood of an innocent being convicted. So does allowing the prosecution to present evidence, or barring defense attorneys from bribing jurors. Any mechanism that facilitates convicting the guilty also facilitates convicting the innocent, compared to just letting people go which would give us a 0% risk of false conviction. Is there something about the retry-if-hung rule that's particularly hostile to the innocent?

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:40:34 PM EST
    that's great, but i think i'm confused here. you state he was convicted for raping a police officer's wife. then, this:
    The police officer, after viewing the same lineup, did not select Fappiano.
    so who got raped, the wife or the police officer? if it was the wife, why was the police officer even looking at the lineup to begin with?

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sheila Berry on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:18:54 PM EST
    The police officer was present when his wife was raped.

    Parent
    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#2)
    by Richard Aubrey on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:40:34 PM EST
    I figured the use of DNA to get incorrectly-convicted murderers off would be a good idea. It's also a good idea to use it to get incorrectly-convicted rapists out of jail. Or, in the trial process, to keep them from being convicted. However, in a rape case, when DNA evidence contradicts the victim's testimony and identification, if any, then we find that women make unreliable witnesses even with regard to who raped them. What if we start applying that skepticism to cases where DNA is not available? I don't think the liberals thought this far ahead.

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sheila Berry on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    People -- not just women -- are wrong 50% of the time when making eyewitness identifications.

    Parent
    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:40:34 PM EST
    Is there something about the retry-if-hung rule that's particularly hostile to the innocent?
    Only if your t-chris and concerned only about getting your client off.

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:40:34 PM EST
    This is the poster case for the argument that charges should be dismissed after a jury hangs. The government should get one chance to convict, and that's it. Even if the jury hangs 11-1 to convict, and the lone holdout failed to disclose a clear bias towards the defense?

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:40:34 PM EST
    In the last sentence of the post, 'said' should be 'sad'.

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 01:05:01 AM EST
    Hmmm, looks like t-chris does read the comments and update typos...just not misrepresentations such as he made in this thread. I say this because I note the change suggested by Marc in the 2:59 post appears to have been made.

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 01:38:28 AM EST
    What if we start applying that skepticism to cases where DNA is not available?
    we should be very sceptical of eye wit testimony, as TL has pointed out several times.
    I don't think the liberals thought this far ahead.
    that comment made no sense. Not having innocent people go to jail should be a common wish for everyone.

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:48:09 AM EST
    What if we start applying that skepticism to cases where DNA is not available? I don't think the liberals thought this far ahead.
    DNA is not subjective, it is scientific fact, skepticism need not apply. if the state is incapable of convincing 12 people, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt, why should they get a second bit of the apple? in the absence of bribery, coercion, etc (the state is entitled to a fair trial too), they had their shot. double jeapardy should attach, unless new evidence comes to light, that the state couldn't possibly have obtained during the first trial (because the defendant hid it, for example. defendant shouldn't prosper due to his/her own illegal acts), in spite of their due diligence. that said, i wonder if there are any studies showing the rate of guilty vs not guilty verdicts, in re-trys? given the natural fading of memory, loss of evidence, etc., common sense tells me the guilty vs not guilty rate is lower. of course, common sense, and $2.03, will get you a venti coffee at starbucks.

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:48:09 AM EST
    Only if your t-chris and concerned only about getting your client off.
    It's not "getting your client off" when your client is innocent. It's serving justice, and saving a man's life.

    Re: DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    One major thought to always keep in the back of your mind.....NEVER NEVER get in to trouble with a police officer or someone in the criminal justice field. You will never be able to get a fair and impartial trial. Also, if you think that the evidence was "LOST" in this case, think again. I'm certain the NYPD did everything it could to hide this eveidence. They never wanted any of this to come up, trust me!!!

    DNA Frees Innocent Man ... Again | 13 comments (13 topical)