home

DNA Frees Another Innocent Man

Today's addition to the list of wrongly convicted prisoners is Marlon Pendleton, who served 12 years for a rape he didn't commit. Judge Stanley Sacks in Cook County, Illinois ordered Pendleton's release yesterday.

The conviction could have been avoided if the government's scientist had done her job. (It may be, of course, that she saw her job as supporting the arrest rather than discovering the truth.)

The judge's ruling follows an announcement last week that DNA tests ruled out Pendleton as the source of genetic evidence left by the person who attacked and robbed a woman on Chicago's South Side in 1992.

Pendleton had claimed from the outset that he was innocent of the attack. He was convicted after Chicago police crime lab analyst Pamela Fish, whose work has been linked to several wrongful convictions, said there was not enough evidence for DNA testing.

But a forensic serologist chosen to analyze evidence by prosecutors and Pendleton's attorneys found that, even after the crime analyst used some of the evidence in her testing, he still had enough material to develop a profile.

< Prisoner Lost for 13 Months in New Orleans System | "That's Not What I Asked": Peggy Noonan Defends Webb >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Just wondering (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 11:30:57 AM EST
    If there is negligence why can't the person be criminally prosecuted? Wouldn't that help deter this type of behavior?

    Scum...

    Negligence (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 12:35:26 PM EST
    Nothing in the article addresses negligence.  Fish may have simply made an error in judgement, or (wild speculation on my part) she may have actually been correct given the technology available at the time.  The usual immunities seem appropriate to me under those circumstance.

    But Chicago needs to determine why the DNA wasn't tested earlier, and ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again, regardless of whether Fish messed up.

    Parent

    DNA technology has (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jen M on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    been changing blindingly fast, she may have been right at the time.

    Parent
    Then again... (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    Googling "Pamela Fish" reveals some pretty alarming accusations against her.  I don't have a rock-solid article to link to, but overall it looks like she probably crossed the line from "honest mistake" to "outright lying", in which case she should be in prison.

    Parent
    agreed (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jen M on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 04:39:59 PM EST
    If she outright lied then she should be prosecuted. Wouldn't there be SOMEthing? Obstruction of justice? Perjury?

    Parent
    He did not serve any more time than he had coming (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Pancho on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 10:44:17 PM EST
    He was also convicted in 1994 in a separate assault case, receiving a 12-year sentence. Sacks already has served his full prison term in that case.

    This seems to be intentionally left out of all the "innocent man" stories. He's a rapist. Where are all the "take back the night" people?

    Almost (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 11:49:03 PM EST
    He was sentenced to 12 years for the 1994 rape, and he spent 12 years and 2 months in custody.  There's bound to be some technicalities about jail vs. prison and so on, but it's reasonable to figure that Pendleton spent more time locked in a cage than he would have if the evidence from the 1992 rape had been handled correctly.

    I also wonder whether he would have been granted parole without serving the complete sentence for the 1994 rape if not for the false conviction.  Opinions presumably vary as to whether that'd be a good thing.

    Parent

    You got me (none / 0) (#9)
    by Pancho on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 10:11:01 AM EST
    he served an extra 2 months. He is still a rapist, although he may not have been guilty of this particular rape.

    I don't feel sorry for him. Do you think the other woman he raped is upset about the extra 2 months?

    Would you want him living near your daughter?

    Parent

    it's not about him ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    ... it's about the system that deliberately held an innocent man thru lies.

    BTW:

    Pendleton claims that he is innocent in both cases, ``and I believe him,'' Daniel said.
    [...]
    The Cook County state's attorney's office was reviewing the 1992 rape case, as well as the separate sexual assault conviction.


    Parent
    do you think (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jen M on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    the other rapist who got off scott free never harmed anyone again?

    Parent
    Jen, (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 04:49:29 PM EST
    They always forget/ignore that point, don't they?

    Parent
    I don't forget (none / 0) (#13)
    by Pancho on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:54:57 PM EST
    that point and the system did screw up by presumably letting another rapist go free, but I am not upset about this individual spending extra time behind bars. I'll bet he rapes again.

    Parent
    How about (none / 0) (#14)
    by Pancho on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 12:01:31 AM EST
    This "innocent man"?

    No probable cause? How about being the ex-boyfriend, out on bond rapist of one of the victims?

    Parent

    It sure smells fishy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    More on doctored Fish here, here and here.

    She's not negligent, she's a criminal and should be sentenced to life in prison.