DNA Frees Man After 19 Years in Prison

By Jeralyn, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:27:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It was an ugly, brutal crime, the murder of two young children, one of whom was raped and the other had nails driven into his skull. Byron Halsey served 19 years in prison for the crime. But, he didn't do it. DNA proved it and yesterday, a New Jersey Judge ordered him released.

Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, the Manhattan legal clinic that revived the case, said: “It’s a miracle that Byron is here with us, because if ever there was a case where there was a risk of executing an innocent man, it was this case. Because the facts of the case were so horrible.”

Here's what the DNA showed:

Advanced DNA techniques that were not available at the time of the trial showed that the evidence had no link to Mr. Halsey. It did, however, show a match with [neighbor Cliff] Hall, whose DNA samples were already in the state’s database because of his convictions in sex crimes that occurred after the Urquhart children were killed.

Hall was a witness against Mr. Halsey at trial. He is currently in prison.

The childrens' mother had this to say:

Margaret Urquhart, the victims’ mother, said in a statement: “I knew Byron loved Tyrone and Tina. It didn’t make sense to me that he could have done this. I always had my doubts, but I didn’t know what to do about them. I am thankful that the DNA testing has identified who really did this to my children and that Byron is being released today. I want justice done in this case.”

As for Mr. Halsey's immediate plans: He wants to take a bath, something he hasn't done in 20 years.

The Innocence Project's press release is here.

< Reid-Feingold Iraq Funding Amendment Defeated | Reid-Feingold: Wakeup Call To Progressives and the Netroots >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

DNA Frees Man After 19 Years in Prison | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

And how many innocents languish... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Dadler on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:37:06 AM EST

...simply because they lack DNA evidence to exonerate them? From short sentences to lifers, the number, logic tells me, is distubing.

That is a very good point (none / 0) (#2)
by Al on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:39:15 PM EST

It should be possible to use statistical methods to estimate the number of innocent people in prison from the number of cases that are confirmed.


: Probably not. (none / 0) (#7)
by jerry on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:26:47 PM EST

I don't think the Innocence project is working from a random sample of prisoners, or even prisoners on death row.
My understanding from reading about them along time ago, (I could be very wrong about this), is that they are very selective about the cases they pick, in part because they have limited resources and need to have a good record so that they can get more resources. I am most certainly wrong about this, but that's what I recall.
If so, if they aren't really working from a random sample, I don't think a good projection can be made apart from, boy it seems to be a lot!

I, for one, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:20:18 PM EST

am very relieved that this man was exonerated by modern DNA testing methods for a crime he did not commit.

Does any one know, at present, considering the modern advances made in DNA sciences, is this additional DNA testing being done only at the behest of the Innocence Project, et al, bugging the State regarding death row convictions?

Or is there some State sanctioned movement/legislation that requires modern DNA re-testing for all death row convictions that are old enough such that the defendants didn't have the benefit of the modern methods?

Or is this retesting occurring as part of the appeals process?

Or is something else going on?

quackn (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by cpinva on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:53:00 PM EST

a mind uncluttered by facts is a thing to behold.

the fact is that, in spite of the horrific physical acts of violence committed in this crime, not one speck of forensic evidence linking mr. halsey to the scene was found. not one bit.

statistically, you have a better chance of hearing cracking sounds in hell, than a complete lack of forensic evidence in a crime of this nature.

the only forensic evidence linking anyone to the crime belonged to............someone else, someone never charged as an accomplice. if the state thought there was more than one person involved, why didn't it raise this issue 20 years ago? asserting it now smacks of desperation.

Innocence Project Gets It All Wrong Again?? (none / 0) (#3)
by quackn on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:45:20 PM EST

http://confoundingthewicked.blogspot.com/2007/05/innocence-project-gets-it-wrong-again.html

[Snip:]

OK let's try this again. The "Innocence Project" yet again has proven how inappropriate their very name is. This time, they claim: "After 19 Years in Prison for One of the Most Heinous Crimes in NJ History, Byron Halsey Is Proven Innocent through DNA" (emphasis mine).

[Anyone want to comment on what prosecutor Tom McKenna says at the above link?]

Really quite straightforward (none / 0) (#4)
by HK on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:03:21 PM EST

A person is innocent until proven guilty. The State failed to adequately prove guilt, therefore Halsey is not guilty, a position that could also be described as innocent. That is really all there is to it. The burden of proof is on the State and all they can come up with is circumstantial evidence, false testimony and the rantings of what was likely a severely traumatised man, that is, Halsey himself. Whether he is actually guilty or not is of no consequence; he has not been proven to be so. If the State wants a conviction, they have to do better.

So Tom McKenna can stamp his feet and shout about it until he is blue in the face. If it means that much to him, he should state his opinion, state his reasons, admit that mistakes were made in the prosecution of this case and vow to do better next time. In other words, be a man about it.


HK (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:51:59 PM EST

The State failed to adequately prove guilt, therefore Halsey is not guilty, a position that could also be described as innocent.

No. Not proven guilty is exactly that. It can not be described as "innocent" unless you want to change the standards to "proven innocent." I don't.

BTW - Did you read Quackn's comment and the link he provided??


The Common Phrase (none / 0) (#10)
by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:00:22 PM EST

We use here in America is:

Innocent until proven guilty.


Squeaky (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:49:05 PM EST

Yes, but the standard is not "proven innocent."

Would you really want that??

Or do you like... "beyond a resonable doubt?"


: Innocence is Assumed (none / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:20:17 PM EST

HK was correct.

yes i did jim (none / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:13:12 AM EST

and the linked story was just as ludicrous as quackn's comments. no facts, just innuendo. linking to something that doesn't actually support your position, with confirmable factual evidence, isn't impressive.


Jim (none / 0) (#15)
by HK on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:42:52 AM EST

Yes I did read it and it was blustering nonsense from a man who is trying to save face. The only evidence that McKenna talks about that points to Halsey's guilt is his confession which limited forensic evidence corroborated; this confession was given by a man with poor education and severe learning diffiuclties after 30 hours of interrogation that may have been rich with leading questions.

McKenna goes on to talk about self-glorification being inherent in The Innocence Project. Since the majority of US citizens still support the death penalty, working against it would not be the best way of achieving glory. I know a lot of people who work against the death penalty and only a tiny minority have even remotely dubious motives. There is no money in it and seldom any wide recognition; it is always hard work, an uphill struggle.

Curiously, McKenna refers to The Innocence Project in terms of "extremist anti-death penalty activism" when logic dictates that being against capital punishment is only as equally an extreme a view as being in favour of it.

As for the hair-splitting over the label of innocence, it could be argued that The Innocence Project does not always prove innocence but rather proves that guilt was far from adequately established by the evidence available. However, The Guilt Was Far From Adequately Established From The Available Evidence Project is not a snappy and memorable title, is it?


He seems to rely on a coerced false confession... (none / 0) (#6)
by jerry on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:24:05 PM EST

Mr. Scheck noted that in about a quarter of the 201 wrongful convictions that have been overturned with the use of DNA evidence, people had confessed or admitted to crimes they did not commit. Mr. Halsey signed a confession after 30 hours of interrogation, Mr. Scheck said. Mr. Halsey's lawyers said he had a sixth-grade education and severe learning disabilities.
Dolores Mann, one of his original lawyers, said Mr. Halsey had maintained his innocence from the beginning.
...

Margaret Urquhart, the victims' mother, said in a statement: "I knew Byron loved Tyrone and Tina. It didn't make sense to me that he could have done this. I always had my doubts, but I didn't know what to do about them. I am thankful that the DNA testing has identified who really did this to my children and that Byron is being released today. I want justice done in this case."

So DNA says he didn't rape the girl. The mother comes to defend the alleged murderer.

The prosecutor wants us to choose between what seems to be a coerced confession that is not uncommon and the evidence from the DNA and the testimony of the mother.

He wants to know how the confession gets the details right. Well, I certainly ain't no lawyer and I have no idea what happened to get the confession out, and basing my understanding on movies and books is dumb at best, but I can give an explanation of why the confession after 30 hours of interrogation had the details correct....

But McKenna doesn't want to address the obvious possibility that the confession was dictated to the suspect.


death penalty (none / 0) (#13)
by diogenes on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:23:12 PM EST

Maybe I'm dim, but this case has nothing to do with the death penalty (he wasn't on death row) and everything to do with police abuses (coercive interrogation, jury trusting the word of the accomplice, no physical evidence).

: Not dim at all (none / 0) (#16)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:56:49 AM EST

This is not a DP case.
He was not eligible for the death penalty because he was not found guilty of purposeful and knowing murder, a capital offense, one of his lawyers said.