Ill. Inmate Freed by DNA After Serving 32 Years

By Jeralyn, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:35:22 PM EST
Tags: wrongful convictions (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Andre Davis, now 50 years old, left a maximum security prison in Illinois today, after serving 32 years for a rape and murder that DNA evidence has proven he didn't commit.

A federal court overturned his conviction when DNA tests not available at the time of his trial came back with a finding that the blood and semen found at the crime scene were not those of Davis.

Prosecutors earlier today said they will not recharge him. Did the DNA tests sway them? Not much.

[Prosecutor] Reitz said that while she didn't doubt the results of the DNA tests, she decided not to retry Davis because of the difficulty in taking a 32-year-old case to trial — not because of those tests.

Davis requested the DNA testing in 2004. Why did it take 8 years to free him?

< George Zimmerman Released on Bail | Saturday Open Thread: Test Your Computers by Monday >

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.

Ill. Inmate Freed by DNA After Serving 32 Years | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yes, this is the question. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 07:33:12 AM EST

With all the resources this country has, why aren't we reviewing all cases? Why should a prisoner even have to ask??

gather all DNA (none / 0) (#19)
by diogenes on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 10:43:28 PM EST

I bet that if we gathered up DNA from all citizens, a lot more crimes would be solved and innocent people freed.


: I didn't say that (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 09:21:17 AM EST

I'm just saying we should use DNA testing to test the current cases in which the test can tell us something.

Good news (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by friendofinnocence on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 10:04:26 AM EST

It is always good news to see another innocent escape the belly of the beast.

Just to show all DA's aren't the same, DA Craig Watkins of Dallas County has a conviction integrity unit that actively looks for wrongful convictions.

http://dallasda.co/webdev/?page_id=73

post conviction dna tests (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Philly on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:37:40 AM EST

Not only have DNA tests led to many exonerations, but approximately 50% of the cases have led to identification of the actual guilty party according to statistics at www.innocenceproject

This type of testing should be embraced not just by people horrified at injustices in our system, but by people that want the truly guilty to be punished.

It's disturbing how slowly the wheels of justice turn for the already-convicted - I can't imagine how it would feel to be in Andre Davis's shoes.

DNA test everyone (none / 0) (#18)
by diogenes on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 10:40:03 PM EST

We need a DNA test base of all citizens to be on file. We can thus catch the guilty.
By the way, what's the denominator here? How many people convicted of rape are currently in prison in Illinois?


: Go right ahead and submit your DNA, honey (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:24:33 AM EST

I'll keep mine, thank you very much.

Here's the state appellate court (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:45:18 PM EST

opinion with more information re the chronology:

can't seem to open (none / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:24:32 PM EST

this link. i have W7 as my OS, could this be the problem?


: I haven't a clue. Sorry. (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:26:30 PM EST

: Do you have Adobe Acrobat installled? (none / 0) (#11)
by unitron on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 04:13:49 AM EST

You have to have something that can open a .pdf (Portable Document Format) file, regardless of OS or browser.
You have to pay for the software to create PDFs, but the reader software is free.
http://get.adobe.com/reader/

inexcusable (none / 0) (#2)
by desmoinesdem on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:54:02 PM EST

and why can't a prosecutor apologize for a wrongful conviction like this one? I guess they are afraid of a civil lawsuit. I hope they get one.

How about an apology from the (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:02:29 PM EST

two juries who returned guilty verdicts?


Why should the jury apologize? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:41:03 PM EST

Unless they let prejudice of some sort guide their decisions, a jury can only deal with what evidence the state has for them and allows them to see.

As far as it goes, if any of the original jurors are alive and aware of the DNA testing, I'm sure they feel rather sick right now. But it's not their fault. They weren't the ones who brought the charges.

Heck, I'm willing to even give the original prosecutor a mulligan on this to an extent as they were operating with some evidence -albeit evidence from the very primitive forensics available at the time. I see no evidence they brought what they knew was a week case.

No, the ones who should be ashamed and the ones who have me seeing red are those running the prosecutors/states legal offices since the DNA tests were done. They know the original theory of the case is a load of crap, they know this guy is almost certainly innocent, yet they have fought and fought to maintain the conviction on grounds other than what the guy was originally convicted on. Trying to deny him his freedom, his good name, and any compensation he may have coming. Meanwhile (unless he is dead) there exists a suspect whom the forensic DNA DOES implicate who goes uncharged.

Clearly those in charge of the States case now do not care about justice.


Um (none / 0) (#21)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:39:11 AM EST

If a prosecutor has exculpatory evidence, they are required to turn that over to the defense. That does not mean, however, that they are required to do the defense's job for them.

It's the judge who ultimately allows what evidence the jury sees.


What's any of that got to do with anything? (none / 0) (#22)
by Slayersrezo on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 09:01:10 AM EST

My comment was specifically about the prosecution in this case trying to win the case over again using a different theory than the one they actually advanced at trial.

None of what you replied to me with has any relevance to anything I said.


: Yes, it really does (none / 0) (#24)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:33:30 AM EST

Unless they let prejudice of some sort guide their decisions, a jury can only deal with what evidence the state has for them and allows them to see.

that was a joke, right? (none / 0) (#5)
by cpinva on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:25:29 PM EST

juries never apologize, because juries are never wrong, no matter how wrong they are.


an apology won't have any (none / 0) (#7)
by cpinva on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:27:32 PM EST

bearing on a civil suit. prosecutors never apologize because prosecutors are never wrong, even when they're wrong. same thing with juries, as i noted elsewhere.


I think if there is a possibility (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:33:01 PM EST

ofpossibility of a civil lawsuit the prosecutor should not apologize. Also, given two juries retuned guilty verdicts and DNA analysis was not yet possible, the prosecutor is blameless.


: the original prosecutor, probably (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:43:17 PM EST

The original prosecutor probably was blameless. And the state didn't apparently conduct a shoddy investigation or railroad here, so most of the due process stuff and forensics (for the time) holds up rather well I would think.
But whoever is running that office now? They deserve to be disbarred.

Another false Chicago cop conviction (none / 0) (#13)
by 1Greensix on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 08:35:13 AM EST

When are the courts in Illinois going to overturn every Chicago murder case, since well over 50 convictions have been found to be false with DNA evidence testing? The cops in Chicago are crooked as a dog's leg and everyone there knows it. Why won't the courts begin doing their jobs, unless the judges are as dishonest as the police have been proven to be?