Another Victim Of Justice Found Based on DNA Testing

Formaldehyde

Both Fair And Balanced
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
33,999
Location
USA #1
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article1057622.ece

'I knew I was innocent'

By Meg Laughlin, Times Staff Writer

Published Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Thirty-five years ago, a 9-year-old boy was raped in a field near his Lake Wales home. Five months later, a 19-year-old man was convicted of the rape and sent to prison for life.

Now, DNA tests show he was the wrong man.

"Thirty-five years is a lifetime. We hope the state won't prolong James Bain's incarceration," said Seth Miller, executive director of the Innocence Project of Florida.

Of the 245 people in the United States exonerated by DNA evidence since 1989, not one has spent as much time in prison as James Bain.

The State Attorney's Office for the 10th Circuit received the DNA results Wednesday afternoon.

"We're looking at them to determine what to do next," Assistant State Attorney Chip Thullbery said. "We're asking how does this match up with the case. And we'll have to review the case and see. We're also asking do we want to run (the semen) through a different lab."


• • •

On March 4, 1974, the boy was sleeping in a queen-sized bed between his sisters, 10 and 11, when a man crawled through an open window and quietly lifted him out of bed.

The boy didn't wake up when the man carried him out the door and through an orange grove to a baseball diamond in an open field. He didn't wake up till the man laid him in the dust and yelled at him to pull down his pants.

Later, the boy told police the man said he thought he was a girl, because his hair was pin-curled with bobby pins.

"He made me turn over," the boy said.

Within an hour the parents discovered their child missing and called police. Police searched the nearby orange grove and found nothing. The boy staggered home, dazed. He was wearing the white T-shirt and underpants he had worn to bed, his underwear now wet with semen. A medical examination showed a badly torn rectum.

That night, police said the child described the rapist this way: "Bushy sideburns … 17 or 18 … he said his name was Jim."

The boy's uncle, who was at the house, said the description pointed to Jimmy Bain.

Jimmy Bain, 18, who had been a student at the high school where the uncle was assistant principal. Jimmy Bain who had bushy sideburns and rode around town on a motorcycle. Jimmy Bain, whom the boy said he had seen before, though it was hard to describe him because he wore a helmet.

Police went to Bain's home and took his picture. They mixed it in with color Polaroids of four other young men. The boy picked Bain.

Later, in a deposition, the boy described how he identified his attacker to a police officer.

"He asked me can I pick out Jimmie Bains," the boy said. "And I picked him out."

He said it was the same man who took him out to the ball park.

At trial, an FBI analyst testified that the semen on the underpants came from a person with blood group B. Bain's blood group is AB, but the analyst said Bain could not be ruled out as the person who deposited the semen. A defense expert testified that because Bain's blood group was AB with a strong A factor it ruled him out as a suspect.

Bain, who had no previous criminal record, provided an alibi. He and his sister told police they were at home watching TV together at the time the boy disappeared. The jury convicted him anyway.

• • •

In 2001, Bain twice requested DNA testing of the boy's underwear. The requests were rejected. He asked again in 2003 and 2006 and was denied both times. In July of this year, Bain requested DNA testing again. This time a Polk County judge granted the motion.

From the DNA Diagnostics Center report dated Dec. 9:

"The partial DNA profile obtained from item 01.C.1s (section from underwear sperm fraction) is not consistent with the DNA profile from James Bain."

Innocence Project attorney Melissa Montle called Bain, 54, at Okeechobee Correctional Institution to tell him the news.

"I always knew I was innocent," Bain was quoted saying. "I've been waiting well over half my life for this miracle. I hope to be back with my family real soon."

Attorneys for the Innocence Project said they expect to file a motion soon to have Bain's conviction vacated and asking that he be released.

The victim, who is now 45 and lives in Central Florida, refused to talk to the St. Petersburg Times. But his father (who asked not to be identified to protect his son) said that his son "is very upset by the news."

Because he still believes Bain raped him, or because it appears the wrong man was convicted?

"Now, we can't be sure," said the father.

The victim was in the Marine Corps for over five years in his 20s. His father described him as "disciplined and upstanding until he fell apart."

Florida Department of Corrections records show that by his mid 30s the victim was going in and out of prison for cocaine possession and theft.

"Once, on the way to rehab, he told me he couldn't shake the rape," said the father.

In August 2006, prison records show that the victim and Bain were at the same prison. The victim requested and got a transfer.

Now, the father says: "We don't know what to think, and we have nothing more to say. This whole thing is a tragedy all the way around."
I think that all the cases which can now be potentially disproven based on modern DNA testing be reviewed with great expediency. Bair first rquested this be done in 2001, and he was rejected 4 times until the matter ended up before a fair judge. This is an indictment of the US judicial system and is a national disgrace.
 
Again, was this a state court issue or in a fed court? When I see Polk County judge I think state court....thus it is a state 'disgrace' but not a national one.

Too bad they didnt Huckabust him out of there years ago.
 
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php#

Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations

There have been 245 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 34 states; since 2000, there have been 179 exonerations.

• 17 of the 245 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13 years. The total number of years served is approximately 3,096.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26.

Races of the 245 exonerees:

146 African Americans
71 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 105 of the DNA exoneration cases.

• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.


• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).

• About half of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.

• 22 percent of cases closed by the Innocence Project since 2004 were closed because of lost or missing evidence.

• 17 DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they didn't commit, serving more than 100 years in prison before they were exonerated.

Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions

These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.

Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 74 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses). Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions.

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct.

False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. In 35 percent of false confession or admission cases, the defendant was 18 years old or younger and/or developmentally disabled. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings. More than 500 jurisdictions have voluntarily adopted policies to record interrogations. State supreme courts have taken action in Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia require the taping of interrogations in homicide cases.

Snitches contributed to wrongful convictions in 16 percent of cases. Whenever snitch testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most snitch testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the snitch might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and snitches should be recorded. Fifteen percent of wrongful convictions that were later overturned by DNA testing were caused in part by snitch testimony.
 
If this happened in Florida why is it a national disgrace?

Same reason why New Jersey existing is a national disgrace.
 
http://www.slate.com/id/2212474/

jurisprudence

Obama's Testing Test

Why is the Justice Department on the wrong side of a Supreme Court case about DNA evidence?

By William S. Sessions

Posted Friday, Feb. 27, 2009, at 3:43 PM ET

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a case about whether the Constitution's due process clause requires Alaska to turn over DNA evidence to William Osborne, who was sentenced to 26 years in prison for kidnapping and sexual assault. Alaska prosecutors do not dispute that advanced DNA testing could prove Osborne's innocence beyond any doubt. But for nearly a decade, they've refused to allow him to do this testing.

To my great disappointment, recent news reports indicate that the Obama Justice Department has decided not to reverse the Bush administration's decision to weigh in on Alaska's side in the case, District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne. As has been said many times, the Justice Department's mission is to do justice. It is not to seek a conviction—or to uphold one—at all costs.

What interest does Alaska have in denying Osborne access to this evidence, thus obscuring the truth? He has offered to pay for the testing, so the state will incur no financial cost. In any case, federal money is available to help pay for testing for those who cannot afford it. Osborne did not willfully bypass advanced DNA testing when he was tried 14 years ago; the sophisticated testing he requests did not exist then.


Alaska's primary argument is that testing is unnecessary because non-DNA evidence demonstrates Osborne's likely guilt. But the victim's physical description of her attacker was tentative, differing in key respects from Osborne. And other cases have repeatedly demonstrated that this other evidence will amount to nothing if the DNA excludes Osborne and could even be matched to a convicted felon already in the system.

As I know from experience, law enforcement's predictions about a defendant's likely guilt are no substitute for actually performing a DNA test.

When I became FBI director in 1987, the bureau established a DNA laboratory we hoped would be used to verify that a suspect had indeed committed a crime. During my years as a U.S. attorney and federal judge in Texas, rapists and murderers sometimes walked free for lack of biological evidence. I had these cases in mind when we established the laboratory in Washington, D.C.

The results of the first 100 tests in 1988 astonished me. In three out of 10 cases, not only did we have the wrong person, but the guilty person was still at large. Many of them were unidentified and dangerous. DNA testing overall has produced dramatic results, exonerating a total of 232 people, including 17 on death row.


Alaska argues that a constitutional rule mandating that defendants get access to DNA after their convictions will prevent states from coming up with their own rules for handling this evidence. It's true that some states and the federal government do allow post-conviction access to DNA evidence. But as important, some narrowly circumscribe such access, and six, including Alaska, provide no statutory right to it at all.

Alaska contends that evidence of innocence does not, by itself, matter once a person has been convicted, or if the trial was free of constitutional and other defects. That goes too far in elevating the principle of finality over basic justice.

It's a generally laudatory goal for a new president to continue the DoJ polices of the previous one when he takes office. But a change in position may be warranted in some cases. Osborne is one of them. The Justice Department's decision is particularly perplexing because when President Obama was an Illinois state senator, he responded to that state's wrongful conviction problem by leading a bipartisan effort to help prevent convictions of the innocent, including laws allowing access to DNA evidence.

Evidence of innocence does—and must—matter to all of us, whenever it is presented. I have no idea whether Osborne is guilty. If the DNA shows that he is, so be it. But what if it shows he is not? Wouldn't victims of crime want to know if the wrong person is imprisoned, and the real perpetrator is still on the streets, free to commit more crimes? Wouldn't all of us want to know this?

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has called DNA the "truth machine of law enforcement." Why should our criminal justice system be afraid of that truth machine? There is still time for the new administration to reverse course before next Monday's argument. I hope it will.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/rapist.dna/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A convicted rapist seeking to prove his innocence with a new DNA test lost his appeal Thursday at the Supreme Court.

The justices ruled 5-4 that inmates cannot use a federal civil rights law to press for advanced DNA testing that was unavailable at the time of the crime.


Forty-four states and the federal government have laws allowing post-conviction access to biological evidence for such testing, but that number does not include Alaska, where William Osborne was sentenced 15 years ago for a vicious attack on an Anchorage woman.

"He has no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the state's evidence for DNA testing," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. He was supported by his conservative colleagues Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it, not the least of which is a fundamental concern in ensuring that justice has been done in this case." Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer backed his conclusions.

 
Nice strawman, as usual?

When I became FBI director in 1987, the bureau established a DNA laboratory we hoped would be used to verify that a suspect had indeed committed a crime. During my years as a U.S. attorney and federal judge in Texas, rapists and murderers sometimes walked free for lack of biological evidence. I had these cases in mind when we established the laboratory in Washington, D.C.

The results of the first 100 tests in 1988 astonished me. In three out of 10 cases, not only did we have the wrong person, but the guilty person was still at large. Many of them were unidentified and dangerous. DNA testing overall has produced dramatic results, exonerating a total of 232 people, including 17 on death row.

Evidence of innocence does—and must—matter to all of us, whenever it is presented. I have no idea whether Osborne is guilty. If the DNA shows that he is, so be it. But what if it shows he is not? Wouldn't victims of crime want to know if the wrong person is imprisoned, and the real perpetrator is still on the streets, free to commit more crimes? Wouldn't all of us want to know this?

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has called DNA the "truth machine of law enforcement." Why should our criminal justice system be afraid of that truth machine? There is still time for the new administration to reverse course before next Monday's argument. I hope it will.

"He has no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the state's evidence for DNA testing," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. He was supported by his conservative colleagues Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it, not the least of which is a fundamental concern in ensuring that justice has been done in this case." Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer backed his conclusions.
It appears you don't really care much about law and order after all.
 
Nice strawman, as usual?

Cant answer the question? And no, its not a strawman. Its obvious our system isnt perfect, no system is, but it does work, and works well in the vast majority of instances.

I think the work they are doing is admirable, and needed to make our justice system even better than it currently is. In fact, I would say only finding 245 instances of error out of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of cases prosecuted actually speaks to the inherit accuracy of our system. And as forensic science gets better so will the accuracy of our legal system.

Is it a national tragedy though? Nope.

This thread needs more angst. :lol:

It appears you don't really care much about law and order after all.

Of course I do, but unlike you, I have a reality based expectation of how that system works.
 
It is a disgrace to exonerate people based on DNA evidence tested for their benefit as such technology (and funding) becomes available?


Surely, the US is special in that we go to such lengths at public funding to exonerate innocent convicts. I doubt that convicting innocent people is something other countries completely avoid, and can only take heart in that we do alot to correct the unavoidable and inevitable mistakes.
 
Ironically, I did answer the question. You just didn't like the answer, as usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
 
On the bright side, we have kept hundreds of innocent people locked up so they were no longer able to pose a criminal threat to the rest of us. I'm all for exhonorating them, but releasing them? They have lived with criminals for a long period of time, so they are probably no longer trustworthy enough to function in a society where crime is frowned upon.
 
On the dark side, I read that we pay 50k/year for such mistakes, lump sum direct to the wrongly convicted. Plus the costs of evidence storage, testing and analysis.

It's not like we (as a government, let alone private organizations) sit around while the innocent languish. We do what we can, given an imperfect system.
 
Ironically, I did answer the question. You just didn't like the answer, as usual.

My question was indeed relevant to the discussion at hand. Again, is there some expectation that our legal system is somehow error free? And what error percentage is indicated when you have 245 errors out of the millions of cases prosecuted over the last several decades across the USA?

I am all for anything that makes our system even less error prone, but calling it a national embarrassment is just silly.
 
No, "doing what we can" would be to insist that they have access to DNA testing, instead of the reactionary-packed Supreme Court ruling that they had no such right.
 
On the dark side, I read that we pay 50k/year for such mistakes, lump sum direct to the wrongly convicted. Plus the costs of evidence storage, testing and analysis.

It's not like we (as a government, let alone private organizations) sit around while the innocent languish. We do what we can, given an imperfect system.
Chief Justice Roberts & company can find a right to self-defense lurking in the shadows of the text of the Constituion, but not a right to a relatively simple test that could end a potentially wrongful incarceration.
 
No, "doing what we can" would be to insist that they have access to DNA testing, instead of the reactionary-packed Supreme Court ruling they had no such right.

That was in one...count em (1) case. So dont lie and say 'they'.

More. Angst. Needed.
 
Top Bottom