New DNA testing from rape kits implicates three separate men in the “Yogurt Shop Killings,” an infamous 1991 case in Austin in which four girls working at an I Can’t Believe It’s Not Yogurt were raped and murdered. Unfortunately, none of the three profiles revealed by the DNA testing match the two men convicted of the crimes.
After 20 years in prison, Michigan man is still fighting to have his first-degree murder conviction overturned. Multiple witnesses put him 450 miles away at the time of the murder. He was charged after a single witness fingered him in a lineup, a witness who claims to have seen the man through his car windshield.
Lawsuit from Chicago man claims city police officers set him up on false drug charges. He was jailed for six months before the charges were dropped, with no explanation. One of the cops who arrested him was later arrested and charged with helping frame a woman in a separate case. The suit also claims that the city is “allowing the ‘confidential informant’ process to lead to arrests without probable cause and to pursue wrongful convictions through ‘profoundly flawed investigations.’”
MSNBC has a good piece on Melinda Elkins, who fought for 10 years to clear her husband Clarence of a rape he didn’t commit. With the help of Ohio’s Innocence Project, he was finally exonerated last December.
The Justice Project releases a report on the 39 DNA exonerations in Texas since 1994. Between them, the wrongly convicted served more than 500 years in prison.
Speaking of Texas, Discovery Networks is launching a new series that will follow Dallas DA Craig Watkins’ Conviction Integrity Unit, an initiative he created to seek out wrongful convictions. You can read my interview with Watkins here.
This entry was posted
on Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 9:58 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
My personal non scientific estimate puts about 66% of the people currently in prison as either a) not guilty of the crime they are charged with or b) guilty of doing some thing that should not be a crime.
Sadly that means that the real perpetrators all those real crimes for which innocents have been convicted are still out there to continue the violence.
I think wrongful prosecution/incarceration/execution is one of the most frightning aspects of living in today’s “free” society. Just the thought that our legal system (sigh–still not a justice system) could do this to so many people for so long without thoroughly re-examining the processes behind the scenes is such an incredible injustice to all Americans.
There’s a reason more and more people are becoming agoraphobic: going outside and being seen in public can be pretty scary these days. Who knows what you can be accused of:
- Walking passed a playground, you turn to look at the kids before rounding a corner = you’re a pedophile
- Turning your head to look at a cute girl who is showing far too much cleavage = sexual harassment aka you’re probably a rapist
- Wearing a hat and coat inside a gas station = potential robber
Nothing less than two eye witnesses to the same crime should be required to even begin any process. THEY (the state) always have the power to fudge things. Sometimes they get caught but most times they do not.
There you got that pesky Innocence Project following right behind the gummit undoing all their work. I s’pose next they’re gonna be tearing up roads right after the gummit builds ‘em. It’s amazin’ we git anythin’ done ’round here what with people nit-pickin’ about it not being quite as perfect as they’d like. If we’d execute these bastards right after they was convicted, we wouldn’t have them all gettin’ off on these technicalities.
Is there a strict legal definition for what constitutes “reasonable doubt”? I would think that in any case where there is only one eye witness and not much physical evidence there is always reasonable doubt. But using my definition of reasonable doubt, there would be a pretty high bar to get any conviction without some pretty solid physical evidence or multiple eye witnesses.
From the U of C article on the wrongfully convicted rapist in Ohio:
After 30 years as an attorney, Petro confided, “I do believe the system works well, but it is imperfect. This reminds us to never be so convinced otherwise.”
About 5 years of reading The Agitator has convinced be that the system DOESN’T work well. There is some major reform needed and we seem to be a long way from getting it!
I’m confused as to why Mr. Watkins’ work is considered extraordinary or groundbreaking. After all, if the wrong guy goes to jail, the right guy is out there free to committ more crimes? Are DA’s who refuse to operate like Mr. Watkins soft on crime?
TheAgitator.com
wow-powerful
ya gotta wonder how many innocent people Texas has executed.
My personal non scientific estimate puts about 66% of the people currently in prison as either a) not guilty of the crime they are charged with or b) guilty of doing some thing that should not be a crime.
Sadly that means that the real perpetrators all those real crimes for which innocents have been convicted are still out there to continue the violence.
Good stuff. After the Dallas SWAT sh*tfest, Discovery owes it to the viewers to show something good.
When is Watkins up for re-election? I want to do what I can for his campaign, even though I don’t live in Dallas
I think wrongful prosecution/incarceration/execution is one of the most frightning aspects of living in today’s “free” society. Just the thought that our legal system (sigh–still not a justice system) could do this to so many people for so long without thoroughly re-examining the processes behind the scenes is such an incredible injustice to all Americans.
There’s a reason more and more people are becoming agoraphobic: going outside and being seen in public can be pretty scary these days. Who knows what you can be accused of:
- Walking passed a playground, you turn to look at the kids before rounding a corner = you’re a pedophile
- Turning your head to look at a cute girl who is showing far too much cleavage = sexual harassment aka you’re probably a rapist
- Wearing a hat and coat inside a gas station = potential robber
anymore, is law enforcement ever really about justice?
Rad,
Did you read the article last week about the serial killer DNA in Germany?
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/03/26/phantom-killer-a-myth/police-track-DNA-of-cotton-bud-maker-for-two-years.html
Yeah. I can trust that DNA.
Nothing less than two eye witnesses to the same crime should be required to even begin any process. THEY (the state) always have the power to fudge things. Sometimes they get caught but most times they do not.
Dominus providebit!
There you got that pesky Innocence Project following right behind the gummit undoing all their work. I s’pose next they’re gonna be tearing up roads right after the gummit builds ‘em. It’s amazin’ we git anythin’ done ’round here what with people nit-pickin’ about it not being quite as perfect as they’d like. If we’d execute these bastards right after they was convicted, we wouldn’t have them all gettin’ off on these technicalities.
Is there a strict legal definition for what constitutes “reasonable doubt”? I would think that in any case where there is only one eye witness and not much physical evidence there is always reasonable doubt. But using my definition of reasonable doubt, there would be a pretty high bar to get any conviction without some pretty solid physical evidence or multiple eye witnesses.
From the U of C article on the wrongfully convicted rapist in Ohio:
After 30 years as an attorney, Petro confided, “I do believe the system works well, but it is imperfect. This reminds us to never be so convinced otherwise.”
About 5 years of reading The Agitator has convinced be that the system DOESN’T work well. There is some major reform needed and we seem to be a long way from getting it!
I’m confused as to why Mr. Watkins’ work is considered extraordinary or groundbreaking. After all, if the wrong guy goes to jail, the right guy is out there free to committ more crimes? Are DA’s who refuse to operate like Mr. Watkins soft on crime?
You forgot this one, Balko:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/dna_evidence_frees_black_man?utm_source=a-section
Only way you’d know it’s fiction is that the police department apologizes.