The Baltimore Sun published an article concerning a Baltimore judge who has ordered the city police to search for DNA evidence from a 1975 rape case or face a fine.

In January, Circuit Judge Wanda K. Heard ordered the Baltimore police department to search storage facilities for any DNA evidence remaining from John Williams Simms' 1977 trial. Judge Heard gave the prosecutor and police 90 days to submit a written report detailing their efforts. To date, no report has been filed. (more…)

The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project (MAIP) has lent its support to the District of Columbia’s proposed Eyewitness Identification and Procedures Act of 2008. The act, which is intended to help prevent wrongful convictions, would require DC Police to use double-blind, sequential identification procedures. Under these procedures, photo arrays and live lineups are conducted by police officers who do not know which participant is the suspect under investigation. In addition, potential suspects are shown to the witness one at a time, rather than grouped together.

"The existing safeguards, [such as] tenacious defense attorneys, careful prosecutors, [and] thorough courts…are not sufficient to prevent eyewitness error," said Shawn Armbrust, Executive Director of MAIP. Misidentification by eyewitnesses has played a role in more than 75 percent of DNA exonerations in the United States to date.

The local United States Attorneys’ Office and the District’s Attorney General assert that misidentification is not a problem in the District. They point to the fact that only a single defendant has been exonerated in the District of Columbia.

Proponents of the new law are not so easily swayed. They contend that exonerations are nearly impossible to achieve in DC, even in DNA cases, because of narrowly drawn evidence retention laws and poor management of stored evidence. More compelling, they say, is the multitude of cases in which patently questionable identifications were admitted into evidence. Chief among them was the case of Steven Dewitt, a District man who was convicted of murder in 1991. DeWitt was imprisoned based on the testimony of two witnesses to a 15 second crime.

One witness, in viewing the photo array, picked Dewitt’s picture and said, "this looks like the guy I saw." Later, at trial, this witness identified Dewitt by saying "I guess this guy over here." The second witness failed to pick Dewitt in the initial photo spread and picked Dewitt only in a live lineup in which Dewitt was dressed in clothing similar to that the witness reported seeing during the crime. Despite the obvious flaws in both procedures, both identifications were admitted at trial and led to Dewitt’s conviction. His innocence was not proven until more than 13 years later.

Double-blind, sequential testing corrects many of the problems observed in misidentifications. The possibility of inadvertent persuasion or reinforcement by the administering officer is eliminated by using an officer not associated with the investigation. Showing a witness the suspects sequentially, instead of in groups, ensures that the witness is forced to make a decision on each photo or individual rather than selecting the closest match within the group.

The legislation pending in DC is among the most comprehensive in the nation.

"Eyewitness testimony is among the most compelling evidence of guilt or innocence," said Armbrust. "It’s our responsibility to do all we can to reduce the chance of error."

Armbrust will be a part of a panel discussing the Eyewitness Identification Act on October 29, at Venable LLP. If you are interested in attending and would like more information, please click here.

On October 16, 2008, James L. Owens became the seventh man in Maryland history to be exonerated by DNA evidence. Owens served more than 20 years for the brutal stabbing and strangling of a 24-year-old woman from Southeast Baltimore.

At his 1988 trial, the prosecution alleged that Owens and another man, James Thompson, had attempted to burglarize the home of victim Colleen Williar. Thompson testified that he was present when Owens raped and murdered Williar in her bed. While Owens was never found guilty of rape, he was convicted of the murder. He became the first man to be sentenced under Maryland’s life without parole statute.

Thompson recanted his testimony almost immediately after the trial, but Owens remained in prison.

Owens never stopped professing his innocence, but it took 18 years for his pleas to be heard. While the alleged murder weapon and other physical evidence had been destroyed by the Baltimore Police, a sperm sample taken from the victim was located. DNA testing revealed that the rapist was neither Thompson nor Owens. Thompson’s testimony and the state’s theory were discredited, and Owens’ conviction was vacated.

Although the prosecution had the opportunity to pursue a new trial, Thompson refused to testify against Owens a second time. In addition, five other witnesses had died in the 18 years since the crime. Confronted by these facts, and by the truth of DNA testing, the prosecuting authorities elected to drop all of the charges. James L. Owens left prison as a free man.

"You can’t give me that time back," James Owens said shortly after being released. "You can’t give me that back. That’s all I got to say."

The Virginia Crime Commission (VCC) will investigate better methods for notifying defendants in Virginia’s Old Case Retesting Project after discovering the current method fell short of expectations.

In February, the General Assembly passed a budget amendment that delegated the notification process to the Forensic Science Board (FSB). FSB decided in August to notify defendants by certified mail. Only 23 percent of the intended recipients of the first mailing confirmed receipt. Several of the delegates and Senators who passed the budget amendment serve on the VCC and were frustrated with the lack of progress. (more…)

On October 9th, the Richmond Times-Dispatch ran an article discussing the Virginia Forensic Science Board's request to the General Assembly for assistance with finding people who were affected by the recent DNA-testing project.

Since the start of Virginia's DNA-testing project, more than 600 persons have been sent letters notifying them that biological material has been found in their case files that may be suitable for DNA testing. (more…)

The Capital News Service ran an article on October 3rd that explored the effects of Maryland’s DNA collection law.