PART III: EXONERATION BY DNA

CHAPTER IV

Profiles of DNA Exculpatory Cases

Presented alphabetically, each profile of the 28 DNA exculpatory cases identified by the study consists of a brief summary of the facts of the case, key prosecution evidence admitted during trial, post-conviction challenges, DNA testing results, and case conclusion.

------------------------------

Gilbert Alejandro (Uvalde County, Texas)

Factual background. On the evening of April 27, 1990, a woman in her fifties came home and was attacked from behind by a man. The man placed a pillow over her head and sexually assaulted her. He then fled the house. The woman could not describe the man except for basic physical size. She also noted that the man was wearing some kind of cap, a gray T-shirt, and dark-colored shorts. The police canvassed the area and questioned three men, one of whom was wearing clothes matching the victim's description. The police did not detain them. The victim picked out Alejandro from his photograph in a mug book.

In October 1990 Gilbert Alejandro was convicted of aggravated sexual assault by a Uvalde County jury.  He was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The victim identified Alejandro from a police mug shot.

o The victim identified Alejandro in court (although she stated that she had a pillow over her head during the assault).

o Fred Zain, the chief forensic expert for Bexar County, Texas, testified that a DNA test of Alejandro's sample matched DNA found on the victim's clothing "and could only have originated from him [Alejandro]."

o Alejandro's only alibi was from his mother, who testified that he was at home at the time of the assault.

Post-conviction challenges. Bexar County performed the forensic laboratory work in this case for the Uvalde County prosecutor's office. Bexar County discovered that the State's forensic expert in this case, Fred Zain (see also the Gerald Wayne Davis, William O'Dell Harris, and Glen Woodall cases), had falsified results and lied about his credentials when he was employed as a State police serologist in West Virginia. When Alejandro's lawyers were informed of this, they filed a writ of habeas corpus. At this time, Alejandro was released to his parents and placed on electronic monitoring.

On July 26, 1994, a Uvalde County District Court heard Alejandro's petition. Present at this hearing were an original trial juror, the original jury foreman, and a Bexar County forensic DNA analyst.

The two jurors testified that they based their guilty verdict solely on Zain's testimony and without his testimony the jury would have acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt. The DNA analyst testified that results from at least one other DNA test had excluded Alejandro. He also testified that the test to which Zain testified was inconclusive and could not have been the basis of a conviction.

DNA results. In July 1990 the original DNA tests done in this case -- the ones Zain testified were inculpatory -- were inconclusive. A Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) test performed by the Bexar County crime laboratory on October 3, 1990, excluded Alejandro as the source of the semen left on the victim's nightgown. The district court also reported that an additional test was done on December 19, 1990, after the trial, and it too excluded Alejandro. According to the district court's findings of fact, Fred Zain knew of these exculpatory results and failed to report them to anyone.

Conclusion. As a result of the findings of fact by the district court, the court of criminal appeals overturned Alejandro's conviction and released him to stand trial again without Zain's testimony. The district attorney, however, declined to prosecute the case. On September 21, 1994, Alejandro was released from electronic monitoring and all charges were dismissed. Alejandro served 4 years of his sentence. On June 27, 1995, he was awarded $250,000 in a civil suit against Bexar County.

------------------------------

Kirk Bloodsworth (Baltimore, Maryland)

Factual background. On July 25, 1984, a 9-year-old girl was found dead in a wooded area. She had been beaten with a rock, sexually assaulted, and strangled.

Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted on March 8, 1985, of sexual assault, rape, and first-degree premeditated murder. A Baltimore County judge sentenced Bloodsworth to death.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o An anonymous caller tipped police that Bloodsworth had been seen with the girl earlier in the day.

o A witness identified Bloodsworth from a police sketch compiled by five witnesses.

o The five witnesses testified that they had seen Bloodsworth with the little girl.

o Bloodsworth had told acquaintances he had done something "terrible" that day that would affect his marriage.

o In his first police interrogation, Bloodsworth mentioned a "bloody rock," even though no weapons were known of at the time.

o Testimony was given that a shoe impression found near the victim's body was made by a shoe that matched Bloodsworth's size.

Postconviction challenges. In 1986 Bloodsworth's attorney filed an appeal contending the following:

Bloodsworth mentioned the bloody rock because the police had one on the table next to him while they interrogated him; the terrible thing mentioned to friends was that he had failed to buy his wife a taco salad as he had promised; and police withheld information from defense attorneys relating to the possibility of another suspect.

The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned Bloodsworth's conviction in July 1986 because of the withheld information. He was retried, and a jury convicted him a second time. This time Bloodsworth was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.

After an appeal of the second conviction was denied, Bloodsworth's lawyer moved to have the evidence released for more sophisticated testing than was available at the time of trial. The prosecution agreed, and in April 1992 the victim's panties and shorts, a stick found near the murder scene, reference blood samples from Bloodsworth and the victim, and an autopsy slide were sent to Forensic Science Associates (FSA) for Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing.

DNA results. The FSA report, issued on May 17, 1993, stated that semen on the autopsy slide was insufficient for testing. It also stated that a small semen stain had been found on the panties.

The report indicated that the majority of DNA associated with the epithelial fraction had the same genotype as the semen due to the low level of epithelial cells present in the stain. It was an expected result, according to the report. Finally, the report concluded that Bloodsworth's DNA did not match any of the evidence received for testing. FSA did, however, request a fresh sample of Bloodsworth's blood for retesting in accord with questions about proper labeling on the original sample.

On June 3, 1993, FSA issued a second report that stated its findings regarding Bloodsworth's DNA were replicated and that he could not be responsible for the stain on the victim's underwear (see appendix for complete results).

Conclusion. On June 25, 1993, the FBI conducted its own test of the evidence and discovered the same results as FSA. In Maryland, new evidence can be presented no later than 1 year after the final appeal. Prosecutors joined a petition with Bloodsworth's attorneys to grant Bloodsworth a pardon. A Baltimore County circuit judge ordered Bloodsworth released from prison on June 28, 1993.

Maryland's governor pardoned Bloodsworth in December 1993. Bloodsworth served almost 9 years of the second sentence, including 2 years on death row.

------------------------------

Mark Diaz Bravo (Los Angeles County, California)

Factual background. On February 20, 1990, a patient at the psychiatric hospital where Bravo worked claimed she had been raped in an alcove earlier that afternoon. During the course of police interviews, she named several different people as her assailant. One of those she named was Bravo.

She later stated she was sure Bravo was the attacker.

A Los Angeles County jury found Mark Diaz Bravo guilty of rape in 1990. He was sentenced by the court to a prison term of 8 years.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The victim named Bravo as the assailant and made an in-court identification.

o Bravo had misrepresented himself in the past on applications and on his business card.

o Blood tests done on a blanket near the crime scene showed a blood type consistent with Bravo's blood type, which is found in only 3 percent of the population.

o Bravo's alibi defense was not aggressively pursued.  Postconviction challenges. Bravo's appeal to the intermediate court of appeals was denied. Before his appeal was decided in 1992, he filed a postconviction motion in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. In 1993 a superior court judge granted Bravo's motion to release a blanket, a sheet, and a pair of panties to the defense for DNA testing.

DNA results. Prosecutors received a report from Cellmark Diagnostics on December 24, 1993, stating that none of the tested semen had DNA that matched Bravo's.

Conclusion. On January 4, 1994, Bravo's lawyer filed a writ of habeas corpus. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ordered Bravo to be released on January 6, 1994. The judge stated that Bravo had not received a fair trial, that the victim had recanted her testimony, that Bravo's alibi was unimpeachable, and that the DNA tests were irrefutable. On January 7, 1994, Bravo was released from prison after serving 3 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Dale Brison (Chester County, Pennsylvania)

Factual background. On the evening of July 14, 1990, the victim was walking from a convenience store to her home when an assailant came from behind her, put one hand on her throat and one on her waist, and forced her to walk with him. The assailant stabbed her in the side as they walked, and the victim lost consciousness. When she awoke, the assailant was walking her to some bushes near an apartment complex. The assailant then repeatedly assaulted the victim sexually.

In a jury trial before the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, Dale Brison was convicted of rape, kidnaping, aggravated assault, carrying a prohibited offensive weapon, and three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Brison was sentenced to 18 to 42 years of imprisonment. His term was 8 to 20 years for rape and 4 to 10 years for assault, to be served consecutively. He also received 6 to 12 years for each of the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse convictions (although each of these was to run concurrently, they were to be served consecutively with the other sentences).

Brison sought DNA testing during the trial, but his request was denied.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o There were two separate victim identifications of Brison near the victim's apartment building.

o A hair sample from the scene of the crime was consistent with Brison's.

o Brison's alibi, sleeping on the couch of his home, was corroborated only by his mother.

Postconviction challenges. In 1992 the Pennsylvania

Superior Court ruled (618 A.2d 420) that DNA testing must be performed if the evidence had been maintained and the semen stain from the victim's underwear was not badly degraded. It also ruled that the burden of the cost of this test was upon the Commonwealth.

DNA results. Cellmark Diagnostics reported that no result was discernible from the vaginal swab, but the semen stain from the victim's panties yielded results that exculpated Brison as the assailant.

Conclusion. After the tests were performed, the district attorney's office conducted its own. Results matched those of the first one, and Brison was freed after serving 3 « years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Ronnie Bullock (Chicago, Illinois)

Factual background. On March 18, 1983, a 9-year-old girl was walking to school when a man dressed like a police officer approached her. He then chased the girl, forced her into a car, drove to a nearby alley, and raped her. On April 18, 1983, in the same area, a 12-year-old girl reported that a man displaying a badge chased her, forced her into a car, drove to an alley, and raped her.

Bullock was charged in both incidents, but charges stemming from the second were dropped. Ronnie Bullock was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault by a Cook County jury in May 1984. A judge sentenced Bullock to 60 years in prison for deviate sexual assault and 15 concurrent years for aggravated kidnaping.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o A police officer identified Bullock from a composite sketch compiled by the two victims.

o Both victims identified Bullock in a police lineup.

o Bullock lived in the area where the rapes occurred.

Post-conviction challenges. Immediately following Bullock's conviction, he insisted that the evidence be impounded. This motion was approved, and the judge ordered that the victim's panties be stored in the circuit court clerk's office freezer. An appeals court upheld Bullock's conviction in March 1987. Bullock also filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied in October 1990. He then submitted a motion in 1993 to have the evidence released for DNA tests. The prosecution agreed to this motion; it was granted in June 1993. There was a delay, however, between the granting of the motion and Cellmark Diagnostics' test because some of the evidence (including the victim's panties) had disappeared.

Bullock's attorneys eventually found the materials and sent them to Cellmark Diagnostics.

DNA results. The report from Cellmark Diagnostics, completed in October 1994, stated that PCR testing was performed on a sperm and nonsperm fraction of the victim's panties, a rectal swab, the blood of the victim, and the blood of Bullock. No conclusions could be reached from the rectal swab due to an insufficient quantity of human DNA. The report stated that Bullock was excluded as the source of both the sperm and the nonsperm fractions in the semen stain on the victim's panties (see appendix for complete results).

Conclusion. On October 14, 1994, Bullock was released without bond but ordered to remain confined to his parents' house on electronic monitoring. The prosecution wanted to run its own tests on the panties, so a hearing was scheduled for November 23, 1994. When the Cook County laboratory arrived at the same conclusion, a judge dismissed the charges, and the district attorney's office declined to prosecute in a new trial.

Bullock served 10 « years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Leonard Callace (White Plains, New York)

Factual background. In January 1985 a teenage girl was walking to her car in the parking lot of a shopping center. She was accosted by two men at knife point and forced into a nearby car. One man, allegedly Callace, sexually assaulted the victim repeatedly while the other man watched from the front seat. The second man was never identified.

A Suffolk County jury took 1 hour to convict Leonard Callace of sodomy (four counts), sexual abuse (three counts), wrongful imprisonment, and criminal possession of a weapon. Callace rejected a plea bargain that would have given him 4 months in prison if he pled to a lesser charge. On March 24, 1987, Callace was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o A sketch by police artists resembled Callace.

o The victim identified Callace from a photo array and made an in-court identification.

o The blood group of the semen was type A, the same as Callace's.

o Callace's alibi was uncorroborated.

Post-conviction challenges. Callace's conviction was affirmed on appeal and leave to appeal to the court of appeals was denied. While in prison, Callace learned about DNA testing and how it was used to free a former inmate (see case summary of Charles Dabbs). He asked his attorney about the original trial evidence.

Callace's attorney remembered two things from the original trial record. First, the victim had just picked up her jeans from the cleaners. Second, the victim spit out semen onto the jeans after one of the assaults. Therefore, any semen on those jeans would have come from the assailant; if it did not match Callace's, he could be freed. The defense used this information to secure the jeans from the prosecution for DNA testing at Lifecodes, Inc. On June 27, 1991, a Suffolk County Court judge granted Callace's motion to consider DNA tests as "new evidence" (573 N.Y.S.2d 137). The judge also ruled that if the samples did not match, he would hold a hearing to consider postconviction relief for Callace.

DNA results. The RFLP analysis performed by Lifecodes, Inc., on the victim's jeans showed that DNA in the semen stains did not match Callace's.

Conclusion. On October 5, 1992, Callace was released from prison. The prosecution dismissed all charges against Callace and declined to prosecute in a new trial because of the DNA evidence and the reluctance of the victim to endure another trial.

Callace served almost 6 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Terry Leon Chalmers (White Plains, New York)

Factual background. On August 18, 1986, a woman was raped, and Terry Chalmers was arrested for the crime.

He was convicted by a Westchester County jury on June 9, 1987, of rape, sodomy, robbery, and two counts of grand larceny. The court sentenced Chalmers to 12 to 24 years in prison.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case against Chalmers on several points:

o The victim identified Chalmers from a police photo array.

o The victim identified Chalmers in two separate police lineups and in the courtroom.

o Chalmer's alibi was uncorroborated.

Post-conviction challenges. Chalmers filed an appeal claiming that the police lineup was improperly conducted. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court ruled on July 18, 1990, that the lineup was properly conducted, and even if it were not, the victim's in-court identification was sufficient. The court affirmed Chalmers' conviction (559 N.Y.S.2d 27).

Chalmers applied to the Innocence Project to assist him in obtaining post-conviction relief. Project lawyers secured the physical evidence and forwarded it to Forensic Science Associates (FSA) for DNA testing.

DNA results. FSA tested samples of blood from the victim and Chalmers as well as from the vaginal and cervical swabs from the original rape kit. The first report from FSA, on July 8, 1994, showed the results from tests of the victim's blood and the two swabs. The second report, dated July 26, 1994, stated that Chalmers could be eliminated as the source of the semen on the two swabs on the basis of differences in three polymarker genes (see appendix for results).

Conclusion. Chalmers' conviction was vacated and charges were dismissed on January 31, 1995. The related larceny charges were dismissed in April 1995. Chalmers served 8 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Ronald Cotton (Burlington, North Carolina)

Factual background. In two separate incidents in July 1984, an assailant broke into an apartment, severed phone wires, sexually assaulted a woman, and searched through her belongings, taking money and other items.

On August 1, 1984, Ronald Cotton was arrested for the rapes. In January 1985, Cotton was convicted by a jury of one count of rape and one count of burglary. In a second trial, in November 1987, Cotton was convicted of both rapes and two counts of burglary. An Alamance County Superior Court sentenced Cotton to life plus 54 years.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. Cotton's alibi was supported by family members. The jury was not allowed to hear evidence that the second victim failed to pick Cotton out of either a photo array or a police lineup. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o A photo identification was made by one of the victims.

o A police lineup identification was made by one of the victims.

o A flashlight in Cotton's home resembled the one used by the assailant.

o Rubber from Cotton's tennis shoe was consistent with rubber found at one of the crime scenes.

Postconviction challenges. Cotton's attorney filed an appeal. The North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction because the second victim had picked another man out of the lineup and the trial court did not allow this evidence to be heard by the jury.

In November 1987 Cotton was retried, this time for both rapes. The second victim had decided that Cotton was the assailant. Before the second trial, a man in prison, who had been convicted for crimes similar to these assaults, stated to another inmate that he had committed Cotton's crimes. The superior court judge refused to allow this information into evidence, and Cotton was convicted of both rapes and sentenced to life.

The next year Cotton's appellate defender filed a brief that did not argue the failure to admit the second suspect's confession. The conviction was affirmed. In 1994 two new lawyers, at the request of the chief appellate defender, took over Cotton's defense. They filed a motion for appropriate relief on the grounds of inadequate appeal counsel. They also filed a motion for DNA testing that was granted in October 1994. In the spring of 1995, the Burlington Police Department turned over all evidence that contained the assailant's semen for DNA testing.

DNA results. The samples from one victim were too deteriorated to be conclusive, but the samples from the other victim's vaginal swab and underwear were submitted to PCR testing and showed no match to Cotton. At the defense attorneys' request, the results were sent to the State Bureau of Investigation's DNA data base containing the DNA patterns of convicted, violent felons in North Carolina prisons. The State's data base showed a match with the convict who had earlier confessed to the crime.

Conclusion. After Cotton's attorneys received the DNA test results in May 1995, they contacted the district attorney, who joined the defense attorneys in the motion to dismiss the charges. On June 30, 1995, Cotton was officially cleared of all charges and released from prison. In July 1995 the governor of North Carolina officially pardoned Cotton, making him eligible for $5,000 compensation from the State. Cotton had served 10 « years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez (Chicago,

Illinois)

Factual background. On February 25, 1983, a 10-year-old girl was kidnaped from her home, raped, and bludgeoned to death. Her body was found several days later in a wooded area. An autopsy showed she had died from several blows to the head, and her body evidenced a broken nose, postmortem scratches, and sexual assault. Two weeks later an anonymous tip led sheriff's detectives to Hernandez. He allegedly made statements that he knew the men involved in the crime but that he was not one of the perpetrators. On the basis of his statements, Hernandez was arrested on March 6, 1984.

Several days later, the detectives spoke with Cruz, who was an acquaintance of Hernandez. Cruz allegedly reported "visions" to the police -- visions whose details were similar to those associated with the crime. Cruz was indicted on March 9, 1984, on the basis of those statements.

In 1985, in a DuPage County Circuit Court, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were jointly tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for kidnaping, rape, and murder. A jury was unable to reach a verdict on a third codefendant.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o Several law enforcement officers testified that Cruz and Hernandez made incriminating statements.

o Several witnesses testified that Cruz and Hernandez admitted to having intimate knowledge of the crime.

o Cruz's alleged "dream visions" of the murder, though not tape recorded, were admitted into evidence on the basis of the testimony of sheriff's detectives.

o The alibi defenses of the two men were not aggressively pursued.

o The Hernandez defense also contended that any inculpatory statements by him against others were made to collect a $10,000 reward.

Post-conviction challenges. After an appeal by Cruz, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Cruz was "denied a fair trial by reason of introduction of admissions of codefendants" (521 N.E.2d 18). The court ruled on January 19, 1988, that the three men should have been tried separately when it was clear that the prosecution was going to use inculpatory statements by defendants as evidence against one another. The case was reversed and remanded to the DuPage Circuit Court. The Illinois Supreme Court essentially made the same ruling on Hernandez's appeal (521 N.E.2d 25) on January 19, 1988.

Cruz was again convicted by a jury in a DuPage County Circuit Court, and he appealed. The Illinois Supreme Court initially affirmed the circuit court's decision, but, in view of many amicus curiae briefs, the court agreed to look at Cruz's conviction again. This time, on July 14, 1994, the court reversed the decision of the circuit court (643 N.E.2d 636). The reversal was largely based on statements made by another man, Brian Dugan, a convicted rapist-murderer, who claimed to have committed the crime alone. Dugan's confession was made through hypothetical statements during a plea bargain for other crimes, so the confession could not be used against him.

Hernandez's second conviction, in a separate appeal, was also reversed and remanded. He was convicted a third time by a jury, and this conviction, too, was overturned.

DNA results. In September 1995 DNA tests showed that neither Cruz nor Hernandez were the contributors of the semen found at the crime scene.

Tests also determined that Brian Dugan could not be eliminated as a potential contributor. Prosecutors contended that the DNA evidence showed only that Cruz and Hernandez were not the rapists, but they could still have been present at the crime. Cruz's new defense team decided on a bench trial.

Hernandez awaited a fourth jury trial.

Conclusion. Before the judge gave a directed verdict in the Cruz case, a sheriff's department lieutenant recanted testimony he had provided in previous trials. In the earlier trials, the lieutenant provided corroborating testimony that two of his detectives told him immediately aboutCruz's dream-vision statements. At Cruz's latest trial, however, the lieutenant said he was in Florida on the day of the supposed conversations and could not have spoken to anyone about Cruz's statements. On November 3, 1995, a DuPage County judge acquitted Cruz on the basis of the recanted testimony, the DNA evidence, and the lack of any substantiated evidence against Cruz. Rolando Cruz served 11 years on death row.

Hernandez's case was also dismissed, and he was set free. He served 11 years on death row. Brian Dugan has not been charged with the murder. He has refused to testify about the case unless he is granted death-penalty immunity.

------------------------------

Charles Dabbs (Westchester County, New York)

Factual background. Early on the morning of August 12, 1982, the victim was walking home when she was assaulted from behind. She was forcibly dragged into an alley between a warehouse and another building. The assailant dropped the victim down a flight of stairs, and she lost consciousness. When she awoke, she saw two other men with the original assailant. One of the attackers held the woman's legs, one held her arms, and the third raped her.

She was able to identify only the face of the man who raped her (allegedly Dabbs). The alleged accomplices were never located.

Charles Dabbs was convicted of first-degree rape by a jury in a Westchester County Court on April 10, 1984. He was ordered to serve 12 « to 20 years in prison.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The victim was able to identify Dabbs because they are distant cousins.

o The victim testified that the assailant wore a distinctive cap and had a distinctive laugh, which she stated were both similar to Dabbs'.

o ABO typing of a semen stain on the victim's pants showed the presence of the H and the B antigens; Dabbs is an O secretor whose body fluids contain the H antigen. This blood typing showed that Dabbs could not be excluded as a source of the semen.

Postconviction challenges. Dabbs appealed his conviction, but it was upheld by the appellate court in June 1988 (529 N.Y.S.2d 557). On November 21, 1990, the Westchester County Supreme Court granted Dabbs' request for DNA testing (570 N.Y.S.2d 765). The court ruled that any preserved evidence was to be released by the county laboratory for testing by Lifecodes, Inc.

DNA results. Lifecodes, Inc., reported that DNA tests of a gauze pad and a cutting from the victim's jeans yielded inconclusive results. RFLP testing was conducted, however, on a cutting from the victim's underwear. The DNA from the semen on the panties did not match the DNA from a blood sample submitted by Dabbs.

Conclusion. On the basis of the DNA results, Dabbs' attorney filed a motion to have the conviction vacated. The prosecution elected not to oppose Dabbs' motion, and on July 31, 1991, the Westchester County Supreme Court ruled that the DNA analysis was sufficient to indicate that the defendant was not the perpetrator. The prosecution moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of the DNA results and the reluctance of the victim to testify at a new trial. The dismissal was granted by the court on August 22, 1991. The court's written opinion was published on November 7, 1991 (587 N.Y.S.2d 90).

Dabbs served 7 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Gerald Wayne Davis (Kanawha County, West Virginia)

Factual background. The victim testified that on the evening of February 18, 1986, she had dropped off laundry at the home of Davis, a family friend.

When she returned to pick up the laundry, she wasattacked and raped by Davis on his waterbed.  Davis's father, according to the victim's testimony, was present during the assault and made no efforts to intervene on her behalf.

In May 1986 Gerald Wayne Davis was convicted by a Kanawha County jury of kidnaping and two counts of sexual assault. The circuit court judge sentenced Davis to 14 to 35 years in prison. Dewey Davis, the defendant's father, also was convicted of abduction, first-degree sexual abuse, and second-degree sexual assault.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The victim knew Davis and identified him to police.

o The victim also made an in-court identification of Davis.

o A State police chemist testified that DNA tests could not exclude Davis as the source of the semen found on the victim's underpants.

o Police found a shoe and a jacket belonging to the victim in the Davis home.

o The Davises asserted an alibi that they did nothing while the victim washed clothes.

Postconviction challenges. Both Davis and his father filed appeals. The appellate court dismissed one count of sexual assault and the kidnaping charge for both defendants. As a result, their sentences were reduced to 10 years each.

After an investigation of cases involving chemist Fred Zain (see also the Glen Woodall and William O'Dell Harris cases), many convicted persons were permitted to file a writ of habeas corpus if Zain worked on their cases. Davis filed such a writ based on the potential for falsified evidence by Zain and the possibility of exculpatory evidence in a new DNA test. The West Virginia Superior Court granted the writ on the condition that DNA tests be performed on the remaining trial evidence.

DNA results. Davis's defense attorney asked for DNA tests to be performed on the original trial evidence. The judge agreed to the use of the Center for Blood Research (CBR) for testing. The results showed DNA markings from the victim and a man, but not from Davis. Prosecutors ran a second series of tests. They also excluded Davis as the semen source. DNA tests also were performed on Davis's underwear and bedsheets. These tests showed no evidence of the victim's DNA.

Conclusion. As a result of these DNA test results, the convictions were annulled and Davis was released to home confinement on March 16, 1994, pending a new trial. The prosecution, contending that Davis still could have raped the victim and not ejaculated, pursued a second trial. On December 4, 1995, a Kanawha County Circuit Court jury deliberated for 90 minutes before acquitting Davis of second-degree sexual assault and first-degree sexual abuse. All charges have also been dismissed against the elder Davis. Both Davises had served 8 years of their sentences.

------------------------------

Frederick Rene Daye (San Diego, California)

Factual background. The crime occurred on the evening of January 10, 1984, while a young woman was walking from a drugstore to her car. One man (alleged to be Daye) opened the victim's driver side door, pushed the victim to the passenger side, and let a second man into the back seat. The two men, after finding only $6 in the woman's purse, stole the woman's wedding and engagement rings, a pearl ring, and her earrings. Then they forcibly removed her clothes and raped her. The two men dumped the victim on a residential street and drove away.

The two defendants were prosecuted in separate trials, and at Daye's trial the other defendant, who was known to a person who witnessed the car theft, pleaded the Fifth Amendment. A jury required almost 8 hours to convict Frederick Rene Daye of kidnaping, robbery, two counts of rape in concert, and vehicle theft. On August 14, 1984, the San Diego County Superior Court sentenced Daye to serve life, with the possibility of parole, on the kidnaping charge, and 14 years and 8 months for all other counts.

He was ordered to serve his sentence at California State Prison-Solano.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. Daye's defense at trial was mistaken identification. The prosecution's evidence included:

o Blood typing from a semen stain matched Daye's ABO blood type B.

o The victim made a photo identification.

o The victim and a witness to the crime made lineup identifications.

o Daye gave a false name and other misinformation to the police at the time of his arrest.

Postconviction challenges. Daye appealed the conviction, claiming an erroneous admission of tainted identification evidence, ineffective counsel at trial, suppression of the out-of-court identification, improper impeachment with prior convictions, and instructional errors. The judgment of Daye's conviction was affirmed in appellate court on February 29, 1986. The California Supreme Court denied review of his case.

A statement by David Pringle, the other defendant in this case, was made to the San Diego County Superior Court on February 1, 1990. This statement indicated that Daye was not the other man involved in the crime; it also named the man who was with Pringle. The court appointed a defense attorney to investigate this matter. When no followup work was done by this attorney, Appellate Defenders, Inc. (ADI), helped Daye file a writ of habeas corpus petition. The petition, filed in June 1992, addressed both Pringle's affidavit and the lack of action taken by Daye's lawyer. Habeas relief was denied on August 11, 1992, and the case was remanded to superior court with directions to consider whether to vacate the appointment of Daye's attorney.

The court ruled that Daye was entitled to new representation, and ADI took over the case. In October 1992 Daye's attorney was notified that the original evidence from the trial was going to be destroyed. She filed for an evidentiary hearing to discuss release of the exhibits and DNA testing of any remaining semen stains. On September 17, 1993, the court of appeals denied Daye's request for an evidentiary hearing. The court, however, issued a writ making $2,000 available from the county for Daye to investigate the DNA issue and authorized release of evidence to an investigator working on Daye's case. Daye also received permission to seek habeas corpus relief after the completion of the DNA investigation.

DNA results. The report from Cellmark Diagnostics, completed on April 21, 1994, stated that DNA from the left leg of the victim's jeans and Daye's blood sample were amplified using PCR and typed for DQ alpha using an amplitype HLA DQ alpha forensic DNAamplification and typing kit. A denim cloth cutting of the right leg of the jeans was also sent but produced no PCR results. The sperm fraction on the jeans produced results, but they were too faint for interpretation. The results excluded Daye as the source of the DNA from both the nonsperm cell fraction and the sperm fraction found on the left leg of the jeans (see appendix for results).

Conclusion. After the results of the DNA testing provided exculpatory evidence for Daye, his new appellate defender filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 3, 1994. Her petition was based on the new DNA evidence, which was not available at the time of the crime or at the time of Daye's appeal. It was also based on the declaration of the other defendant that Daye did not commit the crime and that, in fact, he did not even know Daye. Daye's conviction was overturned on September 27, 1994. He had served 10 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Gary Dotson (Chicago, Illinois)

Factual background. On the evening of July 9, 1977, the complainant was walking home from work when two men forced her into the back seat of a car and raped her. She also testified that one of the men tried to write words on her stomach using a broken beer bottle. She was then pushed from the car onto the street.

In July 1979 Gary Dotson was convicted of aggravated kidnaping and rape. He was sentenced to not less than 25 and not more than 50 years.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution's case included the following evidence:

o A composite sketch of the defendant, which the complainant helped with, was prepared by the police.

o The victim identified Dotson from a police mug book.

o Dotson was identified by the victim from a police lineup.

o The State's expert serologist testified that the semen on the victim's undergarment came from a type B secretor and that the defendant was a type B secretor. (It was later reported that the State's serologist failed to disclose that the victim was also a type B secretor.)

o Testimony was presented that a pubic hair removed from the victim's underwear was similar to the defendant's and dissimilar to the victim's.

Postconviction challenges. In March 1985 the victim recanted her testimony. She said she had fabricated the rape to hide a legitimate sexual encounter with her boyfriend. Dotson contended that the victim's recantation of testimony constituted grounds to vacate the original sentence. At the hearing on Dotson's motion for a new trial, the same judge from the original trial refused to order a new trial. His reasoning was that the complainant was more believable in her original testimony than in her recantation.

The governor accepted authority for the case and held a session of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board. The governor stated that he did not believe the victim's recantation and refused to pardon Dotson. On May 12, 1985, however, the governor commuted Dotson's sentence to the 6 years he had already served, pending good behavior. In 1987 the governor revoked Dotson's parole after Dotson was accused by his wife of assaulting her. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed Dotson's conviction on November 12, 1987 (516 N.E.2d 718).

On Christmas Eve 1987 the governor granted Dotson a "last chance parole." Two days later, Dotson was arrested in a barroom fight, and his parole was revoked. In 1988 Dotson's new attorney had DNA tests conducted that were not available at the time of the alleged rape.

DNA results. A sample of semen from the victim's underwear was sent to Dr. Alec Jeffreys in England for RFLP analysis. The sample was badly degraded, however, and results were inconclusive. Samples were then sent to Forensic Science Associates in Richmond, California. The lab performed PCR DQ alpha tests that showed that the semen on the victim's undergarments could not have come from Dotson but could have come from the victim's boyfriend.

Conclusion. The chief judge of the Cook County Criminal Court ruled that Dotson was entitled to a new trial. The State attorney's office, however, decided not to prosecute based on the victim's lack of credibility and the DNA test results.

Dotson's conviction was overturned on August 14, 1989, after he had served a total of 8 years.

------------------------------

Edward Green (Washington, D.C.)

Factual background. The incidents occurred on July 3 and August 5, 1987. In the first, a young woman was raped near a footbridge at a high school. The second incident occurred at the same location, but the woman fled and found a police officer. Police picked up Green in the area of the two assaults.

Edward Green was arrested and tried for rape and assault with intent to rape (in two separate incidents). He was convicted by a jury of the rape and acquitted for the assault/attempted rape. The jury reached its verdict in 3 hours.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The second victim identified Green in a "show-up" on the street.

o The first victim identified Green from a photo array and a formal lineup.

o Both victims made in-court identifications of Green.

o The blood type of the assailant was consistent with Green's.

Post-conviction challenges. After conviction but prior to sentencing, the defense moved to delay sentencing pending the results of DNA testing. While waiting for the DNA results, the prosecution opposed several time extensions, which were granted by the judge.

DNA results. DNA tests were performed on an item of the victim's clothing and compared to the victim's and Green's blood. The report, issued in February 1990 from Cellmark Diagnostics, excluded Green as the source of the semen.

Conclusion. On the basis of the DNA results, the defense moved for a new trial. In a superior court hearing on March 19, 1990, the judge granted the defense motion. The U.S. attorney's office immediately moved to dismiss the indictment. Green remained in jail on unrelated drug charges after a pretrial confinement of 9 months in jail on the rape charges.

------------------------------

Ricky Hammond (Hartford, Connecticut)

Factual background. In the late afternoon of November 30, 1987, the victim was walking on a dark street when she was pushed off the sidewalk by an assailant. The man forced her into a car in a nearby parking lot. He drove for about 15 minutes, stopped on or near a dirt road, and sexually assaulted her. The assailant then drove the victim to an area with which the victim was unfamiliar and told her he would kill her if she told anyone about the incident. He then let her out of the car and drove away.

Ricky Hammond was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault in March 1990 by a Hartford jury. Before sentencing, Hammond filed two motions: one for a new trial and another for further discovery using DNA and blood testing of the vaginal swabs and smears that were in evidence. The trial court denied both of these motions and sentenced Hammond to a prison term of 25 years, suspended after 23 years, and 3 years probation.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. DNA and blood analyses were performed at the request of the State prior to trial. The results provided exculpatory results for Hammond. The prosecution argued to the jury that, in light of the remaining inculpatory evidence, the physical evidence must have been contaminated. The prosecution's case against Hammond relied on several points:

o The victim identified Hammond in a photo array.

o The victim made an in-court identification of Hammond.

o The victim identified various details about Hammond's car, including the make and model, scratches on the body, a ripped child seat, and a wristwatch hanging on the gearbox.

o Hammond's alibi was uncorroborated, and he also had altered several details of his alibi when originally interviewed.

o Forensic examination of hairs found in Hammond's car showed they were consistent with the victim's hair.

Postconviction challenges. Hammond appealed his conviction on three major grounds. Hammond claimed that (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion for a new trial because of exculpatory blood and DNA analysis, (2) the prosecution made improper statements to the jury and denied his right to a fair trial, and (3) the trial court erred in not allowing his post-trial motion to have further testing of vaginal swabs from the victim.

On February 25, 1992, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that the trial court and prosecution made several errors with regard to the DNA and blood evidence. The court also ruled that the trial court was not aware of "the logical inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, the evidence suggesting that the chemical alteration of the assailant's DNA was physically impossible, or the absence of any evidence that the defendant's scientific tests were unreliable" (604 A.2d 793).

Because Hammond's motion was for a new trial and not for acquittal, the State Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

DNA results. The DNA results from this case were largely completed prior to trial. At the State's request, the FBI's DNA analysis unit tested the samples in May 1989. An FBI forensic analyst testified that the semen from the physical evidence could not have come from Hammond.

The victim's testimony indicated that she had not had sexual relations with anyone other than her assailant after putting on the clothes that were tested. Furthermore, blood tests performed by the State laboratory and the FBI lab revealed that the assailant had an A antigen in his blood. The victim, the victim's boyfriend, and Hammond all had type O blood. The secretions of blood type O contain the H antigen. Type O non-secretors do not secrete the H antigen.

After the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling, three more tests were performed on the vaginal swabs. Testing was not originally performed on the swabs because the State argued that it would be repetitive evidence. These results also showed no match to Hammond.

Conclusion. Hammond was granted a new trial and was acquitted. He had served 2 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

William O'Dell Harris (Charleston, West Virginia)

Factual background. On December 16, 1984, a nurse was walking home from work when she was grabbed from behind and sexually assaulted. On July 25, 1985, Harris was arrested and charged with first-degree sexual assault. Harris was a juvenile at the time of the offense, but the State's motion to transfer the case to adult status was granted on May 16, 1986.

A Kanawha County jury deliberated for nearly 4 hours before convicting William O'Dell Harris of second-degree sexual assault. On October 18, 1987, Harris was sentenced to 10 to 20 years in prison, with 75 days credit for time served.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o A sheriff's deputy testified that the victim had positively identified Harris as her attacker.

o The victim lived near Harris and originally claimed to have been acquainted with him.

o The victim identified Harris in a police lineup and made an in-court identification of him.

o Police serologist Fred Zain (see also Glen Woodall and Gerald Wayne Davis cases) testified that the genetic markers in the semen left by the assailant matched those of Harris and only 5.9 percent of the population.

o Harris's alibi, that he was with his girlfriend at the time of the crime, was corroborated only by her.

Post-conviction challenges. On November 10, 1993, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals authorized special habeas corpus proceedings on any case involving the testimony of Zain (438 S.E.2d 501). One week later, Harris's attorneys filed a writ of habeas corpus, consenting to DNA testing of Harris as a condition of relief. On December 8, 1993, the State Supreme Court of Appeals issued the writ and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County for further proceedings. On December 29, 1993, the circuit court judge ordered prosecutors to release the trial evidence. More than a month later, the judge repeated his order.

The judge freed Harris to home confinement on $200,000 bond on June 21, 1994. At the same hearing, the judge again ordered the district attorney to release the evidence for DNA testing.  At this time, the sheriff's department stated that all evidence from the trial had been lost. An investigator with the public defender's office later found a slide containing semen evidence at the medical center originally used by the victim.

On September 13, 1994, the judge held a hearing on a prosecution motion to reconsider his order of release of evidence and then ordered for a fourth time that the evidence (the slide from the medical center and a sample of the victim's blood) be released for DNA testing. Harris's attorneys filed a contempt of court motion on the prosecutors on November 1, 1994. During these hearings, the district attorney stated that the victim was being uncooperative about giving a blood sample but had sent the evidence slide for DNA testing on November 2, 1994.

DNA results. On May 1, 1995, a report from Dr. David Bing of the Center for Blood Research Laboratories stated that DNA extracted from Harris's blood sample was inconsistent with DNA extracted from the semen on the evidence slide.

Harris asked the circuit judge to dismiss the case against him. Prosecutors, however, requested that a second test be conducted by a court-approved laboratory, LabCorp in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. This request was granted.

Conclusion. After the results of the second test also showed that Harris was not the donor of the semen on the evidence slide, the district attorney held a press conference on August 1, 1995, to state that Harris was innocent. On October 10, 1995, Harris's conviction was vacated. One month later, the court also dismissed the underlying indictment.

Harris had served 7 years of his sentence and an additional year of home confinement. As an added note to this case, the detective who testified in this trial was later convicted for perjury.

------------------------------

Edward Honaker (Nelson County, Virginia)

Factual background. In the early morning of June 23, 1984, a woman and her boyfriend were sleeping in their car on a rural roadside when a man approached, pretending to be a police officer. He ordered the two out of the car, brandished a gun, and ordered the boyfriend to run into the woods.

The assailant forced the woman into his truck, drove to a secluded area, and repeatedly raped her. The police compiled a composite sketch of the assailant from the victim and her boyfriend. A woman was later raped 100 miles away, near Edward Honaker's house. She said the assailant resembled Honaker, her neighbor. Honaker had an alibi and was never charged with this second rape. The detective on the second rape case, however, took a picture of Honaker and showed it to the first victim and her boyfriend.

A Nelson County jury took 2 hours to convict Edward Honaker of seven counts of sexual assault, sodomy, and rape. The Nelson County Court sentenced Honaker to three life sentences plus 34 years.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The victim and her boyfriend picked Honaker out of a photo lineup.

o The victim made an in-court identification of Honaker.

o The truck that Honaker drove was similar to the one driven by the assailant.

o Police found camouflage fatigues in Honaker's house, similar to those worn by the assailant.

o Honaker's alibi, which was corroborated by his brother, sister-in-law, owner of his trailer park, and mother's housemate, was called a "put-up job" by the prosecution.

o A State laboratory forensic specialist testified that hair found on the woman's shorts "was unlikely to match anyone" other than Honaker.

Post-conviction challenges. Honaker made many written inquiries for any testing that could prove his innocence. Finally, Centurion Ministries (CM), a Princeton-based group that works to free the wrongfully imprisoned, agreed to work on Honaker's case. After CM discovered that some of the victim's and boyfriend's testimony was hypnotically induced, that the initial description given by the victim was inconsistent with Honaker's appearance, and that Honaker's 1976 vasectomy was barely mentioned in the trial (and not known by the prosecution's criminalist), the organization began working with the Innocence Project. Honaker's Innocence Project lawyers filed a motion with the State of Virginia to release evidence for DNA tests.

In the original trial, a forensics expert testified that sperm was present in the semen on the vaginal swab. The prosecution contended that the sperm was the boyfriend's, but they agreed to release the evidence to Honaker's lawyers. The Innocence Project, in turn, sent the evidence to Forensic Science Associates (FSA) for PCR testing.

The reason that FSA had to provide all the reports discussed below is that in June 1994 the victim claimed that she had a secret lover during the time of the original incident. This meant that DNA tests had to prove that one of the stains was not from Honaker or either boyfriend in order to establish Honaker's innocence.

DNA results. The first report from FSA, on January 13, 1994, showed DQ alpha typing of a vaginal swab from the rape kit, an oral swab from the victim, a semen stain from the victim's shorts, and a blood sample from Honaker.

This report indicated that there were two different seminal deposits (the one on the swab and the one from the shorts did not match). FSA requested blood samples from the victim and the boyfriend. The report stated, however, that even if Honaker were able to produce sperm, he was eliminated as the source of sperm from both deposits (see appendix for results).

The second report from FSA was written on March 15, 1994; it included the boyfriend's typing and verified the victim's DQ alpha. The boyfriend could not be eliminated as a potential source of the sperm on the shorts. Honaker and the boyfriend were both eliminated as the source of sperm on the vaginal swab.

The Virginia State laboratory tested the second boyfriend and could not exclude him as the sperm source on the vaginal swab.

FSA then repeated the DQ alpha typing of all the evidence and typed five additional polymarker genes. Their report from September 26, 1994, stated that these additional polymarker tests showed that neither the boyfriends nor Honaker could have accounted for the sperm from the vaginal swab.

Conclusion. Virginia law provides that no new evidence can be presented more than 21 days after a trial, so a pardon from the governor was necessary in this case. In June 1994 Honaker filed a clemency petition with the governor's office. The Commonwealth attorney's office joined the petition on June 29. The governor signed a pardon for Honaker on October 21, 1994. He had served 10 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Joe C. Jones (Topeka, Kansas)

Factual background. Early in the morning of August 24, 1985, three women left a nightclub and sat talking in their cars. A man came between the two cars and ordered a woman out of one of them. He then got into the car with the victim and ordered her to drive away. After driving to a different section of town, the assailant asked the woman for her name and address. She supplied him with a phony name and number; then the assailant raped her.

Joe Jones was convicted of rape, aggravated kidnaping, and aggravated assault on February 13, 1986, by a Shawnee County jury. He was given a life sentence for the kidnaping charge, with lesser concurrent sentences for the other charges.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The two witnesses identified Jones as the man at the nightclub.

o The victim picked out a different man in a photo lineup but identified Jones when she saw him face-to-face.

o Jones was a member of the same club and had actually been there the night of the incident.

o The police found a pair of jeans that resembled those of the assailant in Jones' house.

In Jones' defense, a market employee testified that Jones was in his store at the time of the attack and was wearing different clothing.

Post-conviction challenges. An initial appeal by Jones was not disposed of before he combined that appeal with a motion of remand on February 2, 1987, with the Kansas Supreme Court. This latter motion asked for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective counsel at trial.

The new evidence consisted of the following: another man who was later convicted of sexual assaults with identical modus operandi; expert witnesses who would testify that identifying Jones was unconscious transference on the part of the witnesses because they had seen him earlier in the evening and the identification was also weak because it was cross-racial; and a psychological exam showed that Jones did not have the capability to commit a violent act such as rape.

On February 13, 1987, the Kansas Supreme Court granted the motion for remand, but only in considering the evidence that the other man may have committed the crime. A hearing was held in which the other man denied any involvement with the crime, and the prosecution presented evidence that the other man's photograph was shown to the witnesses and they did not identify him as the assailant. The court denied the motion for a new trial.

Jones' attorney filed another appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court on the grounds that the defendant's homosexuality was not allowed as evidence at the trial, that the trial court refused to admit evidence about the other man, and that his client's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the court limited the scope of his original remand. Thismotion was denied on March 3, 1989. Two years later, in 1991, the prosecution agreed to release evidence to the defense for DNA testing.

DNA results. The samples and evidence were sent to Cellmark Diagnostics for DNA testing, but Cellmark was unable to get any readings from the evidence in the rape kit. Cellmark recommended Forensic Science Associates (FSA) as a laboratory that might be able to analyze the vaginal swab. The evidence was sent to FSA, which determined, in a report dated October 25, 1991, that the semen on the vaginal swab could not have come from Jones (see appendix for results).

FSA was asked to retype Jones' blood, and on April 13, 1992, FSA said that it had replicated its findings and Jones could not have supplied the semen on the vaginal swab.

Conclusion. On December 18, 1991, the defense submitted a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. On July 17, 1992, a judge ruled that the DNA evidence was admissible.

The court vacated Jones' conviction and ordered a new trial. The prosecution immediately stated it would not refile charges, and Jones was released that day. Jones served 6 1/2 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Kerry Kotler (Suffolk County, New York)

Factual background. A woman accused Kotler of raping her twice, once in 1978 and again in 1981. In the first incident, the victim alleged that she arrived home and a man wearing a ski mask raped her and robbed her of jewelry at knife point. She was unable to identify her assailant and reported only the burglary to the police. In the second incident, the victim again arrived home and an unmasked man was there. She said that the assailant claimed to be coming "back for another visit" and again raped her at knife point. He robbed her of jewelry and $343 and left through the back door. After 2 full days of deliberations, a Suffolk County jury convicted Kerry Kotler of two counts of rape in the first degree, two counts of burglary in the first degree, one count of robbery in the first degree, and two counts of burglary in the second degree.

The court sentenced Kotler to 25 to 50 years.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The victim identified Kotler from a group of 500 photographs.

o The victim's identified Kotler by sight and voice from a police lineup.

o County laboratory tests showed that Kotler had three non-DNA genetic markers (ABO, PGM, and GLO) that matched those of the semen stain left on the victim's underpants.

Post-conviction challenges. Kotler brought a pro se motion to set aside the jury verdict prior to sentencing. In the motion, he alleged prosecutorial misconduct and deficiencies in the court's jury charge. The motion was denied on December 2, 1983.

In 1986 Kotler made a direct appeal to the Appellate Division. Among his claims in the appeal: erroneous admission of testimony, insufficient evidence to convict, and excessive sentencing. The judgment of conviction was affirmed on March 3, 1986.

On March 10, 1987, Kotler brought to the court a second motion to set aside the conviction. He based his motion on false testimony by a police detective, concealment of evidence, and improper cross-examination of Kotler regarding his prior criminal charges. This motion was denied on July 7, 1988. The court, however, ordered a hearing on whether certain documents had been concealed from the defense prior to trial. On January 8, 1990, after the hearing, the county court again denied Kotler's motion.

Upon hearing about DNA tests in September 1988, Kotler contacted the Legal Aid Society and asked for assistance in getting the tests performed. He secured funds from his father, and on February 15, 1989, the rape kit, the victim's underwear, and blood from the victim and Kotler were sent to Lifecodes, Inc. It found an insufficient amount of DNA for testing and returned the evidence. Another legal aid attorney, however, heard about Kotler's case and advised him to try Forensic Science Associates (FSA) in California.

DNA results. In February 1990 all the evidence was sent to FSA. A PCR test showed that Kotler was not the source of the semen. The prosecution, however, posited that since DNA from both Kotler and the underwear yielded a similar allele, part of the semen could have come from a consensual partner and another part from Kotler.

Tests were then conducted by the Center for Blood Research (CBR) in Boston. They showed the same results as the first test. The defense then asked for a blood sample from the husband of the victim because he was the only sex partner the victim claimed to have had prior to the rape. After a sample from the husband was received by both laboratories, tests showed that he was also not the source of the semen. These results showed that the semen in the victim's underpants could not have come from either Kotler or the victim's husband.

Both FSA and CBR issued a joint statement to the Suffolk County Court attesting to these facts on November 24, 1992 (see appendix for results).

Conclusion. On March 10, 1992, Kotler's attorneys filed a memorandum of law in support of Kotler's motion to vacate judgment. Their brief referred to the results of the original DNA tests as well as to the withholding of evidence by the prosecution, which included police reports showing that the victim's description differed from Kotler in age, height, and weight and that the victim's identification of Kotler was a "look-alike," not a positive identification. The district attorney's office filed a memo of opposition to vacate the conviction.

After the defense attorneys received the results of the final DNA tests, they went to the judge, who ordered a hearing on the results. The prosecution then agreed to issue a joint statement with Kotler's lawyers to vacate the conviction. The Court of Suffolk County ruled to vacate the conviction on December 1, 1992, and ordered Kotler to be released on his own recognizance.

On December 14, 1992, the prosecution sought the dismissal of all indictments, which the court granted. Kotler served 11 years of the sentence before he was released on December 1, 1992.*

Subsequently, the chief prosecution expert who conducted the serology tests pleaded guilty to perjury charges that alleged he lied about his qualifications and training.

 *According to an April 9, 1996, New York Times account, Kotler was arraigned April 8, 1996, in Suffolk County, New York, on charges of first-degree rape and second-degree kidnaping. The charges stem from an alleged sexual assault on August 12, 1995, and the results of DNA tests on evidence taken from the victim's clothing.

------------------------------

Steven Linscott (Cook County, Illinois)

Factual background. On October 4, 1980, police found a woman dead in her apartment, face down and naked, except for a nightgown around her neck. Her head was covered with blood, and her body had many visible wounds. She had also been sexually assaulted.

Linscott was a neighbor of the victim and was questioned by police during a neighborhood canvass.

He later remembered a dream he had the night of the murder, which seemed to parallel the incident.

After reporting his dream to police, he gave several recorded interviews with police officers. He also gave saliva, blood, and hair samples to police.

Steven Linscott was arrested for murder and rape on November 25, 1980. In Cook County a circuit court jury took 10 hours to convict Linscott of murder and acquit him of rape. The judge sentenced Linscott to 40 years in prison.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case against Linscott on several points:

o The dream that Linscott reported to police contained elements similar to those of the crime, including the following:

1. The victim was beaten repeatedly both in the dream and in actuality.

2. The victim was beaten in a downward motion both in the dream and in the actual crime.

3. The weapon, in the dream, was long and thin; the actual weapon was a tire iron.

4. The victim in the dream died passively; the actual victim was found with her hands formed in an "ommudra" sign used by Hindus to signify a passive acceptance of death.

o The results of blood-typing tests that showed that the semen from the crime scene could have come from Linscott.

o The results of head and pubic hair analyses showed that hairs found at the scene were "consistent" with Linscott's hair.

Post-conviction challenges. Linscott appealed, and on August 7, 1985, the Appellate Court of Illinois overturned the conviction (482 N.E.2d 403). The court ruled that the State did not produce direct evidence of Linscott's guilt and that his "confession" contained no voluntary acknowledgment of guilt. The prosecution appealed this decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. While the State's appeal was pending, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled on October 31, 1985, that Linscott could be released on bond. On October 17, 1986, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that there was enough evidence to convict and reversed the decision of the appellate court (500 N.E.2d 420). The Supreme Court, however, also ruled that there appeared to be issues from the trial that were not addressed in the appeal, and the case was remanded to the appellate court for further review.

The appellate court was asked to review issues involving the physical evidence. The State's expert on the hair examination testified that only 1 in 4,500 persons would have consistent hairs when tested for 40 different characteristics. He only tested between 8 and 12 characteristics, however, and could not remember which ones. The appellate court ruled on July 29, 1987, that this testimony, coupled with the prosecution's use of it at closing argument, constituted denial of a fair trial (511 N.E.2d 1303). The conviction was again overturned.

Leave to appeal was again granted to the prosecution by the Illinois Supreme Court. On January 31, 1991, the court vacated the judgment by the appellate court, reversed the judgment by the circuit court, and remanded the case for a new trial (566 N.E.2d 1355). A trial date was set for July 22, 1992.

DNA results. In preparation for the new trial, prosecutors attempted to bolster their case by submitting the physical evidence for PCR testing. The analysis by the Center for Blood Research (CBR) in Boston indicated that the semen could not have come from Linscott. DNA tests had been performed before the original trial, but the results were inconclusive and consumed all the swab material (see appendix for results).

Conclusion. On the basis of the results of the DNA analysis, the prosecutor decided that there were too many doubts to pursue the case any longer. On July 15, 1992, all charges against Linscott were dropped. He had served 3 years of his sentence and had been free on bond for 7 additional years.

------------------------------

Bruce Nelson (Allegheny County, Pennsylvania)

Factual background. Two men stole a van and drove to a parking garage in the hopes of committing a robbery. They accosted a woman when she came into the garage and forced her into the van. The two men allegedly sexually assaulted the woman repeatedly, pulled out a knife, and choked the woman to death with a piece of cloth.

Those details of the incident are available only through the testimony of Terrence Moore following his arrest for the rape-murder. He confessed but testified that Bruce Nelson was the one who initiated the crimes and forced the victim into the van and killed her.

Nelson, already in prison on unrelated charges, was arrested. Police had Moore confront Nelson with his confession. During this confrontation, Nelson reportedly asked Moore, "What did you tell them?"

Moore reportedly responded, "I told them everything."

Bruce Nelson was convicted of rape and murder in an Allegheny County jury trial. The district court sentenced him to life in prison for the murder and 10 to 20 years for the rape, to run concurrently with the life sentence.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. Evidence was provided at trial that showed Moore's fingerprints on the victim's purse. Saliva from the woman's breast and bra was consistent with Moore's saliva.  Saliva found on a cigarette butt at the scene was also consistent with Moore's saliva. Hairs found on the victim and her clothing were consistent with Moore's. The hairs, saliva, and fingerprints were not consistent with those of Nelson. The prosecution based its case against Nelson on two points:

o The testimony of Terrence Moore named Nelson as the initiator of the crimes and as the murderer.

o The statement by Nelson, "What did you tell them?" was entered into evidence as a confession.

Post-conviction challenges. Nelson filed a habeas corpus petition stating that the submittal of his confrontation with the other defendant, Terrence Moore, violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Nelson also claimed a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to "restrictions on custodial interrogation of suspects who have invoked their right to silence." The district court denied his petition and his certificate for probable cause for appeal. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review the case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted Nelson's probable cause petition and reviewed his claims de novo. On August 17, 1990, the circuit court affirmed the district court's rejection of Nelson's Sixth Amendment claim but reversed its Fifth Amendment decision and remanded the case to the district court for further review (911 F.2d 928).

DNA results. On remand, the prosecution obtained DNA tests to prepare for a new trial. The results of DNA tests excluded Nelson as the assailant.

Conclusion. On the basis of the results of the DNA testing, Nelson was cleared of all charges on August 28, 1991. He had served 9 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Brian Piszczek (Cuyahoga County, Ohio)

Factual background. In the early morning of July 29, 1990, the victim was at home alone when she heard a knock at her door. She looked through the peephole and asked the man to identify himself. The man said he was with the victim's friend, who was parking the car. When he said this, the victim thought she recognized his voice as belonging to a man named Tim or Tom, who had been in her house before. The victim let the man inside; he immediately pulled out a knife, cut the victim on the neck, breast, and stomach, and then raped her.

On June 25, 1991, after 1 day of deliberations, a Cuyahoga County jury convicted Brian Piszczek of rape, felonious assault, and burglary. The court sentenced him to 15 to 25 years.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The victim identified Piszczek from a photo array 2 months after the incident.

o The victim made an in-court identification of Piszczek.

o Piszczek testified that he had, in fact, been in the victim's house once before with the mutual friend of the victim.

o Piszczek's alibi was corroborated only by his girlfriend.

Post-conviction challenges. After Piszczek's conviction, a public defender took over his appeal.  He filed an appeal on the basis of an improper photo identification process and ineffective counsel at trial (trial counsel never requested DNA testing, which was available at the time of conviction, and he was alleged to be ineffective in cross-examination of witnesses).

After the appeal was denied, the Innocence Project became involved. Its lawyers filed a release of evidence motion with the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The request was granted on March 11, 1994. All evidence was forwarded to Forensic Science Associates (FSA) for PCR testing.

DNA results. The report from FSA, issued on July 6, 1994, showed that PCR DQ alpha typing (as well as typing for five other polymarker genes) was performed on the blood of both Piszczek and the victim and on the sperm and nonsperm cell fractions of a vaginal swab, an anal swab, and a semen stain from a nightgown. The tests showed that Piszczek's DNA did not match the tested evidence (see appendix for results).

Conclusion. The day after receiving the DNA test results, the prosecutor's office asked a judge to overturn the conviction. On October 6, 1994, a Cuyahoga County judge declared Piszczek not guilty on all charges. Piszczek served 4 years in prison, including a period after his conviction was overturned.

------------------------------

Dwayne Scruggs (Indianapolis, Indiana)

Factual background. On the night of February 1, 1986, when the victim was walking home from a bus station, a man came behind her, held a knife to her throat, and forced her to a grassy area near a highway overpass. There the assailant, while attempting to hide his face, sexually assaulted the victim and forcibly took $6 from her. After telling the victim to roll away from him, the assailant left the area on foot.

On May 13, 1986, Dwayne Scruggs was convicted of rape and robbery in a jury trial in a Marion County Superior Court. He was sentenced to serve 40 years on the rape charge and 20 years on the robbery charge, with sentences to run concurrently.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution's main evidence consisted of the following:

o The victim identified Scruggs ("with 98 percent surety") from a sex crimes file of approximately 200 photographs.

o The victim identified Scruggs a second time from a different picture and made an in-court identification of him at trial.

o The victim identified Scruggs' boots as matching those worn by her assailant.

o Scruggs acknowledged being familiar with the area where the rape occurred.

Postconviction challenges. In August 1987 Scruggs' appeal was heard before the Supreme Court of Indiana (511 N.E.2d 1058). His petition was based on both a lack of evidence to convict and an "evidentiary harpoon" committed by a police officer who had testified before the jury that the victim had viewed photos of "individuals who have all been arrested for rape or a sexual assault." The jury was admonished to disregard his statement, but no mistrial was declared by the court. The supreme court affirmed the decision of the superior court.

On December 18, 1992, Scruggs' public defender submitted two motions on his behalf. The first was to amend the petition for post-conviction relief.

This motion stated that the defendant was denied ue process of law when he was given a sentence that was not based upon the evidence in the case. Entering evidence of the petitioner's previous arrest for rape (for which he was not convicted) was also cited as a denial of due process. The motion also stated that the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel at both the trial and appellate levels.

The second motion was for the release of all the State's evidence that contained biological samples of the victim for the purpose of performing DNA tests that were not available at the time of trial.

On February 24, 1993, prior to a ruling on this motion, Scruggs' attorney filed a motion to allow production of laboratory reports that would analyze the evidence and blood samples from Scruggs. On April 26, 1993, the public defender also petitioned for blood samples to be drawn from the defendant.

The court held a hearing on all these motions on April 27, 1993, and ruled that the blood sample could be drawn and that the Indianapolis Police Department laboratory must release the vaginal swabs and slides. Those materials were sent to Cellmark Diagnostics in Maryland for DNA tests. The public defender's office paid for the testing.

DNA results. The report from Cellmark stated that DNA from all the items sent were amplified using PCR and typed for DQ alpha using an amplitype HLA DQ alpha forensic DNA amplification and typing kit.

The results excluded Scruggs as the source of the DNA from both the nonsperm cell fraction and sperm fraction of the vaginal swabs as well as from a bloodstain obtained at the scene of the crime (see appendix for results).

Conclusion. After verifying the results of this test, the prosecutor's office joined the defender's office in filing a motion to vacate Scruggs' conviction and sentence. On December 17, 1993, the Superior Court vacated both the sentence and the conviction and ordered Scruggs released. Five days later, the prosecution declined to prosecute in a new trial and asked the court to dismiss all charges against Scruggs. The court sustained the motion.

On March 28, 1994, the prosecuting attorney and the public defender filed for expungement of Scruggs' record. The next day, the court so ordered. Scruggs had served 7 years and 7 months of his sentence before release.

------------------------------

David Shephard (Union County, New Jersey)

Factual background. On December 24, 1983, two men abducted a woman in the parking lot of a shopping mall. The victim was forced into the back seat of her car where one man pinned her arms and legs while the other drove. The driver stopped in aresidential area where both men repeatedly assaulted her sexually. She was ordered out of her car, then the men drove away. The second assailant was never identified.

In September 1984 a Union County jury deliberated 1day and found David Shephard guilty of rape, robbery, weapons violations, and terrorist threats.

Shephard was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The victim identified Shephard by sight and voice at his work.

o The victim heard one of the attackers call the other man Dave.

o The victim's purse and car were found near the airport building where Shephard worked.

o Blood test results showed that Shephard's antigens and secretor type matched those of the assailant.

o Shephard's alibi was uncorroborated and was punctured by the prosecution in cross-examination.

Post-conviction challenges. Shephard filed court papers in 1992 requesting that all evidence containing semen samples be released for DNA tests.

The prosecution agreed.

DNA results. The first DNA test indicated that one discernible semen stain on the vaginal swab from the rape kit did not match Shephard's. But the defendant was not vindicated because there had been two rapists. A second test revealed a second DNA sample that was too faint to read.

Shephard's defense attorney then asked the laboratory if any samples could be found on the panty liner the victim was wearing at the time of the attack. This test found two distinct DNA patterns, neither of which matched Shephard's.

Subsequent testing, at the prosecutor's request, of the victim's boyfriend (the only person she was having consensual sex with at the time) showed that the boyfriend did not match either of the samples from the panty liner.

Conclusion. The Union County Superior Court ordered a new trial on the basis of the DNA evidence.  Moments later, the prosecutor declined to pursue another trial, and Shephard was released on May 18, 1994. Shephard had served almost 10 years of his sentence.

------------------------------

Walter Snyder (Alexandria, Virginia)

Factual background. In the early morning of October 28, 1985, a woman was raped and sodomized in her apartment by a man who had broken through her front door.

Walter Snyder was convicted of rape, sodomy, and burglary by an Alexandria, Virginia, jury on June 25, 1986. The jury recommended a sentence of 45 years, which the judge accepted and ordered Snyder to serve.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o The victim identified Snyder as a person who lived across the street from her.

o The victim identified Snyder in a police station "show-up."

o Police found red shorts in Snyder's house similar to those worn by the assailant.

o Standard blood typing showed Snyder and the assailant were type A secretors.

o Snyder's alibi, that he was at home sleeping during the time of the assault, was corroborated only by his mother.

Postconviction challenges. After Snyder's appeal of his conviction was denied, the Innocence Project agreed to defend him pro bono if his family could pay for any necessary forensic tests. In May 1992 prosecutors agreed to release the necessary evidence to the defense for DNA testing. The defense forwarded the evidence to the Center for Blood Research (CBR) in Boston.

DNA results. On October 28, 1992, CBR issued a report stating that Snyder's DNA did not match the DNA in semen found on a vaginal swab from the original rape kit. The prosecution asked CBR to repeat the test, which it did for free at the Innocence Project's request. CBR replicated its findings, and the prosecution asked the FBI to look at the results. The FBI agreed with the methodology and the results in CBR's report (see appendix for results).

Conclusion. Virginia has a 21-day rule for a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, so the only recourse for Snyder was to seek a pardon from the governor. The Commonwealth's attorney joined the defense in filing a request for a pardon. Two months later, on April 23, 1993, the governor granted an absolute pardon; Snyder was released the same day. After being freed, Snyder petitioned the Alexandria Circuit Court to expunge his record. On January 11, 1994, the court granted his petition. Snyder had served almost 7 years of the original sentence.

Snyder's civil suit against the city of Alexandria is pending at the time of this report. In addition to wrongful imprisonment, the suit alleges that Snyder was beaten and handcuffed during interrogation and that police claims that Snyder confessed were false.

------------------------------

David Vasquez (Arlington County, Virginia)

Factual background. In the early morning of January 24, 1984, a woman was sexually assaulted and murdered in her home by an assailant who had entered the home through the victim's basement window. The woman died from asphyxiation by hanging.

David Vasquez pleaded guilty to second-degree homicide and burglary (Alford plea) on February 4, 1985. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. He had pled guilty to the crime after allegedly confessing to the crime and reporting details that were not released to the public. Vasquez, who is borderline retarded, later reported that he had only dreamed the crime.

Prosecutor's evidence. In addition to Vasquez's guilty plea, the prosecution proffered the following evidence to the court:

o Two witnesses placed Vasquez near the victim's house on the day of the crime.

o Vasquez could not provide an alibi.

o Hair analysis of pubic hairs found at the scene were consistent with Vasquez's hair.

o A guilty plea meant that Vasquez would not be subject to the death penalty upon conviction.

Post-conviction challenges. There are no known post-conviction challenges. Vasquez's defense attorneys, however, filed for a suppression of two of his confessions because they were issued without a Miranda warning.

DNA results. The Virginia State laboratory, Cellmark Diagnostics, and Lifecodes, Inc., performed DNA tests on the evidence from several rape/murders. All tests inculpated a man named Timothy Spencer as the assailant in rape-murders that were identical in modus operandi to the Vasquez incident.

Attempts by FSA to compare hair found at the scene with Vasquez's blood sample were inconclusive.

Conclusion. The Commonwealth's attorney and Vasquez's defense attorneys filed motions with the governor to grant Vasquez an unconditional pardon.  The motions were based on the DNA tests of Spencer and an FBI report that indicated the Vasquez crime and the Spencer crimes were committed by the same person. The report also stated that the crimes "were not perpetrated by someone who was mentally deficient." The governor granted the pardon, and Vasquez was released on January 4, 1989. Vasquez had served 5 years of his sentence.

Timothy Spencer was arrested, tried, and convicted for two other rape-murders. He was never formally prosecuted in the Vasquez incident because he already had been sentenced to death. The United States Supreme Court denied Spencer's request for a new DNA test. On April 27, 1994, Spencer became the first person in the United States executed on the basis of DNA testing.

------------------------------

Glen Woodall (Huntington, West Virginia)

Factual background. Two women, in separate incidents, were abducted at knife point in a shopping mall parking lot. Both times the assailant wore a ski mask and forced the victims to close their eyes throughout the attack. In the first instance, the attacker drove around in the woman's car, repeatedly raped her, and stole a gold watch and $5. The victim opened her eyes briefly to note that the assailant wore brown pants and was uncircumcised. In the second case, the man repeatedly raped the woman and stole a gold watch.

This woman was able to note the man's boots, jacket, and hair color. She also noted that he was uncircumcised.

On July 8, 1987, a jury found Glen Woodall guilty of first-degree sexual assault of one woman, first-degree sexual abuse of a second woman, kidnaping both women, and aggravated robbery of both women. He was sentenced by the circuit court to two life terms without parole and to 203 to 335 years in prison, to be served consecutively.

Prosecutor's evidence at trial. The prosecution based its case on several points:

o A State police chemist testified that Woodall's blood secretions matched secretions in a semen sample from the evidence.

o A comparison of body and beard hair from the defendant was consistent with hair recovered from a victim's car.

o Partial visual identification of the defendant was made by one of the victims.

o One victim identified clothing that matched clothing found in the defendant's house.

o Both victims testified that the assailant was not circumcised, in common with the defendant.

o A distinctive smell about the assailant was noted by both victims and also was found at the defendant's workplace.

During the pretrial hearing, the judge denied a defense request for an "experimental new" DNA test of the defendant's blood and semen samples from the victims' clothing. Denial was based on defense inability to offer any expert testimony on the test's validity or reliability. After trial, the defense raised this issue again, and a DNA test was finally performed. The court held that test results were inconclusive.

Post-conviction challenges. On July 6, 1989, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed Woodall's conviction (385 S.E.2d 253). Woodall continued to file motions to allow DNA testing of the evidence. He filed several appeal petitions and habeas corpus petitions with both the trial court and with the West Virginia Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court finally allowed the evidence to be released to the defense for additional DNA testing. This evidence was forwarded to Forensic Science Associates (FSA).

DNA results. FSA conducted PCR testing of the semen samples from the vaginal swabs from the original rape kits. FSA concluded that the assailant in both cases had the same DQ alpha type and neither matched Woodall's type. These results were reviewed and confirmed in testimony by several laboratories and forensics experts, including Dr. Alec Jeffreys and Dr. David Bing of the Center for Blood Research (CBR). CBR also conducted its own PCR analysis and arrived at the same results as FSA (see appendix for results).

Conclusion. Woodall submitted a habeas corpus petition based on the DNA test results. On July 15, 1991, the trial court held a hearing on the petition and vacated Woodall's conviction. Other relevant evidence included secret hypnosis of the two victims and a romantic relationship between one of the victims and an investigating officer. The court set bond at $150,000 for Woodall and ordered him placed on electronic home monitoring. CBR continued conducting RFLP analysis and eliminated three potential donors as sources of the sperm.  This was to counter the prosecution's argument that the stains may have come from consensual partners.

The RFLP analysis also excluded Woodall, and the State conducted its own DNA test. The State's results also excluded Woodall, as noted in a report of April 23, 1992.

As a result of the additional testing, West Virginia moved to dismiss Woodall's indictment on May 4, 1992, and the trial court granted the motion. Woodall served 4 years of his sentence in prison and spent a year under electronic home confinement.

It is important to note that the State police chemist in this case, Fred Zain (see also Gerald Wayne Davis and William O'Dell Harris cases), was investigated by the West Virginia attorney general's office and the State Supreme Court of Appeals for providing perjured testimony in criminal cases.

Glen Woodall was the first person whose conviction was overturned after Zain testified for the State. Over 130 cases in which Zain either performed lab tests or provided the testimony are being reviewed by the State attorney general's office. In addition, an investigation is ongoing in several Texas counties where Zain worked and testified as a laboratory expert.

Glen Woodall was awarded $l million from West Virginia for his wrongful conviction and false imprisonment.

================================

GLOSSARY

Alleles. Alternate gene forms or variations, which are the basis of DNA testing.

Antigens. Any biological substance that can stimulate the production of, and combine with, antibodies. Variances in human antigens can be used to identify individuals within a population.

DNA. Deoxyribonucleic acid, which contains genetic material and whose shape resembles a rope ladder that has been twisted (the double helix). An individual's DNA is unique except in cases of identical twins.

DNA match. See inclusion.

DNA profiling. The process of testing to identify DNA patterns or types. In the forensic setting, this testing is used to indicate parentage or to exclude or include individuals as possible sources of body fluid stains (blood, saliva, semen) and other biological evidence (bones, teeth, hair).

DNA typing. See DNA profiling.

DQ alpha (DQa). An area (locus) of DNA that is used by the forensic community to characterize DNA. Because there exist seven variations (alleles) of DNA at this locus, individuals can be categorized into 1 of 28 different DQ alpha types.

Determination of an individual's DQ alpha type involves a Polymerase Chain Reaction-based test.

Electrophoresis. A technique by which DNA fragments are placed in a gel and separated by size in response to an electrical field.

Epithelial cells. Membranous tissue forming the covering of most internal surfaces and organs and the outer surface of the body.

Epithelial cell fraction. One of two products from a differential extraction that removes DNA from epithelial cells before analysis of sperm DNA can be conducted. The other product is the sperm cell fraction.

Exclusion. A DNA test result indicating that an individual is excluded as the source of the DNA evidence. In the context of a criminal case, "exclusion" does not necessarily equate to "innocence."

Forensic science. The application of a field of science to the facts related to criminal and civil litigation.

Gene. A segment of a DNA molecule that is the biological unit of heredity and transmitted from parent to progeny.

Genotype. The genetic makeup of an organism, as distinguished from its physical appearance or phenotype.

Inclusion. A DNA test result indicating that an individual is not excluded as the source of the DNA evidence. In the context of a criminal case, "inclusion" does not necessarily equate to "guilt."

Inconclusive. The determination made following assessment of DNA profile results that, due to a limited amount of information present (e.g., mixture of  profiles, insufficient DNA), prevents a conclusive comparison of profiles.

Marker. A gene with a known location on a chromosome and a clear-cut phenotype (physical appearance or observable properties) that is used as a point of reference when mapping another locus (physical position on a chromosome).

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). A technique used in the process of DNA profiling.

Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP). A technique used in the process of DNA profiling.

Secretor. A person who secretes the ABH antigens of the ABO blood group in saliva and other body fluids.

Serologist. A forensic scientist who specializes in biological fluid analysis.

================================

APPENDIX

DNA (PCR) Results

A detailed laboratory report was obtained in 12 of

the study cases; the results are reported here. The

following PCR results are the actual DQa types that

laboratories found on evidence and blood samples.

DQa (pronounced DQ alpha) is one of several

polymarkers that are compared in PCR testing. Each

DQa type is similar to blood type (e.g., O, A, B).

One can see that many times the victim's DQa

matches the nonsperm fraction in a semen stain. One

also can see that the sperm fraction of the semen

stain does not match the type of the defendant

(except Chalmers, where the difference occurred in

polymarkers other than DQa).

------------------------------

Kirk Bloodsworth

Sample DQa Type

Victim's blood sample 1.3, 4

Panties -- semen stain 1.1, 3 (Trace 1.3, 4)

(nonsperm fraction)

Panties -- semen stain 1.1, 3

(sperm fraction)

Bloodsworth's blood

sample 1.2, 4

------------------------------

Ronnie Bullock

Sample DQa Type

Panties 1.1, 2, 3

(nonsperm cell fraction)

Panties 3

(sperm fraction)

Victim's blood sample 1.1,2

Bullock's blood sample 4

------------------------------

Terry Leon Chalmers

Sample DQa Type

Victim's blood sample 1.1, 3

Chalmers' blood sample 1.2, 4

Vaginal swab -- sperm

cell 1.2, 4

Cervical swab -- sperm

cell 1.2, 4

Note: The epithelial cells from the two swabs were

too weak to get accurate readings. Although the DQa

of Chalmers and the semen matched, three other

polymarkers did not match.

------------------------------

Frederick Daye

Sample DQa Type

Blue jeans -- left knee 1.2, 4

(nonsperm fraction)

Blue jeans -- left knee 1.2, 4

(sperm fraction)

Daye's blood sample 4, 4

------------------------------

Edward Honaker (results of three tests)

Sample DQa Type

Victim's oral swab 3, 3

Vaginal swab 3, 3

(nonsperm fraction)

Vaginal swab 3, 4

(sperm fraction)

Shorts 3, 3

(nonsperm fraction)

Shorts 1.2, 4

(sperm fraction)

Honaker's blood sample 1.2, 3

Boyfriend's blood sample 1.2, 4

Secret lover's blood

sample 4, 4

------------------------------

Joe Jones

Sample DQa Type

Victim's blood sample 3, 4

Jones' blood sample 1.2, 3

Vaginal swab 1.1, 4

(sperm fraction)

Vaginal swab 3, 4

(nonsperm fraction)

------------------------------

Kerry Kotler

Sample DQa Type

Underpants 1.1, 4

(sperm fraction)

Victim's blood sample 4, 4

Kotler's blood sample 4, 4

Husband's blood sample 2, 3

------------------------------

Steven Linscott

Sample DQa Type

Vaginal swab 3, 4

(sperm fraction)

Vaginal swab 1.1, 3

(nonsperm fraction)

Victim's blood sample 1.1, 3

Linscott's blood sample 4

------------------------------

Brian Piszczek

Sample DQa Type

Nightgown 1.2, 4

(sperm fraction)

Nightgown 2, 3

(nonsperm fraction)

Vaginal swab 1.2, 4

(sperm fraction)

Vaginal swab 2, 3

(nonsperm fraction)

Victim's blood sample 2, 3

Piszczek's blood sample 4, 4

------------------------------

Dwayne Scruggs

Sample DQa Type

Vaginal swab 2, 4

(nonsperm cell fraction)

Vaginal swab 1.1, 4

(sperm fraction)

Bloodstain 2, 4

Scruggs' blood sample 4, 4

------------------------------

Walter Snyder

Sample DQa Type

Vaginal swab 1.2, 1.3

(sperm fraction)

Vaginal swab 2, 4

(nonsperm fraction)

Victim's blood sample 2, 4

Snyder's blood sample 1.2, 4

------------------------------

Glen Woodall

Sample DQa Type

Underpants of victim 2 3, 4

(sperm fraction)

Underpants of victim 2 1.2, 3

(nonsperm fraction)

Denim skirt of victim 1 3, 4

(sperm fraction)

Denim skirt of victim 2 1.2, 4

(nonsperm fraction)

Victim 1's blood sample 1.2, 4

Victim 2's blood sample 1.2, 3

Woodall's blood sample 2, 3