"A three-judge panel of the Virginia Court of Appeals in Richmond asked some tough questions of his lawyers and a representative of the Virginia Attorney General's Office in a hearing on Haynesworth's petition for writs of actual innocence.
But both sides stuck to their belief that Haynesworth is innocent of rape and other crimes in two 1984 attacks against women in Richmond's East End and eastern Henrico County.
"Our position is he is actually innocent," Alice T. Armstrong, an assistant attorney general, told the judges. "This case is unique and it is different from other actual innocence cases this court has addressed."
REPORTER FRANK GREEN; RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The court of appeals has granted only one writ of actual innocence, in 2008, though it has yet to free anyone from prison.
Among other things, Haynesworth must show, “no rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the newly discovered evidence.”
His lawyers say that if the DNA evidence was available in 1984, no reasonable juror would have found him guilty.
Haynesworth’s petition argues, “If, as the Virginia legislature plainly contemplated, there is ever to be a case for which a writ of actual innocence is granted based on non-biological evidence, this is it.”"
THE INNOCENCE PROJECT;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thomas E. Haynesworth had a front-row seat Wednesday as lawyers argued for his exoneration in his first courtroom appearance in 27 years," the Richmond Times-Dispatch story by reporter Frank Green published earleir today under the heading, "Lawyers seek Haynesworth's exoneration," begins.
"A three-judge panel of the Virginia Court of Appeals in Richmond asked some tough questions of his lawyers and a representative of the Virginia Attorney General's Office in a hearing on Haynesworth's petition for writs of actual innocence," the story continues.
"But both sides stuck to their belief that Haynesworth is innocent of rape and other crimes in two 1984 attacks against women in Richmond's East End and eastern Henrico County.
"Our position is he is actually innocent," Alice T. Armstrong, an assistant attorney general, told the judges. "This case is unique and it is different from other actual innocence cases this court has addressed."
After the hearing, Haynesworth said he was pleased, though "I was kind of anxious — back in a courtroom."
Haynesworth, after 27 years in prison, was paroled at the request of Gov. Bob McDonnell last week. He wore a new suit to the hearing and was accompanied into the small, packed courtroom by his mother, Delores Haynesworth, 67, two sisters and a niece.
It is not known when the court will rule. "I'm going to wait it out and be patient," he said afterward.
Shawn Armbrust, with the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, said a best guess would be six to eight weeks.
During the hearing, Judge James W. Haley Jr. asked whether a juror couldn't — even in light of new DNA and other evidence supporting Haynesworth's claims of innocence — still have sided with the victim's identification of Haynesworth and voted to convict him.
He also said he could not imagine a commonwealth's attorney who, under the same circumstances, would tell a victim she was not believable.
Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of the Innocence Project and one of Haynesworth's lawyers, said if a juror voted for conviction, "I don't believe they'd be rational."
Haynesworth must show that had the new evidence been known in 1984, "no rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the newly discovered evidence."
Neufeld also said the prosecutor would tell the victim she was mistaken, not that she was unbelievable. DNA testing has proved dozens of rape victims wrong in the identification of their attackers.
Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Michael N. Herring, who attended the hearing, said afterward that he found it interesting that one of the judges was surprised that a prosecutor might not go forward with a case in light of the new evidence.
"I don't know of a prosecutor who would," said Herring. He said he would explain to the victim that because of the new evidence, it would not be ethical to go forward. Herring and his Henrico County counterpart, Wade Kizer, both believe Haynesworth is innocent.
Haynesworth, 46, was arrested at age 18 and convicted of various crimes in a series of rapes and other attacks on five women that occurred in early 1984.
Five women identified Haynesworth as their assailant. He was convicted in three attacks, one case was not prosecuted and he was acquitted in another.
Authorities now believe the assaults were committed by Leon W. Davis Jr., 47, a former East End resident and a rapist serving life in prison. DNA testing in 2009 and again last year proved at least two of the five victims mistook Haynesworth for Davis.
Though Davis was taller and heavier, the two men had a facial resemblance.
In 2009, Haynesworth was the first person exonerated by the Virginia Supreme Court in a writ of actual innocence based on new DNA evidence for his convictions in a Jan. 3, 1984, rape in the East End.
The other DNA testing implicating Davis was in the case for which Haynesworth was acquitted. Extensive searches by his lawyers and authorities failed to find any evidence for DNA testing in his remaining cases.
That led to Wednesday's hearing before the Virginia Court of Appeals, which considers petitions for writs of actual innocence based on non-DNA evidence. The Virginia Supreme Court considers writs based on DNA evidence.
Haynesworth lawyers, prosecutors and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli believe the five attacks in which Haynesworth was charged — two now proved to have been committed by Davis — were committed by the same person.
They were strikingly similar to the crimes committed by Davis after Haynesworth was arrested. Haynesworth's lawyers contend the charges never would have been brought had the new evidence been known in 1984.
The Court of Appeals has granted only one writ of actual innocence, in 2008, though it has yet to free anyone from prison."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/mar/31/tdmain01-lawyers-seek-haynesworths-exoneration-ar-939876/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
