Attorneys Say U.S. Sailor was wrongfully Convicted Based on Bite Mark Evidence
Posted: March 14, 2016 6:10 PM
One late September night in 1982, a
man was beaten to death with a crowbar and his wife was repeatedly raped
and bitten in their Newport News, Virginia, home. Forensic
odontologists said that bite mark evidence proved that then-26-year-old
sailor Keith Allen Harward was the perpetrator and in 1986 Harward was
convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the crime. But new
evidence reveals that Harward was excluded from DNA left by the
perpetrator on the victim, and that prosecutors neglected to turn over
important evidence that could have exculpated Harward more than 33 years
ago.
According to an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch,
earlier this month lawyers from the Innocence Project and from Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, in collaboration with the
Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, filed a petition for a writ of actual
innocence which stated that results from new DNA testing prove that
Harward was wrongly convicted.
As reported by the Times-Dispatch,
in 1982 Harward was a sailor who was stationed on a nuclear-powered
aircraft that was under construction at the Newport News Shipyard, which
was located near the victims’ house. As part of the investigation
following the crime, the more than 1,000 sailors on the ship—including
Harward—participated in dental screenings “to see if their tooth
alignment matched the bite marks on the rape victim’s leg,” writes the Times-Dispatch.
Initially, Harward was excluded as a suspect based on a cast made of
his teeth, but several months later he was arrested after his
then-girlfriend reported to police that he had bitten her. After his
arrest, a shipyard security guard chose Harward out of a photo lineup as
a sailor he’d seen at the shipyard wearing a bloodied uniform on the
night of the crime. The rape victim never identified Harward as the
attacker.
Two forensic dentists testified with certainty that
Harward’s teeth matched the marks left on the victim. In addition to
their testimony against Harward, the prosecutor said that serology
testing did not exclude him from the crime scene and rape kit. Based on
those testimonies, Harward was convicted.
But according to Harward’s petition, the forensic
dentists and the prosecutor got it wrong. In recent years, bite mark
evidence has been proven to be totally unreliable and without any
scientific backing. Dana Delger, a lawyer with the strategic litigation team at the Innocence Project, said to the Times-Dispatch: “[A] huge body of substantial research has come out that ... affirmatively disproves the basis for bite mark analysis.”
Harward’s petition states that results from DNA
testing confirm that Harward was excluded as the perpetrator, proving
that his teeth were, in fact, not a match for the marks left on the
victim’s legs. Further confirming his innocence, the petition exposes
other errors in the case that led to Harward’s wrongful conviction. For
example, “recently discovered state lab documents show that even the
earlier blood testing excluded Harward as the person who left sperm at
the scene and that evidence never was disclosed to the defense, as
required,” reports the Times-Dispatch, and
the state never disclosed that the shipyard security officer had been
hypnotized shortly after the crime, thus tainting his later
identification of Harward.
“Even without the new DNA evidence, both of these
pieces of evidence (the bite marks and identification) have been
seriously undermined, or, in the case of the bite mark, utterly
eviscerated,” states the petition.
To learn more about the case, read the story.
Or read the petition.
"An investigation by the
Texas Forensics Commission has determined that using bite-marks on human
skin to identify an assailant is junk science and should not be allowed
in the courtroom as evidence. Junk science has no place in Texas courtrooms. Texas prosecutors and judges should maintain the integrity of the
criminal justice system by voluntarily declaring a moratorium on the use
of bite-mark evidence in criminal cases as recommended by the Texas Forensic Commission.........
Bite-mark evidence was the basis for wrongful convictions or
indictments in at least 24 cases across the nation. Some of the people
convicted on bite-mark evidence were exonerated with the use of DNA
testing, the New York Times reported. In October, the controversy over bite-mark evidence and allegations of prosecutor misconduct led to the release from prison of Steven Mark Chaney of Dallas while his case is under review. He spent 28 years incarcerated on a murder conviction. During Chaney’s trial, a forensic dentist testified there was a “one
to a million” chance that someone other than Chaney could have left the
bite mark. Scientific studies do not support that conclusion. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences
published a report that found insufficient scientific basis to
conclusively match bite marks. Studies have also found that due to the
human skin texture, the imprints made by the same teeth can vary and
even change in dimension over time. DiMaio told the New York Times the commission has identified 35 Texas
cases in which bite-mark evidence was used, but it has not determined
what role that testimony played in the convictions. We urge Texas district attorneys, not just the ones who have
established conviction integrity panels, to review claims of wrongful
convictions and to revisit any cases in which bite-mark evidence was
used. Texas has long had a reputation as a tough-on-crime state. We need to
work on gaining a reputation as a state tough on the quality of
testimony allowed from the witness stand." (Thanks to Mike Bowers of CSIDDS (Forensics in Focus) for bringing this editorial to our attention. HL);
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Purge-junk-science-from-courtrooms-6880858.php
