PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In Brown's case, the biological evidence at issue
was discovered on a microscope slide created in 1969. To
be exonerated by the supreme court, Watford and Brown must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that no rational judge or juror would have
convicted them in light of the new evidence. Their
lawyers contend both men have cleared that hurdle while the state
contends they have not. As far as it is known, no one has won a writ of
actual innocence in cases opposed by the attorney general. Watford,
who has no other criminal record, was just 18 years old when he pleaded
guilty to the 1977 rape of the girl on the advice of his grandfather in
a plea deal that called for no time in jail and that allowed him to try
and finish high school. DNA
testing in June 2016 found that Watford's DNA did not match the genetic
profile identified in sperm recovered from the victim and her jeans and
two other genetic profiles found in sperm from two mattress stains found
in the vacant house where the assault occurred. Testing
in 2010 also failed to match the DNA profiles of Watford's two younger
brothers - also suspects - with any of three suspect DNA profiles
identified by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science. The attorney
general's office says only that the profile identified from a vaginal
swab taken from the victim can confidently be associated with the crime."
STORY: "Virginia justices consider exoneration pleas in two decades-old cases," by reporter Frank Green, published by The Richmond Times-Dispatch, on January 5, 2017.
GIST: "The
murder of a 4-year-old boy almost half a century ago and the four
decades-old rape of a 12-year-old girl will be at issue before the
Virginia Supreme Court on Wednesday. Petitions
for writs of actual innocence are pending in the high court for Sherman
Brown, 70, a prison inmate serving life for a 1969 slaying in Albemarle
County; and Roy L. Watford III, 58, convicted of raping a girl in
Portsmouth in 1977, but who never served a day in jail. The
Virginia attorney general's office is opposing both claims while
lawyers for the men contend new DNA testing of purported evidence in the
crimes prove their innocence. Absence of DNA in
and of itself does not prove innocence and the test results in each case
are not as definitive as in cases where not only is the convicted
person's DNA excluded from relevant, undisputed evidence of the crime,
but the real perpetrator is identified by testing. Among
other things the attorney general's office questions the significance
of some of the test results and whether the material tested was actually
related to the crime. In Brown's case, the biological evidence at issue
was discovered on a microscope slide created in 1969. To
be exonerated by the supreme court, Watford and Brown must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that no rational judge or juror would have
convicted them in light of the new evidence. Their
lawyers contend both men have cleared that hurdle while the state
contends they have not. As far as it is known, no one has won a writ of
actual innocence in cases opposed by the attorney general. Watford,
who has no other criminal record, was just 18 years old when he pleaded
guilty to the 1977 rape of the girl on the advice of his grandfather in
a plea deal that called for no time in jail and that allowed him to try
and finish high school. DNA
testing in June 2016 found that Watford's DNA did not match the genetic
profile identified in sperm recovered from the victim and her jeans and
two other genetic profiles found in sperm from two mattress stains found
in the vacant house where the assault occurred. Testing
in 2010 also failed to match the DNA profiles of Watford's two younger
brothers - also suspects - with any of three suspect DNA profiles
identified by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science. The attorney
general's office says only that the profile identified from a vaginal
swab taken from the victim can confidently be associated with the crime. Many
questions about the crime and trial remain unanswered because it
happened so long ago and, since Watford pleaded guilty, there is not a
detailed trial record. After
Watford petitioned for a writ of actual innocence and the attorney
general's office responded, the justices ordered an evidentiary hearing
that was held in April in Portsmouth Circuit Court. At
the hearing the now-adult victim testified that when she entered the
vacant house, she saw one of Watford's brothers and other men inside.
However, she said a blanket was thrown over her head, so she did not see
her assailants. She said she
could not recall seeing or hearing Watford - whom she knew - at the
scene or recall telling police that he was among her assailants. The
attorney general's office does not comment on pending petitions,
although in Watford's case it said in pleadings that the case was
troubling, but nevertheless argued that he had not met the burden
required by law for exoneration. Jonathan
Sheldon, Watford's lawyer, believes his client's innocence claim is
conclusive in light of the testimony at the hearing. Brown
was convicted of the Oct. 1, 1969, murder of a 4-year-old Albemarle
County boy. He was identified by the child's mother, who was stabbed,
beaten and apparently raped in the same attack that took her son's life. A
vaginal swab was taken from the mother at the University of Virginia
Hospital emergency room where she was treated after the attack. It was
used to create a microscope slide that was given to the hospital's
pathology department on Oct. 2, 1969. The slide was discovered in a
Charlottesville-area warehouse in 2015 and subjected to DNA testing. The Innocence Project filed a
petition for a writ of actual innocence with the Virginia Supreme Court
citing the DNA test results which they said is powerful evidence he did
not commit the crime and that the mother's identification was mistaken. The
partial male DNA profile identified in material on the slide does not
match Brown or the woman's husband. The commonwealth's theory of the
case was that the boy was slain to eliminate a witness to the rape of
his mother. According to the
state, the mother's DNA profile has not been identified in what is said
to be her vaginal swab. The state says that a DNA profile developed when
testing the slide is inconsistent with her DNA. The
attorney general's office asked the justices to dismiss the petition,
arguing among other things, that Brown made self-incriminating
statements, that there were problems with the DNA testing and that the
material tested may not even be associated with the case. The
state argues that Brown cannot document who made the slide or who has
had custody or access to it from 1969 to 2015 in order to show the
evidence had not been altered, tampered with or substituted. The
Innocence Project says they have shown a sufficient chain of custody
for the slide which has been kept in a metal file cabinet, stored for a
number of years at the hospital and transferred to a locked, state-run
warehouse. When the slide was
located at the hospital's pathology lab, it was immediately placed in a
plastic container that was closed and later delivered to police. They
said the evidence is old and degraded and it is not surprising that the
mother's DNA was not identified on the slide. The DNA profile found on
the slide that is "inconsistent" with the mother does not mean the slide
was not made from her vaginal swab but rather that the profile came
from the perpetrator. The
Innocence Project said the self-incriminating statements cited by the
attorney general were made during a parole interview and "reflect a
desire to be paroled rather than a true confession of guilt." The
justices have set aside 40 minutes Wednesday for Brown's case and 30
minutes for Watford. Watford said last week that he will be unable to
attend the hearing."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the
Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please
send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest
to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy;
Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
