Forensic experts gave flawed evidence in 4 Virginia cases in ‘80s, study finds

» 8 Comments | Post a Comment

A first-of-its-kind study has found that forensic experts produced flawed evidnece in the trials of 82 men -- four in Virginia -- wrongfully convicted of rape or murder in the 1980s.

One of the Virginia cases concerned the late Mary Jane Burton, a forensic serologist who made a habit of keeping blood and other biological samples in her old case files.

The Virginia Law Review study, released today, was written by Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, and Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project. It examined 137 trials in which transcripts exist and forensic experts testified for the prosecution.

The cases are among 233 from across the country, 10 in Virginia, in which DNA has proved innocent people who were wrongfully convicted.

Garrett said that in 60 percent of the cases -- 82 of 137 -- in which forensic-expert testimony was available, they gave testimony overstating the evidence.

He stressed that the flawed testimony did not necessarily lead to a wrongful conviction and that the study suggests nothing about the overall quality of forensic work being performed in Virginia or any other state.

The Innocence Project has found the most common contributor to wrongful convictions is mistaken eyewitness identification.

The report does not specify the 82 cases, but Garrett said the four in Virginia were Willie Davidson II, cleared of a 1980 rape; Earl Washington Jr., cleared of a 1982 rape and capital murder; Edward Honaker, cleared of a 1984 rape; and Tory Webb, cleared of a 1988 rape.

Burton testified in the Davidson trial, in which Davidson was wrongly identified as the rapist by the victim. Burton testified during his Norfolk trial that the perpetrator must have had type O blood, eliminating about half the male population as the attacker.

However, in that case the victim's blood type masked the rapist's blood type, meaning that any male could have been the rapist. In the 1980s, forensic serologists examined blood and sometimes semen in an effort to determine characteristics not nearly as discriminating as DNA.

Garrett said that, in fairness, "there were a lot of analysts in our group of cases who made that same mistake. . . . It was by no means limited to Mary Jane Burton and that one case."

In addition to Davidson, DNA testing of evidence saved by Burton in her files has cleared four others of rape: Marvin Anderson, convicted in 1982 in Ashland; Arthur Whitfield, convicted in Norfolk in 1981 of two rapes; Philip Thurman, convicted in Alexandria in 1985; and Julius Ruffin, convicted in 1982 in Norfolk.

Tom Gasparoli, spokesman for the Virginia Department of Forensic Science, said they have not reviewed the study and declined to comment. However, he said the department "works with the Innocence Project . . . and greatly values its mission and work."

Garrett said that overall, the study found invalid testimony from 72 forensic analysts employed by 52 laboratories in 25 states.

It also uncovered erroneous or unsupported testimony about the accuracy and results of forensic techniques such as hair, bite mark and fingerprint comparison and even DNA testing.

The study began with a request from the National Academy of Sciences committee examining the needs of forensic science. The academy's report released last month recommended the creation of an independent national entity to establish standards.

Peter Marone, director of the Virginia lab, was an author of the academy's report, which recommended the standardization of methods, ethics, technology and other issues that accreditation largely answers. The department has been accredited since 1989.

The Virginia lab was also a pioneer in the forensic use of DNA in the U.S. and established one of the first DNA profile databases. It is now conducting a groundbreaking study -- in large part made possible by Burton -- to clear anyone wrongfully convicted of rape, murder or other serious crimes from 1973 through 1988.

Garrett said the trial transcripts for the cases in the study "were fascinating to read now that it is known the people convicted were innocent."

"Yet few have looked at these records. Even after these wrongful convictions came to light, crime laboratories rarely conducted audits or investigations to review the forensic evidence presented at the trial," Garrett said.



Contact Frank Green at (804) 649-6340 or .

Advertisement

 
View More: mary jane burton,latest news,dna,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by MeToo on March 16, 2009 at 3:09 pm

You’re right in the sense that the conclusions were wrong, but that’s exactly the problem.  An “expert” or witness got up on the stand and presented wrongful conclusions based on inconclusive evidence.  They ruined a man’s life because they presented something as an absolute fact rather than a possibility based on current scientific methods.

Exoneration might get you out of jail or strike the incident from your record, but it will never give back what you wrongfully lost.  There are many cases were people have been put to death because of wrongful evidence.  I, personally, support the death penalty, but I think maybe we need to take a second look at what is considered absolute and scientifically conclusive and what’s just a probability.

Flag Comment Posted by tangerinebeth on March 16, 2009 at 1:32 pm

The science of the evidence decades ago wasn’t “wrong,“—the CONCLUSIONS drawn from it were wrong.

Flag Comment Posted by Larry Lanberg on March 16, 2009 at 12:24 pm

Tangerinebeth is right that science/technology is always limited to what’s known (or can be done) at the time. Every advance is nothing but an improvement on the previous step; never anything more than that. So if its true that judges & prosecutors were calling it “irrefutable” evidence—back in the 80s of all times, when that technology was only beginning—then THAT’S what was wrong & why some were falsely convicted. They should know better than to say things like that.

Flag Comment Posted by Nibbles on March 16, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Ignorance is not an excuse for being wrong.  Nor is there any excuse for wrongfully accusing or convicting someone.  Just because someone misinterprets science or is incapable of understanding it doesn’t exonerate them from being incorrect and making errors that adversely affect several people, the integrity of the justice system, and our community and society.

Flag Comment Posted by tangerinebeth on March 16, 2009 at 11:06 am

It’s wrong now, it wasn’t ‘wrong’ then (ie: incorrect science)—it was just LIMITED science. You can’t be WRONG at something that doesn’t exist, so 20 years ago, there was no WRONG DNA, we didn’t have the science to see if it was right or wrong.

Flag Comment Posted by Nibbles on March 16, 2009 at 10:35 am

It is always wrong when an innocent person is accused and even more so when an innocent person is convicted.

Flag Comment Posted by tangerinebeth on March 16, 2009 at 10:00 am

no, forensic evidence isn’t made up, nor was the older stuff really “wrong.“ It’s just that our ability to get substantive info from the evidence has expanded so much since those cases. In those cases, the evidence and conclusions drawn from it was reasonable for the technology know at the time. It wasn’t wrong, but just limited in what we could tell from it. Now, with better science, we can get more info from the same evidence.

Flag Comment Posted by J-Reb on March 16, 2009 at 6:38 am

“A first-of-its-kind study” says the article.  Only, not.  Same thing happened in upstate New York.  Same thing happens all the time everywhere, actually, only it’s not usually reported.

Judges and prosecutors instruct juries that forensic evidence is irrefutable.  Fact is, it’s often tainted and sometimes simply made up, in order to secure convictions.  Sometimes the defendant is even guilty.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Click here to post a comment.

 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement