'The science of DNA testing can now establish with near certainty who did or didn't commit a crime. Why, then, do inmates remain in prison despite DNA evidence which exonerates them?
"The Case for Innocence" explores this question, profiling four compelling cases where DNA evidence has been ignored, discounted, or kept secret.
One case is that of prisoner Clyde Charles. For eighteen years he proclaimed his innocence in a Louisiana rape case. But for nearly a decade, state and federal officials blocked his appeals for a DNA test. The efforts of lawyer Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project, coupled with FRONTLINE's media attention, finally pressured authorities to allow the test. It came back negative, and in December 1999 Charles was freed.
"It was surprising to me to learn that prisoners--some on death row--have great difficulty convincing the state to release new evidence which can prove their innocence," says FRONTLINE producer Ofra Bikel. "But I was stunned to find that in cases where DNA tests are conducted, and the results clearly support claims of innocence, the tests are often ignored, and these individuals remain imprisoned."
Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project have successfully exonerated more than thirty-five prisoners using DNA testing. But, DNA exclusion does not necessarily lead to freedom. The case of Roy Criner is an example.
Arrested in 1985 and charged with the rape and murder of a sixteen-year-old Texas girl, Criner was convicted and sentenced to 99 years. In 1996, he submitted to a DNA test based on advances in DNA testing. The tests came back negative, proving it was not Criner's DNA. Dissatisfied by the results, the state decided to do its own test, which also came back negative.
To nearly everyone's surprise, however, the District Attorney dismissed the tests and opposed a new trial. (see video excerpt about this decision.)And the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals supported him. Justice Sharon Keller wrote for the majority, arguing that just because the recovered DNA belonged to someone other than Criner, it did not demonstrate his innocence. She reasoned that the negative result was of little consequence. "It just doesn't mean that he didn't have sex with her."
Innocence Project co-founder Peter Neufeld says this is not a new theory. "In almost all our cases, the prosecution's theory of the case was that one person seized the woman, raped her, and then left her. Once we get the DNA exclusion, a whole range of new prosecution theories emerge."
Neufeld is one of several defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges interviewed about why not everyone in the legal system wants to examine cases of innocent people wrongfully convicted and why the system resists conceding errors and correcting mistakes.'
