6 ms·

Man gets $75 after being wrongly imprisoned for 31 years

107 points by SQL2219 10y ago

finid 10y ago
DNA evidence cleared him of the charges in 2008, and when he was released in 2009..." So he was freed because DNA evidence proved he wasn't the rapist. But Melissa McDonald, spokesperson for the Tennessee Board of Parole, said that: After considering all of the evidence, the board did not find clear and convincing evidence of innocence and declined to recommend clemency in this matter.* DNA evidence is not "clear and convincing evidence"??
- giarc 10y ago
  There are not a ton of details in the article but I imagine what they are saying is the evidence used to convict him was wrong, but it still doesn't mean he didn't do it. The victim identified him as 1 of the 2 rapists and DNA cleared him. He might not have left DNA behind, but the victim still identified him.
  - aisengard 10y ago
    But he wouldn't have been convicted without that evidence. It doesn't matter if he can't prove his innocence, the job of the prosecutor is to prove guilt.
  - finid 10y ago
    How might he "not have left DNA behind" when the charge was rape! And DNA evidence was used to used to clear him. According to the article: In October 1977 a Memphis woman was raped in her home by two intruders...
    - vectorjohn 10y ago
      It's not like they have a time machine to go pick up old evidence. They had an old sheet, it's easy to imagine how there wouldn't be DNA left there.
    - giarc 10y ago
      I don't think we need to get into specifics, but you don't need to ejaculate for it to be considered rape.
  - TillE 10y ago
    Apparently he eventually made a false confession while trying to get parole. That probably did it. "Board members questioned McKinney during the hearing about admissions to the crime made at a parole hearing after he had already served 28 years in prison. McKinney said admissions were only in hopes of getting released,"
    - finid 10y ago
      Under intense questioning and pressure, people have been known to confess to crimes they did not commit. I recall reading about a druggie who confessed to being the Green River Killer or some other serial killer. The real killer was picked up after that.
    - vectorjohn 10y ago
      Why do you call it a false confession?
  - sundaeofshock 10y ago
    Eyewitness testimony is often incorrect. "Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts": https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-...
    - giarc 10y ago
      Sure, but it doesn't mean the opposite is true. If the victim says "John did it", because eye witness testimony is often incorrect, doesn't mean we can assume John didn't do it.
  - vectorjohn 10y ago
    DNA didn't "clear him." They just failed to find new evidence, although the DNA evidence that his friend was there corroborates the victim's story. I think they just let him go to save the money of another trial since he already served so much. He probably would have lost the retrial since the evidence didn't change, but they decided not to spend the money. Seems OK.
- droithomme 10y ago
  In 1977, the victim was raped and robbed by two men, both whom she knew from her neighborhood. She identified them to the police as the children of women in the neighborhood Polly and Ollie Mae, and gave their addresses. The men were Lawrence McKinney and Michael Yancy. Police found both of them together at Michael Yancy's house, Yancy was watching TV and McKinney was hiding in the closet. They gave alibis for each other, claiming they had been there all day. Both were convicted of rape and burglary. This was a very reasonable conviction given the evidence against them. In the years since, McKinney confessed to the rape and apologized for it during his parole hearings, which were denied. He was also a very problematic prisoner who was constantly getting into violent altercations with other prisoners and guards. 32 years after the crime, the bed linen was tested for DNA. It had a positive match for Yancy, and the victim's boyfriend, and a third man, still unknown. McKinney's DNA was not on the bed linen. Based on this evidence, since this evidence would no doubt be considered relevant to the trial, the conviction was vacated. The parole board did not exonerate him because the evidence did not support exoneration, it only supported a new trial. Given that he had already served 31 years in prison, rather than have a new trial, in addition to vacating the sentence, the charges were dismissed and he was free to go. Vacating and dismissal are not findings of innocence in the legal system. Based on the DNA evidence, it is an absolute fact that his friend Yancy raped and robbed the woman. He gave an alibi for this man, and vice versa. The woman said two men raped her, two men she knew, and identified Lawrence as the other one. Based on the victim's eyewitness testimony and her previous familiarity with the perpetrators, her testimony is extremely credible and the jury's verdict exceptionally reasonable. Not all rapists leave DNA on the bedsheets that is recoverable after 30 years.
  - scott00 10y ago
    > Vacating and dismissal are not findings of innocence in the legal system. Actual legal question not related to the specifics of this case: why not? Doesn't the US justice system operate under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty?" Doesn't vacating a conviction mean that the former convict has not been proven guilty?
    - kefka 10y ago
- canadian_voter 10y ago
  "After considering all of the evidence, the board did not find clear and convincing evidence of innocence and declined to recommend clemency in this matter." Hey, just because he's not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. Isn't it is better that ten innocent persons be jailed than that one criminal escape justice? [0] Edit: Obviously it's more complicated than this. I don't envy anyone having to make these sorts of calls. There are certainly legal minutiae here that the CNN article doesn't get into. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation
  - peller 10y ago
    I suspect you're being sarcastic there, but just in case somebody doesn't pick up on that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" is the correct form.
- golergka 10y ago
  Yes, it's not. DNA testing has a much higher error rate that people believe, it's not magic. Especially when you get a negative result like that.
  - fastball 10y ago
    So what is the error rate for DNA testing?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

107 points by SQL2219 10y ago

finid 10y ago

DNA evidence cleared him of the charges in 2008, and when he was released in 2009..." So he was freed because DNA evidence proved he wasn't the rapist. But Melissa McDonald, spokesperson for the Tennessee Board of Parole, said that: After considering all of the evidence, the board did not find clear and convincing evidence of innocence and declined to recommend clemency in this matter.* DNA evidence is not "clear and convincing evidence"??

giarc 10y ago
There are not a ton of details in the article but I imagine what they are saying is the evidence used to convict him was wrong, but it still doesn't mean he didn't do it. The victim identified him as 1 of the 2 rapists and DNA cleared him. He might not have left DNA behind, but the victim still identified him.
- aisengard 10y ago
  But he wouldn't have been convicted without that evidence. It doesn't matter if he can't prove his innocence, the job of the prosecutor is to prove guilt.
- finid 10y ago
  How might he "not have left DNA behind" when the charge was rape! And DNA evidence was used to used to clear him. According to the article: In October 1977 a Memphis woman was raped in her home by two intruders...
  - vectorjohn 10y ago
    It's not like they have a time machine to go pick up old evidence. They had an old sheet, it's easy to imagine how there wouldn't be DNA left there.
  - giarc 10y ago
    I don't think we need to get into specifics, but you don't need to ejaculate for it to be considered rape.
- TillE 10y ago
  Apparently he eventually made a false confession while trying to get parole. That probably did it. "Board members questioned McKinney during the hearing about admissions to the crime made at a parole hearing after he had already served 28 years in prison. McKinney said admissions were only in hopes of getting released,"
  - finid 10y ago
    Under intense questioning and pressure, people have been known to confess to crimes they did not commit. I recall reading about a druggie who confessed to being the Green River Killer or some other serial killer. The real killer was picked up after that.
  - vectorjohn 10y ago
    Why do you call it a false confession?
- sundaeofshock 10y ago
  Eyewitness testimony is often incorrect. "Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts": https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-...
  - giarc 10y ago
    Sure, but it doesn't mean the opposite is true. If the victim says "John did it", because eye witness testimony is often incorrect, doesn't mean we can assume John didn't do it.
- vectorjohn 10y ago
  DNA didn't "clear him." They just failed to find new evidence, although the DNA evidence that his friend was there corroborates the victim's story. I think they just let him go to save the money of another trial since he already served so much. He probably would have lost the retrial since the evidence didn't change, but they decided not to spend the money. Seems OK.
droithomme 10y ago
In 1977, the victim was raped and robbed by two men, both whom she knew from her neighborhood. She identified them to the police as the children of women in the neighborhood Polly and Ollie Mae, and gave their addresses. The men were Lawrence McKinney and Michael Yancy. Police found both of them together at Michael Yancy's house, Yancy was watching TV and McKinney was hiding in the closet. They gave alibis for each other, claiming they had been there all day. Both were convicted of rape and burglary. This was a very reasonable conviction given the evidence against them. In the years since, McKinney confessed to the rape and apologized for it during his parole hearings, which were denied. He was also a very problematic prisoner who was constantly getting into violent altercations with other prisoners and guards. 32 years after the crime, the bed linen was tested for DNA. It had a positive match for Yancy, and the victim's boyfriend, and a third man, still unknown. McKinney's DNA was not on the bed linen. Based on this evidence, since this evidence would no doubt be considered relevant to the trial, the conviction was vacated. The parole board did not exonerate him because the evidence did not support exoneration, it only supported a new trial. Given that he had already served 31 years in prison, rather than have a new trial, in addition to vacating the sentence, the charges were dismissed and he was free to go. Vacating and dismissal are not findings of innocence in the legal system. Based on the DNA evidence, it is an absolute fact that his friend Yancy raped and robbed the woman. He gave an alibi for this man, and vice versa. The woman said two men raped her, two men she knew, and identified Lawrence as the other one. Based on the victim's eyewitness testimony and her previous familiarity with the perpetrators, her testimony is extremely credible and the jury's verdict exceptionally reasonable. Not all rapists leave DNA on the bedsheets that is recoverable after 30 years.
- scott00 10y ago
  > Vacating and dismissal are not findings of innocence in the legal system. Actual legal question not related to the specifics of this case: why not? Doesn't the US justice system operate under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty?" Doesn't vacating a conviction mean that the former convict has not been proven guilty?
  - kefka 10y ago
canadian_voter 10y ago
"After considering all of the evidence, the board did not find clear and convincing evidence of innocence and declined to recommend clemency in this matter." Hey, just because he's not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. Isn't it is better that ten innocent persons be jailed than that one criminal escape justice? [0] Edit: Obviously it's more complicated than this. I don't envy anyone having to make these sorts of calls. There are certainly legal minutiae here that the CNN article doesn't get into. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation
- peller 10y ago
  I suspect you're being sarcastic there, but just in case somebody doesn't pick up on that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" is the correct form.
golergka 10y ago
Yes, it's not. DNA testing has a much higher error rate that people believe, it's not magic. Especially when you get a negative result like that.
- fastball 10y ago
  So what is the error rate for DNA testing?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]