7 ms·

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

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
  "It's OK. We'll know it when we see it." - Paraphrased from US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
- TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
  He was proven guilty. Once you're proven guilty, you're guilty until proven innocent.
- philipov 10y ago
  The confusion is caused by the loose use of the word 'innocent'. Technically, we're talking about acquittal, as the US Constitution provides against double jeopardy[0] if you have been acquitted of a crime already. This is the sense in which a dismissal/vacation is not a 'finding of innocence,' as opposed to the 'presumption of innocence' to which you referred. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause
- will_brown 10y ago
  >why not? Doesn't the US justice system operate under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty?" Innocent is not a finding or disposition in the Court. You are likely to find the following dispositions in a given criminal case: guilty; not guilty/acquittal; no info (the State drops the case prior to trial but after filing charges, usually due to lack of evidence); nolle prosequi (State drops charges, usually in exchange for a plea or diversion program); withholding of adjudication (closing ones case without a formal conviction). "Innocent until proven guilty" is very nice sounding, but the reality reads more like this: "the State shall have the burden to prove all the elements of the charges it brings against a criminal defendant beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt". The difference, the Defense doesn't have to prove its innocence, it doesn't have to do anything, the defense can just sit quietly and watch the State fail to prove its case.
jfoutz 10y ago
Not quibbling with the details, but if i was innocent and imprisoned for 30 years, > 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. I'd probably try all of those things over the years. Again, the guy may well be a monster. But those points shouldn't really weigh on the courts decision. How long can an innocent person live in Kafka world before going at least a little crazy?
- gravypod 10y ago
  In our legal system a confession means next to nothing. You need a multitude of sources to draw from to convict
  - nilkn 10y ago
    How are stories like that of Brendan Dassey consistent with this statement?
    - jwatte 10y ago
      Because our justice system is inconsistent and very far from perfect. But probably better than nothing, or vigilante justice. Probably. Want to fix this? Vote for higher taxes to help fund both public defenders (at 10x or more the current level) and social services (that keep people out of trouble in the first place.)
  - bmuon 10y ago
    Not true. Just go listen to the Wrongful Conviction podcast: http://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/wrongful-conviction-with-jason-flom/ http://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/wrongful-conviction-wi.... People have been convicted of crimes because they confessed, even when the hard evidence points to the contrary.
  - pmarreck 10y ago
    Or just faulty eyewitness testimony. http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentif...
leephillips 10y ago
So it would seem "wrongly imprisoned" in the title is not accurate.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Based on the DNA evidence, it is an absolute fact that his friend Yancy raped and robbed the woman. That is not how facts work. The DNA evidence shows that the DNA was there. It doesn't create a fact out of something else. It could be that the woman consented to sex with one or both of the men and fabricated the story to explain it to her boyfriend. It could be that McKinny and the woman's boyfriend were gay and the accusation was the woman's revenge after catching her boyfriend in bed with a man. We still don't know these things.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  This evidence alone combined with his own admission of the crime is not sufficient for exoneration. He gave an alibi to someone that was involved in the crime as far DNA goes; he admitted to the crime (although it could have been the case that he done so only to admit guilt as there is no parole without admission of guilt) and asked for forgiveness. I don't know if there is other considerable evidence to him being present during the burglary and the rape such as fingerprints but another likely option was that there were 3 individuals involved in the burglary 2 of them raped the victim and the 3rd haven't. In my opinion if you commit a crime with with partners and one of the partners assaults, rapes, or kills some one you are just as guilty as they are for not preventing them in most case; the law in most places agrees with this. Robbing a house with 1-2 other people and then standing by while they rape some one is nearly as bad as raping someone yourself.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    Have you responded to the wrong post? None of that has anything to do with what the DNA proves.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      The DNA on it's own proves nothing; it's just a piece of evidence this isn't how a legal system works.
      - 10y ago
nilkn 10y ago
This is why I could just never work in the legal system, at least not with cases like this. My own conclusion from this is that we have no idea what happened and whether or not either of them were actually guilty. Finding DNA doesn't mean much. It means they had some sort of sexual contact, but the question of whether that contact was consensual is still reduced entirely to testimony.
- gedy 10y ago
  The system is built around reasonable doubt - not any possible shred of a doubt.
  - nilkn 10y ago
    AnthonyMouse posted multiple completely reasonable alternative explanations that are 100% consistent with the evidence. To me, that's a lot more than "a shred" of doubt.
    - PJDK 10y ago
      Not really, because that version of events would also require evidence, which is why trials are a thing.
      - nilkn 10y ago
        So the version of events which leads to a conviction doesn't require evidence, but the multiple versions which don't lead to a conviction do require evidence? Isn't this a complete inversion of "innocent until proven guilty"?
        PJDK 10y ago
        Not at all. The prosecution makes a case to see "this guy did it" and they attempt to provide evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense makes the case the guy didn't do it. One way is to give an alternative version of events and the evidence for it. The defense could just say "nah, but what if it's some kind of gay revenge love triangle?" and sit down. The jury would then convict because that's stupid. But if they also provided a bunch of love letters then maybe that holds water. Ultimately that's why there's a jury.
pmarreck 10y ago
Adding to this... Putting it bluntly, the evidence keeps piling up that eyewitness testimony, especially under emotional duress (such as while being raped), should just be tossed out as evidence. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-... http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentif... Disclaimer: I donate to The Innocence Project regularly and am a former Psych major intimately familiar with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
- e40 10y ago
  At least the first link deals with stranger identification. In the case being discussed here, the victim knew the perps.
alasdair_ 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. This scares me a bit. The only witness is the victim (who was obviously under extreme stress). The other two people each claim the other as an alibi. Without something more compelling (e.g. scratches on the attackers, or a fingerprint at the scene or another second eyewitness), I don't understand how a single persons word can send someone to prison for life.
- droithomme 10y ago
  Would your opinion change if, in addition to the positive witness id of the perpetrators based on already knowing them, you also had conclusive proof that the sperm cells which were found on the bed sheets of the victim matched one of the two men, each of which were giving alibis to one another saying they were together at the time of the rape?

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
"It's OK. We'll know it when we see it." - Paraphrased from US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
He was proven guilty. Once you're proven guilty, you're guilty until proven innocent.
philipov 10y ago
The confusion is caused by the loose use of the word 'innocent'. Technically, we're talking about acquittal, as the US Constitution provides against double jeopardy[0] if you have been acquitted of a crime already. This is the sense in which a dismissal/vacation is not a 'finding of innocence,' as opposed to the 'presumption of innocence' to which you referred. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause
will_brown 10y ago
>why not? Doesn't the US justice system operate under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty?" Innocent is not a finding or disposition in the Court. You are likely to find the following dispositions in a given criminal case: guilty; not guilty/acquittal; no info (the State drops the case prior to trial but after filing charges, usually due to lack of evidence); nolle prosequi (State drops charges, usually in exchange for a plea or diversion program); withholding of adjudication (closing ones case without a formal conviction). "Innocent until proven guilty" is very nice sounding, but the reality reads more like this: "the State shall have the burden to prove all the elements of the charges it brings against a criminal defendant beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt". The difference, the Defense doesn't have to prove its innocence, it doesn't have to do anything, the defense can just sit quietly and watch the State fail to prove its case.

jfoutz 10y ago

Not quibbling with the details, but if i was innocent and imprisoned for 30 years, > 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. I'd probably try all of those things over the years. Again, the guy may well be a monster. But those points shouldn't really weigh on the courts decision. How long can an innocent person live in Kafka world before going at least a little crazy?

gravypod 10y ago
In our legal system a confession means next to nothing. You need a multitude of sources to draw from to convict
- nilkn 10y ago
  How are stories like that of Brendan Dassey consistent with this statement?
  - jwatte 10y ago
    Because our justice system is inconsistent and very far from perfect. But probably better than nothing, or vigilante justice. Probably. Want to fix this? Vote for higher taxes to help fund both public defenders (at 10x or more the current level) and social services (that keep people out of trouble in the first place.)
- bmuon 10y ago
  Not true. Just go listen to the Wrongful Conviction podcast: http://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/wrongful-conviction-with-jason-flom/ http://www.revolverpodcasts.com/shows/wrongful-conviction-wi.... People have been convicted of crimes because they confessed, even when the hard evidence points to the contrary.
- pmarreck 10y ago
  Or just faulty eyewitness testimony. http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentif...

leephillips 10y ago

So it would seem "wrongly imprisoned" in the title is not accurate.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> Based on the DNA evidence, it is an absolute fact that his friend Yancy raped and robbed the woman. That is not how facts work. The DNA evidence shows that the DNA was there. It doesn't create a fact out of something else. It could be that the woman consented to sex with one or both of the men and fabricated the story to explain it to her boyfriend. It could be that McKinny and the woman's boyfriend were gay and the accusation was the woman's revenge after catching her boyfriend in bed with a man. We still don't know these things.

dogma1138 10y ago
This evidence alone combined with his own admission of the crime is not sufficient for exoneration. He gave an alibi to someone that was involved in the crime as far DNA goes; he admitted to the crime (although it could have been the case that he done so only to admit guilt as there is no parole without admission of guilt) and asked for forgiveness. I don't know if there is other considerable evidence to him being present during the burglary and the rape such as fingerprints but another likely option was that there were 3 individuals involved in the burglary 2 of them raped the victim and the 3rd haven't. In my opinion if you commit a crime with with partners and one of the partners assaults, rapes, or kills some one you are just as guilty as they are for not preventing them in most case; the law in most places agrees with this. Robbing a house with 1-2 other people and then standing by while they rape some one is nearly as bad as raping someone yourself.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  Have you responded to the wrong post? None of that has anything to do with what the DNA proves.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    The DNA on it's own proves nothing; it's just a piece of evidence this isn't how a legal system works.
    - 10y ago

nilkn 10y ago

This is why I could just never work in the legal system, at least not with cases like this. My own conclusion from this is that we have no idea what happened and whether or not either of them were actually guilty. Finding DNA doesn't mean much. It means they had some sort of sexual contact, but the question of whether that contact was consensual is still reduced entirely to testimony.

gedy 10y ago
The system is built around reasonable doubt - not any possible shred of a doubt.
- nilkn 10y ago
  AnthonyMouse posted multiple completely reasonable alternative explanations that are 100% consistent with the evidence. To me, that's a lot more than "a shred" of doubt.
  - PJDK 10y ago
    Not really, because that version of events would also require evidence, which is why trials are a thing.
    - nilkn 10y ago
      So the version of events which leads to a conviction doesn't require evidence, but the multiple versions which don't lead to a conviction do require evidence? Isn't this a complete inversion of "innocent until proven guilty"?
      - PJDK 10y ago
        Not at all. The prosecution makes a case to see "this guy did it" and they attempt to provide evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense makes the case the guy didn't do it. One way is to give an alternative version of events and the evidence for it. The defense could just say "nah, but what if it's some kind of gay revenge love triangle?" and sit down. The jury would then convict because that's stupid. But if they also provided a bunch of love letters then maybe that holds water. Ultimately that's why there's a jury.

pmarreck 10y ago

Adding to this... Putting it bluntly, the evidence keeps piling up that eyewitness testimony, especially under emotional duress (such as while being raped), should just be tossed out as evidence. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-... http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentif... Disclaimer: I donate to The Innocence Project regularly and am a former Psych major intimately familiar with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

e40 10y ago
At least the first link deals with stranger identification. In the case being discussed here, the victim knew the perps.

alasdair_ 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. This scares me a bit. The only witness is the victim (who was obviously under extreme stress). The other two people each claim the other as an alibi. Without something more compelling (e.g. scratches on the attackers, or a fingerprint at the scene or another second eyewitness), I don't understand how a single persons word can send someone to prison for life.

droithomme 10y ago
Would your opinion change if, in addition to the positive witness id of the perpetrators based on already knowing them, you also had conclusive proof that the sperm cells which were found on the bed sheets of the victim matched one of the two men, each of which were giving alibis to one another saying they were together at the time of the rape?