10-09-07 another harris county convict exonerated

8/8/2019 10-09-07 Another Harris County Convict Exonerated

1/8

YET ANOTHER HARRIS COUNTY DNA EXONERATION

Houston Criminal Defense Attorneys Beware! Exoneration Marks ThirdCriminal Defendant Wrongfully Convicted Because of Mishandling of

Evidence by the Houston Police Crime Lab

In May of 1993, in the Third Ward of Houston, Texas, a 38-year-old womanwas asleep in her home when she was abruptly awakened by a man who puta knife to her throat. The intruder raped the woman and fled the residence.The victim called the police to report the sexual assault. Two police officersarrived at the scene one hour later. The officers identified a wet spot onthe sheet where the rape occurred. The rape victim told the officers that shehad felt the assailants features during the attack but had only gotten a briefglimpse of him while he was in her home. The only light in the victimsresidence came from a street light across the street.

The police began to question the neighbors about the rape incident. Oneneighbor recalled that she had seen Ronald Gene Taylor in the vicinityearlier in the night. Taylor lived less than a mile from the rape victimshome. He had been living area for just six months, having recently moved toHouston from Huntsville. The police went to his home, rousted him out of

bed, and hauled him off to jail. They told him only that he had been accusedof raping a woman.

The police could not immediately locate the victim to view Taylor in alineup, so they videotaped the men they had assembled for the lineup. Alone police officer then took the videotape to the victims residence whereshe could view it. Taylor did not have an attorney nor were there any otherwitnesses to this lineup. While viewing the videotaped lineup, the victimsuddenly remembered that her assailant had a tooth missing. Thisinformation had not been part of her initial description of the assailant. Shehad told the two officers that she managed only got a glimpse of herassailant before he fled. Taylor had a tooth missing. The victim promptlyidentified him as her assailant.

It is unclear from the public record is whether the victim experienced thesudden recollection about the missing tooth after viewing Taylor or priorto the viewing. What is clear is that the police investigation ended with the


2/8

victim identification Taylor. The case was closed as far as the police wereconcerned.

Taylor maintained his innocence, to anyone who would listen.Rape is one of the worst crimes you can do, he was recently quoted in themedia as saying. I dont ever understand rape, but I have lived all theseyears with that mark.

At the time of his arrest Taylor was engaged to be married. His fiance,Jeanette Brown, refused to believe even consider the possibility that the manshe loved could commit such a crime.

I know that man, and I know he is not capable of doing something thatawful, she was quoted by the local media as saying.

Taylors mother, Dorothy Henderson, was equally convinced of her sonsinnocence.

He always said that he was innocent, and I kept the faith that one day itwould come through that it was not him, she told the media.

Taylor had too much faith in the criminal justice system from the beginning.

I was so sure that the truth would come out, that they knew it was not methat I told my lawyer not to even tell me if (prosecutors) offered a plea

bargain, he said recently.

But a Harris County jury, drawn from jury pools that tend to favorconviction over acquittal, could not get the truth right in May of 1995. The

prosecutions case was circumstantial: the victim made an in-courtidentification and a serologist from the Houston Crime Lab testified that nosemen was found on the sheet, therefore, Taylor could not be excluded as theassailant. The jury found Taylor guilty and assessed his punishment at 60

years in the Texas prison system.

In 2001 John Farmer, Jr., the former Attorney General for the State of NewJersey, spoke about the need for eyewitness guidelines in the wake of somany DNA exonerations.


3/8

It is axiomatic that eyewitness identification evidence is often crucial inidentifying perpetrators and exonerating the innocent, he said. However,recent cases in which DNA has been utilized to exonerate individualsconvicted almost exclusively on the basis of eyewitness identifications,demonstrates that this evidence is not foolproof.In 1999 the U.S. Department of Justice released a report entitledEyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement that recommendedimplementation of safeguards in eyewitness identification procedures.Studies of DNA exonerations have consistently revealed that three out offour of those wrongfully convicted were due to mistaken identificationand 60 percent of those mistaken identifications involved African-American or Hispanic defendants.

While Taylors family was devastated by the jury verdict, his mother knew

that the eldest of her five children was innocent and she was not about toaccept the jurys verdict. She finally convinced the New York-basedInnocence Project that her son was innocent and secured their assistance inworking toward his exoneration.

In 2006 the Innocence Project located the sheet with wet spot on it. TheHarris County District Attorneys Office cooperated with the Projects

proposal to have independent DNA testing conducted on the sheet. Resultsfrom the test were disclosed this past summer. Taylor was not the rapist.DNA from the sheet identified the assailant as Roosevelt Carroll, a longtimesex offender currently serving a sentence in the Texas prison system forfailing to register as a sex offender.

Taylors exoneration marked the third time a criminal defendant had beenwrongfully convicted because of the mishandling of evidence by theHouston Police Crime Lab. In 2002 the local media conducted extensiveinvestigations into the operations of the crime lab and exposed staggeringnegligence and mismanagement in those operations. These media reports

prompted city officials to conduct an audit of the labs serology

department. This audit resulted in the release of two inmates who had beenwrongfully convicted of rape charges based on false and erroneoustestimony of serologists from the crime lab. The exonerations prompted theclosure of the crime labs serology department.

In 2005 Mayor Bob White vowed to clean up the disgraceful messassociated with the crime lab and to restore law enforcement integrity to its


4/8

operations. The Mayor assigned Michael Bromwich, a former U.S. JusticeDepartment inspector, the task of investigating the crime lab, its procedures,and issue recommendations. Bromwich completed his investigation in June2007. He identified at least 180 cases in which serology department hadmade major mistakes. Those cases are still awaiting prosecutorial and

judicial review.

Taylor became the 201st person exonerated by DNA evidence in thiscountry. Harris County District Attorney Charles Rosenthal promptlyapologized to wrongfully convicted man.

I feel awful, the district attorney said. Nobody wants have an innocentperson wrongfully convicted and sent to prison.

Rosenthal vowed to apply as much pressure as possible to keep Carrollbehind bars as long possible. Scheduled for a 2010 goodtime release, the sexoffender could be held until 2019 without those benefits. Rosenthal hadmade it publicly clear that he is determined to see to it that this serial sexoffender does not receive any early release benefits. It is all the districtattorney can do because the five-year statute of limitation has expired on the1993 rape.

But hidden in the post-exoneration maneuvers in the Taylors case is arefusal to attach official accountability for the wrongful conviction. Thecrime lab serologist who testified at Taylors trial that no evidence of semenwas found on the sheet worked at the lab between 1993 and 1998. Thedistrict attorneys office should thoroughly investigate (1) whether theserologist even tested for semen and (2) if he did conduct those tests, what

procedures were employed. This review should also include the 180 cases inwhich Bromwich identified as problem cases handled by the crime labsserology department.

The district attorneys office should then conduct an in-house inquiry into

the actions of the prosecutor who handled the Taylor case. The initial policereport clearly stated that a wet spot was observed on the sheet where therape occurred. The prosecutor had access to that initial report. He knew

before the trial that the crime labs serologist would testify that no semenhad been found on the sheet. That lab finding should have triggered a redflag with the prosecutor. The wet spot was there two officers saw it, and

placed it in their report. It contained someones DNA. The prosecutor should


5/8

have thoroughly examined the lab report and questioned the serologist aboutthe testing methodology.

Second, the victim did not pick Taylor out of a physical lineup. Sheidentified him in the presence of a lone police officer who brought her avideotape of the actual lineup. At some point while viewing this videotapedlineup she suddenly remembers that her assailant had a missing tooth. Basedon media reports, it is assumed that this recollection came after she viewedTaylor and saw that he also had a missing tooth.

To say the least, the pretrial identification procedure employed by the policewas extremely suspect. The prosecutor had an ethical responsibility to makesure that the victims pretrial identification was untainted in any way,

particularly since there was no independent corroboration of her

identification of Taylor as the assailant.

The District Attorneys Office and the Texas Attorney Generals Officeshould propose to the Texas Legislature uniform eyewitness identification

procedures for all law enforcement agencies in the state. Texas would followthe lead of New Jersey and Minnesota in implementing such mandatoryuniform procedures that have built-in safeguards against mistakenidentifications.

Understanding that hindsight is always 20/20, the conduct of Taylors trialcounsel deserves scrutiny as it is instructive to all defense attorneys. Alldefense attorneys have relied upon the results of crime labs, which we nowknow are unreliable and untrustworthy by design or neglect. Either way, itis imperative that we all looks upon such results as extremely suspect.

Taylor professed his innocence. His family was staunch supporters of thatclaim of innocence.

Defense counsel could have moved the court for independent testing of the

wet spot on the sheet. Counsel had access to that initial police reportidentifying that wet spot. He should have known that the wet spot was

physical evidence which begged independent testing.

Defense counsel could have employed private investigators to determine ifthere had been other sex offenses committed in that particular neighborhood;or if any other sex offenders living in the area. Roosevelt Carroll lived in


6/8

that neighborhood, less than a mile from the Taylor residence. It was likelythat the assailant probably lived in the neighborhood.

Finally, defense counsel hopefully contacted the neighbor who told policethat she had seen Taylor in the vicinity prior to the rape. How did she knowTaylor? What motivated her to give his name to the police as a possiblesuspect? It was her statements to the police that provided the officers withprobable cause to arrest Taylor, and, to say the least, it was flimsy

probable cause. This probable cause issue should have been thoroughlyvetted by defense counsel.

Shelton Sparks was the attorney who handled Taylors appeal.

We had concerns from the beginning that this was a case of mistaken

identification, Sparks told the media following Taylors exoneration. Butwe did not pursue DNA testing, because we did not believe there was anyevidence to be tested based on the (HPD analysts) testimony at trial.

Hindsight is indeed 20/20 but there was evidence in the record. Two policeofficers observed a wet spot on the sheet. That was physical evidence. Theserologist testified at trial that no semen was found on the sheet. He did notsay the sheet had been destroyed at least there are no media reportsreflecting such testimony. The Innocence Project was able to locate the sheetin 2006 and have it tested. The Project clearly recognized the significance ofthe wet spot on that sheet.

The bottom line is that: that wet spot was critical evidence prior to trial,during the trial, and in the post-conviction appellate process. It sat idle insome evidence file for thirteen years before the Innocence Project secured itfor testing in 2006 and it did so because the serologist was either neglectfulor intentionally deceitful.

Ray Charles could have seen the myriad of problems associated with this

case from the beginning. Below are some of those problems:

The rape victim did not get a good look at her assailant.

The only light in her residence came from a street light across thestreet.

A nosey neighbor told police she saw Taylor in the vicinity prior tothe rape. What basis did she have for thinking or believing he was the


7/8

rapist? She was not a concerned citizen. She had to embellish herstatements in order to provide the police with probable cause forarrest. The mere fact that she saw Taylor in the vicinity, without more,was not sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest.

The police locked on Taylor and did not investigate for any other sexoffenders in the neighborhood. Why? The real rapist, RooseveltCarroll, lived less than a mile from Taylor. Why wasnt Carrollinvestigated by the police. Why didnt the police conduct a minimuminvestigation of other possible suspects before they arrested Taylor?Why didnt the police ask Taylor to voluntarily appear in a lineup

before arresting him? Taylor was arrested before the victim identified him. The victim did

not attend the physical lineup. The police videotaped a physical lineupthat included Taylor. This videotape was shown to the victim by a

lone police officer. Why were there no other witnesses? Did theofficer make any suggestive remarks to the victim to indicate Tayloras a suspect?

The victim remembered the assailant had a missing tooth during theshowing of the videotaped lineup. Did this sudden recollection occurafter she viewed Taylor? Was it pointed out to her by the lone policeofficer?

The initial police report cited the wet spot on the sheet. That wetspot should have been treated more seriously by both the prosecutionand the defense.

The serologists testimony that the sheet did not contain any semenshould have triggered prosecutorial concerns in light of the wet spotevidence.

The individuals charged with the official responsibility of investigating,prosecuting, and defending Ronald Gene Taylor did not by any stretch of theimagination carry out their professional duties and responsibilities in a

proper, adequate manner. It is interesting that the district attorneys officenow wants to do every thing it can to keep Roosevelt Carroll in prison,

particularly since it cannot prosecute him for the 1993 rape for which Taylorwas wrongfully convicted.

The State of Texas will pay Taylor $50,000 for each year he was wrongfullyimprisoned, a pittance for years of imprisonment as a convicted rapist.


8/8

It is cases like Ronald Gene Taylor, and at least two dozen others involvingDNA exonerations, that create the need for the Texas Legislature to createan Innocence Commission empowered with authority to investigate all casesinvolving potential wrongfully convicted persons. This would serve theinterests of the general public and the states judicial system. As the matternow stands, the taxpayer is simply saddled with a $50,000-a-year bill foreach wrongfully convicted year served by innocent persons. The taxpayer isentitled to more. The taxpayer should be publicly informed about who wasresponsible for a wrongful conviction as well as why and how it occurred.

An Innocence Commission would make these determinations following athorough investigation. The Commissions findings would be reported to theLegislature. These findings would provide a public accountability forwrongful criminal convictions that not only damage the innocent person but

undermine the very integrity of the states entire criminal justice system.

The real issue now is not how to exact greater punishment from RooseveltCarroll but how to prevent any more Ronald Gene Taylors.

10-09-07 another harris county convict exonerated

Documents