Here's a follow-up to a previous discussion. A strange twist, indeed.
washingtonpost.com
DNA Test Confirms Man's Guilt In '89 Rape
Inmate Won Analysis Under New Va. Law
By Brooke A. Masters
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 16, 2002; Page B01
James Harvey, the Fairfax inmate whose request for DNA testing generated national attention, has received his long-awaited laboratory results, and they confirm that he is guilty of the 1989 rape that put him in prison.
Harvey's case cast a spotlight on the issue of post-conviction DNA testing last year when a federal judge for the first time found that felons have a constitutional right to scientific analysis that could prove their innocence. That ruling was overturned, but Harvey won testing under a 2001 Virginia law that made such lab work widely available.
With yesterday's results, Harvey, 60, becomes the first person whose guilt was confirmed under the Virginia law. Hanover County resident Marvin Anderson was exonerated of a 1982 rape and is seeking a gubernatorial pardon, and the testing was inconclusive in a third case in Newport News.
Harvey's guilt did not surprise experts in DNA testing, including his attorney, Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project at Cardozo Law School in New York. About half of all conclusive post-conviction tests inculpate the inmate, rather than prove his innocence.
"DNA serves a very important public function by providing the best evidence there is whether someone is innocent," Neufeld said. "The state would have saved a great deal of time, effort and money had they consented to this test four years ago. . . . Justice prevails with this result."
Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. fought the testing in both federal and state court, arguing that such analysis would be useless in this case because two men were involved in the assault and the evidence showed that Harvey did not leave any genetic material behind.
Testing by the Virginia Division of Forensic Science proved otherwise, finding Harvey's DNA on evidence left over from the original crime, in which a woman was assaulted as she walked down Route 1.
"We always knew Harvey was a rapist. Now we know this man who claimed to be innocent is a liar," Horan said. "I was satisfied [with Harvey's guilt] from the beginning. That's why I opposed the waste of resources. . . . [The lab] could have spent the time on cases where the victims haven't had their day in court."
Harvey was sentenced to 25 years for rape and 15 for sodomy in 1990. He will be eligible for mandatory parole in 2010.
The Innocence Project became involved in the case after Harvey wrote to participants in the late 1990s, asking for help in obtaining DNA testing. The legal clinic first sought Horan's consent for the laboratory work and then filed suit after he turned them down.
U.S. District Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr. ordered the testing, but Horan appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel found that post-conviction DNA testing was a matter better left to state legislatures. But 4th Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig became the first appeals judge in the country to find that inmates do have a constitutional right to DNA testing that could exonerate them.
Since Harvey filed his lawsuit, lawmakers in Virginia, Maryland and the District have all passed laws giving felons access to testing. In November, Virginia voters will be asked to approve a constitutional amendment that would allow inmates to use exculpatory DNA results to seek a new trial. Now, they can only ask for pardons because of Virginia's deadlines for introducing new evidence after conviction.
Harvey's results combined with Anderson's show the Virginia law is "a great success," said Del. Brian J. Moran (D-Alexandria), an early sponsor of the legislation. "Our hope is that most convictions will be upheld by DNA. Even one exoneration is enough."
© 2002 The Washington Post Company |
