Interrogation Based False Confessions

Anyone working to reverse a wrongful conviction stands a decent chance of having to deal with a false confession. Since few people can even imagine that they would confess to a crime they did not commit, a confession is deemed compelling evidence of guilty both during and after a trial.

I am working on such a case. Most recently I have drafted a thorough and comprehensive petition for absolute pardon. In that petition, I included a chapter discussing the problem of false confessions in general before turning to the false confession of the petitioner.

I include that chapter below, modified to remove the petitioner's identification. Hopefully, the post will provide useful background information for anyone wrestling with a false confession.

INTERROGATION BASED FALSE CONFESSIONS

There can be no doubt that false confessions occur with distressing frequency. The national Innocence Project reports that in 25% of all DNA exonerations, factually innocent defendants had made incriminating statements, pled guilty, or delivered outright confessions.

In 2003, Rob Warden studied the role of false confessions in Illinois homicide prosecutions since 1970. He found that 33% of the 42 people wrongfully convicted had falsely confessed.

In this post we will consider some of the empirical and experimental evidence that standard police interrogation techniques cause many people to confess to crimes they did not commit. We will briefly discuss three cases of false confession in Virginia that were later corrected by gubernatorial pardon. We will then briefly discuss three experiments that show such false confessions are unfortunately common and easy to extract.

The Norfolk Four
In 1997, four Navy service members confessed to the rape and murder of a woman in Norfolk Virginia. Despite recanting their confessions, and despite being excluded by crime scene DNA, each was found guilty. Three were sentenced to one or more life terms in prison. One was sentenced to 8.5 years.

A few years later, police matched the crime scene DNA against Omar Ballard, who was then serving time for an unrelated offense. Ballard confessed to the rape and murder, gave an accurate description of the physical evidence, and insisted he had acted alone. He added: "them four people that opened their mouths is stupid."

Though none of the Norfolk Four had ever mentioned Ballard, as they freely implicated others, the police changed their theory of the crime. Ballard was the ringleader but didn't want to implicate the others for fear of being labeled a snitch. The others were accomplices who didn't want to implicate Ballard because they feared him.

In 2005, three of the four petitioned Governor Mark Warner for clemency. Governor Warner did not rule on the petition, and Governor Tim Kaine then considered it. In 2009 Governor Kaine granted a conditional pardon to the three petitioners. In 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Richard L. William vacated the murder and rape convictions of Derek Tice, one of the Norfolk Four. In 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that ruling.

David Vasquez
In 1984, the nude body of Carolyn Jean Hamm was discovered in her basement of her Arlington, Virginia home. According to the police reports, she had been assaulted and raped before being hanged from a water pipe.

Two witnesses reported they had seen David Vasquez in the area around the time of the murder. The police escorted Vasquez to the police station and interrogated him. They lied to him about finding his fingerprints at the scene. They fed him information about details of the crime and encouraged him to restate them. They yelled at him when his answers did not conform to the details.

Finally, during his third interrogation session, Vasquez told the police he might have helped the victim "move something." Vasquez began speaking of a dream he had that paralleled the crime. The police recorded only the last 8 minutes of Vasquez' three interrogation sections. In that brief recording, David Vasquez recounted his "dream" of rape and murder.

The person who actually raped Carolyn Hamm was a secretor. That means that his blood type could be determined from his bodily fluids, including his semen. Forensic testing thereby excluded Vasquez as the contributor of the semen stains found at the scene and on the vaginal swabs. That fact, however, didn't cause the police to question the confession. They simply modified their theory to include an unidentified accomplice.

The existence of a hypothetical accomplice is so commonly used by police to buttress an otherwise untenable case that the hypothetical accomplice has become known as The Unindicted Co-Ejaculator. As we have seen, a hypothetical accomplice was employed in the case of the Norfolk Four.

Realizing that their client did not stand a chance at trial, given his confession, the Vasquez defense team accepted an Alford plea to avoid the capital murder charge. Vasquez was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

While Vasquez was serving his wrongful imprisonment, police investigations tied Terry Timothy Wilson Spencer to four eerily similar murders. Three of the murders had occurred in the months before Hamm's murder; one had been occurred after Vasquez was imprisoned. Though the DNA from the Hamm murder was insufficient to allow testing, given the technology at the time, the DNA from the other four murders proved Spencer to be the rapist in each of those cases.

In 1989, Governor Gerald Baliles pardoned David Vasquez. Regarding her support for the pardon, Commonwealth Attorney Helen Fahey said: "I think everyone involved tried to do the right thing. I think people should know that; that even when the system didn't work, people were doing their job and worked hard. It just didn't work."

Earl Washington, Jr.
No one argues that Earl Washington was a decent person. No one argues, not even Earl Washington himself, that he did not brutally beat and sexually assault 78-year-old Hazel Weeks. Washington broke into her house to steal the .22 caliber handgun she kept on top of her refrigerator. He planned to shoot his brother with that gun. By his own admission, Hazel Weeks was merely an unfortunate and helpless target of opportunity.

It is therefore not surprising that no one argues Earl Washington was a decent person. Earl Washington, however, was not guilty of the crime for which the Commonwealth nearly executed him.

During Washington's initial interrogation, he confessed to his crimes against Hazel Weeks. When he was soon thereafter questioned about a recent unsolved rape of a young woman, he confessed to that crime. When asked about the unsolved murder of Rebecca Lynn Williams, he confessed to that crime as well.

By the end of a series of interrogations, none of which were particularly aggressive, Earl Washington had confessed to three break-ins, two malicious woundings, one attempted rape, two actual rapes, two robberies, a burglary, and capital murder. Earl Washington confessed to every crime about which the police asked.

The police and prosecutor had plenty of reason to be suspicious of Washington's confessions. So inconsistent were they, so devoid of insight into the crimes, most were disallowed before trial. His confession regarding the murder of Rebecca Lynn Williams, however, was allowed to stand.

With respect to her murder, Washington had been unable to provide her race, her height, or the number of times she had been stabbed. He said he had stabbed her once or twice. She had in fact been stabbed 38 times.

Washington did not know where she lived, though she was killed in her own apartment. He did not know that her door was undamaged. He claimed to have kicked it in.

Washington did not know that her two children were with her at the time she was murdered. He did not know she had been raped.

The jury found Earl Washington guilty of capital murder, though there was no forensic or witness testimony to tie him to the crime. It is well established that juries find confessions compelling.

Nine days before his execution, Earl Washington, Jr. was granted a stay when his new defense team petitioned for a state writ of habeas corpus. While the petition was pending, the new defense team discovered a report showing that the Virginia Division of Forensic Science had analyzed semen stains on a blanket from the murder scene. The Commonwealth had dutifully provided that report to the defense, but Washington's trial lawyer had ignored it.

The report showed the semen at the crime scene came from a secretor, from someone with Type A blood. Neither Earl Washington nor the victim's husband had Type A blood. The Commonwealth agreed to subject the biological evidence to DNA testing. That testing confirmed that the stains could not have come from Earl Washington, Jr.

The testing was too late, however, to form the basis of any legal proceeding. Under the law at that time, new evidence had to be presented within 21 days of sentencing. Earl Washington therefore petitioned Governor Douglas Wilder for clemency. Governor Wilder commuted Washington's sentence to life imprisonment. Governor James Gilmore later granted Washington an absolute pardon. After almost eighteen years in prison, most of those spent on death row, Earl Washington finally walked free.

Experimental Evidence of Interrogation Induced False Confessions
In 1996, researchers Saul Kassin and Katherine Kiechel demonstrated that police interrogation techniques frequently cause subjects to falsely confess. More significantly, their experiment demonstrated that people could easily be convinced they are guilty, though they are not. Many of those persuaded of their guilt will confabulate events. They will imagine details to make sense of a false memory or belief.

In the experiment, 75 undergraduate students were asked to perform an alleged reaction-time test. The subject and a test confederate were seated across a table from the experimenter. The confederate read a list of letters and the subject typed them on the keyboard. The subject was specifically warned not to hit the ALT key, because doing so would cause the program to crash and data to be lost. After 60 seconds of testing, the computer seemingly crashed, and the experimenter accused the subject of hitting the ALT key.

Initially, all 75 test subjects denied guilt. Then, in approximately half the cases, the experimenter asked the confederate if she had witnessed the subject hitting the ALT key. By experimental design, the confederate always confirmed that she had witnessed the subject doing so, even though none of the subjects had. In other words, the confederate was there to provide false evidence of guilt.

In all cases, the experimenter then wrote a standardized confession: "I hit the 'ALT' key and caused the program to crash. Data were lost." The experimenter asked the subject to sign the confession, the consequence of which would be a phone call from the principal investigator. If the subject refused, the request was repeated a second time. Overall, 69% of the subjects signed the confession, though none had hit the forbidden key.

These results might be easily dismissed, since none of the subjects faced any serious consequence for falsely confessing to a relatively inconsequential act. Perhaps that is so. The more interesting portion of the test, however, remains to be described. We shall do that now.

The experimenter escorted the subject from the test area, leaving the confederate behind. In the reception area, the experimenter and the subject encountered the next subject to be tested. The next subject to be tested, however, was also a test confederate. The experimenter explained the test session would need to be rescheduled, then left the room to retrieve his appointment calendar. The second confederate then asked the actual test subject "What happened?" The discussions were surreptitiously recorded and later reviewed to see if any of the subjects had come to believe they were indeed responsible for what had happened.

Only unambiguous expressions of guilt were counted. Examples of unambiguous expressions not were "I hit the wrong button and ruined the program" and "I hit a button I wasn't supposed to."

Any expression prefaced with "he said" or "I may have" or "I think" was not counted as a false belief of guilt.

Overall, 28% of the subjects had somehow become wrongly convinced of their guilt during their brief, non-confrontational experience. Even though none of the test subjects had pressed the offending key, and even though none of them had been subjected to the rigors of a police interrogation, 69% of them confessed and 28% of them actually believed themselves to be guilty.

More startling still is the powerful effect of introducing false evidence into the interrogation. In one cohort of test subjects (those subjected to rapid reading of the questions and to false evidence of guilt), 100% of the subjects confessed and 65% of the subjects believed they were indeed guilty.

Clearly, lying to the subjects about the evidence stacked against them can lead to false confessions. It can also cause people to actually believe they committed a crime, though they did not.

One particularly troubling interrogation technique is to subject the suspect to a polygraph exam then tell him he failed though he did not. Even the National Research Council recognizes the risk of such a devious interrogation technique. In 2003, their Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph published The Polygraph and Lie Detection. From that report, we find:

False confessions are more common than sometimes believed, and standard interrogation techniques designed to elicit confessions -- including the use of false claims that the investigators have definitive evidence of the examinee’s guilt -- do elicit false confessions. There is some evidence that interrogation focused on a false positive polygraph response can lead to false confessions. In one study, 17 percent of respondents who were shown their strong response on a bogus polygraph to a question about a minor theft they did not commit subsequently admitted the theft.

There is still more to be learned from the experiment, beyond the fact that people can be easily prompted to falsely confess, and the fact that many innocent people actually come to believe their guilt. After the experiment was over, the experimenter brought all the subjects back to the lab. He reread the list of letters they had all been asked to type. He asked them if they could reconstruct how or when they hit the ALT key. It was at this point that the experimenters observed evidence of confabulation. Responses showing confabulation were similar to "Yes, here, I hit it with the side of my right hand when you called out the "A."

Overall, 9% of the subjects confabulated details to support their belief that they had caused the computer to crash and data to be lost. The cohort subjected to false evidence of their guilt (and a rapid reading of the letters) confabulated at a much higher rate: 35% of that cohort confabulated details of how they had caused the computer to crash.

Experimental Confirmation of Interrogation Induced False Confessions
In 2003, Robert Horselenberg (and two others) reported that they had effectively replicated the findings just discussed. Horselenberg modified the test such that the experimenter himself claimed to have witnessed the subject hit the forbidden key. In Horselenberg's experiments, all subjects were given false evidence of their guilt.

Horselenberg also increased the cost of a false confession. Anyone who confessed would lose 80% of the fee they were to be paid for their participation in the test.

Despite the increased penalty for confessing, a greater percentage of subjects falsely confessed in Horselenberg's experiment (82%) compared to Kassin's experiment (69%). Also a greater percentage were actually convinced of their guilt after Horselenberg's experiment (42%) compared to those subjected to Kassin's experiment (35%).

Maximization and Minimization Techniques
Lying about incriminating evidence is one many techniques broadly classified as maximization techniques. Other maximization techniques include dismissing the subject's claims of innocence, assuring him instead of his conviction, stressing that no one believes him now and no one will believe him at trial, and implying the penalty will be severe unless he confesses.

At the other end of the interrogation spectrum is a cluster of tactics classified as minimization techniques. These techniques include minimizing the subject's role in the alleged crime, empathizing with him, convincing him the interrogator is interested only in helping him, and implying that the penalty will be minimized if he confesses.

The psychologically based maximization and minimization techniques have replaced the physically based strong-arm techniques of long ago. Implicit threats and promises have now replaced the explicit threats and promises now forbidden by court rulings.

It turns out to be unnecessary to beat a subject, or explicitly threaten him, to extract a confession. Playing with the subject's mind has proved to be just as effective. The new techniques do not seemingly need to be applied with any particular finesse to be effective. Apparently, they need only be applied with persistence and in generous portions.

Maximization and minimization techniques are well established and widely taught. By far the most influential and practical manual at the time was Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, by Inbau, Reid, and Buckley. The book was originally published in 1967. The fourth edition was published in 2001. According to the fourth edition, hundreds of thousands of investigators had already received training in the techniques presented therein. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited the book.

Just this year, in 2011, Allyson Horgan (and three others) reported that they were able to easily extract false confessions using maximization and minimization techniques. In their experiment, undergraduate subjects and confederates were paired, instructed to work together on some tasks and work independently on others. The confederate at some point asked the subject for assistance on a task to be solved independently, thereby giving the subject the opportunity to cheat by helping.

Some subjects cheated, some did not. This experimental arrangement allowed the experimenters to compare the rate of true and false confessions.

In each case, the experimenter accused the subject of cheating, whether they had or not. The experimenter stated that the supervising professor had been notified, was irritated, and might consider the incident to constitute academic dishonesty. The subject was asked to sign a statement admitting their participation in the cheating incident.

With respect to false confessions, the result of Horgan's experiment should no longer be surprising. Of those students subjected to standard maximization and minimization techniques, 42% of those who did not cheat confessed they had.

What is new and revealing about Horgan's experiment is the ratio of false confessions to true confessions. Use of standard maximization and minimization techniques caused one false confession for every two true confessions.

Horgan, however, also subjected a different cohort of subjects to modified maximization and minimization techniques. The modified techniques excluded implicit threats of severe punishment and explicit promises of leniency. The modified minimization relied more heavily on sympathy, flattery, and appeal to conscience; the modified maximization relied more heavily on an unfriendly attitude and a firm belief in the subject's guilt.

Surprisingly, the modified techniques resulted in both a higher rate of true confessions and a lower rate of false confessions. The ratio of true-to-false confessions rose from 2-to-1 to nearly 5-to-1.

Coupled with the earlier experiments of Kassin and Horselenberg, Horgan's experiment adds to a substantial body of work that shows false confessions are easily induced. False confessions are particularly easy to induce when the subjects are presented with false evidence of their guilt, implicitly threatened with dire consequences if they do not confess, and implicitly offered leniency in return for confessions.

America's Executioner: Epilogue

I have finished writing America's Executioner: Rick Perry's Betrayal of Executive Clemency. It's substantially longer than I anticipated. At 70,000 words, it is only 3,000 words shorter than The Trial of Cory Maye.

The Skeptical Spouse is 80% of her way through the final edit cycle. She has also created a beautiful cover consisting of sparse, red words over a faded, historical map of southeast Texas. It's a disappointment that I'll not see the cover in print.

Despite the long hours, despite all that I have ignored while working on it, I've decided not to publish the book. The reason is quite simple. The book is not good enough.

The book is too dry. It is overly detailed. It is difficult to read. I don't think it will further the cause of those wrongfully convicted. I'm unhappy with it.

I simply failed to write a good book. Surprisingly, I'm at peace with that. I'll catch up on some matters too long ignored, I'll pay more attention to this blog, then I'll try again to write a good book.  

The Impending Execution of Gary Welch

Gary Roland Welch sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Oklahoma on 5 January 2012. He was convicted, along with Claudi Conover, of murdering Robert Hardcastle. I provide a summary of the case extracted from Welch v. Workman (2011).

Welch and his co-defendant, Claudie Conover, were charged with murdering Robert Hardcastle on August 25, 1994. At around 4:00 p.m. that day, Welch and Conover drove to the home of Johnny Rogers. Stephen St. John, Rogers' brother-in-law, testified he was present when they arrived. St. John saw his brother-in-law walk to Welch's car and heard Welch ask for a “bump” (a drug injection). When Rogers said he had none, Welch got out of the car and, pointing a knife at Rogers, said “Give me a god damned bump!” Welch turned the knife on St. John and told him to “look the other way.” Welch continued to demand drugs until Conover patted him on the back and said “let's get out of here.”

Approximately one hour later, Conover appeared at Larry Davis' home located in a duplex owned by Hardcastle. Davis and his wife lived in the front part of the duplex while Hardcastle resided in the back. Davis testified his friend was cooking dinner and Conover accepted an invitation to join them. Davis noticed a car parked toward the back, but saw only Conover at the time.

At some point, Davis went into the kitchen to help cook. While there, he heard banging noises coming from Hardcastle's residence. When he returned to the living room, Davis said he “wondered if [Hardcastle] was winning his wrestling match.” Conover jokingly replied, “I wouldn't worry about it. Somebody's probably getting a spanking over a deal.” A few minutes later, Davis heard his living room window break. Turning, he saw Hardcastle running by the window yelling, “I don't have any” or “I didn't do it.” Hardcastle then ran to Davis' porch; there was blood on his hands, forearms, face and bare chest. Both Conover and Davis went towards the door but when Conover went out first, Davis shut the door and returned to his distraught wife.

Patricia and Donnie Nading testified they were driving their children to football practice when, in Patricia's words, they “noticed a commotion at the side of the road.” They saw three men run across the street in front of them. As the Nadings pulled even with the men, they saw Hardcastle crouched in a fetal position in the roadside ditch while Conover punched him and Welch stabbed and punched him. The Nadings pulled up to the next house and Donnie used the neighbor's telephone to call the police. While on the telephone, he spoke from a window with an unobstructed view of the activity. He saw the men continue to beat Hardcastle, as another car stopped and backed up toward the fracas. He saw Conover leave the victim and stride to the car. Banging on the back window and screaming profanities, Conover told the driver to leave. In the meantime, Welch continued to stab Hardcastle until, at one point, Welch left to retrieve a beer bottle five to seven feet away. Welch smashed the bottle and used it to stab and slash at Hardcastle.

While Conover was yelling at the first driver, a second car pulled up driven by Rachelle Campbell. She saw Conover leave the first car and run toward a nearby house. The next thing she knew, a car pulled out and stopped to pick up Welch. Conover was driving; he drove the car toward her at a high speed, causing her to back into a ditch to avoid a collision. As the car drove by, Conover yelled profanities and told her to get out of the way. As the two men drove away, Campbell saw Hardcastle, covered with blood, come out of the ditch.

Officer Jim Gambill was the first officer to arrive at the scene. He had known Hardcastle since they were children. Hardcastle said, “Jim, Gary Welch did this shit to me.” He then asked for water and collapsed. Gambill radioed the ambulance and asked the paramedics to hurry, then radioed in to report Welch as a suspect. Hardcastle died a few minutes later.

As they made their escape, Welch and Conover were seen by an officer who testified the car and its occupants matched the descriptions provided over the radio dispatch. Because the officer was in an unmarked car, he called for a marked backup and followed them. When the backup arrived, the officers stopped the car and arrested Welch and Conover. The officers then retrieved a broken knife which had been thrown out of the vehicle prior to its stop. At booking, a knife scabbard was taken from Welch's belt and another knife was found in the car. Welch had sustained a wound which totally penetrated his left forearm but he refused treatment that night. At one point he passed out in his cell. The next day, Welch was transferred to the hospital where he underwent surgery on the wound.

A search of Hardcastle's duplex revealed a major fight had taken place in the kitchen and inside the front door. The autopsy report stated Hardcastle bled to death after receiving at least ten stab wounds, three of which penetrated his lungs, and numerous incision (slice) wounds. Some of the wounds were consistent with the broken knife thrown from the vehicle and the superficial wounds were consistent with those caused by a broken beer bottle.

At trial, Welch testified he fought Hardcastle in self-defense. He explained that two weeks before the incident Hardcastle, who knew Welch did “skin illustrations,” had spoken to him about getting a tattoo. Welch decided to visit with Hardcastle about the tattoo while Conover visited with Davis. According to Welch, he and Hardcastle had a pleasant visit until Hardcastle asked Welch to show him the knife he was carrying. When Welch handed Hardcastle the knife, Hardcastle opened it and began to clean his fingernails. Then Hardcastle's attitude abruptly changed. Welch stated that Hardcastle held the knife in a threatening way and said “you've been stepping on my old lady's toes,” but he had no idea what Hardcastle was talking about. Hardcastle then thrust the knife at Welch, wounding him in his left arm as he raised it to protect himself.

Welch claimed they began to fight while Hardcastle repeatedly tried to stab him. As Welch attempted to defend himself, Hardcastle eventually “went down” while still holding the knife. Welch escaped through the front door and hid behind the cars in the driveway. Hardcastle came out of the house and ran to the front duplex. Seeing Conover come out on the porch, Welch revealed his position and called to Conover for assistance. Hardcastle ran towards Welch, who fled across the street and then, in his own words, “turned, you know, to face the problem.”

Obviously rejecting Welch's account of the situation, the jury found him guilty of first degree murder.

I find there is no reasonable possibility that Gary Welch is factually innocent of the murder of Robert Hardcastle. Regarding his execution, I therefore stand mute.

Addendum
Gary Welch has been executed by the people of Oklahoma.

Innocent on Texas Death Row

While working on my not-quite-ready-for-primetime book on Rick Perry, I ran each of the people on Texas death row through my coarse filter. Of the 300+ cases I reviewed, I found 23 that I think have a reasonable possibility of being factually innocent. I've listed the 23 below, in order of their last name. I've included with each a one-paragraph summary of the case.

In addition to Larry Swearingen and Hank Skinner, of whom I have written extensively, three cases struck me as particularly interesting.

The Delma Banks case has elements of both Byron Case and Larry Swearingen. The time of death indicators (which I understand because of my work with Byron Case) prove that Delma Banks could not have committed the crime. In both the Banks and Swearingen cases, the state provided the defendant an alibi. In Swearingen's case, the State had him in jail when the science said the victim died. In the Banks case, the State's own informants placed Banks far from the crime scene when the science said the victim died.

The Darlie Routier case struck me as more interesting this time around. I've read about it before, but was generally unpersuaded by her claims of innocence. However, I listened this time to the call she placed to 911. I'm not claiming that someone can't fake a such a call, though the Melendez brothers couldn't. And I'm not claiming that I could detect a good fake. Listening to the call, however, tended to make me believe her more than I had previously. You can listen to the call here.

Also, with respect to Routier, I now notice a claim that (at least some of) the state investigators took the Fifth during their cross-examination by Routier's attorneys. That makes me suspicious as hell since the case against her consists of inconsistencies between her story and the evidence as compiled and told by the investigators. I need to know a lot more about Routier's case before taking a firm position, but I admit to being more curious now.

The third case of particular interest to me at the moment is Preston Hughes III. A reader took me up on my request that one of you look into that case, and he has delivered a first draft of his findings. We both agree he has more work to do, but that is another interesting case.

Without further ado, I present my list of 23 people on Texas death row who I believe might be factually innocent.

Delma Banks, Jr.
Based on the victim's state of rigor and the victim's lack of corneal cloudiness, the victim in this case was murdered when Delma Banks was 180 miles away from the crime scene. The State simply failed to attribute any significance to the time-of-death indicators.

Lester Leroy Bower
Lester Bower is accused of killing four people, execution-style, in an aircraft hanger. There were no fingerprints, no witnesses, no murder weapon, and no confession to place him at scene of the crime. Four alternative suspects were identified post-conviction by an ex-girlfriend of one of them. Bower's defense has been attempting secure evidence from the State to see if items from crime scene include DNA from any of the alternative suspects.

Alfred Dewayne Brown

Brown is accused of being the third culprit in a store robbery that led to the death of two police officers. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of an accomplice who escaped the death penalty for his testimony. The accomplice testimony was corroborated by a jailhouse snitch who was released almost immediately after claiming Brown had confessed to her.  [UPDATE: Exculpatory evidence has recently been discovered in the garage of one of the homicide investigators who investigated the case.]

David Lynn Carpenter

Carpenter was accused of slashing a woman's throat for hire. He was convicted based on the testimony of his ex-girlfriend and a tainted photo lineup conducted seven years after the crime.

Cesar Fierro

Cesar Fierro was accused of murdering a cab driver in the border town of El Paso. He was convicted based primarily on his confession. To force Fierro to confess, the El Paso police coordinated with the police in Juarez, Mexico. The Juarez police took Fierro's parents into custody and threatened to torture them unless Fierro confessed. The appellate courts agreed that Fierro's confession was extracted by threats of torture, but declared the police behavior to be a harmless error.

Charles Don Flores

Flores was accused of killing an elderly woman during a home invasion robbery. He was convicted based on purchased testimony and on a photo lineup ID made by a woman. The woman could identify Flores only after being subjected to hypnosis.

Tony Egbuna Ford

Ford was accused of committing murder during a home invasion robbery. He was convicted based on being selected from a photo line-up by two surviving victims of the attack. Ford concedes he drove the two brothers to the crime scene, not knowing of their plans to harm anyone. Ford looks remarkably like the brother who was not charged in the case.

Cathy Lynn Henderson
Henderson was accused of murdering a 3-month-old she was babysitting. She was convicted based on testimony that the fatal injury could not have occurred by inadvertently dropping the baby on its head, as Henderson claimed. That expert later recanted his testimony, citing “a greater understanding of pediatric head trauma and the extent of the injuries that can occur in infants.”

Preston Hughes, III

Hughes was accused of murdering a young woman and her younger cousin during an attempted rape. Though no physical evidence tied him to the crime, he was convicted based on the strength of two confessions. Hughes claims each of the confessions were coerced. Given that each of the confessions contradicts the other, Hughes has a prima facie case that at least one of his confessions is false.

William Irvan

Irvan was accused of murdering his lover. He was convicted based on the presence of his sperm and the testimony of a snitch. Bloody fingerprints found at the crime scene, however, did not belong to him or the victim.

George Edward McFarland

McFarland was accused of murdering a store owner during a substantial cash transfer. No physical evidence tied him to the crime. None of his alleged accomplices testified against him or were even charged. He was convicted solely on the testimony of an eyewitness and a nephew. The eyewitness initially described the shooter as someone substantially shorter and lighter than McFarland. The nephew, who testified only that his uncle had lots of money after the murder, received a crime-stoppers reward and leniency for his own robbery case. After the trial, the nephew recanted his testimony.

Anthony Shawn Medina

Medina was accused of being the shooter in a drive-by shooting in which two children were killed. Though his fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon or in the car used for the crime, he was convicted based on the testimony of four witnesses.

Pablo Melendez, Jr.

Melendez was accused of shooting a man waiting for a drug drop. He was convicted based on the testimony of fellow gang member whose brother matched the description given by a witness to the shooting. A photo of Melendez, not shown during the guilt phase of Melendez' trial, shows that Melendez in no way matched the description of the shooter.

Louis Castro Perez

Perez was accused of killing two women and a girl. He was convicted based on his bloody palm print at the crime scene, scratches on his body, and his DNA under the fingernails of the girl. Perez admits to being at scene, discovering the bodies and fleeing due to fear of being accused. Perez claims the girl scratched him as he cradled her in his arms. Other DNA evidence at the scene points to someone other than Perez.

Charles Douglas Raby

Raby was accused of stabbing an elderly woman 15 times. No physical evidence tied him to the crime. He was convicted based on a false confession and shoddy work by the infamous Houston PD crime lab. Post-trial DNA testing of the victim's fingernail scrapings excluded Raby as her assailant.

Rodney Reed

Reed was accused of killing a woman after raping her. He was convicted based on the presence of his semen in her body and based on a previous denial that he knew her. After his arrest, Reed claimed he and the victim had been having an affair. Other DNA evidence withheld from the defense tended to exclude Reed as the killer. Evidence developed post trial points to the victim's husband as the killer.

Darlie Lynn Routier

Routier was accused of killing her children and staging a home invasion to cover the crime. She was convicted because the crime scene evidence allegedly contradicted her version of events. The investigators, however, invoked their Fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination when they were cross-examined by Routier's attorney. Post-trial, a fingerprint expert identified a bloody fingerprint from the scene as belonging to an unknown adult. Also post-trial, Darlie's husband conceded he searched for someone to burglarize the house so that he could benefit from an insurance scam.

Henry Watkins Skinner
Skinner was accused of murdering his live-in girlfriend and her two grown children. He was convicted based on his presence at the scene at the time of the murder and based on the inculpatory statements of a neighbor. Skinner has always maintained he was too intoxicated to have committed the murders. Bloody bootprints and a hand print at the scene point to an assailant other than Skinner. Post-trial investigations identified the girlfriend's uncle as a viable alternative suspect. Post-trial DNA testing of hairs clutched in the girlfriend's hand excluded Skinner. The State refuses to allow testing of other DNA evidence.

Max Soffar

Soffar is accused of killing three youths in a bowling alley. He was convicted based on multiple, nonsensical confessions. After his trial, a serial murderer imprisoned in Tennessee for killing seven people was identified by a witness as the man who had threatened to shoot people the bowling alley, on the very day of the shooting. The serial murderer had previously been in Texas.

Larry Ray Swearingen
Swearingen was accused of murdering a female college student. Her body was found more than three weeks later in a nearby forest. He had been in jail for three weeks before her body was discovered. He was convicted based on incriminating evidence found in or near his home, and because the medical examiner testified the victim died on the same day she disappeared. Multiple pathologists later determined that the victim died within days of her body being discovered. The medical examiner recanted her testimony regarding the date of death. Larry Swearingen, as it turns out, had been in jail for three weeks before the victim was murdered.

Manuel Velez

Velez was accused of killing the one-year-old son of his live-in girlfriend by striking the boy in the head. He was convicted based on the testimony of the girlfriend who said Velez was alone with the baby when the baby was injured. The State withheld from the defense that the girlfriend had already pled guilty to striking the boy in the head on the day he died.

Jorge Villanueva

Villanueva was accused of strangling and bludgeoning his 77-year-old female neighbor. He was convicted based on an allegedly coerced confession and more shoddy work by the Houston PD crime lab. Post-trial testing has revealed that the DNA results used to convict Villanueva would also have matched 136,000 other people in the county as well. His defense is attempting to conduct DNA testing on two pubic hairs found at the crime scene that were dissimilar from those of both the victim and Villanueva.

David Leonard Wood

Wood was accused of killing six women and burying them in the desert around El Paso. He was convicted based on the testimony of three snitches, a ball of orange fibers, and the testimony of a woman who claims he tried to rape and murder her in a similar fashion to the others. Wood's DNA was not found on any of the victims. The DNA of an unknown person, however, was found on at least one of the victims. A post-trial witness claimed the near-victim who testified against Wood lied in exchange for reduced sentencing for another crime. The same post-trial witness provided the name of a viable alternate culprit

The Skeptical Juror Is More Influential Than Barack Obama

At least according to GQ Magazine.

This adds to my ever growing list of accomplishments / endorsements. Though it is clearly bragging, I must point out that previously I have:

• Scooped the NY Times
• Been referenced in a NY Times editorial
• Been juxtaposed against Ann Coulter

I must admit, however, that this is the biggest, most surprising achievement yet. To be intentionally excluded from the GQ Magazine list of least significant people, while President Barack Obama is intentionally included, is an honor only a select few can hope to achieve.

I want to thank my wife, my parents, and both readers of this influential blog.