Lawyer: DNA clears man on death row since '83

Philly.com ^ | Monday, Jul 28, 2003 | Joann Loviglio (AP)

[Pan_Yans Wife]

DNA evidence proves that a man on death row since 1983 for rape and murder is innocent, a defense attorney said today.

Nicholas James Yarris, 42, of Philadelphia, who is on death row for the murder of Linda Mae Craig, 32, of Boothwyn, was convicted based on unreliable forensic evidence and witness testimony that put him at the scene of the crime, attorney Christina Swarns said.

Recently completed testing shows that Yarris' DNA did not match physical evidence left on the victim's clothing and under her fingernails, said Swarns, of the Federal Defender Association of Philadelphia. The association said that Yarris is the first person on death row in Pennsylvania to be cleared by DNA testing.

In the late 1980s, Yarris - who has maintained his innocence - became one of the first prisoners in Pennsylvania to demand DNA testing. Tests done in 1992 proved inconclusive.

After Yarris exhausted his appeals in the state courts, federal defenders took over the case and in 1997 demanded new tests, which were completed last week by a private lab in California, Swarns said. Each piece of evidence — gloves left in the victim’s car, the victim’s underwear and skin samples from under her fingernails — kept by the Delaware County District Attorneys Office, was retested and each piece excluded Yarris, Swarns said.

The Delaware County District Attorney's Office did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

A jury in July 1982 convicted Yarris, then 21, of first-degree murder, rape, kidnapping and robbery. Prosecutors had argued that Craig, who worked part-time at the Tri-State Shopping Mall in Claymont, Del., resembled a girlfriend of Yarris' who had jilted him.

He was sentenced to death in January 1983 and is on death row at the Graterford state prison.

Witnesses testified that Yarris stalked Craig - a married mother of three working part time at the mall to earn Christmas money - for 10 days, abducted her in her own car from the parking lot on Dec. 15, 1981, and drove her across the state line to Pennsylvania.

Her badly beaten body, with a half dozen stab wounds to the chest, was discovered the following day by children who were making a snowman in a church parking lot in Upper Chichester, Delaware County, not far from her home.

In 1985, Yarris dashed away from deputies, who had stopped to let him use a service station restroom, while being taken to a courthouse in Media for a hearing on an appeal of the murder conviction.

Amid a nationwide manhunt, he was picked up in a stolen car by Florida authorities 25 days after his escape.

[dogbyte12]

20 years on death row. Good thing they didn't zot him yet. We should actually be hearing less new cases, as better DNA science is being used in murder cases.

If there are people convicted in the early 80's, who aren't zotted yet, there might be a few left who are innocent.

[Pern]

The Delaware County District Attorney's Office did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Of course there is no comment, they already look incompetent.

I wonder if the DA that tried the case against this man feels any shame or remorse?

Doubt it.

[Paradox]

I have been slowly turning against the death penalty for this simple reason. Once meted out, its a punishment that cannot be taken away or remediated. I still think the truly evil people deserve to die, I am just not high on capital punishment. To me, the best thing would be for the intended victims of crimes to kill their assailants, but...

[randog]

I have been slowly turning against the death penalty for this simple reason.

I've always had reservations about the death penalty because overzealous DA's use it to propel their careers rather than administer justice. I think we'll be seeing fewer of these 'saved by the bell' cases now that DNA is used routinely in criminal cases. It does make me cringe, however, when I think about how many innocent people may have been killed in the past.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I too used to be staunchly pro-death penalty. But, as these cases have arisen, I began to wonder about those who were wrongly convicted and executed. As the poster "dogbyte12" points out, in the future, DNA may exonerate any of the innocent, and only the guilty will be executed. We shall have to see. In the meantime, I admit to remaining skeptical.

[cogitator]

I wonder if the DA that tried the case against this man feels any shame or remorse?

Should he/she? It's not the DA's job to weigh the merits of the case; that's the job for the jury (or the judge, if it's a bench trial). If the case comes to court, it's the job of the DA to present the best case possible and get a conviction. If anyone should feel shame or remorse, it would be a defense attorney or attorneys that didn't win the case for his client.

If a lot of DA's start second-guessing themselves, the effectiveness of law enforcement will be diminished.

[tracer]

The fact that the murder-for-hire industry is not booming today is a testament of the high level of civility that, surprisingly, still exists in this country.

I hope that I someday can sit on a jury in a trial concerning the well-deserved whacking of a corrupt and/or incompetent prosecutor, witnesses, and/or cops who caused an innocent person to be wrongly convicted of a major crime.

"Jury nullification" is a concept whose time has come in light of our still-decaying criminal "justice" system.......

[cogitator]

Minor follow-up along the same lines as my previous comment: you said, regarding the DA's office, "they already look incompetent".

They got a suspect and they got a conviction. That's competent. The police and the defense lawyers, on the other hand, didn't appear to be doing their job well.

[freeeee]

They got a suspect and they got a conviction. That's competent.

Your theory, while widely followed, is why the "justice" system is more accurately called the "legal" system by many.

[Pern]

If anyone should feel shame or remorse, it would be a defense attorney or attorneys that didn't win the case for his client.

Yes, we all know how competent and well funded the public defenders are.

If a lot of DA's start second-guessing themselves, the effectiveness of law enforcement will be diminished.

DA's need to second guess themselves, especially when a possibly innocent person is on trial. DA's no longer concern themselves with trivial matters such as innocence, they just want convictions to flaunt in public when they make a run for political office.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I would wager to guess that the DA would rather have had this information years ago, instead of today. After all, this means the culprit has been walking the streets for years.

[quant5]

Agreed on the "Legal" system. I live in a smaller town in Rochester, New Hampshire. Their is a new female prosecutor who is hell bent on sending every domestic violence case to prison. Rules are in this town: Your wife hits you, you restrain her, the cops come and arrest the male, the new prosecutor sends you to jail. All so she can get promoted. Oh yeah, I am one of those males and they add "no contact" orders so I cannot talk to my wife for four months while I wait to go to jail.

[Age of Reason]

I have been slowly turning against the death penalty for this simple reason. Once meted out, its a punishment that cannot be taken away or remediated.

You might as well turn against all punishments.

Nothing could remediate me for twenty-years in the slammer.

[paladinkc]

But on the other hand, if the death penalty were enforced within 6 months, 19 and a half years of who knows what kind of suffering inside a prison with degenerates that would do anything to you just for grins, it would have been far kinder to end his suffering, not to mention anyone else that is on death row and rotting there that is guilty would be setting the crispy critter example of what swift and sure justice can accomplish. No the system may not be perfect, but only by having punishment that has real teeth are we going to ever hope to reduce the crime rate. 3 strikes and your dead, drug dealers dead, rapist and murderers dead. do it in 6 months after conviction and 2 appeals at most and you would empty a lot of jail cells.

[Age of Reason]

Yet I'll bet that in most cases where someone was convicted of a crime he did not commit, he probably should have been in jail for life for other reasons to begin with.

For example, what if we learned that this fellow had ealier been paroled after serving five-years for raping and killing someone else, before being picked up and convicted for the one crime he didn't commit?

[freeeee]

Yet I'll bet that in most cases where someone was convicted of a crime he did not commit, he probably should have been in jail for life for other reasons to begin with.

I agree with you. This whole Due Process thing is just so tedious and out of date. It's just so 18th Century.

I think everyone is guilty of something, and everyone should go to jail or be executed. Well, all the people I don't like anyway. Now sing along:

Are there any queers in the theatre tonight
Get 'em up against the wall
And there's one in the spotlight he don't look right to me
Get 'em up against the wall
And that one looks Jewish and that one's a coon
Who let all this rif-raff into the room? There's one smoking a joint and another with spots
If I had my way, I'd have all of you shot

[olorin]

Are you saying this guy would have been better off if he had been executed as an innocent?

[berserker]

Jayne Yarris speaks about her son, Nicholas James Yarris, the first person on death row in Pennsylvania to be cleared by DNA testing, Monday, July 28, 2003, at a news conference in Philadelphia. Recently completed testing proves that Yarris, on death row since 1982 for rape and murder, is innocent, a defense attorney said Monday. (AP Photo/Sabina Louise Pierce)

[Age of Reason]

I agree with you. This whole Due Process thing is just so tedious and out of date. It's just so 18th Century.

Weeeeelllll, I have a surprise for you: Crime and punishment is not a matter of guilt and innocence.

Never has been.

Rather, it is a matter of whom a society believes should be punished according to the fashionable thinking of the time.

And that suffices in any century, without actual guilt or innocence every being proved--because such can never be proved.

LOL.

Perhaps two-centuries from now, peope will be clucking their tongues over the irrationality of our own time, for ever believing that our DNA tests were accurate.

[Age of Reason]

Are you saying this guy would have been better off if he had been executed as an innocent?

I'll answer that one: probably.

[freeeee]

Crime and punishment is not a matter of guilt and innocence. Never has been. Rather, it is a matter of whom a society believes should be punished according to the fashionable thinking of the time.

I think it would be a lot of fun if we were both on the same jury. It bet there wouldn't be a dull moment.

[Vesuvian]

Funny huh? Defense attorneys only like DNA evidence when it gets their clients off. If it stands to convict- "You can't trust it!!"

[Age of Reason]

Interesting, perhaps, but a thing to serious to be fun.

[olorin]

You and I must have different definitions of what it constitutes to be "better off."

[ColdSteelTalon]

Another case where the state is willing to see an inncocent man die to avoid embarassment.

I think a person who is convicted beyond a doubt should be executed but with the states being unwilling to seek the facts and the truth. I think we should abolish the death penalty.

three years ago I would not be making this kind of a statement.

[ColdSteelTalon]

And the innocent would die. I like the Biblical provision of having two direct witnesses for a death penalty conviction. We should re-institute it.

[cogitator]

Your theory, while widely followed, is why the "justice" system is more accurately called the "legal" system by many.

A cogent comment. You're right; not everyone gets what they deserve in this system, but (as the saying goes) it's pretty much preferable over any other system.

[cogitator]

I would wager to guess that the DA would rather have had this information years ago, instead of today. After all, this means the culprit has been walking the streets for years.

That's possible, but a lot of times it turns out that the culprit in one crime has been incarcerated for another. But you're right about wishing to have all of the evidence at trial.

[cogitator]

DA's need to second guess themselves, especially when a possibly innocent person is on trial. DA's no longer concern themselves with trivial matters such as innocence, they just want convictions to flaunt in public when they make a run for political office.

Yes, they should; I would hazard that many/most do not, which is a problem with the system.

As for the pay of public defenders (and their competence), well, you get what you pay for [which is another problem with the system].* However, I think that a lousy PD should still feel remorse if they did a half-baked job and lost a case they should have won, and the police should feel remorse if they didn't provide evidence to the defense that would have resulted in acquittal.

* the real problem with the system is when a death-row inmate can't get a retrial even in clear cases of defense attorney incompetence, which I believe was an aspect of a recent case in Texas.

[Iwo Jima]

Whenever I hear of a case like this, I immediately want the prosecutor, the judge, the jurors, and the witnesses who testified that they saw the accused at the scene to come forward and explain their role in allowing such a travesty to occur.

The jurors, I feel sure, would say that the evidence presented to them seemed so one-sided that they could not imagine that there could be another conclusion other than guilty. Now, when I think about being a juror, it is hard to imagine what evidence I would require to convict, knowing what we now know about how seemingly iron-clad evidence can later turn out to be flawed.

As to the witnesses, I think that they have a duty to explain how they came to testify that the person they swore was the person who did the crime has now been shown to have not been that person. I believe that the answer in most circumstances would implicate the police and the prosecution, in that I believe that most eye witness testimony is sound but that in these instances the witness has been told that the police "know" that the defendant is guilty but that they just need a good eyewitness to make the case. And so the witness obliges, naively thinking that the police would not tell them that the defendant was guilty if they did not know that for an absolute fact, and so their testifiying that the defendant was the person that they saw (when they really are not sure of that fact) couldn't really do any harm.

If that is not an explanation for why a witness put an innocent man on death row, then I'd like to know what is.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I think being on a jury is an awesome responsibility. And, I wonder if the average juror in America thinks that way, too. I wonder how many people truly take it seriously, and follow the rules accordingly. I would not necessarily want to serve on a jury, but I would do so, as my civic duty.

I have heard of witnesses firmly believing that their testimony was complete and accurate, who are later dismayed to learn that they were mistaken. This brings up the issue of "false memories", and I wonder how often this occurs.

[Farnham]

Yeah, I used to be a die hard death penalty fan because, in this state, it was the only way to make sure a predator NEVER got out.

Now days, I'm against it for the same reason as you, plus 2 others.

It takes $2 Mil to support a young crook the rest of his life (tops) and $10 million to go through all the appeals to kill him.

But the biggest reason is that if he lives to be old and weak in the prison system, he will get a taste of what it's like to be on the receiving end of a predator like himself. One who has no pity and doesn't care about anything except that he is too weak to defend himself. That's about as close as close as you can come to "an eye for an eye".

[Iwo Jima]

I once had a close friend who had been an assistant district attorney. She was very proud of the fact that she had never lost a jury trial as a prosecutor. I was impressed with her trial record until she told me about a trial she was forced to try by the DA in which she was convinced that the defendant had not done anything illegal.

She prosecuted that case just going through the motions, convinced that the jury would acquit, and was shocked when the jury convicted. She became very upset and was crying when she asked the jury how they could have convicted. They just looked at her like she was crazy and said bewilderingly "You told us to."

It was then that I began to believe that most jurors do not take their responsibities seriously in that they view their function as providing a verdict which the government needs to put someeone away whom the authorities have concluded is guilty. They do not see themselves as the sole means by which guilt or innocence is to be determined -- they just act as a rubber stamp to accomplish what the prosecution has determined should be done.

[supercat]

It takes $2 Mil to support a young crook the rest of his life (tops) and $10 million to go through all the appeals to kill him.

Do the appeals ever really do any good (i.e. lead to a discovery that the person didn't actually do the alleged crime)?

If not, why have them?

If so, why are those sentenced to die in prison after 60 years less entitled to them than those sentenced to die after 10?

[VOA]

Each piece of evidence — gloves left in the victim’s car, the victim’s underwear
and skin samples from under her fingernails — kept by the Delaware County District
Attorneys Office, was retested and each piece excluded Yarris, Swarns said.

There may be other info...but this doesn't PROVE Yarris innocent of being
party to the victim's abduction, rape and murder.

It just says that the gloves probably hadn't been worn by Yarris, he didn't rape her,
and if he killed her, he didn't get close enough for her to scratch him.

I know I'm playing devil's advocate...but the information here
doesn't say Yarris couldn't have abducted her, let an accomplice met at another
location do the actual rape, then murdered her while his accomplice held her down,
as the dying victim scrapes the accomplice.

I grant the case against Yarris is probably over and done...but his total innocence
may not be proved. Or even provable, without more info.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Your relaying your friend's experience is quite sobering. This highlights the assumption that the police and prosecutors only go after the guilty.

No juror should rely on the prosecution's case alone. Every juror should use their intelligence and perhaps their own sleuthing skills, to come up with their own opinion.

I would much rather think that the jurors struggled over their deliberations and put much thought and consideration into the accused's fate, especially when it comes to the death penalty.

Everyone says that the justice system is flawed, but it is the only system we have. Perhaps it always needs to be readjusted, and we are unaware of it's inadequacies... until we find ourselves standing before a jury and judge who will decide if we are guilty.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I grant the case against Yarris is probably over and done...but his total innocence may not be proved. Or even provable, without more info.

But isn't the standard to determine whether or not he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Hasn't reasonable doubt been proven? I am unaware of any standard where someone is proved innocent by these circumstances, only found not guilty. Isn't there a distinction in the law?

How often do jurors find the defendent innocent of the charges?

[Iwo Jima]

I understand what you are saying, but I think that the problem is with the inept way in which the article is written as opposed to the actual facts. Reading between the lines, I must conclude that the theory of the prosecution was that there was one and only one perpetrator, that the same man raped and murdered the victim, that this person left his semen behind and his tissue underneath the victim's fingernails, and that the items in question tied the defendant -- and ONLY the defendant--to the crime. Therefore, when it is proven that the semen, the tissue, and other items did not come from the accused, the entire theory of the prosecution falls apart so thoroughly that it cannot seriously be maintained that the defendant did either the rape or the murder.

While we might speculate that it is possible that another person did the rape and was scratched by the victim but that the defendant has not been proven to have been 100% innocent, that is a rather far-fetched theory for which there is no evidence. It is not for the defendant prove his innocence of any possible involvement in the crime but rather for the prosecution to prove his guilt OF THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST HIM. For what with which the defendant has been charged, he has been shown to be innocent.

[Fzob]

I have been slowly turning against the death penalty for this simple reason.

I sort of have a different take on this. I would like to see existing death row inmates tested if possible to confirm that justice was done. If it was not then fix it the best it can be fixed.

On the flip side when DNA evidence is convincing, the death sentence should be meted out quickly and with a very limited appeal process. If it such powerful evidence why not use it to ensure justice is done?

[Iwo Jima]

Please explain how DNA evidence could be so convincing that immediate execution would be warranted. Do you not consider that DNA evidence could be planted or that the prosecution witnesses could lie or be mistaken about what the DNA evidence shows?

While DNA evidence could be conclusive to disprove guilt based upon the prosecution's theory of the case, I cannot imagine any scenario in which the DNA evidence would be conclusive as to guilt.

[dark_lord]

what if we learned that this fellow had ealier been paroled after serving five-years for raping and killing someone else, before being picked up and convicted for the one crime he didn't commit?

Interesting "what if". On the other hand, he was convicted at the age of 21 for a crime committed 6 months before. Ergo if he had been paroled after serving 5 years for a previous rape-murder, then the previous crime would have been committed when he was 14 or 15. Why not just "what if" that he was a communist space alien?

[Age of Reason]

There have been plenty of cases where some guy was released because DNA seems to show he is innocent of that particular crime.

But based on his prior convictions, one wonders what he was ever doing out of jail to begin with.

[Fzob]

Please explain how DNA evidence could be so convincing that immediate execution would be warranted.

I don't believe I called for an immediate execution. I said lets limit the appeal process if convincing DNA evidence is used. Convincing evidence might be skin samples from the victim that is a DNA match to the perp. I can think of quite a few more but I think you get my drift.

Do you not consider that DNA evidence could be planted or that the prosecution witnesses could lie or be mistaken about what the DNA evidence shows?

That is of course a possibility. And seeing as I'm not calling for immediate execution, hopefully an appeal process will uncover these types of issues. My only real point is that for the ten guys on death row that may be innocent there are likely ten thousand that are guilty and should be executed. DNA evidence coupled with existing forensic science make for a more air tight case in some instances. If thats true, and I believe it is, lets use that knowledge to rid society of the killers.

I cannot imagine any scenario in which the DNA evidence would be conclusive as to guilt.

It's unlikely that any stand alone evidence meets that standard. Outside of catching it on video (maybe).

[Larry Lucido]

Of course there is no comment, they already look incompetent.

The 2003 staff is probably different than the 1983 staff. There is a lot of turnover in a DA's office. Why should the current staff rush to comment?

I wonder if the DA that tried the case against this man feels any shame or remorse?

Look him (her?) up and ask him. He is probably either retired or out doing criminal defense work.

If he handled the case honorably and presented the facts as he knew them to be to the jury, there is no reason to feel remorse or shame.

If he acted dishonorably in prosecuting the case, then he would probably have no capacity for shame in the first place.

[Iwo Jima]

My point is that DNA evidence is no more self-proving than fingerprint evidence, eye witness testimony, photographs, video, or anything else. It still requires a human being (more than one, in fact) to take the stand and testify "this is where we found the DNA, this is how we tested the DNA, this is what the DNA showed..."etc., etc. These witnesses could be liars or they could be mistaken or they could be telling the truth. The fact that it is "DNA" evidence does not render it sacrosanct, not subject to scrutiny or critical examination.

For example, in the travesty of justice which was the O.J. Simpson trial, in which a guilty man walked due to incomptetence and corruption of the prosecution, the jurors (the ones which I saw interviewed) believed that the DNA of the blood samples proved that the blood in question came from O.J., but they did not believe that the blood was found at the scene. They thought that the bloody glove was planted by the police, so that the fact that it was O.J.'s blood was meaningless. The operative three letters in their mind was not "DNA," but rather "HOW" -- HOW did the DNA get to the place where it seemed to implicate the accused?

This is why I say that DNA evidence -- standing alone--can prove innocence but is unlikely to prove guilt.

[Styria]

DNA evidence proves that a man on death row since 1983 for rape and murder is innocent, a defense attorney said today.

That's nice. But do you see this line anywhere? A judge said today.

[VOA]

I understand what you are saying, but I think that the problem is with the inept way
in which the article is written as opposed to the actual facts.

Oh, I wouldn't be shocked if that's the case.

(from Pan_Yans Wife)
I am unaware of any standard where someone is proved innocent by these circumstances,
only found not guilty. Isn't there a distinction in the law?

Yes, people rarely get any finding of "innocent" (I think I did hear once of
a person pressing a court for a finding of "innocent" because the lingering
doubts in the community of "not guilty" hadn't let them get on with their life.)

My real point (based on what the article did and didn't) say) was that
the door was still open on the possibility that the fellow had been a conspirator
in the crimes.
And that just because DNA may show a person has been wrongly convicted of being
the "main actor" in a crime...doesn't mean s/he wasn't an active "helper".

I'm all for the use of DNA technology...I wish the backlog could be pushed through faster.
And when I hear of distric attorneys and/or courts balking at allowing
(or obstructing) a convict's request for DNA testing in an old caee, my head starts aching.

The DNA testing should go forward post-haste, then the results be used judiciously.

As for this Yarris case, he should be out the door, with an eventual apology if further
investigation of the cold case shows incompetence put him in jail.
(And, as rare as it probably is, a cash settlement if legal fraud was perpetrated
by the DA or law enforcement.)