DNA Exonerates Man Jailed in 1984

Associated Press ^ | Sunday, July 28, 2002 | JIM SUHR

[Dog Gone]

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Preliminary DNA tests on evidence once believed destroyed has exonerated a man imprisoned in 1984 for raping a college student, a prosecutor said.

Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said she plans to file court papers to free Larry Johnson, 47, serving a life sentence plus 30 years for rape, sodomy, kidnapping and robbery.

``My heart just goes out to Mr. Johnson,'' said Joyce, who had no role in his conviction. ``Mr. Johnson has been horribly wronged. Absolutely, there is no way I can ever make this up to him.''

Joyce said Friday that the preliminary DNA results have been sent back to the same police crime lab for confirmation, though ``I'm confident the results are not going to change.''

Joyce also plans to ask St. Louis police to reopen the case involving the rape of a 20-year-old Saint Louis University student.

Johnson was in prison and not available for comment. His St. Louis attorney did not immediately return telephone messages.

Joyce said the rape victim, after being told of the DNA results clearing Johnson, was feeling ``a variety of emotions.''

Prosecutors had thought evidence from Johnson's case was destroyed but in February a pipe burst at the Municipal Courts building and workers found bags from Johnson's case that included a rape kit, Joyce said.

The victim had identified Johnson as her attacker and there was other circumstantial evidence that helped convict him, Joyce said.

Barry Scheck, co-founder of the New York-based Innocence Project, had pushed for the DNA tests. He did not immediately return telephone messages Saturday. The decade-old Innocence Project has used DNA testing to free more than 100 inmates nationwide.

A Missouri law, effective since August 2001, lets convicted rapists seek new DNA tests if the technology wasn't available at the time of their trial.

[Dog Gone]

I think Larry is entitled to be somewhat bitter.

[Larry Lucido]

Joyce said the rape victim, after being told of the DNA results clearing Johnson, was feeling ``a variety of emotions.''

Like, "Oops"?

[Dog Gone]

Or, "I wonder if Mr. Johnson would like to rearrange my face."

[umgud]

We need laws in every state to allow DNA tests for people convicted using evidence that wasn't originally tested for DNA, but this should only be allowed where this type of evidence was used to convict the person.

[GaConfed]

If prosecutors would concern themselves with getting to the truth of the matter instead of padding their conviction rates at the expense of people who can't afford the cost of justice in our justice system they wouldn't have this problem. DNA tests should be a given before every trial of this sort if they aren't already.

[Dog Gone]

If prosecutors would concern themselves with getting to the truth of the matter instead of padding their conviction rates at the expense of people who can't afford the cost of justice in our justice system they wouldn't have this problem.

I thought this story was ironic, since we just had a long thread complaining about defense attorneys who defend clients whom we believe are guilty.

[adversarial]

different sides of the same problem...isn't it?

[JudyB1938]

.

[lawdude]

different sides of the same problem...isn't it?

No. Both are attacks on a legal justice system which works better than any other. The perceived problem is LAW-YAHS. In truth, lawyers are merely the arbiters of the criminal justice system. When I defend a client, I ALWAYS tell him/her I can only deal with the facts as presented by the sides. I never make them up.

So when someone walks that we are sure is guilty (O.J.) we blame the lawyer. When someone is deemed guilty that is later shown innocent, we blame the lawyer.

I want everyone who takes these positions to sit down and come up with a better system.

Post your replies here.

Thanks

[adversarial]

how about a system that honestly seeks to find the truth...
not one that ries to "get their client off" or tries to "get a conviction?

I don't have to invent a new system to see there are problems with the system we have...and alot of those problems are do to lawyers and their dishonest practices of succsessfully defending the guilty and agressivly persuing the innocent.

We have child molesters returned to the streets who kill innocent children, and innocent men locked up for decades, and you try to say there isn't a problem?

[lawdude]

We have child molesters returned to the streets who kill innocent children, and innocent men locked up
for decades, and you try to say there isn't a problem?

I didn't say there wasn't a problem I only stated that most people blame lawyers when there is a verdict with which they do not agree.

Consider the jury pool. And I will say no more about that.

I know lawyers, both defense and prosecution that are less than perfect. Me too, probably, but not unethically. Most attorneys are competent and ethical. It is the few rotten apples that make life miserable for the rest of us. That is true in most professions (except journalism???).

[agitator]

The ultimate goal of Prostitutors is becoming Governor or at least face-time on Fox. The position is a political stepping-stone. Truth or justice has nothing to do with it. If a few people spend decades in jail for no good reason, they were just political contributors furthering a good cause.

[maxwell]

how about a system that honestly seeks to find the truth...

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Gad... I needed that... I think I busted an inseam...

[Dog Gone]

how about a system that honestly seeks to find the truth... not one that ries to "get their client off" or tries to "get a conviction?

Oh, you mean some sort of government inquisition?

[adversarial]

Whats so funny about an innocent man locked up for years for something he didn't do?
Or a sick predator let lose on the streets to kill innocent children?

[adversarial]

You object to locking up child molestors?
or do you supprt locking up innocent people?

[maxwell]

Whats so funny about an innocent man locked up for years for something he didn't do? Or a sick predator let lose on the streets to kill innocent children?

[sigh] It ain't that I find so damn funny, dude/dudette... It's the thought that the legal system in general could be motivated by any sort of good true aspiration. Sure there are some genuinely true-hearted lawyers, I believe that, and I believe in Santa Claus. No seriously, there are some lawyers here on FR, for example, that I'd trust with my life. I guess I have a more cynical (realistic?) view of the heart of mankind.

[Doe Eyes]

A man gets off on a technicality after nearly twenty years. When will Congress do something to limit appeals by criminals?

[adversarial]

(sigh) your cynical acceptance of injustice dosn't speak well of you, if it was your daughter murdered, or if it was you unjustly inprisoned you would be singing a different tune DUDE

[LouD]

but this should only be allowed where this type of evidence was used to convict the person

Why? If there is DNA evidence which exonerates someone convicted of the crime, why would it matter if the evidence were used in his first trial? In this case, the point is that DNA technology was not availble for the original trial.