ILNews

Clinic argues for man's innocence

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Justice in Question

A large number of the wrongful-conviction cases in recent years have involved DNA evidence that wasn’t available at the time of a crime. Once that testing technology became possible, those who’d been convicted started turning to the method to prove the innocence they’d maintained all along. In one Indiana man’s case, the DNA evidence excluded him, but a lesser caliber category of forensics was introduced as evidence. Now, convicted felon Roosevelt Glenn said that serology used at his trial was a contributing factor in his being wrongfully convicted and spending the past 16 years behind bars.

He is now being assisted by the wrongful-conviction clinic at Indiana University School of Law Indianapolis, and the Indiana Supreme Court is considering whether to accept his post-conviction case on an issue his attorneys and some nationally say is an important question of law relating to wrongful convictions.

Fran Watson“This case is the ideal vehicle to correct an erroneous determination and to set forth the appropriate test for granting a new trial under Indiana’s remedial DNA statute,” wrote Indianapolis attorney Stacy Uliana in an amicus curiae brief submitted by the pro bono Innocence Network, a group of organizations committed to investigating and advocating on wrongful conviction cases. “Sections 8 and 19 of the Indiana DNA statute affirm a petitioner’s statutory right to a new trial once he demonstrates a ‘reasonable probability’  not a certainty  that a jury considering the evidence as it stands today would fail to convict him. Glenn has amply surmounted that barrier, (and he) seeks the opportunity for a new, fair trial where the remaining evidence against him must stand alone, not false corroboration by discredited science.”

After a mistrial in 1992 resulting from a hung jury, Glenn was convicted in March 1993 on a Class A felony rape count arising from a series of Lake County gang rapes and robberies that happened between 1989 and 1990. Five people were allegedly involved and police ultimately looked at Glenn and some of his co-workers, though the state dismissed charges against some of them. He received a 36-year prison sentence, which was later upheld on appeal.

At the time of the trial, Glenn was a 27-year-old married father without a criminal history. His initial appeal failed, but after a decade in prison he filed a claim based on post-conviction DNA evidence allowed by Indiana’s new DNA statute that went into effect July 1, 2001.

His post-conviction appeal argued that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered material evidence: that a hair strand the state had used to convict him at trial wasn’t his and that the serology shouldn’t have been used after post-conviction DNA testing excluded him from being a contributor in the crimes. He also argued his counsel wasn’t effective because those issues weren’t raised more forcefully at trial. However, Glenn’s post-conviction claims didn’t result in a reversal, and in its April 2009 unpublished decision the Court of Appeals wrote that the circumstantial evidence used in the case, considered as a whole, was sufficient and probably wouldn’t lead to a different result on retrial.
In the pending petition for transfer, attorney and law professor Fran Watson, who leads the law school’s wrongful conviction clinic, argues that the court has a chance to review this case and set a standard for how these issues are addressed in the face of growing exonerations and wrongful-conviction findings nationally.

The simple fact is“At their core, the three issues revolve around the State’s use of invalid science to secure a conviction,” Watson wrote, citing two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that touched on science and wrongful convictions. “Both, highlight the fact that the State’s use of invalid science is a systematic problem from which unfortunately, as this case reflects, Indiana is not immune.”

Watson said the ultimate question in this case is whether DNA trumps serology, and it’s that on which she hopes to get the Supreme Court to accept transfer.

According to the New York-based Innocence Project, which accepts cases nationally and is affiliated with the Cardozo School of Law, serology was the only way prior to DNA testing to help identify the source of blood, semen, or other body fluids found at a crime scene. Forensic analysts were able to use serology to determine what blood type was present in fluids collected in a rape kit or on a crime victim. Wrongful-conviction cases and exonerations in the past decade show that analysts sometimes have failed to recognize nuances in the forensics that make it impossible to truly know the blood type of the perpetrator, or resulting in analysts providing inaccurate statistics for the percentage of the population who share the perpetrator’s blood type.

“The simple fact is that knowledge increases, and we’re going to find that more and more cases at the post-conviction relief level that need scrutiny because of this new knowledge,” Watson said. “It’s not a situation where anyone was falsifying evidence or misleading the court, it’s just what the experts believed was valid at the time. Now, we know that’s wrong.”

Responding to the Indianapolis law school’s transfer petition, Zachary Stock, Indiana deputy attorney general, contends the justices should deny transfer because the Court of Appeals applied existing law in its unpublished opinion to determine that newly discovered evidence probably wouldn’t produce a different result at a jury trial. The response also notes that the alleged due-process issue is procedurally defaulted and that Glenn hasn’t stated any reason why an ineffective assistance of counsel claim warrants transfer.

“The forensic science presented in a trial can be wrong, but it does not necessarily follow that the conviction following that presentation is also wrongful,” the brief states.

Whether Glenn, now 47, gets the ear of Indiana’s justices remains to be seen. The court started considering his request Aug. 27, but a decision hadn’t been made by deadline for this story.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  4. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  5. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

ADVERTISEMENT