How many innocents executed?

Is there a website that lists the number of those executed and later found innocent through DNA testing?

That is, nobody has ever been executed and subsequently been found innocent via DNA. There have been some very close calls though:

Frank Lee Smith was sentenced to death in Florida in 1986 for the murder and rape of an eight year old girl during an attempted burglary. His conviction was based on the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s mother, who claimed to have seen Smith through the front window of her house. Two neighbors also claimed to have seen Smith directly following the incident and their reports were used to compile a composite sketch which was used to arrest Smith. The testimony of these eyewitnesses, as well as the presentation of Smith’s criminal record, earned Smith the death sentence by a unanimous jury. Smith was granted a stay of execution in 1990 and the Florida Supreme Court ordered an evidentiary hearing in 1998, based on defense claims of new evidence. One of the eyewitnesses had changed her story, and an investigation by the defense had led to another suspect. In January of 2000, while the renewed investigation continued to take place, Smith died of cancer, still on death row. It was not until December of that year that prosecutors and the FBI obtained DNA evidence that exonerated Smith of the crime. Frank Lee Smith spent a total of 14 years on death row and died in prison for a crime he did not commit. (The Innocence Project)

In 1991, Ray Krone was arrested and subsequently convicted and sentence to death for the killing of a Phoenix, Arizona woman in the restroom of a bar. Krone, who had no prior criminal record, was arrested based on a statement by the victim’s friend that he was supposed to have helped her close the bar (where she worked) that night. Although saliva and blood were found on the victim’s body at the scene of the crime, no DNA testing was originally performed, and the only physical evidence presented at trial were the bite mark imprints left on the victim’s body that supposedly matched a Styrofoam impression made by Krone. Convicted in 1992 and sentenced to death, Krone received a new trial four years later, and was sentenced to life in prison. Finally, in 2002, DNA testing was performed on the blood and saliva present at the crime scene, and Krone was exonerated. He had spent a total of 10 years in prison, four of which were spent awaiting execution. (The Innocence Project)


see http://www.ncadp.org/fact_sheet4.html

are a number of African American families, particularly from the South, that would vehemently disagree with this statement.

Just wanted also to make point out something that occurred to me regarding Arnolds logic in denying Tookie clemency. I am not saying I agree or disagree with him actually being denied clemency, but his logic stinks of Salem Witch trial like logic.

Denies him clemency in part because he never confessed and admitted to his crime. Now let us just assume now for a moment that the man WAS innocent, as were, I am certain, ALL the Salem folks executed for withcraft. Should an innocent man repent to save his ass, even if guilty just because it looks better? Perhaps if he wants to live, but what guarantee is there in that? If he is innocent, but then confesses, he will then immediately lose all ability to appeal. Such a catch-22.

Perhaps we should have just tossed him bound into a body of water and see if he could float.

Olafr

But the larger part is that Mr. Williams had intimate knowledge of the gang he created, a gang that has terrorized many Los Angeles citizens. Confession would have only been the first step; the second would be making amends for his crimes by providing any information he has on his former colleagues.

But he does not want to be a rat, so he refused.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

that Stanley Williams was nor repentant and did not redeem himself.

what if he was telling the truth and he did not commit the crime? Why pray tell me should he admit to something he did not do?

Just asking....

And this is the situation across the nation with innumerable DP cases... and if the state of California executed an innocent man last night, or will execute one in the future is immaterial... one innocent man is one too many.

But we don't value life as a nation, and revenge is our middle name. We especially don't value the lives of poor minorities who get the worst kind of representation invariable so... and who get the DP in disproportionate numbers.

We could lear from our neighbor to the south that does not have a DP, except for High Treason (and chances are it would only apply to the President) THEY HAD that national discussion on how the DP brutalizes a nation ten years ago, after a series of murders that would make your hair stand up... they were that brutal. We cannot even get the conversation started because our nation relishes in revenge, and doesn't care if the person being executed is guilty or not... just the sense of revenge. We like it so much that all these executions should be pay for view, by the state, at least they can recover some of the money wasted from the idiots who would love to see a nigger die. or a benear... after all any DP case is three times as expensive as any non DP case, and that is from the word go, before the appeals, who some would love to get rid off. After all we don't care if we execute an innocent man for we, as a nation, do not value life.

On edit, until we start valuing life, things like National Health Care will not be discussed openly and in a mature way, let alone the Death Penalty.

He DID commit the murders.

The man is a liar. I am 100% certain he was guilty. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind.

Circumstantial evidence is far more reliable.

A very good example of circumstantial evidence is testing blood samples or semen samples to match DNA. Completely circumstantial, yet far more reliable than any eyewintness has ever been.

Circumstantial evidence would be like knowledge that the person was in the area.

Forensic (DNA, blood tests) Prove that the person was at the scene.

17. "Proof which tends to show the existence of a fact without reliance on the proof of any other fact" is the definition of:
A. Circumstantial evidence
B. Testimonial evidence
C. Direct evidence *
D. Indirect evidence

18. "Evidence that suffices for proof until contradicted by other evidence" is the definition of:
A. Circumstantial evidence
B. Indirect evidence
C. Supplemental evidence
D. Prima facie evidence *

19. "Evidence furnished by things themselves, on view or inspection, as distinguished from a description of them by a witness" is the definition of:
A. Circumstantial evidence
B. Documentary evidence
C. Direct evidence
D. Real evidence *

20. Evidence that always requires an inference to be made is called:
A. Real
B. Direct
C. Circumstantial *
D. Documentary

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405examsample.htm


4. Evidence -- DNA testing no longer considered novel scientific evidence -- generally accepted as proof of guilt. -- Since 1991, DNA profiles have been admissible evidence in Arkansas; DNA evidence is no longer considered to be novel scientific evidence and has generally been accepted as proof of guilt.
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2001b/20010920/cr001139.html


trying to find descriptions that say Forensic (direct) is also Circumstantal. no luck yet.

innocents have been executed.

judges often seal cases and evidence is often unattainable. The state doesn't like to admit they may have made a mistake.

proven to be innocent it is a stupid statement.

and there is an innocent man on death row in Mississippi named Cory Maye. See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/10/20854/628

This guy is a much better case for the anti-DP lobby to focus on. I want to oppose capital punishment but when I hear about the crimes and victims of scum like Tookie and Michael Ross (executed here in CT) I can't help getting a sneaking sense of satisfaction when they are executed.

Let's hope the Hollywood crowd rally around Cory as they did for Tookie and Mumia.

The Rolando Cruz case in Aurora Illinois in the late 80/early 90s. Cruz and codefendants were convicted of murdering Janine Nicarico, then subsequently the real perp confessed and told authorities had the wrong guys on death row. Even related details of the crime scene that only the perp would have known. Despite this, the innocents remained on death row and were almost executed, until DNA evidence cleared them completely.

Then of course there's the Gary(?) Graham case in Texas not long before the 2000 elections. Convicted and sentenced to death, based solely on one eyewitness, a couple of other eyewitnesses came forward and said Graham was not the guy. They were never allowed to testify, and Graham was never given another trial and was executed. Then TX guv * would not grant a stay, but said shortly before the execution "God bless Mr Graham" so that made it better. I thought that should have hurt shrub politically more than it did, but he always seems to wiggle out of things, doesn't he?

that happened THIS YEAR.

I agree, he *may* have been innocent.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/texas.execution.ap/

I did not say that I believed that an innocent person has never been executed. I was addressing the original poster's question of whether anyone has been executed and then found to be innocent through DNA testing. This was not the case with Ruben Cantu.

and that is the point...

I am sure many felt good though that the thugh is dead... sickens me, for it it was their relative, what they want the state to say, OOPPPS!

Look up Ruben Cantu. :shrug:

:sarcasm: people

Wasn't found innocent by DNA, but both eye-witnesses to the killing have come forth after his death and admitted they framed him for the murder.

DNA is one of several factors that can be used to determine wrongful convictions. Amy Goodman has an excellent show today that addresses some of these issues.

One of the cases discussed is Ruben Cantu:




http://www.democracynow.org/

who narrowly escaped execution, after he was convicted for a triple murder that happened in 1966. His case ended up being the single longest, most "tried" case in American legal history. After serving 20 years for a crime he did not commit, a federal court overturned his conviction. More, the judge made clear that evidence showed my friend was not only "not guilty," but was absolutely innocent.

The case involved police manufactoring evidence, suppressing evidence that would benefit the defense, and pressuring people in illegal ways to change their testimony.

His co-defendant served 13 years. He served 20. But people do not get over the damage done, even when released.