Va. Weighs DNA Testing After Execution

AP ^ | 1/2/06 | KRISTEN GELINEAU

[ExcursionGuy84]

Sounds like someone's reversing their "Shoot first, ask questions later" policy.

[OldPossum]

The case drew international attention as the well-spoken Coleman...

I know it doesn't prove beans but I am always suspicious of "well-spoken" criminals. Note the ones that Hollywood fawns over (I have especial reference to the late and bemourned Mr. "Tookie" and that monster on death row in Pennsylvania with the Muslim name). They, too, were/are "well-spoken" but guilty as hell all the same.

[Ken522]

Coleman was executed on May 20, 1992.

So what's the big deal? He was already executed, wasn't he?

[gondramB]

"So what's the big deal? He was already executed, wasn't he?"


I think the point is the current governor wants to handle it instead of handing it off the Democrat electee.

[AntiGuv]

...original DNA tests placed him within a tiny fraction of the population who could have left semen at the scene.

0.2% of Virginia's 1982 male population would be about 5,347 men.

[jla]

"Did Virginia Execute an Innocent Man?"

"In March of 1981, Grundy's monotony was interrupted by the rape and murder of 19-year-old Wanda McCoy in a small, white house overlooking the bubbling waters of Slate Creek. McCoy was raped, stabbed, and her throat slashed so violently that she was practically decapitated. Police quickly focused on her brother-in-law, Roger Keith Coleman, a white coal miner who'd been jailed once for attempted rape."

[Publius6961]

"I think it would be the final straw for a lot of people who are on the fence on the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.

Methinks Mr. Dieter is being totally delusional. Even if all of the people "on the fence" reject the death penalty, it still represents a minuscule number of the total.

Anyone who does not avoid the details of the daily horrendous crimes can think even for a moment that the death penalty is wrong.
Most normal people's reaction is the sooner the better.

The explanation is simple. In order for someone to embrace the death penalty, one only needs to accept that any imperfection in the process, resulting n a "mistake", will apply equally to themselves.
Most people, however, the overwhelming majority, would laugh at even the remotest possibility of running that risk.

The sooner the better!

[mylife]

Im sure the guy was a bastion of virtue. /sarc

[jla]

My thoughts exactly.

Former Virginia governor and presidential aspirant Mark Warner

[kx9088]

Mumia.

Hopefully they reinstate his sentence very soon.

[Capriole]

"I think it would be the final straw for a lot of people who are on the fence on the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.

Not at all. Many years ago I was on the fence about the death penalty. Now that improved DNA techniques exist to definitively prove that an accused committed a crime, I'm happy with it.

[robertpaulsen]

"Additional blood typing put Coleman within a group consisting of 0.2 percent of the population."

I guess being only 99.8% sure is not good enough? Hell, OJ was 100% guilty and he walked.

[Grut]

So what's the big deal? He was already executed, wasn't he?

For one thing, if he didn't do it then somebody else did and the case needs to be reopened. For another, there would be all kinds of justifiable civil liabilities involved, not least a wrongful death suit by his family.

I don't understand the business about there only being a small DNA sample, though. AFAIK, the PCR process will replicate as much DNA as they want. That objection does smell just a little odd.

[AntiGuv]

I guess being only 99.8% sure is not good enough?

Not for the death penalty it isn't. Not in my book. However, I would concede that in 1982 one could not be as sure as one can be today. DNA tests are much more accurate now and so there's a higher bar of certainty that can be reasonably expected.

[AntiGuv]

PS. And rest assured that OJ would not have walked if I had anything to do with it. The fact that an obviously guilty punk walked is hardly an argument for executing the innocent, or being indifferent as to whether someone innocent of the capital crime may've been executed.

[connectthedots]

i used to be in favor of the death penalty, but I have read too much about too many prosecutors who don't care if they convict an honest man. They'd rather convict an honesat man than admit they were wrong.

[Rakkasan1]

remember, DNA is only sufficient to free those on 'death row', not to actually expediently execute those on 'death row'. (sarcasm)

[Moonman62]

Scott said a mountain of evidence points to Coleman as the killer: There was no sign of forced entry at McCoy's house, leading investigators to believe she knew her attacker; Coleman was previously convicted of the attempted rape of a teacher and was charged with exposing himself to a librarian two months before the murder; a pubic hair found on McCoy's body was consistent with Coleman's hair; and the original DNA tests placed him within a tiny fraction of the population who could have left semen at the scene.

Coleman also failed a lie detector test hours before his execution.

That's strong evidence. Possibly he had a partner, but he would still have deserved what he got.

[Iron Eagle]

"Not for the death penalty it isn't. Not in my book."

Never read your book -- but the law requires only that a person be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The DNA evidence, putting him in the .2 percent of the population for that specimen, TOGETHER with the other evidence more than meets that standard.

One last note -- we do not prove people innocent. They are innocent until proven guilty.

Even if this test comes back showing the semen found at the scene -- semen belonging to one of two men -- it would not prove Coleman innocent. It would merely show that the particular semen found there was not him. That certainly raises a doubt -- but we don't know anything about the "other" semen mentioned, and if was not tested or could not be tested, than little is resolved by this test.

DNA is but one piece of evidence used to reconstruct crimes -- but only when it is found at the scene, kept properly, and tested properly. The absence of or presence of DNA at a scene is not itself proof of anyone's innocence. It is only evidence to be examined with all other evidence in the case. In many circumstances, that evidence will present enough of a doubt to free a person.

Anyway -- if your point is that the standard for convicting a man for a capital crime is 100% certainty, there is no criminal justice system that could operate under sch a standard.