He's serving life in prison for murder. But his DNA wasn't at the scene.
He's serving life in prison for murder. But his DNA wasn't at the scene .
Prosecutors said Stephen Yarborough was sexually assaulted, then fatally stabbed in his Roxboro, N.C. home in 2007. The house was filled with physical evidence: A bloody palm print. Blood on his eyeglasses. Stains on his underwear. Two cigarette butts from an ashtray that had spilled onto the floor.
Much of that evidence was tested for DNA. None of it matched the man serving life in prison for the crime.
He's serving life in prison for murder. But his DNA wasn't at the scene.
Gina BartonProsecutors said Stephen Yarborough was sexually assaulted, then fatally stabbed in his Roxboro, N.C. home in 2007. The house was filled with physical evidence: A bloody palm print. Blood on his eyeglasses. Stains on his underwear. Two cigarette butts from an ashtray that had spilled onto the floor.
Much of that evidence was tested for DNA. None of it matched the man serving life in prison for the crime.
When the victim’s rape kit was finally analyzed with the latest technology 15 years later, Dominaque Thorpe's DNA wasn’t there, either. But under North Carolina law, those results haven’t helped him at all.
That’s because a state law says it’s up to a judge to decide whether the results of post-conviction DNA tests are “favorable” or “unfavorable” to the defense. If a judge finds them unfavorable, the conviction and sentence stand. Similar laws are on the books in 20 other states.
In Thorpe’s case, no foreign DNA at all was found in the victim’s rape kit. After he "considered the testimony, ... considered the exhibits offered by the state and the defendant, considered all submissions of the parties and the arguments of counsel, and reviewed the official file," North Carolina Superior Court Judge John M. Dunlow decided the lack of DNA was unfavorable.
Under state law, Thorpe can’t appeal the judge’s finding. On April 24, he petitioned the state Supreme Court to reverse it and classify the results as favorable. If it does, the original judge would be required to enter an order that “serves the interest of justice,” such as ordering a new trial, dismissing the charges or handing down a new sentence.
Thorpe’s story illustrates the numerous roadblocks people who claim innocence in cases with backlogged rape kits can face, even in states such as North Carolina that have received federal grants to deal with the problem.
Since 2015, the federal program, known as the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, has awarded about $350 million to 90 state and local agencies to test hundreds of thousands of untested and partially tested rape kits that had piled up nationwide for decades.
Some of the agencies, including in North Carolina, used part of their grant funding to re-analyze partially tested kits with the latest technology. In many older cases, the evidence initially was screened using serology, a method that detects the presence of fluid such as semen. If there was a negative result, DNA testing was not done. That was common practice around the country in the early days of DNA technology, when more genetic material was needed to develop a DNA profile. Now, scientists need just a few cells from skin or even sweat to develop one.
He's serving life in prison for murder. But his DNA wasn't at the scene.
Gina BartonProsecutors said Stephen Yarborough was sexually assaulted, then fatally stabbed in his Roxboro, N.C. home in 2007. The house was filled with physical evidence: A bloody palm print. Blood on his eyeglasses. Stains on his underwear. Two cigarette butts from an ashtray that had spilled onto the floor.
Much of that evidence was tested for DNA. None of it matched the man serving life in prison for the crime.
When the victim’s rape kit was finally analyzed with the latest technology 15 years later, Dominaque Thorpe's DNA wasn’t there, either. But under North Carolina law, those results haven’t helped him at all.
That’s because a state law says it’s up to a judge to decide whether the results of post-conviction DNA tests are “favorable” or “unfavorable” to the defense. If a judge finds them unfavorable, the conviction and sentence stand. Similar laws are on the books in 20 other states.
In Thorpe’s case, no foreign DNA at all was found in the victim’s rape kit. After he "considered the testimony, ... considered the exhibits offered by the state and the defendant, considered all submissions of the parties and the arguments of counsel, and reviewed the official file," North Carolina Superior Court Judge John M. Dunlow decided the lack of DNA was unfavorable.
One of Thorpe’s attorneys, Christine Mumma of the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, says the absence of DNA is favorable because it undermines the theory of the case prosecutors presented to the jury.
“There was never a question in our minds that it was favorable given the state's theory of a violent oral and anal rape as part of this murder," she said. “When we got the order, we were shocked and concerned that there was a bigger problem. I still am. There's no circumstance under which the results are unfavorable."
Under state law, Thorpe can’t appeal the judge’s finding. On April 24, he petitioned the state Supreme Court to reverse it and classify the results as favorable. If it does, the original judge would be required to enter an order that “serves the interest of justice,” such as ordering a new trial, dismissing the charges or handing down a new sentence.
Thorpe’s story illustrates the numerous roadblocks people who claim innocence in cases with backlogged rape kits can face, even in states such as North Carolina that have received federal grants to deal with the problem.
Since 2015, the federal program, known as the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, has awarded about $350 million to 90 state and local agencies to test hundreds of thousands of untested and partially tested rape kits that had piled up nationwide for decades.
Some of the agencies, including in North Carolina, used part of their grant funding to re-analyze partially tested kits with the latest technology. In many older cases, the evidence initially was screened using serology, a method that detects the presence of fluid such as semen. If there was a negative result, DNA testing was not done. That was common practice around the country in the early days of DNA technology, when more genetic material was needed to develop a DNA profile. Now, scientists need just a few cells from skin or even sweat to develop one.
North Carolina has re-tested such kits in cold cases, leading to at least three convictions in Mecklenburg County, which includes Charlotte. But people claiming wrongful conviction can’t access the new testing unless a judge approves.
In some states, grant recipients have automatically tested backlogged kits despite a previous confession, guilty plea or conviction, or if the suspect’s DNA already was in the national database. But North Carolina is among at least 10 states where that didn’t happen. About 5% of North Carolina’s overall backlog — 832 kits — were not tested because someone already had been convicted of the crime.
There are no exceptions for inmates like Thorpe, who has steadfastly maintained his innocence. They must reach an agreement with the prosecution or get a court order for DNA testing. In Thorpe's case, the Center on Actual Innocence spent $11, 500 on the testing, Mumma said.
“They falsely put a charge on me for something I had no knowledge of,” Thorpe told USA TODAY in a December phone interview from prison.
Before the 2016 trial that resulted in his conviction and life sentence, Thorpe (whose first name is sometimes spelled Dominique in records) refused a plea deal that would have allowed him to be released from prison after about 15 to 19 years.
“I didn’t take it because I didn’t do anything,” said Thorpe, who has resolved earlier criminal charges with plea agreements. “I would have taken it if I would’ve done it, but I’m not taking a plea for something I didn’t do.”
Comments
Post a Comment