Let DNA Close Door on Doubt in Murder Cases

Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court denied requests by Darnell Williams, a death row inmate who is scheduled for execution Aug. 1, to have his DNA tested.

The justices ruled that, in the context of his trial as a whole, the blood evidence Williams seeks to retest was not that important. Not so important, in any event, that his execution should be delayed.

I strongly disagree. As the lawyer who prosecuted him, I saw and heard every bit of the trial, and I knew then -- and still think now -- that the blood evidence in question played a big role in his death sentence. For that reason, I joined his attorneys in asking for the DNA retest.

Williams was one of four people charged with the 1986 robbery-murder of an elderly couple in Gary, Ind. It was an ugly crime, to be sure. Gregory Rouster, Williams’ companion and the foster son of the victims, is, by consensus, the one who bears the greatest moral culpability for the murders -- it was he who initiated the crime and then led its execution. But Rouster was recently removed from death row on the basis of mental retardation, an accident of birth, and Williams is the only one now facing the death penalty.

I fought hard to convict Williams. And I feel certain to this day that he was guilty of participating in the robbery. But whether Williams should be executed this week depends on his role in the killing -- and I simply cannot say with absolute certainty that he shot anyone. That question cannot be answered for sure without a new look at the blood evidence.

Several drops of blood were found on the clothes Williams wore at the time of the crime. Laboratory testing conducted back then, primitive by today’s standards, indicated that it was consistent with that of the victims. In other words, it could have been their blood.

The trial judge declared this physical evidence “significant” in finding that Williams was an equal partner in the killings and that he merited a death sentence. And jurors from the trial have told me that the blood evidence was the key to their death penalty recommendation.

But just because the blood was consistent with the blood of the victims doesn’t mean it was theirs.

There’s only one way to really know for sure if the blood of the victims was, literally, on Williams: DNA testing.

For 13 years I served as a prosecutor, and I was not bashful then in seeking the death penalty. When criminals are guilty, they deserve to be punished.

But I have also learned since leaving the prosecutor’s office 13 years ago that “the system” makes mistakes.

Last year I learned that a man named Larry Mayes, whom I had prosecuted and convicted, had served more than 20 years for a rape he did not commit. How do we know? DNA testing.

The lab tests performed two decades ago indicated that Mayes’ blood type was consistent with semen found in the rape kit, and that he -- like Williams -- could have committed the rape. That result, on top of the other evidence, had propelled the prosecution and convinced me of his guilt.

Two decades later, when he requested a DNA retest on that rape kit, I assisted in tracking down the old evidence, convinced that the current tests would put to rest his long-standing claim of innocence. But he was right, and I was wrong.

Hard facts trumped opinion and belief, as they should. It was a sobering lesson, and none of the easy-to-reach rationalizations (just doing my job, it was the jurors who convicted him, the appellate courts had upheld the conviction) completely lessen the sense of responsibility -- moral, if not legal -- that comes with the conviction of an innocent man. I too had been part of “the system.”

The Williams’ jurors to whom I’ve spoken are troubled, as am I, by the concept of “optional” facts in a death penalty case. They do not understand -- and neither do I -- why an execution should be allowed to go forward before all the information is gathered that could replace probability with certainty.

There are reports that Washington will be using DNA tests on two corpses in Iraq to verify that they are the sons of Saddam Hussein. We need to make sure we’ve killed the right people. It’s a good idea, and one that should be extended to the citizens of this country -- before the killing takes place.

Thomas Vanes is an attorney in Merrillville, Ind.