|Year of Conviction||1989|
|Year of Exoneration||2009|
|State of Conviction||New York|
|Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea||Trial|
|Type of Crime||Rape and Murder|
|Gender of Exoneree||Male|
|Race of exoneree||White|
|Types of evidence at trial|
|Type of Forensic Evidence|
|Types of Flawed Forensics|
|Brief Quote / Description of Testimony|
The analyst testified that the serology was non-probative, where the blood group substances observed were consistent with the victim and defendant was a non-secretor. The tire treads did not match defendant’s vehicle. Hairs were compared and found to be “similar.” Soil was compared and found “similar.” The “impression and weave patterns” on jeans were found “similar.” Such terminology was vague.
|Identity of eyewitness|
Yes ● Defendant’s photo was the only one repeated in two arrays
|Quotes from testimony #1|
Second line-up, conducted three years later before grand jury, did not contain photo of second person identified in first array; “Number five is not in here” and defendant’s photo was only one repeated in the two arrays.
Yes ● Initial non-identification – eyewitness identified two photos, including Barnes and a filler, in the first array
|Quotes from testimony #2|
Q. . . . And did you tell the Oneida County Sheriff’s Deputy who showed you this photograph that you had doubt as to whether it was number five or number four who was the person that you saw on Mohawk Street? A. I picked out number four and number five because there was a doubt.
|Jailhouse informant, Co-defendant, Incentivized Witness||J|
|Examples of Non-Public or Corroborated Facts and Inconsistencies||● Jailhouse informant, as the appellate court described, recounted a conversation in which defendant, informant and another inmate were discussing “some girls”, defendant said “You mean the one I killed” and then said “I mean the one I am accused of killing.”|
|Quotes from testimony #3|
In addition to the “the one I killed” comment, informant said that the defendant also mentioned the victim’s name.
|Quotes regarding any deal or leniency with informant, or prior use of informant|
The informant said that it was law enforcement that came to him and asked about conversation – and he denied the existence of any deal – but he served no time on a second felony charge.
|Highest level reached||Appeal|
|Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction|
|Citations to judicial opinions|
People v. Barnes, 473 N.E.2d 45 (N.Y. 1984)