home

DNA Frees Georgia Prisoner

Eyewitness testimony, often the worst evidence a jury can rely upon, sent Willie Williams to prison more than 21 years ago. Today he walks free, thanks to the Georgia Innocence Project, which used new DNA testing to establish that he wasn't the man who raped a woman in 1985.

The victim told the jury that she was certain of Williams' guilt. Unfortunately, the jury didn't know that the certainty of an identification doesn't correlate with accuracy. Victims typically focus their attention on guns and the trauma of the moment, not on faces. And they typically believe the police officers who assure them that the "right guy" has been arrested.

The DNA evidence was marked for destruction, and it was only by happenstance that the evidence was preserved until a 2003 Georgia law required the state to maintain DNA evidence. Every state should enact a similar law to help free people like Willie Williams from their wrongful imprisonments.

< Team Libby Throws Karl Rove Under the Bus in Opening | 8th New York Inmate in 13 Mos. Freed by DNA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    a 2003 Georgia law required the state to maintain DNA evidence. Every state should enact a similar law


    er (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:45:49 PM EST
    Does anyone else feel like explaining the difference between evidence of indeterminate origin gathered during an actual investigation, and a national DNA database of people never convicted of a crime?

    Parent
    hmm (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    Are you responding to my comment?

    Are you thinking that neither TChris nor I are aware of the difference?

    Even more enlightening would be some indication what "a national DNA database of people never convicted of a crime" has to do with either of our comments...anyone else feel like explaining what a strawman is?

    Or do have some other point so oblique that it's completely incomprehensible?

    Parent