Thomas Haynesworth (born March 21, 1965) is a resident of Richmond, Virginia, who served 27 years in state prison as a result of four wrongful convictions for crimes for which he was exonerated in 2011.
Haynesworth was arrested in Richmond at the age of 18 in 1984 after a woman identified him as her attacker. He was convicted of four violent rapes in the East End of the city. He was sentenced to a total of 84 years in prison. Haynesworth maintained his innocence throughout the years of incarceration. Based on DNA and other evidence, the crimes for which he was convicted are now believed to have been committed by a neighbor who resembled Haynesworth.
In 2009, new state laws and procedures allowed for DNA testing, which was not available in the 1980s. Semen collected from the first attack implicated the neighbor and ruled out Haynesworth. After reviewing this and other evidence, local prosecutors brought the case to the office of Virginia Attorney GeneralKen Cuccinelli, who began advocating for Haynesworth. His convictions in two of the cases were vacated, and he was released from prison on parole in March 2011. Haynesworth was fully exonerated in the remaining two cases in December 2011.
The case, which The Washington Post called "one of the state's most extraordinary legal cases",[1] used DNA testing and new state laws that allowed convicts to present new evidence in cases to prove innocence. The General Assembly passed a bill in 2012 to pay Haynesworth compensation for his wrongful convictions and lengthy incarceration, amounting to a total of $1 million in a lump sum payment, two types of annuities, and tuition at a community college. The legislators wanted to help him make his way in his life.
Description of attacks
Over the course of four weeks in the winter of 1984, five women were assaulted in a series of attacks in and around the East End neighborhood of Richmond, Virginia. On January 3, 1984, a 20-year-old woman was raped at knifepoint near the daycare center where she worked.[2] On January 21, an 18-year-old woman was sodomized at knifepoint near a grocery store.[2] On January 27, a woman was approached outside her home by a man demanding money and sex; she locked herself inside and called the police while the man fled.[2] On January 30, an 18-year-old woman was abducted, raped, and sodomized in nearby Henrico County, within blocks of the other attacks.[2] On February 1, a 19-year-old woman was abducted at gunpoint outside her home, but the attacker fled when the woman's dog began barking.[2]
Arrest and prosecution
Given the locations and nature of the attacks, and the description of the attacker, police believed one man was responsible. On February 5, 1984, the victim of the January 27 attack saw Haynesworth, a young, African-American man, walking near a grocery store (where his mother had sent him to buy groceries) and, believing him to be her attacker, called the police. A police officer pulled up next to Haynesworth, and asked if he would allow a woman whose house was broken into to look at him.[3] The woman identified him as her attacker and he was arrested.[3] Haynesworth was identified in a police lineup by all four other women.
Eyewitness identifications have been shown in studies to be notoriously unreliable. Other studies have shown that eyewitnesses are more likely to misidentify someone of another race than someone of their own race.[4][5] (Note: "The DNA exoneration cases where the false conviction is established with near certainty show that eyewitness evidence has been largely responsible for false conviction in more than 70% of cases (www.innocenceproj.org).")[6]
Haynesworth was tried in four separate rape cases in 1984. (Charges were dropped in the January 27 attack, despite the victim of that attack having been the first victim to identify him.[3]) He maintained his innocence, saying that authorities had the wrong man. Haynesworth was convicted in three of the four trials, and sentenced to 10 years, 36 years, and 28 years in prison, respectively, for a total of 84 years in prison.[2]
Although Haynesworth was in custody, rapes continued to occur in the same neighborhood. At least ten young women reported they were attacked by a young black man who referred to himself as the "Black Ninja".[2] On December 19, 1984, Leon Davis, who resembled Haynesworth, had the same blood type, and lived nearby, was arrested and charged with a dozen rapes during the nine months after Haynesworth's arrest.[3] After Davis was arrested, the rapes stopped. Davis was later convicted of several rape charges and sentenced to multiple life terms in jail.[2]
Haynesworth continued to maintain his innocence. He rejected advice from fellow inmates, who told him to apologize for the purported crimes when he appeared before the parole board, in order to increase his chances of an early release.[7] While imprisoned, Haynesworth earned his GED and studied auto mechanics, welding, and masonry. He wrote letters to local newspapers, law students, and 60 Minutes, pleading for help to appeal his case.[7]
Push for exoneration
Background of new laws and procedures
In 2001, Virginia's General Assembly passed a law allowing inmates to ask for DNA tests at any time.[1] Numerous persons were serving time who had not been able to use DNA in their trials. In 2002, voters passed a referendum to allow DNA evidence to be presented by convicted felons after their convictions - and after the 21-day period following conviction that was previously allowed in the law.[8]
A 2004 law expanded the post-conviction rules to allow courts to consider also new non-DNA evidence, including new testimony. (While serving in the Virginia Senate, Ken Cuccinelli, who was State Attorney General when Haynesworth was seeking exoneration, had voted for an earlier version of this law, but it failed.[1]) In 2005, five wrongfully convicted men were exonerated in Virginia. GovernorMark Warner ordered the State Attorney General's Office to conduct a sweeping review of thousands of cases from between 1973 and 1988, Haynesworth's among them.[9]
New evidence and first exoneration
Under this review, semen collected from the January 3, 1984 rape was tested for DNA evidence, a forensic technology that was not available in 1984. The test cleared Haynesworth and implicated Davis.[9] (DNA for another case in which Haynesworth was suspected, but not charged, was tested and it also implicated Davis.[9]) After the test, the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project began advocating for Haynesworth. On September 18, 2009, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a writ of innocence to Haynesworth for the charges in the January 3, 1984 case.[2]
Cuccinelli begins advocating
No physical evidence could be found for the other two cases, so the state prosecutors gave Haynesworth two polygraph tests, which he passed.[2] In 2010, Commonwealth's attorneys Michael Herring and Wade Kizer of Richmond and Henrico counties, respectively, brought the case to the attention of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a former state senator.[1]
Cuccinelli began examining the case, covering a wall in his office with evidence.[1] Cuccinelli later said, "It was a complex decision, but it wasn't a hard decision."[10] He also said, "It's hard to describe how painful it is to me that somebody would suffer what he has."[10]
Release
Following the Virginia Supreme Court writ of innocence and Haynesworth's petition for writs in the other two cases, Virginia GovernorBob McDonnell asked the state's parole board to review Haynesworth's case. It approved him for parole.[11] On the morning of March 21, 2011 (his 46th birthday), Haynesworth was released from prison on parole. Guards awakened him around 1am ET to inform him of his release, and other inmates gave him a birthday card to take home.[9] He walked out of the prison, Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt, Virginia, around 11am, carrying all his belongings (a television and a single garbage bag with the rest of his belongings).[9] He was welcomed by his mother and sisters, along with other family members. His mother, Dolores Haynesworth, said, "He's home. It's still hard to believe. I'm holding him, but it's still hard to believe."[9] Haynesworth said, "I always believed this day would come," and added, "I didn't think it would take 27 years."[9]
Despite his release, Haynesworth was dogged by the convictions for the two remaining cases; as new physical evidence was unavailable, these remained on his record. As a result, he was still listed on the state's sex offender registry. Because of this status, Haynesworth had to wear an electronic ankle monitor, be subject to curfews, inform authorities in order to move from one home to another, and had to request permission to visit his young nieces.[10][12] Knowing how hard it would be for Haynesworth to find a job until he was fully exonerated, Cuccinelli hired him to work as a clerk in his office.[1] Haynesworth said Cuccinelli was "an extraordinary guy" and that as "a total stranger [he] put it on the line for me."[1] Cuccinelli had also invited Haynesworth to his office, where the State Attorney General personally apologized to him for the miscarriage of justice in his case.[1]
Push for writs of innocence in the Court of Appeals
Cuccinelli, the local prosecutors, and Haynesworth's lawyers petitioned the Court of Appeals of Virginia to grant a writ of innocence in the remaining two cases. Despite the unanimous agreement of the prosecutors and Cuccinelli (who, as attorney general, was the state's chief law enforcement officer), the court seemingly interpreted the new laws allowing for Haynesworth to make his case more strictly than the General Assembly intended, according to The New York Times. The court asked for further briefs from the parties to discuss whether the exonerating evidence should be "conclusive".[10]
Cuccinelli argued that requiring extra briefs raised the standard of proof too high, beyond what was intended by the General Assembly. He said the only form of conclusive proof is DNA. In a pointed statement, he wrote that, as the state had disposed of the DNA evidence in these two cases, "it seems paradoxical to demand 'conclusive' evidence from Haynesworth when the commonwealth has deprived him of the opportunity to produce such evidence."[10] Appearing in person before the court, Cuccinelli argued passionately for Haynesworth's exoneration, saying, "This case has kept many prosecutors from going to bed at night. It's a real wake-up call. Not to say things need to be changed, but that this could happen."[1] Shawn Armbrust of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project said, "To find Haynesworth guilty, a jury would have to accept the coincidence that there were two guys in the same neighborhood who looked alike and were committing the same crimes."[1]
Full exoneration
On December 6, 2011, in a 6-4 decision, the Court of Appeals granted writs of innocence in the remaining two rape cases, fully exonerating Haynesworth.[7]
Appearing alongside Cuccinelli and his attorneys at an emotional news conference following the ruling, Haynesworth said,
It's a blessing. There are a lot of people behind the scenes who believed in me. Twenty-seven years, I never gave up. I kept pushing. I ain't give up hope. I am very happy. Me and my family can finally put this behind us, and I can go on with my life. And I can finally vote. … I'm just so happy. You just want your name restored. You want to prove to them that they made a mistake.[7]
(Note: Convicted felons are prohibited from voting in Virginia, even after they serve their sentences and complete parole or probation.)
Cuccinelli said,
Today marks the end of an unimaginable nightmare for Thomas Haynesworth. For 27 years in prison, he always maintained his innocence and continuously displayed tremendous dignity and grace, steadfastly believing that justice would one day be served. Today, justice was in fact served, and Thomas Haynesworth was finally granted the total freedom he so deserves. … An attorney general's job is not convictions when it comes to law enforcement. It's justice. Today we got justice. … I have never experienced the pure joy of today's outcome.[7][11]
Cuccinelli also said of Haynesworth, "His composure, dignity and faithfulness are an absolute witness to me. I am an admirer here."[12]
Haynesworth continued working in Cuccinelli's office, and planned to open his own auto repair business.[1] As of December 2012, he was still working in Cuccinelli's office.[13]
Compensation
In its 2012 session, the General Assembly passed a bill granting $1,075,178 in compensation to Haynesworth for wrongful imprisonment, and it was signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell on April 5, 2012.[14] Under the legislation, Haynesworth was to receive an initial lump sum of $215,036, and $759,232 to be paid in an annuity over 15 years.[14] The legislature also granted an additional $100,910 for an annuity to provide Haynesworth with a monthly income of $1,516 when he reaches age 60, and provided him with tuition of up to $10,000 in the Virginia community college system.[14]
Haynesworth said the compensation was "not what it could have been" but that he was "content" with it. The bill's state Senate sponsor, Henry L. Marsh, said "No amount of money can make up for the experience that Mr. Haynesworth suffered, but I think this bill is a good result in terms of helping him restore his life."[14] Cuccinelli said, "Although we wish that the amount of money could have been greater, we also know that no amount can make up for those 27 lost years. We pray that this will allow Thomas a new beginning to pursue the dreams he has been waiting almost three decades to fulfill."[15] Gov. McDonnell said, "Now, as Mr. Haynesworth begins the next chapter in his life, it is morally right for Virginia to provide him with a means to financial security and the ability to move on with his future. This restitution will help ensure that Mr. Haynesworth is able to build upon his freedom and return to society in a successful way."[16]
Legal ramifications
Haynesworth was only the second convict of nearly 200 such cases to be exonerated without the support of DNA evidence.[7] The majority of the court said "a rational trier of fact" could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Haynesworth was the perpetrator.[12] But, the dissenting judges said sufficient evidence still existed in the victims' original eyewitness identifications of Haynesworth to convict him. They said that the law did not allow for writs of innocence in such cases, rendering them "powerless to act".[2]
It's much harder when you don't have the smoking gun of DNA. This is the very first time in the history of the Innocence Project where the attorney general and two local prosecutors joined us in seeking an exoneration, yet it nevertheless took nine months, two trips to the Court of Appeals and six judges to ensure the relief that was obvious to everyone.[7]
The case caused law enforcement and criminal justice officials to re-assess the reliability of eyewitness identifications. Neufeld of the Innocence Project said the dissenting judges "were still somewhat hung up on the fact that a couple women made these misidentifications," and said, "What that tells us is that we still have a long way to go for people to appreciate how often eyewitnesses are mistaken."[12]
Cuccinelli said the Haynesworth case proved that the new state laws allowing non-biological evidence to be presented could work, but that the laws needed to be reworked to make it less difficult to win an exoneration. He said, "to have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would find beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime is mind-numbing in the extreme."[17] He said he understood that the standard needed to be high to avoid endless appeals, but that courts were too unwilling to rehear cases after the conviction. He also said that he did not necessarily think that the agreement of an attorney general and prosecutors should automatically lead to an exoneration, but that
If there's good enough reason for everybody to agree, then you'd think your chances of getting over the legal hurdles would be pretty good.[17] He added, "It needs to be a high bar, but the process by which it's handled and the hoops you have to get through, I think, are worthy of reconsideration."[17]
Cuccinelli said that the case was a reminder to him and to prosecutors that "the system isn't perfect, and neither are we."[17]
"Thomas Haynesworth", Michigan Law & Northeastern Law National Registry of Exonerations
Related Research Articles
Innocence Project, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit legal organization that is committed to exonerating individuals who have been wrongly convicted, through the use of DNA testing and working to reform the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. The group cites various studies estimating that in the United States between 1% and 10% of all prisoners are innocent. The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld who gained national attention in the mid-1990s as part of the "Dream Team" of lawyers who formed part of the defense in the O. J. Simpson murder case.
A miscarriage of justice occurs when a grossly unfair outcome occurs in a criminal or civil proceeding, such as the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. Miscarriages are also known as wrongful convictions. Innocent people have sometimes ended up in prison for years before their conviction has eventually been overturned. They may be exonerated if new evidence comes to light or it is determined that the police or prosecutor committed some kind of misconduct at the original trial. In some jurisdictions this leads to the payment of compensation.
Darryl Hunt was an African-American man from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, who, in 1984, was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and the murder of Deborah Sykes, a young white newspaper copy editor. After being convicted in that case, Hunt was tried in 1987 for the 1983 murder of Arthur Wilson, a 57-year-old black man of Winston-Salem. Both convictions were overturned on appeal in 1989. Hunt was tried again in the Wilson case in 1990; he was acquitted by an all-white jury. He was tried again on the Sykes charges in 1991; he was convicted.
Kirk Noble Bloodsworth is a former Maryland waterman and the first American sentenced to death to be exonerated post-conviction by DNA testing.
Exoneration occurs when the conviction for a crime is reversed, either through demonstration of innocence, a flaw in the conviction, or otherwise. Attempts to exonerate convicts are particularly controversial in death penalty cases, especially where new evidence is put forth after the execution has taken place. The transitive verb, "to exonerate" can also mean to informally absolve one from blame.
Douglas Echols was convicted in a 1986 rape case. In 2002, his charges were finally cleared through DNA testing after he served over five years in prison. In 2005, a resolution was introduced in the Georgia Assembly by Representatives Tom Bordeaux and Chuck Sims requesting $1.6 million as compensation for his incarceration; however, the resolution was not approved.
Richard Alexander is an Indiana man who was wrongfully convicted of rape and later exonerated by DNA evidence. Years later, on September 17, 2020, Alexander was charged with the murder of Catherine Minix, who was found stabbed to death. Minix had previously filed a protective order against Alexander for domestic violence.
This is a list of notable overturned convictions in the United States.
The Norfolk Four are four former United States Navy sailors: Joseph J. Dick Jr., Derek Tice, Danial Williams, and Eric C. Wilson, who were wrongfully convicted of the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko while they were stationed at Naval Station Norfolk. They each declared that they had made false confessions, and their convictions are considered highly controversial. A fifth man, Omar Ballard, confessed and pleaded guilty to the crime in 2000, insisting that he had acted alone. He had been in prison since 1998 because of violent attacks on two other women in 1997. He was the only one of the suspects whose DNA matched that collected at the crime scene, and whose confession was consistent with other forensic evidence.
Both Arthur Lee Whitfield and Julius Ruffin are men accused of rape in Virginia who were convicted and subsequently exonerated.
Rolando Cruz is an American man known for having been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, along with co-defendant Alejandro Hernandez, for the 1983 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico in DuPage County, Illinois. The police had no substantive physical evidence linking the two men to the crime. Their first trial was jointly in 1987, and their statements were used against each other and a third defendant.
Timothy Brian Cole was an American military veteran and a Texas Tech University student wrongfully convicted of raping a fellow student in 1985.
Clarence Arnold Elkins Sr. is an American man who was wrongfully convicted of the 1998 rape and murder of his mother-in-law, Judith Johnson, and the rape and assault of his wife's niece, Brooke Sutton. He was convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of his wife's six-year-old niece who testified that Elkins was the perpetrator.
The Illinois Innocence Project, a member of the national Innocence Project network, is a non-profit legal organization that works to exonerate wrongfully convicted people and reform the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.
The California Innocence Project is a non-profit based at California Western School of Law in San Diego, California, United States, which provides pro bono legal services to individuals who maintain their factual innocence of crime(s) for which they have been convicted. It is an independent chapter of the Innocence Project. Its mission is to exonerate wrongly convicted inmates through the use of DNA and other evidences.
Juan A. Rivera Jr. is an American man who was wrongfully convicted three times for the 1992 rape and murder of 11-year-old Holly Staker in Waukegan, Illinois. He was convicted twice on the basis of a confession that he said was coerced. No physical evidence linked him to the crime scene. In 2015 he received a $20 million settlement from Lake County, Illinois for wrongful conviction, formerly the largest settlement of its kind in United States history.
The Nebraska Innocence Project was a member organization Nebraska-based chapter of a U.S non-profit organization called the Innocence Project, located in Omaha, Nebraska. In 2019, the Nebraska Innocence Project folded into the Midwest Innocence Project. The Midwest Innocence Project's mission is to educate about, advocate for, and obtain and support the exoneration and release of wrongfully convicted people in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas. The Nebraska chapter was founded in 2005 by a group of volunteers who were inspired by the work of Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, founders of the Innocence Project in 1992. The Midwest Innocence Project (MIP) was founded in 2001 through the UMKC School of Law and is also part of the national Innocence Network.
Michael "Mike" Semanchik is Managing Attorney at the California Innocence Project (CIP). As part of his work with CIP, he has been involved in many cases involving the exoneration of previously convicted prisoners, working closely with the organization's director, Justin Brooks, and also preparing petitions for many of CIP's clients. After working at CIP while still a law student at California Western School of Law, following graduation in 2010 he became an investigator and then a staff attorney there.
Alissa Leanne Bjerkhoel is an American litigation coordinator at the California Innocence Project (CIP), a law school clinic that investigates cases of factual innocence while training law students. Bjerkhoel was born in Truckee, California, and later graduated from California Western School of Law (CWSL) after previously obtaining a B.A. degree She has been an attorney with CIP since 2008. Bjerkhoel has served as counsel for CIP on numerous criminal cases, and achieved the legal exoneration of a number of convicted prisoners. Bjerkhoel serves as CIP's in-house DNA expert and also serves as a panel attorney with the nonprofit law firms Appellate Defenders, Inc. (ADI) and Sixth District Appellate Program (SDAP). She is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Bjerkhoel has won a number of awards.
Kevin Strickland is an African-American man who was wrongfully convicted by an all-white jury in 1979 of killing three people in Kansas City, Missouri. No physical evidence linked him to the scene of the crime and the only alleged witness later recanted her testimony that Strickland was involved. Strickland was given a life sentence. In 2021, he garnered national attention after former prosecutors in his case said that he was very likely innocent and called for his release.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
