DNA results call for new trial

Lots of officials would rather kill an innocent man than be proved wrong

Virginia's governor recently spared a death row inmate because potentially important DNA evidence had been discarded. As said here earlier, it was the right thing to do. It would have been immoral to kill the man when there was unresolvable doubt about his guilt. A similar moral choice is before the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Paul C. Hildwin, convicted of murdering Vronziette Cox in Hernando County 20 years ago. He deserves a new trial because DNA has now refuted two key pieces of evidence that helped to convict him. A circuit judge agreed with the state that the new findings don't matter. But they do.

The disparaged evidence consists of semen stains on the victim's underwear and saliva on a washcloth found near her body. Blood typing was not possible but the prosecution stressed expert testimony that Hildwin was among 11 percent of the population whose blood type doesn't show up in other bodily fluids. Among the millions of other men with similar body chemistry was the victim's boyfriend, whom Hildwin has tried to blame for the killing. Now, however, DNA testing has excluded Hildwin as the source of the body fluids. Yet the state insists that doesn't matter. Incredibly, the state has yet to try to match the results against any of the 2.7-million offender samples, including 267,000 from Florida, already in the national DNA database.

The rest of the case against Hildwin turned heavily on another prisoner's testimony that Hildwin had confessed and on the fact that he had forged one of her checks and was caught with her checkbook, ring and radio. Trouble is, jailhouse snitches often lie, and the circumstantial evidence, which Hildwin admitted, did not necessarily prove he killed the owner. For jurors struggling to determine the truth, the underwear and the washcloth very likely overcame any lingering doubt.

It is fundamental to American justice that someone's guilt be proved to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt. In light of the proof that Hildwin had nothing to do with the underwear and the washcloth, it would be a gross miscarriage of justice for the Supreme Court to deny him a new trial.

Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)