Exculpatory Evidence: The Pieces Don’t Fit
One of my childhood toys was a little wooden work bench with different shaped holes in it. The bench came with a hammer and an assortment of pegs shaped to fit the holes. The only way a peg could be hammered through a hole is if it corresponded to the correct shape. Crime scene evidence is much the same. When evidence fits the facts of the case it is supportive of a conviction. However, when a piece of evidence contradicts the theory put forward it can be either non-supportive or it can indicate that the investigation is going in the wrong direction. Some evidence proves that the accused is innocent. Such evidence is referred to as being exculpatory.
If a suspect is caught on camera attending a sporting event far away from the crime scene at the same time the crime was committed, that video evidence would be considered exculpatory (provided the suspect did not have an identical twin!). DNA evidence can also be exculpatory. In the case of Edna Franklin’s murder there was exculpatory evidence. It was located under her fingernails.
Franklin was described in the police report as frail, gaunt and weighing less than 100 pounds. She was 71 years old. She must have had health issues with her feet because she never walked without shoes according to her daughter. But despite her petite physical build, she fought for her life. We know that because under her nails there was blood.
In 1992 DNA testing was in its infancy. However there was something called blood typing. While blood typing is not as specific as DNA testing, in some cases it can rule out suspects conclusively. Such was the case in the murder of Edna Franklin. The blood under her nails was type A. Neither Franklin, her grandsons nor Charles had type A blood.
This was not a problem for the Houston Police Department. Their crime lab was not an independent entity. The lab and the police department worked together. Their approach to hiding this exculpatory evidence was two pronged. First, the prosecution withheld the lab report from Charles’s defense attorneys. This was illegal and is what is known as a Brady violation. Second, the lab technician who testified for the prosecution at the trial committed perjury by stating that the lab results were “inconclusive”.
In later appeals hearings the truth of the blood typing evidence was presented. Despite the testimony of the state’s own serologist who stated the lab results were probative (they provided proof) and exculpatory, the prosecution claimed the results were likely due to “contamination” and would not have changed the jury’s decision in light of the confession.
In Texas, if the peg does not fit the hole they find a bigger hammer and force it to fit.