Loading...
U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden of the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to plaintiffs Ralph Birch and Shawn Henning in a wrongful conviction lawsuit, finding renowned forensic scientist Henry Lee liable for fabricating evidence in their murder cases. The plaintiffs spent a harrowing 30 years behind bars before finally being exonerated. Henry Lee gained fame as a forensic expert after his testimony in the O.J. Simpson murder trial and his involvement as a consultant in other high-profile cases, including record producer Phil Spector’s murder trial and the death of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey in Colorado.
The case against Lee centered on his testimony in a December 1985 murder case where he claimed to have tested a red-stained towel found at the crime scene, determining the stain to be blood. This evidence was crucial for prosecutors, who argued that Birch and Henning were not covered in blood because they had cleaned up after the murder of Everett Carr, who was brutally stabbed 27 times. Additionally, no blood was found in their car, which appeared untouched by any cleanup but was filled with miscellaneous items.
In his defense, Henry Lee stated, “I have no motive nor reason to fabricate evidence,” asserting that his chemical testing of the towel did not directly implicate the two men as suspects. He maintained that his scientific testimony during their trial included exculpatory evidence, such as a negative finding of blood on their clothing, which should have served to exonerate them.
However, the controversy surrounding Lee’s testimony stemmed from the absence of any documentation or photographic evidence of the blood test. Lee did not create any records memorializing the test, and his experts acknowledged the lack of written documentation. An evidence tag merely indicated that a towel with a “blood-like smear” was collected at the crime scene. A retired detective later testified that he believed the towel had not been tested for blood, leading him to label it as a “blood-like smear.”
Find the legal job that fits your lifestyle and career goals with BCG Attorney Search.
Subsequently, the state conceded that the towel was never tested for blood, a critical revelation that came to light during the June 2019 Connecticut Supreme Court decisions. The court found that Birch and Henning were deprived of their due process right to a fair trial. Later DNA tests conclusively excluded both men as the sources of DNA recovered from the crime scene.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
The police initially focused on Birch and Henning due to their history of daytime burglaries in the area of the crime. However, no forensic evidence connected them to the murder. Police suspected Carr was killed because he interrupted a burglary, as the state supreme court revealed.
Prosecutors obtained testimony from Henning’s grandmother and a friend, who claimed that Henning had confessed to a burglary where a man was killed, but he was not the killer. Additionally, the grandmother falsely reported that a dog had been killed during the burglary. The prosecution also relied on the testimony of two jailhouse informants who claimed that Birch had confessed to them. These informants were allegedly rewarded for their testimony.
Judge Bolden, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, rejected Lee’s attempt to amend his answer to claim absolute testimonial immunity. He ruled that even if Lee had invoked this immunity, it would not apply as the plaintiffs could establish their claim of fabricated evidence independently of Lee’s testimony.
In response to the ruling, Henry Lee maintained his testimony’s veracity, stressing that his work on the case had been completed before Birch and Henning were considered suspects. Lee conducted the towel and blood splatter tests in an upstairs bathroom using tetramethylbenzidine, a chemical test for blood in the 1980s. He claimed a positive reaction for both the towel and the sink spots.
Nevertheless, Lee did not take responsibility for documenting evidence collection or photographing the scene. He admitted that, for unknown reasons, the towel was never submitted to the lab for a confirmatory blood test at the time. Furthermore, he argued that a negative finding for blood when the towel was tested 20 years later should not negate the possibility of a positive test for blood earlier on. He explained that biodegradation, decomposition, or denaturation might have occurred over the 20-year storage period, affecting the test results.
While the case continues against other defendants, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, plans to appeal the ruling. As a state employee, Lee will be indemnified for damages, according to Tong’s office.
The implications of this legal battle are far-reaching, raising concerns about the integrity of forensic evidence and its role in wrongful convictions. The case highlights the need for accountability and transparency in forensic investigations and the importance of preserving and documenting evidence to ensure the fair administration of justice.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
