717 S.E.2d 817
Va. Ct. App.2011Background
- Haynes-worth petitions for writs of actual innocence in two 1984 sexual offense/robbery cases (M.A. and T.H.) based on newly-discovered evidence linking a different perpetrator (Davis) and DNA testing; DNA excluded Haynesworth from unrelated earlier crimes (J.S. and D.K.), leading to a petition for habeas relief; the Court must assess under Code § 19.2-327.11 whether the new evidence is material and could not have been discovered earlier; the majority granted the writs, while the dissent argues the statutes do not permit relief and that the Attorney General’s concession is improper; the dissent emphasizes the need to apply the statutes as written and to avoid judicial pardoning power; the context includes traditional eyewitness identifications by MA and TH supporting Haynesworth and the DNA evidence not exonerating these two offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to consider non-biological new evidence | Haynesworth asserts non-biological new evidence falls within this Court’s jurisdiction | Majority asserts jurisdiction via non-biological evidence under the statute | Disagreed; jurisdiction limited by statute in non-biological cases (dissent) |
| Materiality of newly discovered evidence | DNA evidence showing another offender casts doubt on convictions | Even with DNA, evidence may not prove no rational jury could convict | DNA exculpates Davis for other cases but does not render MA/TH convictions irrational (dissent) |
| Effect of Attorney General’s concession | Concession should influence issuance of writs | Concession cannot override statutory standard | Concession does not meet the strict clear-and-convincing standard (dissent) |
| Reliance on eyewitness identifications | Identifications by MA and TH remain unshaken by DNA in other cases | New evidence must be material and would need to negate identifications | Identifications alone insufficient under statute; cannot grant writs (dissent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Copeland v. Commonwealth, 52 Va.App. 529 (2008) (on point where forensic analysis established innocence; concession warranted)
- Carpitcher v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 335 (2007) (defines materiality and strict standard for innocence writs)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.App. 391 (2010) (exceedingly narrow exception to 21-day rule; standard for new evidence)
- Fisher v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 296 (1984) (identification alone can sustain conviction; corroboration not required)
- Nobrega v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 508 (2006) (identification sufficient if credible; jury's assessment of credibility)
- Moore v. Commonwealth, 53 Va.App. 334 (2009) (eyewitness testimony with corroborating evidence)