Anthony Green

• Alibi

● The defendant was the only witness to discuss his alibi.

Defendant made general assertions of innocence and denied committing the rape.

• Eyewitness
• Forensic Evidence

• Hair
• Serology

• Invalid

The analyst testified that the hair characteristics “eliminated a large percentage of the population.” As described in Part II.B, there is no statistical basis for hair comparison. The victim and Green were both B secretors and the stain tested exhibited B and H antigens. The analyst concluded that the donor was a secretor and the “ABO type of the donor of this seminal fluid was type B,” and that B secretors are approximately 16% of population. “Q. So if we understand you correctly, sir, that 84 percent of the population, male population would be unable to deposit that seminal fluid on State’s Exhibit 1? A. That is correct.” However, those substances could entirely have originated from the victim and the donor could have been any type. See Part II.A.1 for a description of the problem of masking and non-quantification and discussion of similar cases.

• Cross Racial Identification
• Victim

Yes ● Suggestive line-up – only photo with identifying information ● Suggestive remarks – told victim that they had a suspect and that his name was Tony ● Repetition of only the defendant’s photo ● Victim not told attacker might not be in line-up

Victim testified that the Officer “told me his name was Tony.” The assailant had said his name was Tony. Officer recalled “we told her we had some photographs that we had possibly the suspect in this situation.”

Yes ● Initially uncertain of identification

No identification was made when first viewing the photo array; “I wasn’t sure and I didn’t want to be sure either.”

• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
• Jury Instructions
• Prosecutorial Misconduct
• State Law Evidence Claim
• Suggestive Eyewitness Identification

• NP

Ohio v. Green, 585 N.E.2d 990 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1990)