|Year of Conviction||1984|
|Year of Exoneration||2015|
|State of Conviction||Missouri|
|Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea||Trial|
|Type of Crime||Rape|
|Gender of Exoneree||Male|
|Race of exoneree||Black|
|Type of Innocence Defense|
|Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense|
● Defendant’s father, sister, and two brothers all testified that the defendant was sleeping in his basement bedroom when the crime occurred.
|Did the defendant testify at trial?||Yes|
|Quotes from Exoneree Testimony|
Described whereabouts the day of the crime.
|Types of evidence at trial|
|Type of Forensic Evidence|
|Types of Flawed Forensics|
|Reason why invalid||(1) Masking|
|Brief Quote / Description of Testimony|
The victim was an A secretor and stains all exhibited A blood group substances. The analyst excluded AB and B people, which added up to 11% of black population. However, none could be excluded where the substances could entirely have originated with the victim. See Part II.A.1 for a description of the problem of masking and non-quantification and discussion of similar cases.
|Identity of eyewitness|
Yes ● Show-ups at defendant’s jail cell, and with single photograph
|Quotes from testimony #1|
After victim did not identify defendant’s photo in array, she saw him walk by and people in the neighborhood “went and caught him.” She was then brought to his jail cell for a show up. “Q. And when you went to his cell at the Police Department on October 10 Anthony Woods was alone in that cell? A. Yes.” “Q. While you were at the Police Station and Anthony Woods was at the Police Station, isn’t it true that you were told by the police that you had seen Anthony Woods’ photograph earlier? A. Yes. Q. They told you that? A. Yes. Q. And they showed you the photograph that you had seen. A. Yes.”
Yes ● Initial nonidentification
|Quotes from testimony #2|
Victim did not identify defendant’s photo in array. “Q. You did not pick out anybody in that book as the person who had assaulted you that morning, did you? A. No.” She later explained that he looked younger in the photo and that his hair looked different, although she did not see her attacker’s hair.
|Highest level reached||State Post Conviction|
|Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction|
|Harmless Error Rulings|
|Citations to judicial opinions|
State v. Woods, 705 S.W.2d 76 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985)