First Name | Clarence |
Last Name | Harrison |
Year of Conviction | 1987 |
Year of Exoneration | 2004 |
State of Conviction | Georgia |
Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea | Trial |
Type of Crime | Rape |
Death Sentence | No |
Life / LWOP sentence | Life |
Gender of Exoneree | Male |
Race of exoneree | Black |
Juvenile | No |
Type of Innocence Defense |
|
Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense | ● Witnesses testified defendant periodically came and went to their house throughout the night that the crime took place. |
Did the defendant testify at trial? | Yes |
Quotes from Exoneree Testimony | “Q: Mr. Harrison, did you rape [the victim]? A: No, I didn’t. Q: Do you know who did? A: No. Q: Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of this crime? A: No more than, you know, what Iheard, what Kenney said and what people said on the street, you know. Q: Have you ever harmed her in any way? A: No, I haven’t.” |
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 Harrison was an O secretor. The swabs exhibited A and O antigens. The analyst testified: “The only group of the society that could be definitely eliminated would be type B secretors and type AB secretors.” “That would eliminate approximately 22 percent — I think that’s right, about 22 percent of the population.” “Considering that Mr. Harrison is a type O secretor, he would fall within that group of the population who could not be eliminated as a semen donor.” See Part II.A.1 for a description of the problem of masking and non-quantification and discussion of similar cases. Hair comparison excluded the defendant. |
Identity of eyewitness |
|
Multiple eyewitnesses | 2 |
Lineup Procedures |
|
Suggestive Procedures | Yes ● Show-up – showed second eyewitness composite prepared by the first ● Victim not told attacker might not be in line-up ● Suggestive line-up |
Quotes from testimony #1 | Victim asked “if the photograph of the person who committed the crime against her’s photograph was among the six.” Second victim showed Harrison’s photo first – “Q: Did he show you this picture before he showed you the other pictures or after he showed you the other ones? A: He showed me this picture first. Q: Showed you this picture first.” She saw the composite, “a big old picture” on the detective’s wall when viewing photo array. |
Unreliable Identification? | Yes ● Discrepancy in description – facial hair, mustache and goatee ● One witness unsure |
Quotes from testimony #2 | Attacker “was cleanshaven,” but most people in photo array had mustaches or beards. Second victim wavered between saying he had a mustache and no beard, and both. She said “well, it might have been” a mustache, and added “Like I said, I forget faces too quick.” She added that “I am not one hundred percent sure.” |
Highest level reached | Appeal |
Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction |
|
Harmless Error Rulings |
|
Citations to judicial opinions | Harrison v. State, 370 S.E.2d 7 (Ga. App. 1988) |