|First Name||Donald Wayne|
|Year of Conviction||1984|
|Year of Exoneration||2004|
|State of Conviction||Texas|
|Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea||Trial|
|Type of Crime||Rape|
|Life / LWOP sentence||Life|
|Gender of Exoneree||Male|
|Race of exoneree||White|
|Type of Innocence Defense|
|Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense|
● The only witness in support of the alibi was the defendant.
|Did the defendant testify at trial?||Yes|
|Quotes from Exoneree Testimony|
No transcript obtained of second trial at which he testified.
|Types of evidence at trial|
|Type of Forensic Evidence|
|Types of Flawed Forensics|
|Reason why invalid||(1) Masking; failure to provide percentage|
|Brief Quote / Description of Testimony|
Good was an O secretor. A blanket exhibited H substances consistent with an O type while the swab tested exhibited blood groups A and H. As to the swab, the analyst stated, “you cannot put the percentage on that because it can easily be a mixture of the vaginal secretions plus the seminal fluid.” However, as to the blanket, which could also be a mixture, the analyst included Good and stated that “one-third of the Caucasian male population” are O secretors. 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 ● Suggestive line-up – As Fifth Circuit found in summary judgment ruling, Good had shown that the line-up was “fabricated,” where the officer “stated he planned to frame Good for failing to cooperate” and to “fix” the photo array by underexposing his photo to darken it and make it better match the composite, as well as hide a tattoo and scar on his face.
|Quotes from testimony #1|
As the Fifth Circuit described, the plaintiff argued that the detective “proceeded to take several pictures of Good. He repeatedly altered the light settings on the camera with each picture in an effort to make Good’s photograph better match the “dark tan” skin tone of the suspect in the police sketch”
Yes ● Discrepancies in description, skin tone, facial scar and tattoo ● Initial nonidentification (by second eyewitness)
|Highest level reached||Appeal|
|Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction|
|Claims granted, resulting in preexon. reversal|
|Citations to judicial opinions|
Good v. State, 723 S.W.2d 734 (Tx. Cr. App. 1986)