| First Name | Glen |
| Last Name | Woodall |
| Year of Conviction | 1987 |
| Year of Exoneration | 1992 |
| Testing inculpated culprit | Cold Hit |
| State of Conviction | West Virginia |
| Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea | Trial |
| Type of Crime | Rape |
| Death Sentence | No |
| Life / LWOP sentence | Life without parole |
| Gender of Exoneree | Male |
| Race of exoneree | White |
| Juvenile | No |
| Type of Innocence Defense |
|
| Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense | ● Defendant’s brother testified that defendant was working with him for the entire day on the dates that the crimes occurred. |
| Did the defendant testify at trial? | Yes |
| Quotes from Exoneree Testimony | “Q: Glen, did you in any way assault [victim 1]? A: No, sir. Q: Did you, Glen, in any way assault [victim 2]? A: No, sir. Q: Have you told the truth here today, Glen? A: Yes.” |
| Types of evidence at trial |
|
| Type of Forensic Evidence |
|
| Types of Flawed Forensics |
|
| Reason why invalid | (3), (5) False serology probability; hair match |
| Brief Quote / Description of Testimony | Woodall was a B secretor, GLO I Type 2-1 and both victims also were GLO I Type 2-1. Perpetrator could have had one of several GLO types, but the analyst claims that 6 out of 10,000 have the same blood groupings as Woodall, “based specifically just on male population of Cabell County.” The analyst testified also as to a hair comparison, that “it would be very highly unlikely that due to no dissimilarities identifiable and distinguishable, that the hair could have originated from anyone else.” |
| Identity of eyewitness |
|
| Multiple eyewitnesses | 3 |
| Lineup Procedures |
|
| Suggestive Procedures | Yes ● Show-up ● Hypnotized Brady |
| Quotes from testimony #1 | Second victim described show-up following voice identification procedure in which police “brought Mr. Woodall out and sat him in the chair in front of me” |
| Unreliable Identification? | Yes ● Non-identification by first victim who could not see attacker, who wore mask; second victim could not see attacker’s face either ● Discrepancies in description – second victim could not describe attacker and did not mention facial hair or beard |
| Quotes from testimony #2 | First victim explained, “Q: …have you ever identified anyone other than the defendant as your attacker? A: I have never identified anyone. Q: You have never identified anyone? A: I couldn’t identify him.” Second victim in her statement, had said, “I didn’t see him so there’s no way I could you know tell whether or not it was him.” She could see “back side” of head, and identified him “from the shoulder’s down,” but no mention of facial hair. |
| Highest level reached | State Post Conviction |
| Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction |
|
| Citations to judicial opinions | State v. Woodall, 385 S.E.2d 253 (W.Va. 1989) |