Convicting the Innocent
DNA Exonerations Database

Glen Woodall

First NameGlen
Last NameWoodall
Year of Conviction1987
Year of Exoneration1992
Testing inculpated culpritCold Hit
State of ConvictionWest Virginia
Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty PleaTrial
Type of CrimeRape
Death SentenceNo
Life / LWOP sentenceLife without parole
Gender of ExonereeMale
Race of exonereeWhite
Type of Innocence Defense
  • Alibi
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
  • Eyewitness
  • Forensic Evidence
Type of Forensic Evidence
  • Hair
  • Serology
Types of Flawed Forensics
  • Invalid
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
  • Intraracial Identificaiton
  • Victim
Multiple eyewitnesses3
Lineup Procedures
  • Photo array
  • Showup
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 reachedState Post­ Conviction
Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction
  • Double Jeopardy
  • Jackson Claim
  • Jury Instructions
  • Jury Misconduct
  • Motion for DNA Testing
  • Sentencing — Noncapital
  • State Law Evidence Claim
  • Suggestive Eyewitness Identification
Citations to judicial opinions

State v. Woodall, 385 S.E.2d 253 (W.Va. 1989)

Read more about this exoneration