| First Name | Habib Warith |
| Last Name | Abdal |
| Year of Conviction | 1982 |
| Year of Exoneration | 1999 |
| State of Conviction | New York |
| Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea | Trial |
| Type of Crime | Rape |
| Death Sentence | No |
| Gender of Exoneree | Male |
| Race of exoneree | Black |
| Juvenile | No |
| Type of Innocence Defense |
|
| Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense | ● Called five alibi witnesses. ● Argued that hair samples did not match defendant. |
| Did the defendant testify at trial? | Yes |
| Quotes from Exoneree Testimony | ● Defendant testified that he was working on the day of the crime and worshipping at a mosque in the evening. ● He did not know how to drive. ● He testified, “No, I did not” rape the victim. |
| Types of evidence at trial |
|
| Type of Forensic Evidence |
|
| Types of Flawed Forensics |
|
| Reason why invalid | (2) Claimed hair exclusion would be impossible |
| Brief Quote / Description of Testimony | Though “the hairs — hair samples were distinctively different,” where, for example, “the hair taken from Mr. Jenkins had a different medulla, which is the center part of the hair,” there was no exclusion, because “[i]t’s not unusual to have different hairs come from the same person,” and speculating that there is a statistical possibility that other unexamined hairs could be similar: “The study shows it would not be unusual to have to look at 4,500 strands of hair from the head in order to get a match with any one particular hair. And, from the pubic hair, one may have to look at as much as 800 hairs, and it can be from the same person. That gives an idea of how much a hair can vary just within one single person.” That testimony, if reliance on that study were appropriate, would suggest a statistical basis not to rely on the forensic method of hair comparison, which is based on selected exemplar hairs rather than on review of hundreds of hairs from a given person. See Part II.B.2. for a discussion of this case. |
| Identity of eyewitness |
|
| Lineup Procedures |
|
| Suggestive Procedures | Yes ● Suggestive remarks ● Live “line-up” consisting only of Abdal and a white man ● Abdal only person repeated in various procedures ● Det. showed victim single photo of Abdal |
| Quotes from testimony #1 | “And the more pressure they put on, the less I would listen to them and the longer I took in making an identification…” |
| Unreliable Identification? | Yes ●Initial non-identification ●Discrepancies in description – Victim told police the man could be between 25 and 40. However, Abdal had a grey beard and was 43 years old. She described an attacker who was between 5’8” and 5’10” which was just a few inches taller than her. However, Abdal was 6’4” |
| Quotes from testimony #2 | Victim described “pressure” police placed on her to identify Abdal “I then chose one man that looked closest to my description that I had in my head that I knew of the assailant” She told police “there were two differences still” when looking at him in person |
| Highest level reached | FederalHabeas |
| Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction |
|
| Citations to judicial opinions | People v. Jenkins, No. 82‐1320‐001 (N.Y. App. Ct., January 25, 1989) |