|Year of Conviction
|Year of Exoneration
|Testing inculpated culprit
|State of Conviction
|Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty Plea
|Type of Crime
|Gender of Exoneree
|Race of exoneree
|Type of Innocence Defense
|Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense
● Defense presented another man who was dressed in the exact way victim described and had a history of sexual assaults.
|Types of evidence at trial
|Type of Forensic Evidence
|Types of Flawed Forensics
|Brief Quote / Description of Testimony
No semen detected on bra or underwear. “I didn’t have anything to link Ronald Taylor or anyone else.” Later analysis detected sufficient spermatozoa that could have been analyzed, including by using DNA testing.
|Identity of eyewitness
Yes ● Suggestive line-up and video line-up – “because: (1) appellant was the only suspect wearing a white undershirt matching W.A.’s description of the suspect; and (2) the videotape showed a victim from another attack crying and becoming sick when appellant stepped forward.”
Yes ● Could not see face of attacker ● Discrepancies in description – weight. Did notice missing tooth – but did not mention it in initial statement.
|Quotes from testimony #2
Victim told police she could not see attacker’s facial features in the dark. Victim “remembered” missing tooth only when shown video lineup.
|Highest level reached
|Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction
|Citations to judicial opinions
Taylor v. State, 1997 WL 167849 (Tex. App. 1997)