| First Name | Ulysses Rodriguez |
| Last Name | Charles |
| Year of Conviction | 1984 |
| Year of Exoneration | 2001 |
| State of Conviction | Massachusetts |
| 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 | ● Witnesses described how he was at home when the crime took place, and it was a memorable evening, when a birthday party took place. |
| Did the defendant testify at trial? | No |
| Types of evidence at trial |
|
| Type of Forensic Evidence |
|
| Types of Flawed Forensics |
|
| Brief Quote / Description of Testimony | Acid phosphatase was detected, but no semen, and the results were consistent with the victim’s type O. It was highly relevant that no semen was observed, because while the victim was Type O, Charles was a Type B secretor. The error was one of testing or failure to disclose presence of spermatozoa. When Cellmark performed typing of the same crime scene evidence years later, they readily observed sperm under the microscope. See Part II.F.2. for a discussion of this case. |
| Identity of eyewitness |
|
| Multiple eyewitnesses | 3 |
| Lineup Procedures |
|
| Suggestive Procedures | Yes ● Victim not told attacker might not be in line-up ● Suggestive remarks – told to keep looking when identified another photo |
| Quotes from testimony #1 | One victim said that the side view of Charles “looks like him,” but “they told me to continue, to keep looking,” and “I did pick out another photo.” She then “ran out of the room.” The detective then told her to come back in, and told her “Look at the picture again,” and this time she identified Charles |
| Unreliable Identification? | Yes ● Initial (or subsequent) non-identifications by all three victims Possible discrepancy in description – described “dark” skin, “scraggly hair and accent, did not describe gold tooth (victims said they did not see his teeth) |
| Quotes from testimony #2 | First victim: Q: And you were asked whether you could identify anybody in that lineup, weren’t you? A: Yes. Q: And you said no didn’t you? A: That’s because I was scared…Q: You didn’t identify anybody in that room, did you? A: Not in that room. Second victim noted she did not identify defendant in photo array, stating “I just couldn’t tell.” Third victim said she was 99 percent sure at the time of the photo array, but said “I’m not” sure. Neither second nor third victim could not identify him in the live line-up. The third explained, “It was three years later.” |
| Highest level reached | Appeal |
| Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction |
|
| Harmless Error Rulings |
|
| Citations to judicial opinions | Commonwealth v. Rodriguez U. Charles, 489 N.E.2d 679 (Mass. 1986) |