Alfred Swinton Case Study

526 Words3 Pages

Visit the website for the Innocence Project. Identify two cases that are of interest to you and each the questions below for each case.

Name of the person convicted: Alfred Swinton
State convicted in: Connecticut
Time served: 16 Years in Prison
Describe the case:Swinton became a suspect in the 1991 murder of Carla Terry on January 13, 1991, because he had been in the same bar as the victim on the night she was murdered. Swinton was arrested for the murder after police conducted a search in the basement of of where he lived and recovered a bra in a box in a common area. In addition to the bra, which the state theorized belonged to the victim, the state presented bite mark analyst Dr. Lester Luntz at a probable cause hearing who claimed that …show more content…

DNA testing excluded Swinton as the source of male DNA collected from underneath the victim’s fingernails, the rape kit and swabs taken from a bite mark on the victim. Additionally, the bite mark analyst, Dr. Gus Karazulas, now acknowledges that his testimony connecting Swinton to the crime was not based on science.

Name of the person convicted:Garr Keith Hardin and Jeffrey Dewayne Clark
State convicted in:Kentucky
Time served: (over) 20 years
Describe the case:Keith Hardin and Jeffrey Clark were convicted in 1995 of stabbing 19-year-old Rhonda Sue Warford and dumping her body in a field. At trial, the prosecution’s main “evidence” was its claim that Hardin and Clark committed the 1992 murder as part of a Satanic sacrifice (this was despite the fact that the state’s own expert acknowledged that nothing about the crime was consistent with a Satanic ritual sacrifice.) A microscopic hair expert claimed that a hair found on the sweatpants worn by the victim at the time of her death “matched” to Hardin. This was the only physical evidence linking the men to the crime or crime scene. In fact, hairs recovered from the victim’s hand did not match either Hardin or Clark. (In moving to dismiss the indictments on February 8, 2018 the Attorney General acknowledged that Det. Handy’s claim that Hardin stated that he wanted to commit human sacrifices is no longer credible. The motion noted that Handy was investigated