DNA Clears Ohio Man Of Rape After 18 Years

(AP)  A judge on Monday released a man who spent nearly 18 years in prison on a charge he raped a 10-year-old girl after a lab re-examining cases across Ohio showed that his DNA profile doesn't match evidence from the crime scene.

Robert McClendon, 52, was the first inmate to be tested in the review.

He was transported Monday from the Chillicothe Correctional Institution to a courtroom where he met with lawyers from the Ohio Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal clinic based at the University of Cincinnati.

Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Charles Schneider, citing the DNA test, granted McClendon's release from custody.

"You know, you go through times where you feel it might not happen, but you never, ever give up hope," McClendon said after his release. "You don't ever use the word, 'never happen.' It's not healthy."

Jennifer Bergeron, a lawyer with the Innocence Project, said she expects prosecutors to formally drop charges against McClendon within the next two weeks.

Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien, who must decide whether to seek a new trial, said he hasn't been able to discuss the new developments with the victim or her family. Continuing to prosecute the case seemed unlikely, he said.

"I do not think it's heading to a new trial," O'Brien said.

McClendon was reserved in court.

"To be in prison for 18 years for something you didn't do and then know you are going to walk out of court a free man, that's a lot to take in in one day," Bergeron said.

McClendon planned to go to the home of a relative in Columbus on Monday to celebrate his release at a dinner with about 50 supporters, friends and relatives, said Mark Godsey, faculty director of the Innocence Project.

Longer term, McClendon said he wants to get a good job, maybe start a business and, if he's needed, speak publicly on DNA testing.

"This is not just about me," he said. "I believe that there are others in prison like me, and then there are others in prison who are guilty. You've got to give it a chance to work."

McClendon, who denied raping the girl, was convicted in 1991 and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. He was denied parole in 2007.

DNA Diagnostics Center, a lab north of Cincinnati, agreed to conduct tests on McClendon and other inmates for free as a public service after The Columbus Dispatch published a series in January featuring 30 inmates whose applications for new DNA testing had been stalled.

The newspaper's investigation also found flaws in the state's DNA testing system — police and courts routinely discard evidence after trials, and prosecutors and judges often dismiss inmate applications for DNA testing without a stated reason.

In McClendon's case, authorities had long since lost or thrown away swabs from the victim's medical exam — typically the best evidence for testing rape cases — but agreed to provide the lab with the girl's underwear.

Using new technology that was unavailable at the time of the crime, the lab found faint traces of semen that didn't match McClendon's DNA profile, the Innocence Project announced last month.

Prosecutors said McClendon took a 10-year-old relative from her backyard, blindfolded her, drove her to a house and raped her. The victim reported the rape the next day and was taken to a hospital.

McClendon was convicted largely on the victim's testimony, Bergeron said. There was no physical evidence to tie him to the crime, she said.

McClendon had a prior record. He was convicted in the 1970s of attempted corruption of a minor for having sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 19.

[sero5]

The article says that evidence gets hidden, thrown away, or manufactured by police, forensic scientists, and prosecutors. The public has a right to know what kind of punishment these people get for doing such things. We must strive to be better to ensure that no innocent person sees a prison cell.

[goffredo29]

The people who really have to look at themselves in the mirror are those folks who denied him parole in 2007. They've got to feel really stupid. If they don't, they should.

[ktgilb1]

now if we can only get rid of that exemptions forwarded to people based on popularity and skin color

Posted by libsluv2spit at 02:26 AM : Aug 12, 2008


What Did you mean by that?????

[babooph]

We pay a fortune to lock up many innocent,or grug addicts while the bunch in the White House will never even be tried!What a mess.

[jmurrieta1]

Kind of reminds of that woman who strangled herself with her handcuffs in the Phoenix airport, according to cops.

Murder by cop. Crooked cop. Destroyers of evidence and suborners of witnesses.

Maybe crooked cops deserve the death penalty. Make depriving a person of civil rights under color of authority a capital offense.

[erasmus81]

When DNA evidence is available after any crime, DNA testing should be mandatory. It is not mandatory now becomes sometimes the defense does not want it done, sometimes its the prosecution that does not want it done.
I could care less about them, but for the sake of the guilty, the innocent, the victims, and the jurors, DNA testing should be mandatory. Posted by haoli25 at 04:04 PM : Aug 12, 2008

I watched a program on this once. They were saying that there are so many cases that aren''t solved (especially rape cases), because they just don''t have the money to use the equipment that is needed to do it.

[oldpoet-2009]

Posted by RosieOD4Prez: "I''''m certain that innocent people are in jail, but I suspect it is far less than the press would want to sensationalize. Shocking stories sell papers, not statistics which show 98% are where they belong."

98%??? What about the 2% of innocent people??? Do you even realize how many of the US population are incarcerated? According to the government there are almost 2.5 MILLION persons in jail. According to your %u2018guess%u2019 there might ONLY be 250,000 innocent people serving time. MY GOD, 250,000 being punished for a crime they DID NOT COMMIT!!!

Here%u2019s a few REAL statistics for you:

218 convicted persons have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing (the first was in 1989) in the US.

16 of those 218 persons were on DEATH ROW.

154 have been exonerated since 2000.

In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).

Look at www.innocenceproject.org to find out how FEW states have any checks and balances when it comes to safe guarding REAL justice.

EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE in prison whose case did NOT involve DNA testing should have the opportunity to apply and receive testing.

[credibility2]

This is due to DNA testing being refined and made better and more accurate due to technological advancements in the science. The results from eighteen years ago were the best available given what the technology and science was. To suggest that all DNA testing done years ago was flawed is also a stretch.

[bobnjersey]

[GOP_forever: Your pious moralizing, and your public displays of ignorance and intolerance, should cause any sane Republican to want to distance themselves from you and your opinions.]
[Posted by flreason at 11:08 AM : Aug 12, 2008]

the piety, ignorance, and intolerance ... at least as an archetype ... is what the posts are all about ... meant to represent the world view of a ''right thinker'' ... with tongue firmly in cheek.

[haoli25]

Soooo, if he didn''t do it, who did?

When DNA evidence is available after any crime, DNA testing should be mandatory. It is not mandatory now becomes sometimes the defense does not want it done, sometimes its the prosecution that does not want it done.
I could care less about them, but for the sake of the guilty, the innocent, the victims, and the jurors, DNA testing should be mandatory.