EXONERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE 1989

Meghan Cousino, Special Researcher
Barbara O’Brien, Editor, obrienb@law.msu.edu
Samuel Gross, Senior Editor
Klara Stephens, Denise Foderaro Research Scholar
National Registry of Exonerations
March 14, 2018

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

This report benefited from the assistance of many people, but it would not have been possible
without the work of two talented colleagues: Rob Warden, Executive Director Emeritus of theCenter on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern University School of Law, who initiated andinspired the project that collected research files on most of the cases we have listed; and Dolores
Kennedy, who did an amazing job of supervising and managing that project, maintaining the files,
and organizing them for this use. We are deeply grateful.

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989
The National Registry of Exonerations
March 14, 2018

Executive Summary
The National Registry of Exonerations searches for, investigates, and reports every exoneration in
the United States that we can find that occurred after the beginning of 1989.
This year we have added stories and data about 369 earlier exonerations, from 1820 through 1988.
We will continue to add such cases, but will not attempt to locate every possible exoneration frombefore 1989.
Our pre-1989 database is different from the Registry itself in two important respects: (i) The list ofcases is less complete and less representative of all exonerations in its time period than our list of
2,180 exonerations since 1989, and (ii) We have less information on exonerations before 1989.
Both differences reflect the difficulty of studying cases that are more than 30 years old.
Almost all the pre-1989 exonerations occurred in the twentieth century, most of them since 1950.
Some of them are historically important cases that had substantial impacts on criminal justicepolicy, including the “Scottsboro Boys” exonerations (starting in 1937), and the exonerations ofClarence Gideon in 1963 and George Whitmore, Jr. in 1973.
In many respects, the pre-1989 exonerations are similar to those that happened later. There are,however, several differences, including:•

The pre-1989 exonerees we list were cleared more quickly than those who were exonerated
later, 5.9 years after conviction on average, compared to 10.5 years.

P A G E | 2 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989•

More exonerations before 1989 were homicide cases—60% compared to 40% for thosesince 1989—mostly because of a large difference for homicides that resulted in death
sentences, 21% to 6%.

•

Many fewer of the pre-1989 exonerations were for sexual assaults (8% vs. 26%), probably
because DNA technology was not available to identify the true criminals, and more of thepre-1989 exonerations were for robberies (18% to 5%).

•

We know of no drug crime exonerations before 1989 and very few exonerations for childsex abuse, possibly because there were far fewer prosecutions for those crimes; on the other
hand, there were more exonerations for forgery and counterfeiting.

•Fewer exonerations before 1989 were for convictions known to be tainted by official
misconduct, 34% compared to 52% for exonerations since 1989.

P A G E | 3 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989
The National Registry of Exonerations
March 14, 2018

I.

Introduction

In 1819, Jesse Boorn was arrested in Manchester, Vermont, for the murder of his brotherin-law, Russell Colvin, who had disappeared seven years earlier. Soon after the arrest, a
man who shared a jail cell with Boorn told the police that Boorn had confessed to him.
Faced with that claim, Jesse Boorn confessed to the police but placed the blame primarilyon his brother Stephen, who was in New York.
Based on Jesse’s statement, Stephen was arrested and returned to Vermont, where he too
confessed to the killing, but said he had acted in self-defense. The Boorn brothers wereconvicted and sentenced to death. In 1820, however, shortly before Stephen was scheduled
to be hanged, Russell Colvin was found alive—working on a farm in New Jersey. He
returned to Vermont and his brothers-in-law were exonerated and released.
There are scores of exonerations like that of the Boorn brothers, from the nineteenth century into
the 1980s. Until now, however, we did not list or describe these older exonerations because, as we

P A G E | 4 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

say on our website, the Registry “provides detailed information about every known exoneration in
the United States since 1989.”
The temporal limitation is essential. Our goal is to compile a set of exonerations that is as complete
as possible. This entails a commitment to investigate and search for them. Because our resources
are limited, we have restricted our coverage to a manageable period. It is increasingly difficult tofind and study cases the farther back in time we look. We chose 1989 as the starting point because
the first DNA exonerations in the United States took place in that year—a convenient marker for alargely arbitrary starting date, although that was the beginning of a new era of discovery andinsight into the causes of wrongful convictions.
At the inception of the Registry, we knew of hundreds of exonerations that occurred before 1989,
and, without systematically searching for them, we regularly hear of others. Over the past several
years we have researched these cases, coded data about them, written narrative summaries, and,
where possible, located photographs of the defendants. The result is a new database of
Exonerations Before 1989 that appears on our web site as of today.
This pre-1989 database currently includes 369 exonerations that occurred in the United States
between 1820 and 1988; we will continue to add to this database. The formats in which we display
these cases look similar to the case pages and the Detailed View that we use for the exonerations
since 1989. There are, however, two important differences.
First, our information about the pre-1989 exonerations is less extensive and less complete than forlater exonerations. We collect data on fewer variables—for example, our pre-1989 display does notindicate whether the case involved a guilty plea or if no crime occurred like we do under the
Detailed View of Registry cases—and there are more missing data on the variables we do use.
Second, and more important, this is a much less complete list of exonerations. We work hard to
identify every exoneration since 1989, whether it occurred one week or 25 years ago. We’ll neverfind every case—it’s clear that many have eluded us thus far—but we’re committed to trying. We
have no similar plan to expend significant effort to hunt for other exonerations that occurred before
1989. While we will add to these 369 cases as we learn about them, we remain focused on the
post-1989 period.

II.

Pre-1989 Exonerations Over TimeIn general, the pre-1989 exonerations we list become more frequent over time, from 1820 to 1988.
See Table 1:

P A G E | 5 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

Table 1: Pre-1989 Exonerations
Over Time
1820

2

1851

1

1888 & 1889

21890 – 1899

91900 – 1909

101910 – 1919

20

1920 – 1929

44

1930 – 1939

59

1940 – 1949

26

1950 – 1959

39

1960 – 1969

29

1970 – 1979

57

1980 – 1988

73

We know of only five exonerations from before 1890, although there were certainly more. After
that, the number of exonerations we list grows steadily from nine in the 1890s to 59 in the 1930s,
declines from the 1940s through the ’60s, and increases again in the 1970s and ’80s.
It’s easy to explain the general increase in listed exonerations over time: The United States
population grew steadily from less than 10 million in 1820 to 237 million in 1980, and, as we
mentioned, more information about past cases is available the closer we come to the present. But
why was there a dip in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s? Did it have something to do with World War II?
Does it reflect something about our sources of information?1 Or is there some alternative or
additional explanation? We don’t know.
We should keep the increase in the number of known exonerations in the 1970s and ’80s in
perspective. We list 73 exonerations in the nine years from 1980 through 1988—about 25% morethan in any previous ten-year period. But we also know of 332 exonerations in the nine-year periodthat immediately followed, 1989-1997, four-and-a-half times as many. Some of that increase may
1

For example, we used several books on false convictions that focus on cases in the 1920s and ’30s: Edwin Borchard,
CONVICTING THE INNOCENT (1932); Erle Stanley Gardner, THE COURT OF LAST RESORT (1952); Jerome and BarbaraFrank, NOT GUILTY (1957); Edward Radin, INNOCENT (1964).

P A G E | 6 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

be due to a rise in the actual number of exonerations, but most of it likely reflects the effort we
make to find exonerations that occurred since 1989, but not before.

III.

Time to Exoneration

The average time from conviction to exoneration is nearly twice as long for exonerations since
1989, 10.5 years compared to 5.9 years for those before 1989. In both periods, the average time
gap is larger for murders than for other crimes by about the same ratio. See Table 2:
Table 2: Average Time from
Conviction to Exoneration

1820 – 1988

1989 – 2017

(N = 369)(N = 2,161)

ALL CRIMES

5.9 years

10.5 years

Murder

7.1 years

14.1 years

Other Crimes

4.1 years

8.3 years

There’s no shortage of explanations for this increase in average time to exoneration after 1989: theadvent of DNA evidence that opened the door to scientific re-examination of the guilt ofdefendants in a large number of criminal convictions from earlier decades; the proliferation ofconviction integrity units in prosecutorial offices and of innocence organizations representing
convicted defendants, both of which are dedicated to correcting false convictions regardless of
their age; changes in law and practice that have made courts and prosecutors more willing toreopen old cases; and so forth. But which of these factors actually made a difference, and by how
much? We don’t know.

IV.

Race and Sex

Three percent of the pre-1989 exonerees we list are women (12/369) compared to 9% of the post1989 exonerees (203/2,161). This difference may be due in part to an increase in prosecutions of

P A G E | 7 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

crimes against children, a category of crime that’s far more likely to involve female exonerees thanother categories of crimes.2
The pre-1989 exonerations we have posted include a higher proportion of white exonerees thanthose since 1989 (53% to 39%), and lower proportions of black and Hispanic exonerees (27% and
5% compared to 46% and 12%, respectively).3 See Table 3:

Table 3: Exonerations by Raceof Exoneree
1989 – 2018

(N = 369)(N = 2,161)

White

53%

(196)

39%

Black

27%

(101)

46%

Hispanic

5%

(18)

12%

Other

1%

(4)

2%

Unknown

14%

(50)

-0-

100% (369)

100%

TOTAL

V.

1820 – 1988

Exonerations by Crime

The distribution of the crimes for which defendants were exonerated before 1989 differs
considerably from that for the post-1989 Registry exonerations, as we see in Table 4. (The red
figures on Table 4 mark categories for which there is a substantially higher proportion ofexonerations in the newly-added, pre-1989 database; the blue figures mark categories with
substantially lower proportions.)2

See https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Features.Female.Exonerees.aspx.

3

For 14% of the pre-1989 exonerations, the race of the exonerees is unknown. For the post-1989 exonerations, where
our data are generally more complete, we have information on the race of all exonerees.

P A G E | 8 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

Table 4: Exonerations by Crime4
1820 - 1988

1989 - 2017

(N = 369)(N = 2,161)

Homicide63% (234)

40%

Murder60% (221)39%

21% (77)39% (144)

6%
35%

Manslaughter

4% (13)

2%

Sexual Assaults

8% (28)26%

Death Sentences

3% (11)---

Sexual assault on an adult

7% (25)
1% (3)

14%

23% (85)

14%
5%

Assault

18% (68)
2% (6)
2% (8)

Arson

---

1%

1% (3)

1%

Other Violent Felonies

---

1%

Non-Violent Crimes

6% (22)

18%

---

12%
0.1%

Death sentences
Other murder convictions

Child sex abuse

5

Other Crimes of Violence
Robbery
Attempted murder

Kidnapping

Drug crimes
Forgery/Counterfeiting
Fraud/Bribery & Corruption
Theft/Stolen Property
Burglary/Unlawful Entry
Miscellaneous

TOTAL

2% (9)
1% (3)
1% (4)
1% (3)
1% (3)

100%

12%

2%
4%

1%
1%
1%
3%

100%

4

In this table we classify each case by the most serious crime for which the defendant was convicted and later
exonerated.
5
We categorize any sexual assault on a person younger than 16 as “child sex abuse.”

P A G E | 9 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

1. Death-Row Exonerations
The proportion of homicides is higher among the pre-1989 exonerations than for exonerations
since 1989, 63% compared to 40%. Most of the difference is due to a higher proportion of murder
exonerations with death sentences, 21% vs. 6% of all exonerations. In addition, the pre-1989
exonerations include 11 cases in which the defendants were sentenced to death for rape—apunishment that has been unconstitutional since 19766— while those after 1989 include none. The
net effect is that 24% of pre-1989 exonerees had been sentenced to death, compared to 6% of thoseexonerated since 1989.
The most likely explanation for the high proportion of death-row exonerations before 1989 is
simply that they’re easier to find. Capital cases, and especially exonerations of defendants who
were sentenced to death, attract much more attention than other criminal prosecutions. We cancompensate for that bias to some extent by diligent searching, but less effectively as we look backfarther in time and the available information thins out. In any event, we have not tried to conduct
exhaustive searches for exonerations that are 30 to 200 years old.7
2. Rape and Robbery Exonerations
Among the post-1989 exonerations in the Registry, sexual assaults outnumber robberies three toone. Among pre-1989 exonerations, the pattern is reversed: robbery exonerations outnumber thosefor rape by more than two to one, 18% to 7%.
There’s an obvious explanation for this switch. Both robbery and rape convictions that end inexoneration are overwhelmingly cases in which the victims of violent crimes by strangers
misidentified the defendants as the attackers. Since robberies by strangers are several times morecommon that rapes by strangers, the pattern we see in pre-1989 cases is what we’d expect: many
more exonerations for robbery than for rape.
Starting in 1989, however, DNA has been used to exonerate some innocent defendants in the
United States. DNA can only identify the perpetrator of a crime if he left biological trace evidence
at the scene, which is true in the great majority of rapes but only a small minority of robberies. Not
surprisingly, rape exonerations shot up after 1989 and now greatly outnumber robbery
exonerations. Two thirds of rape cases among the 2,161 exonerations since 1989 include DNA

6

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).

7

We also see this pattern among the pre-1989 exonerations: the proportion of capital exonerations increases thefarther back we go. It’s 57% for the few exonerations we list from the nineteenth century (8/14); 41% of those wefound in the first hundred years we cover, 1820-1919 (18/44); and 22% for pre-1989 exonerations since 1920 (70/325),
a period that includes more than 80% of the pre-1989 exonerations we list (325/369).

P A G E | 10 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

evidence (205/310), unlike robbery exonerations, only 13% of which have any DNA evidence(14/113).
3. Child Sex Abuse
We know of 250 child sex abuse cases among the 2,161 exonerations in the Registry as ofDecember 31, 2017, the third most common crime with 12% of the total, but only three frombefore 1989, fewer than 1%. That stark difference no doubt reflects more aggressive prosecution ofsexual assaults on children starting in the 1980s, including the period of a national epidemic ofchild sex abuse hysteria prosecutions in the 1980s and early ’90s 8 that led to 58 exonerations from1989 to 2017.
4. Forgery and Drugs Crimes
Nine of the pre-1989 exonerations we list were for forgery or counterfeiting, mostly from the
1920s and ’30s. The last was in 1958; there are none among the 159 exonerations from 1960 andthrough 1988, and only 3—one-tenth of 1%—among the 2,161 exonerations since 1989. Why haveexonerations for these crimes essentially ground to a halt? Is it because fewer cases are prosecuted,
or because those that are receive lighter penalties? Have changes in investigative procedures madeerrors less likely? We don’t know.
On the other hand, there were no drug crime exonerations before 1989, but since then, 12%(249/2161) of the exonerations listed in the Registry are drug crimes. That change is easy to
explain. The number of convictions for drug crimes has skyrocketed since the 1980s. For example,
there were about 41,000 people in American jails and prisons for drug crimes in 1980 and 470,000
in 2015.

VI.

Factors that Contribute to Wrongful Convictions

We collected data on several factors that contributed to the false convictions of the defendants who
were exonerated before 1989, as we do for the post-1989 exonerations in the Registry. The
proportions of cases with these factors are displayed in Table 5, for all pre-1989 exonerations andfor murder, rape, and robbery cases separately:8

See Exonerations in the United States, Update: 2012

P A G E | 11 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

Table 5: Exonerations by Crime and Contributory Factors
1820-1988 (N = 369)
False or
Misleading
Forensic
Evidence

Official
Misconduct43%

Mistaken
Witness ID

False
Confession

Perjury or
False
Accusation

29%

16%

59%

13%

(63)

(36)

(130)

(28)

(96)

23%

19%

61%

14%

39%

(18)

(15)

(47)

(11)

(30)

52%

56%

48%

4%

28%

(13)

(4)

(12)

(1)

(7)

Robbery (68)

85%

4%

4%

1%

(58)

(3)

(3)

(1)

18%
(12)

ALL CASES (369)

43%

14%

44%

10%

34%

(160)

(50)

(161)

(36)

(126)

Murder (221)
Death
Sentences (77)

Rape (25)

For the most part, the distribution for contributory factors resembles that for post-1989
exonerations, with a couple of exceptions:•

The rate of eyewitness identification errors is somewhat higher in the pre-1989
exonerations, 43% compared to 29% for the cases since 1989. That mostly reflects a higher
proportion of robbery exonerations (18% vs. 5%), 85% of which have mistaken eyewitness
identification—plus, all nine of the forgery and counterfeiting exonerations from before
1989 had eyewitness misidentifications.

•

The proportion of cases with official misconduct is lower among the pre-1989 exonerations
than those that occurred later, 34% compared to 52%. Most of that difference is due to alarger difference in the rate of misconduct among murder exonerations—43% before 1989,
70% after—and a huge difference among capital murder exonerations: 39% of the pre-1989
death-row exonerations included official misconduct, compared to 81% of those since
1989.
This change could mean that official misconduct that contributes to false convictions ismore common now than it was thirty years ago or longer, especially among murder cases.
It seems likely to us, however, that some if not all of the difference reflects the information
that’s available. Official misconduct, by its very nature, is concealed; we miss much of it
because it has not come to light or is not described in the documents that we have access to.
That problem is intrinsically worse for older cases because we know less about them in all
respects. It is likely to be worse yet for official misconduct because our information on thatP A G E | 12 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

topic often comes from post-exoneration civil litigation by exonerees seeking
compensation, and that sort of litigation is much more common now than it was before
1989. What’s more, changes in what courts consider to be misconduct means that the same
behavior that can now—if discovered—provide a basis for relief would not have led to an
exoneration in the past.

VII.

Exonerations by State

Table 6 shows the numbers of cases in the eleven states with the most pre-1989 exonerations(Georgia and New Jersey are tied for 10th), and similar proportions for post-1989 exoneration forcomparison.

Table 6: Exonerations by State
1820 - 1988

1989 - 2016

(N = 369)(N = 2,161)

1. New York

13% (49)

1. Texas15%

2. California

11% (39)

2. New York11%

3. Illinois

8% (28)

3. Illinois

10%

4. Florida

6% (21)

4. California

8%

5. Massachusetts

5% (19)5. Michigan

4%

6. Michigan

5% (17)

6. Florida

3%

7. Ohio

5% (17)

7. Pennsylvania (tie)3%

8. North Carolina

4% (16)

7. Ohio (tie)3%

9. Pennsylvania

4% (14)

9. North Carolina

3%

10. Georgia (tie)

3% (12)

10. Massachusetts

3%

10. New Jersey (tie)

3% (11)For the most part, the distribution by state is similar across time periods. The top three states inexonerations before 1989 are all in the top four since 1989; five of the top six before 1989 are in
the top six after 1989; all of the top nine before 1989 are in the top ten after1989.

P A G E | 13 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

The state that breaks the pattern is Texas, which tops the 1989-2017 list, but isn’t in the top ten forexonerations before 1989. Texas has 10 known exonerations before 1989, less than 3% of the total,
but 330 since 1989, or 15% (330/2,161).
Part of the reason is that Texas had 135 drug-possession guilty-plea exonerations that were in
Harris County (Houston) from 2014 through 2017. These exonerations were obtained by the Harris
County District Attorney’s Conviction Integrity Unit after they learned that local crime labs had
tested the “drugs” that many defendants pled guilty to possessing, and found, in a surprisingnumber of cases, that they contained no controlled substances.
The Harris County drug possession cases only explain part of this change. Even without them,Texas would have 195 exonerations since 1989, 9% of the total and third after New York (233)
and Illinois (203). Texas now has a generous and widely used statutory procedure for exonerees toobtain compensation for wrongful imprisonment; that process makes it more likely that we willlearn about exonerations in Texas than in most other states. In addition, it is likely that the highnumber of exonerations in Texas since 1989 also reflects changes on the ground in both thebroader legal culture and more specifically in the treatment of post-conviction claims of innocencein the Lone Star State.

VIII. Notable Exonerations:
1. Condy Dabney (1927)
In 1925, 14-year-old Mary Vickery disappeared from
Coxton, Kentucky. Several people reported seeing her
riding in a taxicab driven by 31-year-old Condy
Dabney on the day of her disappearance. When thebones of a young teenage girl were found in a nearby
abandoned mine two months later, many locals
concluded that they were Vickery’s bones.
Police did not arrest Dabney until early 1926, when ayoung woman named Marie Jackson claimed she had
been in the taxi with Vickery and Dabney on the day inquestion and had witnessed Dabney murder Vickery. After a one-day trial and one-day
deliberation by the jury, Dabney was convicted of murdering Vickery and sentenced to life
in prison.

P A G E | 14 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

A year after the trial, Mary Vickery returned to Coxton—to much fanfare—having learned
about Dabney’s conviction from a police officer. She denied any acquaintance whatsoever
with Dabney or Jackson and said she had been traveling around since August 1925 to avoid
family problems. Within weeks of Vickery’s return, Jackson admitted she had committed
perjury at Dabney’s trial, and the governor pardoned Dabney. Reports from the time refer
to both the reward money offered by Vickery’s father and to a grudge against Dabney asJackson’s likely motives for her false accusation.
In addition to Dabney and the Boorn brothers, the pre-1989 cases include seven otherexonerees who were convicted of murder only to later discover that the supposed murder
victim was still alive.
2. Scottsboro Boys (1937 and 1976)
The prosecution of the“ScottsboroBoys”
inAlabama may have beenthemostsignificant
criminal case in the UnitedStates in the first half of the20th century. It commanded
nationwide attention foryears, and led to two
landmark U.S. Supreme
Court decisions.
The Scottsboro Boys werenine young black men and boys, ages 12 to 21: Charles Weems, Andy Wright, Haywood
Patterson, Clarence Norris, Willie Roberson, Eugene Williams, Roy Wright, Ozie Powell,and Olen Montgomery. On March 25, 1931, they were accused of raping two young white
women on a freight train on which they were all travelling as stowaways. By April 10, lessthan three weeks after the alleged crimes, eight of the Scottsboro Boys were convicted andsentenced to death in three one-day trials, based entirely on the testimony of the two
women. When some jurors refused to impose the death penalty on 12-year-old Roy Wight,
a mistrial was declared in his case. In March 1932, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld
seven of the convictions and death sentences but granted a new trial to 13-year-old Eugene
Williams because he was a juvenile.

P A G E | 15 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

In 1932, in the case titled Powell v. Alabama,9 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed theconvictions because the defendants had not received meaningful representation fromdefense counsel. Powell v. Alabama was the first case in which the Supreme Court reversed
state criminal convictions because the defendants had been denied due process of law, as
required by the Fourteenth Amendment of United States Constitution.
At a retrial, one of the women admitted she had not been raped and that her previous
testimony was a lie. Nonetheless, the defendants were convicted again, but the trial judge
set aside the convictions. After Patterson and Norris were convicted again, their case wasappealed while the remaining defendants waited behind bars.
In 1935, in Norris v. Alabama,10 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed those convictions andheld that the systematic exclusion of prospective black jurors from the juries in their retrials
was unconstitutional. Norris v. Alabama was the first case in which the Court applied theequal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to a state that claimed to choosejuries without discrimination but in fact excluded all African Americans from jury service.
In 1937, the prosecution dismissed the charges against Willie Roberson, Olen
Montgomery, Eugene Williams, and Roy Wright. Ozie Powell pled guilty to assaulting a
deputy while in custody and the rape charges against him were also dismissed. Patterson,
Weems, Wright, and Norris were convicted again of the rapes and sentenced to prison.
Norris, Weems, and Wright were paroled in 1943 and 1944. Patterson died in prison in
1948. Norris was pardoned in 1976 and Weems, Wright, and Patterson were pardoned
posthumously, in 2013, more than 80 years after their convictions.
3. Maude Storick (1949)
In 1921, after Claude Cushing died in Dowagiac, Michigan, his physician
said the cause of death was a stomach ailment. Three weeks later, after
Cushing’s widow, Maude, went to Benton Harbor and married resort
owner Emory Storick, she came under suspicion. As a result, Claude’s
body was exhumed and an autopsy determined his body contained large
amounts of the poisonous compound bichloride of mercury. Police
concluded that Maude, now known as Maude Storick, poisoned Claude
so she could marry Emory.

9

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935).

10P A G E | 16 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

In 1923, she was convicted of Claude’s murder and sentenced to life in prison. While inprison, the defense located the doctor who had treated Claude prior to his death. This
doctor reported that Claude had been using bichloride of mercury for throat pain, and thatthe doctor had urged him to discontinue ingesting it because it was poisoning him.
Notwithstanding this new evidence, Maude was denied a retrial and parole as well.
In the 1940s, a Detroit attorney, Alean B. Clutts, became interested in the case andarranged for Maude to take a lie detector test, which she passed. Clutts was a prominent
lawyer in Detroit when there were few female members of the bar. She also represented
another exoneree – Rose Veres. On October 25, 1949, after spending 26 years in prison,
Maude Storick was granted an unconditional pardon by Michigan Governor G. Mennen
Williams, the only such pardon Governor Williams granted in his six terms in office.
4. Clarence Gideon (1963)
In 1963, the United States Supreme Court held that
the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution requires thestate to appoint an attorney to represent every criminal
defendant charged with a serious crime who does nothave the funds to hire a lawyer. This was amomentous decision, one of its most important in thehistory of the Court, but it was triggered by a crime
almost singularly petty.
In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged withbreaking into a poolroom in Panama City, Florida,and stealing about $50 in change and some beer.
Gideon, who could not afford a lawyer, asked the trial
judge to appoint one for him. He was told that under Florida law he was not entitled toappointed counsel because he was not charged with a capital crime. Gideon, who had little
education and no legal background, was forced to represent himself. Not surprisingly, he
did a poor job; he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.
After his appeal was denied, Gideon filed a handwritten petition in the United States
Supreme Court, claiming that he had a constitutional right to be represented by an attorneyat his trial, regardless of his ability to pay. The Court took the case, appointed Abe Fortas(later a Supreme Court Justice himself) to represent Gideon. In 1963, the Court ruled in his
favor in the landmark case Gideon v Wainwright.11
11

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

P A G E | 17 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

After Gideon’s conviction was vacated, the prosecution took the case to trial a second time.
This time Gideon was represented by a court-appointed attorney—the same one he had
asked for before his first trial. His lawyer investigated the crime scene and presented
evidence showing that due to obstructions in his line of vision, the eyewitness who had
identified Gideon could not possibly have seen what he had claimed he saw on the night ofthe crime. The attorney also introduced a new witness who testified that the eyewitness had
told him that he was “not sure” Gideon was the perpetrator.
In 1963, a jury acquitted Gideon.
5. George Whitmore, Jr. (1973)
The 1964 false confession by George Whitmore, Jr.,an eighth grade dropout, to two infamous murders in
Manhattan was credited with contributing to someof the most significant legal reforms in U.S. history.
The 1963 murders of Emily Hoffert and Janice
Wylie in their upper East Side apartment in
Manhattan—dubbed the “Career Girls Murders” by
the media—were still unsolved in April 1964 when
Whitmore was arrested in Brooklyn. Police picked
him up after they saw him walking near where Elba
Borrero had been raped several hours earlier. After
Borrero identified him through a peephole in theinterrogation room door, Whitmore signed a
confession to not only raping Borrero, but also to
the murders of Hoffert and Wylie and a third unrelated murder of Minnie Edmonds.
Whitmore was convicted twice of the assault on Borrero, but both times the convictions
were set aside—the first time because jurors read newspaper accounts of the case thatreferred to him as the suspect in the Career Girls murders, and the second because the jury
was racially biased.
In the meantime, a detective obtained recorded conversations in which another man—Richard Robles—confessed in detail to committing the Career Girl Murders. Robles wasarrested for the murders in January 1965.

P A G E | 18 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

Prosecutors pressed onward with the Minnie Edmonds murder case and the retrial for theattack on Borrero. The murder case ended in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach aunanimous verdict. In March 1966, Whitmore was convicted again of assaulting Borrero. A
year later, however, the conviction was overturned a third time because Whitmore’s
attorneys had not been permitted to cross-examine police about Whitmore’s false murderconfession.
Whitmore’s false confession to crimes carrying a possible death sentence was touted as areason to abolish the death penalty in New York in 1965, and his case was cited as “themost conspicuous example” of police coercion by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark
decision in Miranda v. Arizona.12
Ultimately, the murder charge involving Minnie Edmonds was dismissed after Whitmore’s
confession was ruled inadmissible. But prosecutors pressed on, and in May 1967,
Whitmore was again convicted of assaulting Borrero, almost solely on the basis of her
identification. He was sentenced to five to ten years in prison.
In December 1972, with his appeals long exhausted, a journalist obtained an affidavit from
Borrero’s sister stating that Borrero had identified a different man as her attacker prior to
identifying Whitmore. On the basis of this newly discovered evidence, Whitmore’s
conviction was vacated and the case was dismissed in 1973.
6. Lenell Geter (1984)
Lenell Geter was convicted of a 1982 robbery in Greenville, Texas,
solely on the basis of eyewitness identifications even though nine
co-workers said he was with them, on the job, 50 miles away. As
one co-worker explained, Geter’s absence could hardly have been
overlooked since, as the only black person in the work group, he“stood out like a raisin in a bowl of rice.”
Earlier in the year, Geter and five other young black men, all recent
college graduates with engineering degrees, moved to
predominantly white Greenville to begin new jobs working for alarge military defense contractor. After several robberies of fast
food restaurants, a woman reported to police that she had seen two
12

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

P A G E | 19 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

black men sitting in a car parked two miles from one of the restaurants on the day it was
robbed. The car was registered to Geter. When police showed his photo to robbery victims,
several identified him as the robber.
Geter, who had a reputation as a kind, well-mannered man, maintained his innocence.
Despite the testimony of his co-workers, the jury believed the eyewitness identifications
and in October 1982, Geter was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
During his appeal, defense attorneys were able to show that some of the police testimony atGeter’s trial was false, and that another suspect in the robberies had been implicated. After
viewing a photo of the other suspect, four of the five eyewitnesses who had previously
identified Geter agreed that the new suspect was the robber. In March 1984, after thesuspect failed a lie detector test, Geter’s conviction was vacated and his indictment was
dismissed.
7. Bradley Cox (1982) and Clarence Von Williams (1982)
Bradley Cox and Clarence Von Williams(pictured) were both wrongly convicted ofseemingly unrelated crimes in two different
states that were later discovered to have beencommitted by same serial rapist.
In 1979, Cox was charged with two robberies
and rapes in Fairfield and Athens counties in
Ohio. After eight hours of interrogation, hesigned a confession that had been written forhim by one of his interrogators. Almost
immediately, Cox recanted the confession,
claiming it had been coerced, but in April 1980, he was convicted and sentenced to 56 to
200 years in prison.
The following year, in October 1981, Clarence Von Williams was convicted of a 1979 rapein Bridge City, Texas, and sentenced to 50 years in prison. The victim, who had met Von
Williams previously at a party, said she recognized him when she got a glimpse of her
attacker’s face through a slit in his mask.

P A G E | 20 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697

EXONERATIONS BEFORE 1989

Shortly after Von Williams’s conviction, police in Lake Charles, Louisiana, arrested Jon
Barry Simonis for burglary and sexual assault. Simonis, who wore a ski mask at the time of
the crime, quickly confessed to that crime—and to nearly 80 other assaults across 12 states.
Simonis, who became known as the “ski mask rapist,” described the assaults in such great
detail that police were able to conclude that he was responsible for the crimes for which
Cox and Von Williams had been convicted. Von Williams’ conviction was vacated and thecharges were dismissed in December 1981. Cox’s convictions were vacated and he wasreleased in January 1982.
______________________________________________The National Registry of Exonerations is a joint project of the University of California Irvine
Newkirk Center for Science and Society, the University of Michigan Law School, and the Michigan
State University College of Law. It provides detailed information about every known exonerationin the United States since 1989—cases in which a person was wrongly convicted of a crime andlater cleared of all the charges based on new evidence of innocence.

P A G E | 21 OF 21

NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONSNEWKIRK CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92697