Last Thursday, Charles Chatman became the 15th Dallas County inmate to be exonerated after DNA tests proved conclusively that they could not have committed the rape or murder of which they been accused.  Chatman was twenty when the rape occurred; now he’s forty-seven.

Chatman’s case came up for parole review three times.  Each time he was asked to confess and take personal responsibility for his actions.  Each time he refused.  You have to admire the guy.  When freedom demands that you own up to a crime you didn’t commit, most people would confess.  Chatman refused.

This case has received considerable coverage in the media; the best stories are in the Houston Chronicle , the Dallas Morning News, and the New York Times.  Like many victims of wrongful accusation, Chatman was identified by the rape victim.  I’m sure the unfortunate woman was convinced she had the right guy.  Chatman’s sister testified that the defendant was doing janitorial work for her in Arlington, Texas at the time of the crime.  Moreover, Chatman has two prominent teeth missing–the rapist did not.

So why was Chatman convicted? 

Race figures into the equation–there was only one black person on his jury.  It didn’t help that Chatman was on probation at the time.  Defendants who are already in the system are usually presumed guilty, especially if they are black and the victim is white.

But there are other factors.  Victims of violent crime naturally want to see their assailants punished, and that passionate desire often adds a false concreteness to an ambiguous set of facts.  Eyewitnesses are far more fallible than is commonly believed, even when they are trying to get it right.  And then there is the fact that police officers, eager to close a case, frequently push eyewitnesses toward a suspect.

Tragically, if the accused is poor, black and in the system, they will be convicted unless they can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The rash of exonerations in DNA cases raises questions about the credibility of the criminal justice system in cases not involving DNA evidence.  How often are drug defendants, for instance, sent to prison on the uncorroborated word of a police officer or, even worse, a convicted criminal receiving a generous time cut in payment for testimony?

Far more than you imagine.

Finally, I would like to note that Jeff Blackburn, Mr. Chatman’s lead attorney, was also heavily involved in the Tulia case.