Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Prosecutor Unimpressed by Fancy-Schmancy DNA Tests; He'll Stick With Hunches
Michael Mermel, chief of the criminal division for the Lake County, Illinois state's attorney's office, is rather unimpressed by the value of exonerating DNA evidence, especially when it conflicts with good ol' eyewitness testimony, confessions, even bite-mark evidence.
For example, six years ago, Mermel dismissed DNA tests showing that the semen found in the underwear of a 68-year rape victim didn't belong to the man convicted of the crime. Bernie Starks had been serving time for the rape since 1986. Now if the DNA had come from the woman's vagina, Mermel argued at the time, "I would be standing over there advocating the side that the defense has in the case."
Actually, no he wouldn't. Three years later, a missing rape kit from the case turned up. It included a vaginal swab containing semen, and a DNA test on the semen again excluded the man convicted of the crime. Mermel again refused to concede, this time arguing that the woman must have had consensual sex with another man at about the same time of the rape.
When DNA testing on an 11-year-old rape and murder victim excluded his suspect, Mermel said the more likely explanation there too was that the girl had been sexually active—not that he could possibly be charging the wrong guy.
But this one beats all:
And, just recently, when lawyers for the man charged in the killing of his 8-year-old daughter and her 9-year-old friend said in court that DNA evidence from semen excluded him as the perpetrator, the Lake prosecutor had another explanation.
Mermel said DNA may have gotten inside the 8-year-old's body as she played in the woods at what became the crime scene—a place where Mermel said some couples go to have sex. The girl was found fully clothed.
That's some mighty potent semen.
Elemenope|12.17.08 @ 7:31AM|#
This should be a question on the Bar:
DNA, trust it or not?
Use it as a screening question, along with:
Arrange these offenses in order of seriousness -
Murdered a Guy
Found a Joint in the Sock Drawer
Flipped off a Cop
Looked at Dirty Pictures of Gay Folk
Stole a Candy Bar
Stole a Retirement Fund
Ignored Crucial Exonerating Evidence in a Trial
thoreau|12.17.08 @ 7:56AM|#
Does Mermel even give a shit that the real killer is still out
there?
I guess as long as the real killer is active, there will be more
opportunities for Mermel to prosecute the first guy he finds.
ktc2|12.17.08 @ 8:02AM|#
A truly astounding level of corruption because nobody could possibly be that stupid.
Popeye the Seaman|12.17.08 @ 8:09AM|#
My semen can make me scrambled eggs in the morning, why shouldn't it penetrate layers of clothing?
VM|12.17.08 @ 8:27AM|#
+1 Doktor T.
ktc2: maybe. maybe not. look at all those quibbletards who like
creationism...
Other Matt|12.17.08 @ 8:29AM|#
Is everything out of Illinois all seriously no holds barred fucked up?
Abdul|12.17.08 @ 8:30AM|#
If Mermel's wife ever gets pregnant when he's been out of town for a while, she'll have no trouble explaining it.
Fluffy|12.17.08 @ 8:52AM|#
I think one problem is that we don't really have a good
methodology for dealing with post-hoc exonerations of convicted
defendants.
It's not really what the appeals process is for, for one
thing.
It's too dependent on the very professionals who secured the
original incorrect conviction, in the second place.
Any child can see that this guy has personal and/or institutional
reasons to oppose exonerations, no matter the evidence, and is
willing to concoct absurd rationalizations to continue to justify
the original convictions obtained by his office. In the interest of
justice, some sort of state-level office should exist to process
extraordinary exoneration claims in a manner that excludes the
original prosecutors - because original prosecutors have too great
a vested interest in concealing incompetence in their offices, in
supporting wrongheaded local law enforcement efforts, or in plain
old dick-swinging over their conviction rate, to be trusted to be
part of the process of checking their own work.
|12.17.08 @ 8:58AM|#
Is everything out of Illinois all seriously no holds barred
fucked up?
It seems so lately, doesn't it?
Fluffy is right on the money. It's insane to have the people who
are responsible for the wrong conviction in the first place as the
people who are supposed to fix it. Because they won't.
robc|12.17.08 @ 9:02AM|#
It seems so lately, doesn't it?
Lately?!? How long has a Daley been mayor? And to be bi-partisan,
it wasnt that recently that a certain GOP speaker of the house
called the constitution an anachronism.
|12.17.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Illinois is the new Florida.
No Illinois has always been Illinois. Florida can't compare to the
century of open corruption that Illinois is. Most of the time you
don't hear about it because nobody cares enough. In Illinois they
know they can keep coming back to pick your pocket as long as the
garbage keeps getting picked up.
|12.17.08 @ 10:03AM|#
Illinois is the new Florida.
Very funny. Except that Florida is one of the least corrupt states
while Illinois has always been one of the most corrupt.
Maryland Police Chief|12.17.08 @ 10:19AM|#
It's insane to have the people who are responsible for the
wrong conviction in the first place as the people who are supposed
to fix it. Because they won't.
Nonsense! Why, we have internal investigations all the time! They
always get to truth. And by "get to the truth", I mean completely
exonerating ourselves from any mistakes or wrongdoing. Because
we're the cops. Suck it, civilian.
Alice Bowie|12.17.08 @ 10:19AM|#
I think one problem is that we don't really have a good methodology
for dealing with post-hoc exonerations of convicted
defendants.
It's not really what the appeals process is for, for one
thing.
It's too dependent on the very professionals who secured the
original incorrect conviction, in the second place.
I agree.
The original prosecutors, judges, police officers, etc SHOULD BE
EXCLUDED from any APPEAL PROCESS. They prove to be a BUNCH of
ASSHOLES who can care less about an innocent defendant and DON'T
WANT to LOOK STUPID when proven wrong.
|12.17.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Unrepentant morans like Mermel need to be publicly outed with
large billboards in prominent locations throughout the
muncipality.
Black background, large picture of the person on the left of the
sign and a simple statement in white block text of THIS MAN IS AN
IDIOT on the right, with a short, easy to remember URL people can
go to for more info.
Five or 6 of these and eventually the message gets out. I would
give financial support to this cause.
|12.17.08 @ 11:10AM|#
The judge on this case can always dismiss it on his own motion,
you know.
Which, if I were the judge, I would. I'd probably take a half a day
first to write up the very best ass-chewing of the DA that I could
manage, and read it out in open court after giving a couple of my
reporter buddies a heads up.
tarran|12.17.08 @ 11:16AM|#
I believe the judges in Illinois are elected. They know which side their bread is buttered.
|12.17.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Florida gets weird transplants from other places. Our government, however, is one of the best in the country (not saying all that much, of course). Here I sit not paying any income tax to my state, for instance. And I can own my own nuclear weapon.
Elemenope|12.17.08 @ 12:16PM|#
I want to take Occam's Razor and pound it into tha guy's
skull.
"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I get and
beat you with 'till you learn who's in ruttin' command here!"
|12.17.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Any child can see that this guy has personal and/or
institutional reasons to oppose exonerations, no matter the
evidence, and is willing to concoct absurd rationalizations to
continue to justify the original convictions obtained by his
office.
Maybe the lessons I was taught about owning up to your mistakes, to
try to make things right after I did something wrong, intentional
or not, disqualifies me from a position in law enforcement.
Jesus H. McCrist, Michael Mermel, how can you look in the mirror
without fucking retching?
Hey Lisa Madigan, you ain't fired this dissembling fucking asshole
douchebag yet? What the hell is wrong with your moral
compass?
Fuck, fuck and goddamit fuck!
Illinois, Mississippi of the Great Lakes Basin.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|12.17.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Jesus H. McCrist, Michael Mermel, how can you look in the mirror without fucking retching?
Pop psych warning!
You see this kind of thing anytime someone does some investigative
reporting on DNA exonerations.
Someone called it the theory of the "Unindited
co-ejaculater".
I have sometimes wondered if there isn't some kind of defense
mechanism at work here: deny the slightest possibility that you
have put away the wrong guy so that you don't have to live the
responsibility.
Then I come to my sense. I remember that these are politicians, so
it is unlikely that they even have a sense of duty or
responsibility.
|12.17.08 @ 12:57PM|#
How do people like this not end up dead from outraged families of those wrongly convicted. I would be hard pressed to not want to crack this fuckers skull open with a lead pipe if he was doing this to a family member of mine. Coming to this site doesn't make me feel like I need to be politically active it makes me feel like I need to be a vigilantee!
Elemenope|12.17.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Are you familiar with the works of Shan Yu?
- Shepard, doesn't the Bible have a few things to say about
killing?
"Indeed it does. It is, however, much fuzzier on the issue of
kneecaps."
|12.17.08 @ 1:14PM|#
They don't end up dead from families because the type of folks
who get railroaded are losers without any real social support
group, and are probably social outcasts in their town
already.
If you have a close knit family who believes you didn't commit the
crime, they'll help with your defense (read: pay a lawyer) and it
would be almost impossible for ass-hat prosecutors to get away with
this stuff during trial. Although as commenters have already
pointed out, it's criminally easy to sweep exonerating evidence
under the rug when it comes to light post-conviction.
I suspect the defendant in the most recent case mentioned will get
off because he seems to have moderately competant counsel and
because the initial trial is still ongoing.
creech|12.17.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Where the heck is the Attorney General of Illinois? One of the AG's job is to protect the citizens of the state from injustices perpetrated by public officials. Mermel deserves every bit as much attention as Gov. Blago.
MAX HATS|12.17.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Guy1138 - exactly. When there's a rape or murder that needs prosecuting and there's no ready suspects, find the nearest loner/loser/outcast to the scene of the crime and start building a case. It's like in Our Man in Havana: there's a torturable class and a non-torturable class. The former is unaware of the distinction while the latter can never for a moment forget.
MAX HATS|12.17.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Got that backwards, oof. Should read: there's a torturable class and a non-torturable class. The latter is unaware of the distinction while the former can never for a moment forget.
|12.18.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Even with the support of family it can be hard to overcome the
advantage the state has in these cases.
The Duke lacrosse players had family support and lots of money, and
still had a very hard time. Most folks would have been SOL.
The rage at what has been done is balanced by the fear of going
back to jail. If you act on your rage the system will kill you or
put you right back into the nightmare, with the added bonus of
smugly saying 'see, we were right all along'
|12.18.08 @ 10:59PM|#
I really don't see how it is possible for this guy to
not be convicted of prosecutorial misconduct for things
like this. It is so obvious that this guy's explanations are
bullshit.
Even if a rape victim had consensual sex with someone else shortly
before the rape, one would still expect to find DNA from 2 people,
one of whom would be the rapist (barring the use of a condom or
something). They should ask the victim who she had consensual sex
with, and then use the other guy's DNA to match with suspects. If
they only had one person's semen in the rape kit, and it was not
the guy they convicted, then on what basis are they saying he was
the rapist?
And the theory about the 8-year-old girl playing in the woods in a
manner where she gets leftover semen on herself from a couple that
had sex there earlier - does he even care how implausible
that sounds?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245