From Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner
We are pleased to share resources developed by this office during the course of three related justice initiatives. The first initiative involved a systematic review of past convictions to determine if DNA evidence could shed new light on these cases. That DNA Project led to the creation of an evidence retention policy, and implementation of new eyewitness identification procedures. For more on the evolution of these policies and procedures, please see The DNA Project description below.
To the extent that these documents can be helpful to other jurisdictions, please feel free to use them. It is part of our continuing commitment to the improvement of our criminal justice system. No justice is served when the wrong person is convicted and the right person remains at large.
Resources
- Ramsey County Evidence Retention Policy (pdf) (word)
- Blind Sequential Photo Display Form (pdf) (word)
- Blind Sequential Basics Handout (pdf) (word)
- Blind Sequential Basics PowerPoint (pdf) (ppt)
- The How and Why of Blind Sequential Lineup Reform (pdf) (word)
- Blind Sequential Lineup Reform Long Version PowerPoint (pdf) (ppt)
- Alternate Simplified Instructions
(for children and persons with limited English) (pdf) (word)
The DNA Project
In March 2001, Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner initiated a review of past convictions to determine whether DNA evidence might shed new light on any of the cases. The County Attorney's Office systemically examined the cases of current prison inmates who were prosecuted by the office for crimes against persons in 1994 or earlier. (Starting in 1995, present-day DNA testing technology was commonly available and routinely applied in Ramsey County criminal cases.)
In announcing the DNA Project, Gaertner said the science of DNA should be applied to past convictions in a fair and systematic manner and not left to the happenstance of a defense attorney taking an interest in a particular case -- as sometimes occurs.
The County Attorney's Office identified 116 cases that met the basic criteria for the review. In each case, attorneys examined whether the defendant had consistently maintained innocence, whether mistaken identify was at least possible in the case, whether current DNA technology could provide exonerating evidence, and whether biological evidence from a crime was available to be tested.
"In the vast majority of cases, DNA testing was not warranted," Gaertner said. "In many of those instances, the defendant's identity was not in question so DNA testing would serve no purpose. In other cases, evidence other than biological evidence was overwhelmingly strong."
The DNA Project identified three cases where identity was at issue and DNA testing could prove guilt or innocence. The County Attorney's Office and law enforcement agencies conducted an exhaustive search of all places where DNA evidence in those cases had been examined or stored. In two of the cases, no DNA evidence could be located, and no testing was possible. The materials likely had been destroyed during routine disposals of old evidence from the court's evidence vault and police property room.
In the third case, the rape victim's clothing was located, and DNA testing was performed. This resulted in the exoneration of a man convicted of rape and the identification of a new suspect in the case. Results of the DNA Project were announced on November 13, 2002.
"We searched for the truth, and we found it," Gaertner said. "It is very regrettable that the wrong person was convicted of a crime. I am grateful that his innocence has now been established."
The exoneration is believed to be the first in the United States to result from a prosecution-initiated, post-conviction DNA testing program.
"It is extremely rare for the wrong person to be convicted of a crime, but our criminal justice system is not infallible," Gaertner said. "As a prosecutor, I don't want an innocent person behind bars any more than a defense attorney does.
"Our ultimate ethical duty as prosecutors is to seek the truth and ensure that justice is done in every case," Gaertner said. "With DNA testing, we have a powerful new tool to ensure accuracy and truth."
Based on the DNA test results, the County Attorney's Office initiated legal proceedings to set aside the conviction of David Brian Sutherlin (now known as Delegance Deangelo Sutherlin) in the rape of a woman who was walking near her home in St. Paul's Summit Hill neighborhood early on the morning of March 2, 1985.
Sutherlin (dob 12/5/1961) is serving a life sentence in a Minnesota state prison for a double murder unrelated to the sexual assault. He was sentenced to an additional 43 months for the rape, but had not begun to serve that time. As a result of the exoneration, he was expected to be released sooner than he would have otherwise. His exact release date will be determined by the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
At the County Attorney's request, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) tested DNA from semen on the rape victim's clothing. The BCA reported on October 14, 2002, that the DNA sample did not match Sutherlin's DNA profile.
A DNA Match
The BCA also determined that the DNA sample from the rape victim's clothing conclusively matches the DNA profile of a man who was released from prison in July 2002 after serving 4 1/2 years for aggravated robbery. The suspect also matches the physical description given in 1985 by the rape victim. The statute of limitations has expired on prosecuting that suspect. In an interview with a St. Paul police investigator on October 25, 2002, the suspect acknowledged that he had lived close to the scene of the rape in 1985, but denied committing the crime. He could not explain why his DNA profile matched the DNA profile from the victim's clothing. He refused to submit a new DNA sample.
The BCA identified the new suspect in the rape by doing a computer search of its forensic DNA database. This database includes the DNA profiles of felons convicted in Minnesota of such crimes as murder, rape, kidnapping and robbery. Prior to July 1, 2000, only sexual offenders' DNA profiles were entered into the database.
Sutherlin was arrested for the rape on March 10, 1985 -- eight days after the crime occurred. His arrest was based on a photo identification by the victim and circumstantial evidence, including the fact that a car similar to Sutherlin's was observed near the crime scene. At the time, police had no photo of the man whose DNA recently was linked to the rape victim's clothing.
Sutherlin posted bail and was released from jail on March 12, 1985. A month later, he was arrested and charged with murder in connection with the shooting deaths of two men at Sylvia's Bar in St. Paul. He has been in custody continuously since that time.
The sexual assault case went to trial first. The victim did not positively identify Sutherlin in the courtroom but said he resembled the assailant. Based on blood testing, a BCA scientist testified that semen found in the victim's clothing was consistent with Sutherlin and 22 percent of the population. DNA testing was not available at the time. Sutherlin was found guilty on June 7, 1985. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.
Sutherlin went on trial for the two murders in July 1985. Witnesses testified that he shot and killed Perry Miller after a shoving match at the bar. Miller was hit by four bullets. A bystander, Vincent Jones, was hit by a stray bullet and died. Sutherlin admitted to firing one shot, but said he only intended to injure Miller. He claimed the extra shots were fired by someone who wrestled the gun from him.
Sutherlin was found guilty on two counts of first-degree murder and immediately sentenced to life in prison. A few weeks later, he was sentenced for the rape. That sentence of 43 months was to be served consecutively (in addition) to the life sentence. Under sentencing laws at the time, he could be considered for parole on the life sentences after 17 years in custody. Defendants sentenced under that provision, however, typically serve 20 years or more in prison before parole is granted.
The DNA Project took advantage of the expertise that the County Attorney’s Office has developed over the years in applying DNA technology in the courtroom. In 1989, Gaertner became the first prosecutor in Minnesota to present DNA evidence to a jury. She co-authored the National District Attorneys Association's policy on DNA technology. She serves on the Biological Evidence Task Force of the Minnesota Bar Association. Many prosecutors in the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office have been trained in the use of DNA evidence and routinely present it in court. Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Jeanne Schleh served as the lead attorney for the DNA Project.
In 2000, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office in California became the first prosecutor’s office to implement a post-conviction DNA project. That office advised the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office on its DNA Project.
Evidence Retention
One of the most significant results of the DNA Project was the adoption of a Uniform Evidence Retention Policy by Ramsey County law enforcement agencies. The fact that DNA evidence no longer existed in two cases where such evidence might have proven guilt or innocence demonstrated the critical need for such a policy.
"I strongly believe that the convictions in those two cases would have withstood the scrutiny of DNA testing," Gaertner said. "It was very unfortunate, though, that the biological evidence no long existed.
The County Attorney's Office worked closely with law enforcement agencies in Ramsey County and Ramsey County District Court to develop the policy, which was adopted in 2004. It is one of the first such uniform evidence retention policies in the country.
The policy includes groundbreaking new procedures to ensure that DNA evidence is preserved for future testing. It also includes guidelines for retaining other types of evidence --ranging from fingerprints and firearms to drugs and stolen property -- in felony criminal cases.
"The purpose of the policy is to ensure that evidence is handled in a way that protects the public safety and the rights of the accused," Gaertner said. "This policy will positively impact the quality of justice in our county.
"DNA technology is still in its infancy, Gaertner said. "We can't really imagine what DNA forensics will be able to accomplish in the future. The new policy ensures that DNA evidence will be available for testing as the technology evolves in the years ahead."
"This policy reflects a strong determination to find the truth in every criminal case," said then-Chief William K. Finney of the St. Paul Police Department. "The proper handling of evidence is a key factor in building a solid criminal case and proving the guilt or innocence of a defendant."
Ramsey County Undersheriff George Altendorfer said: "These new procedures underscore our commitment to a uniform, high standard of justice throughout Ramsey County."
The policy reflects scientific advances in DNA technology and resulting changes in post-conviction and statute of limitations law in Minnesota. It ensures that biological evidence related to the identity of a perpetrator is retained whenever appropriate. In homicide and rape cases, for example, evidence must be kept until the defendant has completed his or her sentence. Any earlier disposal of evidence requires that the defendant and defense counsel be notified and given an opportunity to object. In other circumstances, the policy allows for the orderly disposal or return of evidence.
Eyewitness Identification
The DNA Project also underscored another very concerning issue -- faulty eyewitness identifications resulting in wrongful convictions. The defendant exonerated by the DNA Project had been convicted primarily on the basis of an incorrect eyewitness identification.
The most widely used photo identification procedure, both in Ramsey County and nationwide, has been the simultaneous display of several photos -- often by an investigator with knowledge of the case. Scientific research, however, has demonstrated that a sequential photo display by an independent administrator is a superior procedure.
In 2005, the Ramsey County Attorney's Office initiated a pilot project to conduct sequential photo lineups using independent administrators and standardized instructions to the witness (View forms: Blind Sequential Photo Display and Alternate Simplified Instructions). The pilot project yielded positive results, and new procedures utilizing sequential photo lineups have now been implemented countywide.
For a more detailed description of the Ramsey County protocol, see an article by Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner and St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington, "Successful Eyewitness Identification Reform: Ramsey County's Blind Sequential Lineup Protocol," The Police Chief 76, no. 4 (April 2009), 130-141.
