| Peter Rose | ||
 | Incident Year: 1994 Jurisdiction: CA Charge: Rape, Kidnapping, Forced Oral Copulation Conviction: Rape, Kidnapping, Forced Oral Copulation Sentence: 27 Years |
Year of Conviction: 1996 Exoneration Date: 2/18/05 Sentence Served: 8 Years Real perpetrator found? Not Yet Contributing Causes: Eyewitness Misidentification, Unreliable/Limited Science, Government Misconduct Compensation? Yes |
FROM THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INNOCENCE PROJECT'S PRESS RELEASE:
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (February 18, 2005) — Peter Rose, whose conviction for sexual assault was vacated by DNA testing after he spent 10 years in prison, today petitions the San Joaquin County Superior Court for a finding of factual innocence. The hearing will be held at 10:00 AM in Department 16 of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in Stockton, before the Honorable Stephen Demetras.
Law students and attorneys from NCIP's Golden Gate University office won Rose's release after DNA testing proved he was not the source of semen found on the young rape victim's clothing. At Rose's 1996 trial, the prosecutor argued that serology tests showed that Rose could not be excluded as the donor.
In December 2002, after years of unsuccessful appeals, Rose sought the assistance of the NCIP. Students under the supervision of attorney, Janice Brickley and the program's director, Golden Gate University Professor Susan Rutberg, determined that the semen sample still existed and filed the motion for testing that ultimately excluded Peter Rose as the source.
On October 29, 2004, Rose, 36, was released from Mule Creek State Prison after DNA testing had excluded Rose as the source of semen found on the victim's clothing.
But, before agreeing to completely drop the charges, the prosecutor asked for further DNA testing. Arguing that the semen might have come from a consensual sex partner, rather than the rapist, San Joaquin Assistant District Attorney Brian Short asked for a continuance for further DNA testing.
Last month, the victim's ex-boyfriend's DNA sample was compared with the DNA extracted from the girl's clothing. The results of that testing now conclusively prove that neither Rose, nor the girl's boyfriend, was the source of the semen sample.
Convicted of the 1994 sexual assault of a 13 year-old Lodi girl, Rose wept when the judge sentenced him to prison. With no history of violent crime or sexual assault, Rose has always maintained his innocence. At one of his first court hearings in 1995, Rose told the court, "[i]f the DNA tests were back it would show that I'm not the one."
Ten years later, due to a motion brought on Rose's behalf by the Northern California Innocence Project (NCIP) at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, DNA testing has proved him right.
Based on this new evidence, the Court vacated Rose's conviction and ordered his release from prison.
A few days after Rose's release, the rape victim (now 23 years old) contacted reporter Jeff Barker at the Stockton Record and recanted her 1994 identification of Rose. She told the reporter, "I'm not sure. I wasn't sure," and attributed her certainty on the witness stand at Rose's trial to pressure by the police.
The young woman said she "went along with the police because they seemed to have evidence lined up against Rose." (November 6, 2004, Stockton Record, Jeff Barker.)
After her attack, the young girl repeatedly told police she had been assaulted by a stranger whose face she never saw. A relative, who had personal problems with Rose, suggested to both the girl and the police that Rose could be the attacker.
The two police officers who interviewed the girl repeatedly accused her of lying and badgered her to tell them a story they could believe. According to the girl, they demanded: "It wasn't forced, was it? Who did you really get in a fight with and why did you end up behind that house?"
After hours of this kind of questioning, the girl mentioned Rose's name saying, "My aunt talked to his girlfriend and his girlfriend said he wasn't home. Maybe it could be Pete." This tentative statement became a positive identification at Rose's subsequent trial.
"Something is terribly wrong with this picture: a vulnerable crime victim is browbeaten into identifying an innocent man, and ten years later, the real rapist is still out there," says Professor Susan Rutberg, Director of the NCIP office at GGU.
Rutberg asked the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice to investigate what led to this miscarriage of justice and take steps to make sure it never happens again.
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (February 18, 2005) — Peter Rose, whose conviction for sexual assault was vacated by DNA testing after he spent 10 years in prison, today petitions the San Joaquin County Superior Court for a finding of factual innocence. The hearing will be held at 10:00 AM in Department 16 of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in Stockton, before the Honorable Stephen Demetras.
Law students and attorneys from NCIP's Golden Gate University office won Rose's release after DNA testing proved he was not the source of semen found on the young rape victim's clothing. At Rose's 1996 trial, the prosecutor argued that serology tests showed that Rose could not be excluded as the donor.
In December 2002, after years of unsuccessful appeals, Rose sought the assistance of the NCIP. Students under the supervision of attorney, Janice Brickley and the program's director, Golden Gate University Professor Susan Rutberg, determined that the semen sample still existed and filed the motion for testing that ultimately excluded Peter Rose as the source.
On October 29, 2004, Rose, 36, was released from Mule Creek State Prison after DNA testing had excluded Rose as the source of semen found on the victim's clothing.
But, before agreeing to completely drop the charges, the prosecutor asked for further DNA testing. Arguing that the semen might have come from a consensual sex partner, rather than the rapist, San Joaquin Assistant District Attorney Brian Short asked for a continuance for further DNA testing.
Last month, the victim's ex-boyfriend's DNA sample was compared with the DNA extracted from the girl's clothing. The results of that testing now conclusively prove that neither Rose, nor the girl's boyfriend, was the source of the semen sample.
Convicted of the 1994 sexual assault of a 13 year-old Lodi girl, Rose wept when the judge sentenced him to prison. With no history of violent crime or sexual assault, Rose has always maintained his innocence. At one of his first court hearings in 1995, Rose told the court, "[i]f the DNA tests were back it would show that I'm not the one."
Ten years later, due to a motion brought on Rose's behalf by the Northern California Innocence Project (NCIP) at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, DNA testing has proved him right.
Based on this new evidence, the Court vacated Rose's conviction and ordered his release from prison.
A few days after Rose's release, the rape victim (now 23 years old) contacted reporter Jeff Barker at the Stockton Record and recanted her 1994 identification of Rose. She told the reporter, "I'm not sure. I wasn't sure," and attributed her certainty on the witness stand at Rose's trial to pressure by the police.
The young woman said she "went along with the police because they seemed to have evidence lined up against Rose." (November 6, 2004, Stockton Record, Jeff Barker.)
After her attack, the young girl repeatedly told police she had been assaulted by a stranger whose face she never saw. A relative, who had personal problems with Rose, suggested to both the girl and the police that Rose could be the attacker.
The two police officers who interviewed the girl repeatedly accused her of lying and badgered her to tell them a story they could believe. According to the girl, they demanded: "It wasn't forced, was it? Who did you really get in a fight with and why did you end up behind that house?"
After hours of this kind of questioning, the girl mentioned Rose's name saying, "My aunt talked to his girlfriend and his girlfriend said he wasn't home. Maybe it could be Pete." This tentative statement became a positive identification at Rose's subsequent trial.
"Something is terribly wrong with this picture: a vulnerable crime victim is browbeaten into identifying an innocent man, and ten years later, the real rapist is still out there," says Professor Susan Rutberg, Director of the NCIP office at GGU.
Rutberg asked the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice to investigate what led to this miscarriage of justice and take steps to make sure it never happens again.
| Peter Rose | ||
| Incident Year: 1994 Jurisdiction: CA Charge: Rape, Kidnapping, Forced Oral Copulation Conviction: Rape, Kidnapping, Forced Oral Copulation Sentence: 27 Years |
Year of Conviction: 1996 Exoneration Date: 2/18/05 Sentence Served: 8 Years Real perpetrator found? Not Yet Contributing Causes: Eyewitness Misidentification, Unreliable/Limited Science, Government Misconduct Compensation? Yes |