Case Study: Dna Evidence Proves Rape Accusation Was a Lie
Case Study: Dna Evidence Proves Rape Accusation Was a Lie
Nine years after Armand Villasana was accused of the rape, sodomy, and kidnapping of Judith Lummis, DNA evidence cleared his name. Just prior to his sentencing, investigators learned that the DNA collected from Lummis belonged to a consensual previous lover, and not to Villasana, who had already served 21 months in prison prior to the discovery of new evidence.
The events began on September 16, 1998. Upon arriving home late, Lummis was questioned by her husband as to her whereabouts. Not wanting to admit to her extramarital affair, she told her husband she had been kidnapped from a Sonic Drive-In, taken to a wooded area, and raped at knife-point. She was taken to a local hospital where she underwent a rape kit examination. Lummis described her attacker as being Hispanic and helped authorities draw a composite sketch. Villasana became a suspect after being arrested for unrelated charges. The police officer thought he resembled the sketch Lummis had helped create, despite the fact that there were discrepancies in height, weight, and age—Lummis had described a man who was 2 decades younger than Villasana. Lummis picked Villasana out of a lineup of which he was the only Hispanic present. The county prosecutor stated this information was suppressed at the trial and later called the lineup “suggestive” (Bridges, 2007b), though Lummis’ composite sketch of her attacker was “freakishly similar” to Villasana (Bridges, 2007a). Regardless, Villasana was convicted November 10, 1999 of rape, sodomy, and kidnapping.
Friends and family members hired defense attorneys Shawn Askinosie and Teresa Grantham to prepare an appeal. Further research by Askinosie and Grantham revealed DNA evidence that had not been presented at the trial. While the rape kit provided no semen to test, other useful biological material was present. This information had been omitted from the police report. The DNA profile constructed from the evidence gathered from a vaginal swab, Lummis’ pants, and a hospital sheet matched neither Villasana, Lummis, nor her husband. This new information was presented at Villasana’s hearing in 2000, and the case was dismissed. Although Villasana was released from prison, his name was not yet cleared.
In June of 2005, a DNA sample was collected from an inmate that matched the mystery DNA—Missouri state law requires that samples be collected from inmates and then tested against a database of old DNA evidence (Bridges, 2007b). The Greene County Sheriff’s department was contacted, and after further testing, the DNA match was confirmed. The case was reopened in January of 2006. The unidentified man was questioned and finally gave authorities the information they had been missing. Lummis could not be immediately located, but once found, she continued to hold to her initial story. The man admitted to consensually having sex with Lummis the night of September 16, 1998, and the rape hoax was uncovered. Lummis finally admitted on August 7, 2007, that the rape had been fabricated.
Lummis’ convincing nature played a large role in the longevity of the case. Many times, lies are easily detectable; however, both the defense and prosecuting attorneys believed Lummis had been raped, irrespective of Villasana’s guilt or innocence. The assistant county prosecutor stated Lummis was “phenomenally articulate and had the appearance of credibility
. . . it was pretty amazing . . . any concerns I had about the case were always dispelled by her.” (Bridges, 2007a). Lummis had filed a similar kidnapping charge in 2005 that was later found to be false (Associated Press, 2007).
The county prosecutor stated that although the DNA screening system is imperfect, it did prove successful in the end. DNA is a powerful tool when the evidence is correctly identified and considered in the evidence. The county prosecutor hopes that DNA evidence does not deter women from reporting rapes (Bridges, 2007b).
The statute of limitations has prevented Lummis from being charged with perjury, but she is currently serving a 4-year jail sentence for fraudulently obtaining prescription drugs. She has also faced charges in the past for cashing stolen checks and using methamphetamines. She is being held in the Greene County Jail, the same prison facility where Villasana served his time.
For more information on DNA exonerations go to www.innocenceproject.org
References
Associated Press. (2007, September 3). Woman’s false testimony put man in jail for rape; now she’s in jail. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story4368F3DD8C13E9D78625734B0009B62F?OpenDocument
Bridges, Amos. (2007a, September 1). Lies fall apart along with woman’s
Pages: 1 2