Practice Areas

Blog

Legal News

Library

Prosecutorial Misconduct or Jury Error -- What is Going On In Virginia?

Twenty-eight years ago our community was shocked by a deer hunter’s discovery of the body of a pre-teen boy in a wooded area in Hanover County. His mother had reported him missing days before when she returned home from work and found his school backpack near the front door and the door key still in the lock. The boy’s hands and feet were bound, and he was clad only in his briefs and socks. That he had been abducted was clear, but the medical examiner’s report also indicated he had been sexually abused, and had been struck in the head. He died from exposure to the cold when he fell and could not get up after trying to hop for help nearby through the brush, branches and tree roots.

There were no leads, and therefore no immediate arrests. However, there were clues. Forensic tests revealed the presence of chemicals used in pesticides in the bindings on the child’s limbs. About 6 months later similar chemicals were found on ligatures used to bind two young sisters who were abducted, stripped, and left tied to trees. Fortunately, they managed to free themselves and escape from a wooded area near their home. The girls were able to identify their abductor, a then-19 year old Crawford, who worked for his family business – an exterminating enterprise. Crawford confessed to the girls’ abduction. He was sentenced to a long prison term.

Due to some similarities in the two cases, Crawford became a suspect in the abduction and death of the little boy. But he was not charged then. Apparently, there was insufficient evidence linking him with that crime. This would change a quarter century later.

Crawford was indicted for the murder of the little boy by a circuit court grand jury shortly before he was to be released from prison on parole for the abduction of the two sisters. He was held without bond. A trial for the boy’s murder ended in a hung jury (i.e., all jurors could not agree on his guilt or innocence). He was re-indicted and tried again before another jury, with the same result. But this did not end the matter.

Crawford was tried a third time last week. New evidence was produced in this trial in the form of the testimony of a woman who testified. She said that 28 years ago she overheard Crawford talking to another person about what may have been the boy’s restraint. She identified the man with whom Crawford had this conversation, but though available through subpoena, he did not testify. On cross-examination she said she did not know Crawford was being tried for the boy’s murder until she saw newspaper or television news reports on the case, although she resided in the area the entire time. It is unknown whether or not she had come forward with information about the boy’s murder sooner – such as soon after the body was found.

Newspaper reports describe some jurors stating the presence of the pesticide chemicals in the two cases was important. Although jurors are not required to divulge what discussions were had in the jury room, it was this testimony that was missing in the first two trials, and may well have been the determining factor in “un-hanging the jury.”

Certainly, this verdict is going to be a subject of discussion among our community for a long time. At least, it should be, because all of the evidence was circumstantial, and there was no identification of Crawford as being seen with the victim, no confession by him of committing the crime (as he did in the case involving the two girls), and no forensic evidence of the kind normally associated with sexual assault cases such as hair, fibers, blood, or semen. Was Crawford responsible for the little boy’s death, or did someone else do it? But its interest will be more expansive than Hanover County and Central Virginia.

Law enforcement officers and prosecutors in Virginia have come under public scrutiny recently. Just two weeks ago, a group of almost 20 former FBI agents publicly challenged the governor to pardon former Navy Seals now in prison who confessed the rape and murder of a woman in the Tidewater area a few years ago. The former agents held a press conference in Richmond and signed a petition asking the governor for a reprieve of these men. After a review of the case record and the evidence, these former G-Men concluded these men could not have committed the crime, that their co-defendant (another Navy Seal who is serving a life sentence for the crime) did act alone as he has now admitted, and that their confessions were illegally coerced by the police.

Among the legal and forensic sciences communities across the country, questions in the Crawford case will be discussed, and these issues debated back and forth:

• Why wasn’t Crawford tried sooner, such as while he was still in prison on the conviction for abducting the little girls and the memory of witnesses was fresher?

• Was Crawford tried and re-tried, and re-tried again only because he was about to be released on parole?

• Were the chemicals found on the bindings in both cases only found in pesticides, or were they then common to other products?

• Why wasn’t the man to whom Crawford allegedly made the statements the woman testified about called to testify to corroborate her testimony – or to disprove it? Wouldn’t he be the best witness to tell the jury exactly what Crawford was talking about – and, if the conversation even occurred?

• Did the jury know that child molesters almost never choose victims of different gender, but select as victims either boys or girls; and if they did, what effect did this information have on their verdict?

The Crawford and Navy Seals cases raise other interesting points, that can be important not only in criminal cases, but in every case, whether it is a personal injury case, or a divorce case. At my website, http://stellyvirginialaw.com., there will be posted articles dealing with topics such as: the validity of confessions; the importance of admissions; the reliability of scientific tests and forensic evidence: the materiality of evidence to a case; the reliability of witnesses at trial; and the understanding by jurors of their role in the judicial process.

Free Reports

Free Case Evaluation

FAQs