Anger Shadows Freedom Parole, Not Exoneration to Release Virginia Man.

[softheart]

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 18, 2004; Page B01

Rebecca McAlister has waited 18 years for her son, Michael, to walk out
of prison. Tomorrow, she gets her wish, but the moment will be
bittersweet.

The Michael McAlister who will gain his freedom is an angry man,
outraged at a system that left him incarcerated for attempted rape even
though the prosecutor and lead detective came forward years ago and
said he likely was innocent.

All that time, McAlister got to know his two young daughters, and now a
grandson, through letters and photographs. To his mother, he "has done
someone else's time. It's really rotten to put politics ahead of
someone's life."

But Rebecca McAlister is thrilled that her son will walk out of
Lunenberg Correctional Center near Richmond, even if it took mandatory
parole to bring him home. "I'm just so excited," said McAlister, who
plans to make her son's favorite meal tomorrow night -- filet mignon,
with all the trimmings.

It has been a highly unusual journey for McAlister, 48, a carpenter who
was convicted in 1986 of being the masked attacker who tried to rape a
young mother. The prosecutor, former Richmond commonwealth's attorney
Joseph D. Morrissey, told the judge that McAlister was guilty "pure and
simple."

New evidence later emerged about another suspect, and the victim's
identification of McAlister was called into question. Both Morrissey
and former detective Charles M. Martin signed sworn affidavits saying
they might have locked up an innocent man.

But efforts to exonerate McAlister went nowhere. Under Virginia law at
the time, courts could not consider new evidence of innocence if it was
brought forward more than 21 days after sentencing. In 2001, lawmakers
changed the law to allow DNA evidence to be introduced at any time, but
there was no DNA in McAlister's case.

Still, Morrissey and Martin testified on McAlister's behalf before the
Virginia Parole Board, and their sworn affidavits were submitted with a
clemency petition filed with Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) in 2002. The
parole board repeatedly declined to release McAlister, and Warner
rejected the petition.

A spokeswoman for Warner declined to comment yesterday, and the current
commonwealth's attorney in Richmond, David Hicks, did not return
telephone calls. The victim in the case could not be located.

The General Assembly recently expanded the Virginia law to allow courts
to consider non-biological evidence of innocence long after a
conviction. But by the time that law took effect July 1, the date of
McAlister's release was approaching. He was sentenced before Virginia
abolished parole in the mid-1990s, so under the sentencing system in
place at the time, he would be freed after 18 years.

The 18 years expire tomorrow.

The case spotlights a growing national debate over faulty eyewitness
identifications. DNA testing has cleared numerous prisoners nationwide,
and mistaken eyewitness testimony has been blamed for most of the
errors.

Vanessa Potkin, a staff attorney with the New York-based Innocence
Project, which seeks to exonerate wrongly convicted people through DNA
evidence, said McAlister's case is particularly egregious.

"It's extremely rare what this prosecutor and detective did in coming
forward, and the fact that you would have people ignoring this evidence
or turning a blind eye is extremely troubling."

McAlister consented to an interview from prison through his attorney,
but Department of Corrections officials declined to make him available
yesterday. In a phone interview this month with the Richmond
Times-Dispatch, McAlister said being away from his family was the
hardest part of being imprisoned.

"I've been filled with hatred," McAlister said. "I hate to say it. But
that's, that's what's gotten me through it. It's the last you think
about before you go to bed and the first thing you think of in the
morning as soon as your eyes open: 'This is real, and I did not do it,
and they know I did not do it and here I am.' "

McAlister's attorney, Christopher Amolsch, said McAlister is
"understandably filled with an enormous amount of rage. He's mad that
he got convicted but even more angry at a system that basically
permitted him to stay incarcerated for a crime he didn't commit."

When detectives first interviewed the woman the night of the Feb. 23,
1986, assault, she said the assailant had a stocking over his face --
which she pulled partway up during the attack -- and wore a plaid shirt
that was red, white and another color. Detectives learned that the
sketch resembled McAlister, who lived nearby and had convictions for
indecent exposure and larceny.

When a detective came by to take a photo, McAlister happened to be
wearing a red, white and blue plaid shirt. The woman identified
McAlister as the attacker from photographs, and at the trial, she
identified his shirt as the exact shirt worn by her attacker.

But the prosecutor and detective began developing doubts when they
learned that other detectives had followed another man, a rape suspect,
to the woman's apartment complex a few weeks before the attack. That
man was later convicted and sentenced to life in prison for another
rape in which he wore a stocking mask. He has denied involvement in the
attempted rape and abduction for which McAlister was convicted.

McAlister's mother said he has lined up a job as a telemarketer and
plans to live with her in Richmond. He also still hopes to pursue
efforts to clear his name.

Staff writer Maria Glod contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Phil in Paris]

I think I too would be filled with rage and hatred !!!

I wish you the best for the rest of your life Mr McAlister.

Phil