Jun 17, 2020
21 Years Behind Bars
Factors that led to Nicholas Yarris’ wrongful conviction
Snow swirled around in the frigid December air and a fresh layer covered Linda Craig’s dead body. On December 16, 1981, Craig left from her shift at the Tri-State Mall and was abducted in her car in Claymont, Pennsylvania. The following day, Craig’s body was found badly beaten, stabbed, and raped in a church parking lot.
Facts of the case
Nicholas Yarris, a 20-year-old white male, was stopped on a Pennsylvania highway for a traffic violation. There was an altercation between the officer and Yarris escalated and Yarris was taken into custody for the attempted murder of a police officer. When police began interrogating Yarris, he implicated his friend as the man who raped and murdered Craig. When this proved to be incorrect, the police targeted Yarris as the perpetrator.
Mistaken Eyewitness Identification
Eyewitness misidentification has played a role in approximately 71% of the 360 wrongful convictions in the United States, according to The Innocence Project. Testimony from two eyewitnesses influenced Yarris’ conviction.
Natalie Barr, the first eyewitness called, worked at the Tri-State Mall with Craig at the blown glass kiosk. Barr testified that prior to Craig’s murder, the defendant, Yarris, had been roaming the mall near the kiosk. Barr claimed to see the defendant two days prior to the rape and stabbing. On this day, the defendant, deviating from his usual pattern of roaming about the mall, stopped at the kiosk and asked Craig repeatedly about the prices of the small glass items. Barr testified that this behavior was alarming to both women, and it made them more aware of his presence.
At the preliminary hearing, Barr was asked if she was uncertain about her identification and she indicated she was uncertain. At the trial, Barr was asked how she was certain of her identification six months later but not two months after Craig’s death. She responded that she was a nervous wreck at that time. Thomas Albright, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, explained, “uncertainties in the context prompt our brains to fill in the wrong information — and we’re completely unaware of it.” Barr was feeling uncertain at the preliminary hearing, but due to the pressure placed on her as an eyewitness to help solve the rape and murder, Barr may have convinced herself that Yarris was the perpetrator.
Additionally, Barr did not give her a description of Yarris until a full month after the murder. The Midwest Innocence Project discusses the challenges associated with relying on human memory, “the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor do we recall them like a tape that has been rewound.” Because memory is malleable, Barr’s description and memory of the man she saw could have changed during the month between Craig’s death and her description of the man.
Franklin Kaminski, the second eyewitness called, worked at the leather kiosk at the Tri-State Mall, approximately 15 feet from Craig’s kiosk. Kaminski testified that on the day before her disappearance, Craig alerted him about a man looking at her strangely and she became frightened. Later that afternoon, Craig told Kaminski to look towards Orange Bowl, a restaurant near the kiosks, because the man who was staring at her was there. Kaminski, who said the man could not have been more than 30 feet away, testified that he had a clear view of his face from neck up but could not see Yarris’ body because he was leaning on the counter. Kaminski was instrumental in the conviction because he helped create the composite sketch and identified Yarris in the photo array.
Two days after Craig’s body was found, Kaminski put together a composite sketch by looking through hundreds of mugshots and trying to identify characteristics that the man in the mall had. However, research has shown that creating a composite sketch makes it more difficult to identify the original face from a lineup. Because humans’ brains cannot capture an image in the same way a camera does, building a composite and seeing hundreds of faces with different characteristics alters the memory of a suspect’s face.
A month later, the detectives came to Kaminski’s house and had him look at two photo arrays. From the first display, he said no photos resembled the man from the mall. In the second display, Kaminski chose three photos. The Midwest Innocence Project reports that witness can get identifications wrong when seeing multiple photo arrays, “Witnesses only made an identification after multiple photo arrays or lineups — and then made hesitant identifications (saying they ‘though’ the person ‘might be’ the perpetrator, for example), but at trial, the jury was told the witnesses did not waver in identifying the suspect.” The identifications occurred after about 10 minutes of studying the photos. However, in his testimony at a preliminary hearing, Kaminski said he was not completely certain of his identification from the photos.
Misleading Forensics
False or misleading evidence contributes to 24% of wrongful convictions in the United States, according to The Innocence Project. Misleading forensics played a role in Yarris’ wrongful conviction.
Vincent Cordova was admitted as an expert in forensics, as he had the proper educational background and was employed as the Director of Criminalistics at Toxicon Associates and National Medical Services, Inc. Cordova received a variety of samples — including blood, saliva, and swabs — from Linda Craig, Rodney Mitchell, Jim Brisbois, Nicholas Yarris, and Arthur Craig. From these samples, Cordova was able to exclude Mitchell and Brisbois due to their blood types. Linda Craig had Type A blood and was a secretor, meaning A antigens also appear in her other bodily fluids, such as her saliva or in her vagina. Yarris’ blood and saliva were tested, and the results indicated that he had Type B blood and was a secretor. However, Cordova did not do his due diligence when testing the samples. Arthur Craig, Linda’s husband, also had Type B blood. However, Cordova said he did not have Arthur’s saliva so he could not test if he was a secretor. Instead of requesting a saliva sample to be certain that he could exclude Arthur, Cordova only focused on Yarris’ results. Cordova had tunnel vision by fixating on one suspect when there was another viable option to investigate.
Jailhouse Informant
Charles Cataleno, an inmate in cell block A of the Delaware County Prison, testified against Yarris. Cataleno had a lengthy history of burglary and assault and a ten-year-long heroin addiction, which should have made the jury question his credibility. The two inmates knew each other for five to six months according to Cataleno and their cells got moved right next to each other. Cataleno said Yarris told him that he should have never killed Craig. In exchange for his cooperation, the prosecution made arrangements for Cataleno to move from the Delaware County Prison to Bucks County Prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
False Confession
Yarris’ false confession was a powerful factor in his wrongful conviction. He had just been released from the prison infirmary due to a suicide attempt when the officers interrogated Yarris about Craig’s death. During this interrogation, Yarris implicated his friend James Brisbois as the one who killed her. After the investigators found out that Brisbois was excluded through DNA and could not have committed the homicide, Yarris became the main suspect in the case. Yarris was interrogated for five hours straight and was not given any food or water when he finally confessed to the rape and murder.
Conviction
Yarris was convicted of abduction, rape, and murder, and was sentenced to the death penalty.
Exoneration
In 2003, gloves, scrapings from the victim’s fingernails, and sperm from the victim’s underwear were tested for DNA. The results of these tests excluded Yarris from being the perpetrator. After 21 years of being convicted for a crime he did not commit, Yarris was exonerated.
