Appeals Court Issues Acquittal in Dog-Scent Murder Case
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday issued an acquittal in the case of Megan Winfrey, 24, who has been behind bars since 2007 in a murder case in which her conviction was based almost entirely on evidence from dog-scent lineups.
Winfrey, along with her father, Richard Winfrey, and her brother Richard Winfrey Jr. were charged with the 2004 murder of school janitor Murray Burr in Coldspring. Richard Winfrey Jr. was acquitted by a jury in 2009. Richard Winfrey Sr. was convicted in 2007, but the Court of Appeals acquitted him in 2009, ruling that the dog-scent evidence was ...
Comments (3)
Phillip Baker
Two things come to mind when reading this story. First, why in the world did it take the CCA seven more years to acquit this woman on the same reasoning as used for her father? It seems absurd on the face.
Secondly, I am reminded of Ken Anderson's wailing about the costs of defending himself before the court of inquiry. This family has had to spend enormous sums of money to further their appeals, just as the brother did to defend himself at trial. Nobody will get any refunds from the State. This is a fundamental problem with our justice system. Anybody can be arrested and charged for anything and then have to defend yourself in court, but if acquitted you're still massively in debt to lawyers, etc. I wish I knew of a solution for this, but I don't- other than requiring the State to reimburse at least some fo the defense costs after an acquittal. Back when I worked for Travis County Sheriff Office, I often heard law enforcement officers say, "Arrest 'em all and let the courts sort it out", a mentality still in evidence throughout this state.
justice for all
Please keep in mind, this case was appealed because of false evidence from dog-scent lineups. The person who did the dog-scent analysis falsified the tests. This in no way means that the Winfrey's were not involved in the brutal killing of Mr. Burr, only that this particular evidence was trumped up. These people were considered suspects way before the dog-scent lineup was done.
Gritsforbreakfast
That's sort of true, JFA, with a couple of caveats. Winfrey's father was convicted based on essentially two piece of evidence: the dog-scent lineup and a jailhouse snitch. Then in 2009 the Texas Legislature passed a law saying jailhouse snitch testimony alone wasn't enough to sustain a conviction without corroboration, and the court ruled the dog-scent testimony wasn't valid to corroborate. In the daughter's case there was a bit more, but not much more, circumstantial evidence, but not enough to stand alone without the bad forensics or to corroborate the snitch.
It's notable that prosecutors have not re-indicted Winfrey's father after more than two years. They may have been suspects before the scent-lineup, but this was the evidence that convicted them and there's really not any other.
One minor correction to the story: Winfrey Sr. was acquitted by the Court of Criminal Appeals in 2010, not 2009.