Connecticut to conduct DNA tests in deciding on retrying disabled man
By Richard Weizel
HARTFORD, Conn. (Reuters) - Connecticut prosecutors can conduct further genetic testing before deciding whether to retry a mentally disabled man who spent a quarter century in prison until his conviction for rape and murder was overturned, a judge ruled on Thursday.
Although the conviction was overturned in March, prosecutors say they believe Richard Lapointe is linked to the 1987 rape and murder of his wife's grandmother.
Lapointe confessed and was sentenced in 1992 to life in prison without parole.
The state Supreme Court ruled in March that his confession was extracted under duress and he was deprived of a fair trial because prosecutors failed to disclose evidence that supported his alibi.
Supporters say the former dishwasher could not have committed the crime due to his disabilities. He suffers from Dandy-Walker syndrome, which affects brain development and causes intellectual and physical impairments.
Lapointe, 69, was released from prison in April. Prosecutors have not decided whether to retry him.
Connecticut Superior Court Judge Joan Alexander on Thursday granted prosecutors' request to conduct further DNA tests of crime-scene evidence before making the decision.
Assistant state's attorney David Zagaja told the judge the State Police Forensic Science Laboratory has tested some evidence already but his office wants to test as many as 10 more items.
The victim, 88-year-old Bernice Martin, was found raped and stabbed in a burning apartment in Manchester, Connecticut.
Lapointe's defense attorneys said he should be cleared of all charges.
"We believe the state should drop this because no DNA evidence links Richard Lapointe to this heinous crime of which he is incapable," attorney Paul Casteleiro said. "But we have no fear of more DNA testing because we have spent $70,000 over the years on that, which has shown no link to him at the crime scene.”
Supporters say Lapointe, who confessed after nearly 10 hours of police questioning, was railroaded and barely understood what was happening to him.
His attorneys said his condition made him highly gullible during what the Supreme Court ruled was a "long, intense and coercive interrogation."
(Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst and Mohammad Zargham)
