On June 1, 1981, an intruder entered a home in Shreveport, Louisiana, where three girls – two sisters ages 9 and 7 and the nine-year-old’s 10-year-old friend – who were home alone had fallen asleep after playing dress-up. Two of the girls were on the couch, and the third was in bed. The intruder carried the nine-year-old from the couch to the bed, where her seven-year-old sister was sleeping. The ten-year-old victim awoke on the couch and saw a man standing above her, naked except for a cowboy hat. The attacker choked her and banged her head against the wall. The victim was able to escape, but was caught in the front yard, where they struggled. She was kicked in the stomach and lost consciousness. The sisters in the bedroom heard noises but remained there. Their mother returned in the morning. She called the victim’s mother after noticing that the victim was in pain.

The victim’s mother arrived, and the police were summoned. Investigators noted that the victim’s face was bruised and that she was obviously in pain. The police officers who responded testified that the victim was incoherent and did not provide an intelligible description of the assailant. Her mother claimed that she told police that her daughter said an ugly man with a beard under his face attacked her.

The victim was taken to the hospital, where a rape kit was collected and fingernail scrapings were preserved. The police collected the victim’s underwear and nightgown, as well as a bedspread and a pair of men’s size 40 boxer shorts found on the arm of the couch. The boxer shorts had not been there before the crime, and the mother of the two sisters did not recognize them. Investigators attempted to interview the victim at the hospital but were not able to do so.

Police interviews with the nine-year-old girl provided different accounts. In one report, she recollected that she was asleep on the couch with the victim and awoke as she was being carried by a Black man. She could not see his face but described his shoes, which were shaped like cowboy boots. In another report, the girl said that Calvin Willis – a Black man who used to live in the neighborhood and had been to her house previously – had stopped by the house looking for a woman who lived there previously. Later, another man stopped by looking for the same woman. The second man wore a cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and had a big blue and white car. This second report was not disclosed at the time of trial. With regard to the crime, she described the assailant as a big man with a cowboy hat, beard, and mustache who put her in the bed, and then went back to the couch and attacked the victim. She heard him throw the victim against a wall and threaten to kill her if she called the police. At trial, the nine-year-old girl identified Willis by his boots, though her description of the boots differed from the boots Willis was wearing when he was arrested two days after the crime. She testified that she did not see the attacker’s face. She also identified the nightgown collected as the one worn by the victim after the attack.

The seven-year-old girl testified that she had been asleep alone and that her sister came into the room later. She awoke when she heard the victim’s cries and the attacker threatening to kill the victim. She identified the voice as that of Calvin Willis, with whom she had spoken once. She identified the nightgown and underwear collected as the clothing the victim was wearing at the time of the attack.

The mother of the two sisters testified that the police showed her two photographs of Calvin Willis and asked what kind of car he drove. She told them that Willis had been in her house before, that he was known to wear a cowboy hat, that she had seen him in boots similar to those described by her daughter, and that she did not influence the victim to believe that Willis committed the crime.

In her initial testimony, the mother did not mention that the victim said anything about a cowboy hat. She later testified that the victim mentioned a cowboy hat and beard, but then said that her daughters told her about the hat and boots. Finally, she testified that she overheard the victim telling her mother that Willis had been to the house.

A neighbor testified that between 1:30 a.m. and 2:30 a.m., her dogs had started barking, prompting her to look out her window. She saw a blue car with a black stripe drive by. A defense investigator’s report indicated that this neighbor was interviewed a few days after the crime and did not report any unusual noises or vehicles.

Police testimony about the photographic identification also varied. After being released from the hospital, the victim was taken to the police station to be interviewed. The victim’s answers were translated by her mother. An investigator testified that she showed the victim a lineup that included Willis’s photograph because the victim had said that “Calvin” was the attacker. Her mother provided the last name of Willis.

However, the victim’s mother testified that Willis’s name did not come up before the lineup. Upon further questioning, however, she testified that the victim had said Calvin did it before they were taken to the police station and that he had been wearing a cowboy hat and cowboy boots. She went on to testify that she knew the name Calvin Willis before going to the police station because neighbors told her he could have committed the crime.

The victim testified that she was told to pick the men in the photographic lineup who did not have a full beard. She also testified that she did not pick anyone from the lineup and that Willis’s picture was not part of the array. Her testimony included a statement that Calvin was standing above her when she awoke, but the victim never made an in-court identification of Willis. A detective testified that Willis’s photograph was in the photographic lineup.

The doctor who examined the victim testified that he collected the rape kit and identified non-motile sperm on a slide.

The Northeast Louisiana Crime Laboratory performed conventional serological testing on the rape kit evidence. Blood, but no semen, was identified on the victim’s underwear. Pat Wojtkiewicz of the Northwest Louisiana Crime Laboratory falsely stated that blood “could dilute any seminal fluid present that could tend to make the results negative for seminal fluid.” He testified that seminal stains were found on the nightgown, but it is unclear whether he determined that semen was present or assumed it. This conclusion was based on an acid phosphate test, rather than a P30 test which would have been preferred at that time. Testing of the assumed seminal stains revealed blood group O markers. The victim was a type A secretor, and Willis was an O secretor. Wojtkiewicz testified that Willis, therefore, could not be excluded as a contributor to the stain, but he did not state how common O secretors were in the population.

Seminal fluid with blood group O markers also was found on the bedspread. Blood was found on the boxer shorts that could not exclude the victim. No seminal fluid was detected on the vaginal swab of the victim.

Willis was excluded from being the contributor of various hairs recovered from the bedspread. In response to that finding, the prosecutor asked:

“So from that we can deduce that he still could have done it, but he did not leave any hair there?”

Wojtkiewicz answered, “That’s correct.”

The prosecutor then asked, “On the other hand, we can also deduce he was not there?”

Wojtkiewicz answered, “That would be a correct deduction, yes.”

Wojtkiewicz testified that the nightgown, underwear, and the boxer shorts had fibers on them that “matched or had the same microscopic characteristics as” fibers from the bedspread. Therefore, he stated, the boxer shorts, underwear, and nightgown were in contact with the bedspread. Given the presumed commonness of the bedspread fibers, this conclusion was overstated.

From the time he was arrested, Willis denied having anything to do with the crime. He was known in the neighborhood because he used to live there and still had family residing there. He had friends in the neighborhood whom he often visited.

Willis’s wife testified that he had returned home that night shortly before midnight and that they had spent the whole night together. She also testified that she often bought clothes for him and that his waist size was 29. Further, he had his boxer shorts on when he returned that night.

Willis himself testified that he had dropped off a friend and returned home before midnight. His description of the clothes he was wearing that night did not match those described by any of the three girls. In the past, he had been to the house where the crime occurred, and all three girls had seen him several times. But, he testified, he was not there and did not see the victim on the night of the crime.

The jury did not believe Willis’s alibi. He was convicted in February 1982 of rape and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Though he presented evidence that the girls had named another man who had stopped by the house that night wearing clothes similar to the victim’s description, Willis’s post-conviction motion was denied. In 1998, his case was accepted by the Innocence Project. Evidence was located in the clerk’s office of the Caddo Parish District Court. The nightgown, rape kit, and boxer shorts were submitted to Forensic Science Associates for testing. No probative biological material was identified on the nightgown due, perhaps, to degradation.

Testing of the material found under the victim’s fingernails revealed two sources of DNA, one male and one female. The female portion matched the DNA profile of the victim.

Testing of the blood found on the boxer shorts revealed a mixture of DNA profiles. The victim’s profile matched that of the major contributor of the stain. Two other profiles, at least one of which was male, were obtained. Another mixture was detected on the fly section of the boxers. The primary contributor to the non-sperm portion of that sample was a male. The sperm fraction of that sample revealed the profiles of several males.

Importantly, the profile of the male contributor to the fingernail scrapings was compatible with the male profile from the blood stain mixture on the boxer shorts, the non-sperm fraction of the mixture on the fly, and one of the male profiles from the sperm fraction on the fly.

Calvin Willis was excluded from being a contributor to any of the samples.

Based on these DNA test results, Willis’s conviction was vacated. Prosecutors decided not to re-try Willis, and dismissed the case. On September 18, 2003, he was released from the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola and was greeted by his family and long-time advocate Janet Gregory. Willis had spent more than 21 years in prison for a rape that he did not commit. He subsequently was awarded $330,000 in state compensation.