Revisiting the Huntington Mall Rapist Case

Nearly 30 years ago, in January and February of 1987, two women were kidnapped, raped, and robbed in separate incidents at the Huntington Mall those months.

Glen Dale Woodall was charged and convicted by a jury of those crimes later in 1987 and sentenced to two life prison terms.  Woodall always maintained his innocence.  He appealed his convictions to West Virginia's high court and the editor of this blog argued the case before the Supreme Court in 1989.  Before the case was argued, the Attorney General's office, in which the editor of this blog was employed, agreed with Woodall's request for DNA testing to determine if his DNA was on the victims' clothing.  Those tests came back inconclusive and the case proceeded to argument before the high court.  In 1989, Woodall's convictions and sentences were upheld.  This case was unique as West Virginia became the first State in the nation to have its highest court declare that DNA testing was a valid scientific test.  The original opinion can be read at this link: State v. Woodall 1989

Glen Dale Woodall, exonerated by DNA

evidence after serving five years in prison.

After the high court upheld Woodall's convictions, two important developments occurred.  First, evidence came to light that the State's forensic analyst, Fred Zain, had falsified dozens of blood tests, such as the one used at Woodall's original trial, throwing into doubt at least some of the State's evidence.  Second, and just as important, DNA testing was refined even further to make it more accurate.  A new DNA test now showed Woodall was not the person who deposited the DNA on the victims' clothing.

In 1992, with these developments in hand, Woodall moved for a new trial.  He was released from prison after having served nearly five years.  The Prosecution then concluded in light of these two developments that it could not successfully prosecute Woodall.  Woodall then sue the State for wrongful incarceration and received a $1 million settlement.

The case then went cold as prosecutors had no other suspects.

Donald Good was convicted by DNA
evidence as the real perpetrator.

Then, in 2010, the State had a new suspect.  In the intervening years, the State had amassed a DNA database, primarily from people sentenced to prison.  The DNA on the clothing of the two victims was a match with Donald Good, an inmate already serving a life sentence for murder.  The primary evidence against Good was the DNA results.  Good's fingerprints were also a match to fingerprints found on one of the victim's driver's license.  A jury convicted Good in 2011 and his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2012.

The Supreme Court's opinion in Good's appeal can be read at this link:  Good Conviction Upheld

The State was wrong once in this matter; did they get it right this time?