The issue in the case of Donald B. Farmer v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Farmer claims that since there was another man already charged and convicted of these crimes, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits the Commonwealth from prosecuting Farmer under inconsistent theories regarding the identity of P.F.’s rapist and also, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Farmer’s convictions.
In 2011, Donald Farmer was convicted and sentenced a 125 year sentence for the rape of P.F, statutory burglary, robbery, and the murder of Eathel Fraenzel. In 1987, Farmer and his friend Williams both knocked on the door of Eathel and P.F and attempted to rob them and ended up murdering Eathel …show more content…
Farmer argues that theory that both of these men committed the same crime could not co-exist under the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause of the United States, states “no man should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Farmer did not allege that the prosecutor/court manipulated or fabricated any evidence or acted on bad faith. In, Virginia law, both Williams and Farmer are equally guilty of the crime. Found in the case of Pondexter v. Quarterman, 537 F.3d 511, 527 (5th Cir. 2008), it is not a violation to have inconsistent theories in separate trials of co-defendants. Farmer also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. P.F did identify Williams as her rapist in 1988, but Williams DNA was eliminated after the Analysis came back with Farmer being a match. The court believed that with the trauma of having two offenders commit sexually assault, it not uncommon for a victim to mistakenly identify a person. Farmer’s confession along with the DNA analysis was enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Farmer was the rapist and that he participated in the Burglary and murder of
In 2011, Donald Farmer was convicted and sentenced a 125 year sentence for the rape of P.F, statutory burglary, robbery, and the murder of Eathel Fraenzel. In 1987, Farmer and his friend Williams both knocked on the door of Eathel and P.F and attempted to rob them and ended up murdering Eathel …show more content…
Farmer argues that theory that both of these men committed the same crime could not co-exist under the Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause of the United States, states “no man should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Farmer did not allege that the prosecutor/court manipulated or fabricated any evidence or acted on bad faith. In, Virginia law, both Williams and Farmer are equally guilty of the crime. Found in the case of Pondexter v. Quarterman, 537 F.3d 511, 527 (5th Cir. 2008), it is not a violation to have inconsistent theories in separate trials of co-defendants. Farmer also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. P.F did identify Williams as her rapist in 1988, but Williams DNA was eliminated after the Analysis came back with Farmer being a match. The court believed that with the trauma of having two offenders commit sexually assault, it not uncommon for a victim to mistakenly identify a person. Farmer’s confession along with the DNA analysis was enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Farmer was the rapist and that he participated in the Burglary and murder of