It is indeed disconcerting that one of the prosecutors in this case seemingly points to Coleman's polygraph results as evidence of guilt. Polygraphy has no scientific basis to begin with. Moreover, as you alluded to, it is hardly surprising that anyone whose life or imminent death hinged upon his being believed or disbelieved when answering relevant questions about a crime for which he has been convicted might react more strongly to them than to such commonly used probable-lie "control" questions as, "Before (date of crime), did you ever intentionally hurt someone?"

Note that although this article was posted on the CNN website, it's actually an Associated Press article, and as such was carried by countless news agencies across the country.

Virginia Governor Mark Warner orders additional DNA testing in an effort to determine whether the state executed an innocent man in 1992. If the results show that Roger Keith Coleman did not rape and kill his 19 year-old sister-in-law Wanda McCoy in 1981, it will be the first time in the United States  that an executed person is cleared through scientific testing. 

Coleman was convicted of first degree murder and rape in Grundy in 1982, but maintained his innocence until his death. His case attracted widespread media attention as he pleaded his innocence on talk shows, newspapers and magazines. Then-Governor Douglas Wilder ordered a polygraph test on the morning of Coleman's execution with a promise of granting clemency if he passed. Coleman failed the test and was electrocuted May 20, 1992. If he is proven innocent through advanced DNA testing techniques that weren't available in the 1980's, it could have far-reaching implications for the death penalty, not only in Virginia, but across the country. 

Warner says he hopes the independent testing concludes in time for him to publicly announce the results before he leaves office January 14, 2006.        

EosJupiter,

If Coleman were to be ultimately exonerated by DNA evidence, I can see how the polygrapher who "tested" him hours before his scheduled execution might be considered an "accessory" to his death within the common meaning of the word. But, assuming there was no conscious misconduct on the part of the polygraph operator (and to my knowledge, no one is asserting that there was), I'm skeptical that his/her obtaining an erroneous result could be construed as a violation of the law, let alone a felony.

EosJupiter,

I agree with George in that it would seem highly unlikley that any one person or persons would be held criminally responsible for Coleman's death in the event that he's exonerated. It was a state sanctioned death sentence. That doesn't mean that a whole lot of people wouldn't have blood on their hands and have to live with it if indeed, they sent an innocent man to the electric chair. 

Personally, I always believed Coleman to be guilty of the crimes because of the DNA testing. But then again, I also naively believed in the polygraph, too.  Coleman's case is definitely interesting and complicated--his lawyers missed an appeal deadline by one day, but there was some confusion about  the deadline, another man reportedly bragged about committing the crime and it seems there may have been some question about whether Coleman had time to commit the crimes because of his alibi. Another interesting fact is that the DNA testing at the time was only able to place Coleman in 2 percent of the male caucasion and african american populations who could have left physical evidence on the victim. Those numbers are nothing like the testing today, which usually can difinitively determine whether DNA belongs to a suspect.   

Coleman appeared on Time magazine the day before his execution and his case is the subject of a 1997 book written by John Tucker called, "May God Have Mercy." His last words before he was executed were something to the effect that when his innocence is proven, he hopes the U.S. will get rid of the death penalty as other civilized countries have. I personally have always believed in the death penalty, but if Coleman is proven innocent, I'll have serious issues with it. Executing one innocent person is one too many. There was another Virgina case a couple of years ago--Earl Washington, I believe is his name, came within I think, nine days of his execution for rape and murder convictions before he was exonerated by testing of DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time when the crimes were committed. That one case does make me seriously question application of the death penalty in Virginia, atleast under the current system.  It's also important to note that Virginia Governor Mark Warner recently commuted a death sentence to life in prison in the case of a man in which a court clerk threw away blood stained scissors (I think) that could have been tested and possibly exonerated or implicated the accused. The advanced testing couldn't be done because a court clerk threw the evidence away. Sounds sketchy to me. Warner recently ordered DNA testing in numerous cases and a few people have been cleared already because of it. 

We'll see how the Coleman case plays out. I lot of eyes will be watching this case closely--you can bet on it. If in fact, he is cleared, it seems like it would be a good time to talk about the invalidity and unreliability of the polygraph since his life literally depended on it.

George, PolyFool

I guess we agree to disagree, and lets follow this case. But if I were the lawyer for his family. I am sure that civil proceedings would go badly against  the state of Virginia and everyone involved. Basically following the trail of individuals that made the execution happen, which is the same as following the money in a drug investigation. So lets wait and see, but again my gut instincts tell me if he is exonerated there is criminal negligence implications. But again just my opinion. But the law is rather clear here .  

I wanted to add this link: 

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+8.01-50+401862

Here is the text:

§ 8.01-50. Action for death by wrongful act; how and when to be brought. 

A. Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person or corporation (states are incorporated entities),  or of any ship or vessel, and the act, neglect, or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action, or to proceed in rem against such ship or vessel or in personam against the owners thereof or those having control of her, and to recover damages in respect thereof, then, and in every such case, the person who, or corporation or ship or vessel which, would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, or, if a ship or vessel, to a libel in rem, and her owners or those responsible for her acts or defaults or negligence to a libel in personam, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances, as amount in law to a felony.

B. Every such action under this section shall be brought by and in the name of the personal representative of such deceased person within the time limits specified in § 8.01-244. 

C. If the deceased person was an infant who was in the custody of a parent pursuant to an order of court or written agreement with the other parent, administration shall be granted first to the parent having custody; however, that parent may waive his right to qualify in favor of any other person designated by him. If no such parent or his designee applies for administration within thirty days from the death of the infant, administration shall be granted as in other cases. 

(Code 1950, § 8-633; 1958, c. 470; 1977, c. 617; 1981, c. 115.) 

One more thing on this is the time limit: 

Link:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+8.01-244+500786

§ 8.01-244. Actions for wrongful death; limitation. 

A. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 8.01-229 B, if a person entitled to bring an action for personal injury dies as a result of such injury with no such action pending before the expiration of two years next after the cause of action shall have accrued, then an action under § 8.01-50 may be commenced within the time limits specified in subsection B of this section. 

B. Every action under § 8.01-50 shall be brought by the personal representative of the decedent within two years after the death of the injured person. If any such action is brought within such period of two years after such person's death and for any cause abates or is dismissed without determining the merits of such action, the time such action is pending shall not be counted as any part of such period of two years and another action may be brought within the remaining period of such two years as if such former action had not been instituted. However, if a plaintiff suffers a voluntary nonsuit pursuant to § 8.01-380, the nonsuit shall not be deemed an abatement nor a dismissal pursuant to this subsection, and the provisions of subdivision E 3 of § 8.01-229 shall apply to such a nonsuited action. 

(Code 1950, §§ 8-633, 8-634; 1958, c. 470; 1977, c. 617; 1991, c. 722.) 

The way it reads, and the other referenced code subsections, its 2 years to impose actions upon the indentification of the wrongful death. So the time limit starts the moment the exoneration is identified. 

Thanks for the debate and lets see what happens.

Regards

EosJupitor

Ask your attorney friend, if this is found to be a wrongful death, if the venue would be in federal court under "Due Process". I don't think malace and aforethought has to be proven under the Due Process Clause and it would certainly involve the polygrapher. I would like to know for my own knowledge.

Here, again, I have to say that my limited legal knowledge is at the federal level - Civil (mining, etc.) not criminal. However, my research in mining laws has taken me to other interesting areas i.e., ADA.

EosJupitor

Thanks.

One way it could wind up in federal court is if the family lost in state courts and kept appealing, it would land in the Federal District Court. If they lost there the appeal process would take them to the Court of Appeals and then on to U.S. SupCt. by Writ of Certiorari. That's why I say the first action should include Due Process and state a claim. States always try to say "the action didn't state a claim".