Crime Commission and DFS: 92% of Mary Jane Burton case files reviewed; independent panel to examine 314 cases
Loading...
Summary
Presenters told the Forensic Science Board they have reviewed roughly 92% of known Mary Jane Burton cases (about 7,000), identified 4,743 named suspects and 186 instances of testimony; staff have begun notifying incarcerated individuals and prosecutors and an independent review panel will evaluate 314 prioritized cases.
The Virginia State Crime Commission and the Department of Forensic Science reported substantial progress in reviewing case files worked by the late forensic examiner Mary Jane Burton and outlined a forthcoming independent review process.
Dr. Arrington, representing the Crime Commission, said staff have completed a physical review of about 92% of all known cases worked by Ms. Burton—"almost 7,000 cases reviewed and cross validated"—and identified 4,743 named suspects. The team found 186 cases with indications that Ms. Burton had testified, and they provided a breakdown of conviction status and unique-individual outcomes: Dr. Arrington reported 1,262 named suspects with a conviction, 906 with a non-conviction disposition (dismissed, nolle prosequi, not guilty, etc.), and additional suspects whose status remains under verification. Among unique individuals, the presenters said 108 are currently incarcerated, 54 are under Department of Corrections supervision, 408 are deceased, eight were executed, and 11 were exonerated.
Amy Jenkins (DFS) summarized how the matter came to the agency’s attention: podcast reporting beginning in 2019 prompted requests for documents; DFS referred allegations to its Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) for technical review in 2023. Jenkins said the SAC identified specific concerns in several cases (including the Winston Scott and Marvin Grama matters) and recommended notifications to prosecutors and law enforcement. She said DFS has sent law enforcement and Commonwealth’s attorney notifications and is working on letters to affected individuals, adding that DFS can perform DNA testing only if evidence is available and if parties consent or a court orders it.
Jenkins described overlap between the Burton review and the post-conviction (PC) testing project that previously tested takedown swabs and cuttings from cases from 1973 to 1988; she said the PC project previously led to exonerations and retesting recommendations in some instances.
Tracy Rowe explained the independent review panel that 2025 legislation requires: the panel will assess the accuracy of Burton’s testing, analysis and testimony and determine whether there was any pattern of misconduct. Rowe said the panel will not decide actual innocence (that is a court function). To date, she said, 314 cases have been identified for review; the panel will include prosecutors, defense counsel, a retired judge, an Office of the Attorney General representative, the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project executive director and an independent serologist. The Crime Commission will designate members and assist with records collection and case prioritization.
Jenkins and Crime Commission staff described outreach steps: DFS notified incarcerated individuals through DOC tablets and provided lists and copies of case files to UVA Innocence Project; the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project performed an independent review of executed-case files. Jenkins said testing is already underway in roughly 11 cases where updated conviction information or recovered evidence made testing possible; results will be released when testing is complete, likely in a matter of months.
During public comment, Sean Armbrust of the Innocence Project complimented DFS’s response and said, based on his review, he does not believe Burton’s work "led to the execution of an innocent person." Armbrust encouraged continued vigilance and offered to answer questions offline.
The presenters emphasized limits: many older case files lack full personal identifiers (dates of birth, Social Security numbers) so outreach to non-incarcerated people can be difficult and may rely on public records searches or court orders.
