UPDATE: NEW PETITION FILED

Hon. Glen Youngkin, Governor 
P.O. Box 1475 
Richmond, VA 23218 

Joseph M. Dorsett: Addendum to Previously Filed Clemency Petition 

1. False Confessions 
in the United States, instances of false confessions under duress occur from time to time and Virginia, unfortunately, is no exception to these controversial law enforcement strategies. A striking case in point is the ordeal of a man named Joseph Dorsett, who had been coerced into confessing to a crime he didn't perpetrate. 
The case of Dorsett reflects palpable shortcomings in interrogation tactics utilized by police departments around the state of Virginia. Dorset was implicated in a severe case of sexual assault and murder. Under immense pressure and strenuous questioning, he eventually confessed to the crime, despite his glaring innocence. 
The tactics implemented during the Dorsett interrogation involved a culmination of lengthy, degrading, high-stress questioning periods, sleep deprivation, and psychological manipulation. Like many others falsely accused, Dorsett was made to feel as though his confession was the sole means of ending an excruciating and relentless interrogation process. Additionally, he was mistakenly led to believe that the evidence against him was damning, leaving him essentially without an escape route. 
Another example of such strategies used by the Virginia police could be found in the case of Steve Jenkins. Jenkins was wrongfully implicated in a series of robberies and was subjected to a similar grueling interrogation process. He was held in isolation for extended periods and was also misled into thinking that the evidence against him was infallible, eventually resulting in another coerced confession. 
To better illustrate the broad framework of this issue, the Innocence Project reports that out of all wrongful convictions eventually overturned with DNA testing, nearly 30% involved false confessions, admissions, or guilty pleas. This concerning number accounts for not only Virginia but cases across the United States, thus showcasing that there persists a systemic problem at the national level. 
It is apparent that systemic changes in police interrogation strategy and tactics are needed to prevent situations like that of Joseph Dorsett and Steve Jenkins from recurring. A shift towards focusing on ascertaining accurate outcomes over efficient ones is vital to ensure the protection of the rights of the innocent. 
il. 
Highly Trained Members of the U.S. Armed Forces Made to Confess to a Rape and Murder They Did Not Commit 
The Norfolk Four, consisting of four U.S. Navy sailors - Joseph J. Dick Jr., Derek Tice, Danial Williams, and Eric C. Wilson, were wrongfully convicted for the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko. Here are the key factors that led to their wrongful conviction: 
1. Each of the Norfolk Four confessed to the crimes after being subjected to high- 
pressure interrogation tactics, including threats of the death penalty and questionable use of lie detector tests. They later recanted these confessions, stating they were coerced under intense pressure. 
2. A detective named Robert Glenn Ford conducted the interrogations. The men 
described him as very intimidating, with Williams stating, "Once he gets his teeth into you, he doesn't stop until he gets what he wants from you". 
3. Despite lacking any evidence connecting Williams to the crime, the Norfolk police developed a theory that he was one of several men involved. The confessions were the primary evidence used in their convictions, even though their DNA did not match the evidence collected at the crime scene. 
In 1999, Omar Ballard, a prison inmate, admitted to committing the crime. His DNA matched the evidence found at the crime scene, and he insisted that he acted alone. Despite this, it took several years for the Norfolk Four to be exonerated. They were fully pardoned in 2017 by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. 
Joseph Dorsett's Youthfulness and Inexperience Made him the Perfect Target To Force a False Confession From 
Youthfulness and inexperience with the criminal justice system can indeed make a person more susceptible to giving a false confession. Here are some reasons why: 
1. The adolescent brain is still developing, particularly in areas related to decision- making, impulse control, and understanding long-term consequences. This can make young people more likely to succumb to the pressures of an interrogation and falsely confess. 
2. Young people are more susceptible to coercion, false promises of leniency, and 
deception about evidence. These standard interrogation tactics are designed for adults, not kids, and can lead to false confessions. 
3. Young people often lack understanding of their rights and the criminal justice 
process. They may not fully grasp the implications of a confession and may believe that telling the police what they want to hear will allow them to go home. 
4. Many young people score high on tests of eagerness to please or conform in 
social situations. This can make them more likely to agree with an authority figure's narrative during an interrogation. 
5. Paradoxically, innocent people, especially young ones, often have a false sense 
of security and may waive their rights to an attorney2. Without an attorney present, they face the interrogation alone, unprepared, and are most vulnerable to psychological pressure 
Studies have shown that a significant percentage of false confessions come from young people. One study found that 63% of false confessors were under the age of twenty-five and 32% were under eighteen. Another study found that juveniles under the age of eighteen were three times as likely to falsely confess as adults 
IV. 
Lack of Physical Evidence Linking Mr. Dorsette to the Scene Of the Crime 
Physical evidence plays a crucial role in criminal investigations and trials. Here's why the lack of physical evidence that matches a defendant can support their innocence: 
1. Physical evidence is used to connect a suspect with the crime or identify the 
criminal. If the physical evidence, such as DNA, does not match the defendant but matches someone else, it suggests that the defendant may not be connected to the crime. Here the defendant was not linked to the crime scene with any physical evidence. 
2. Physical evidence is often used to establish guilt or innocence during a criminal 
trial. If the DNA collected from the crime scene does not match the defendant's, it can be a strong indicator of their innocence. In the present case Mr. Dorsett's DNA was not found at the crime scene. 
3. The process of identification requires that the number and type of tests needed to 
identify a substance be sufficient to exclude all other substances. If the DNA evidence matches someone else, it excludes the defendant as the source of that evidence.' 
4. Evidence must be sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial. DNA evidence is 
considered highly reliable due to its unique nature. If the DNA evidence does not match the defendant, it can be a compelling argument for their innocence. 
5. In criminal law, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If they cannot provide physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime, it supports the presumption of innocence. 
V. 
Confession of Condemned Killer- Exoneration of Mr. Dorsett 
Before he faced his execution, Mr. Kent Jackson confessed to the act of murder and sexual assault for which he was accused - an act which he admitted to having committed single-handedly. He revealed in his confession that he had shared the gruesome details of his crime with another man, Mr. Joseph Dorsett, following the perpetration of this reprehensible deed. 
Faced with an unyielding onslaught of investigation and relentless pressure from law enforcement, Mr. Dorsett found himself falsely admitting to his presence during the act, and moreover, furnishing details about it. It's crucial to understand that such information was only available to Mr. Dorsett in light of Mr. Jackson recounting the crime to him. 
Unfortunately, amidst the fervor of investigation and prosecution, the fact that there was no physical or tangible evidence concretely linking Mr. Dorsett to the crime was overlooked. As a result, Mr. Dorsett, having been implicated on the basis of knowledge rather than participation, is serving time behind bars for a crime he did not commit. 
It is abundantly apparent that a man stands condemned not due to guilt, but due to circumstances and the intricate web of a false confession and indirect evidence. The justice system should, therefore, be urged to revisit Mr. Dorsett's case with a sharper, more discerning lens, in order to correct a grave miscarriage of justice. 
Based on the empirical facts set forth herein and in the initial petition for clemency, we humbly ask the Honorable Governor of Virginia to grant Mr. Joseph Dorsett an absolute pardon in the interest of justice. 
s/ Joseph M. Dorsett 
Date: