Before the 2001 sexual assault case, the Stone Mountain woman — who became Bharadia’s key alibi witness — had thought about becoming an attorney. How the case played out turned her off to the law and spending her life in courtrooms. She’s convinced an innocent man went to prison and DNA evidence that linked another man to the crime hasn’t been enough to get Bharadia a new trial.
“I guess when you think about ‘Lady Justice’ being blind, there’s always one eye open and it’s not always looking for the facts,” said Pitts, a mother of three daughters.
She testified at Bharadia’s 2003 trial that Bharadia spent significant chunks of the weekend with her family in Stone Mountain. She believes there’s no way he could have driven to Savannah and sexually assaulted a young teacher.
Experts say eyewitness testimony can be faulty and many DNA cases that have cleared a person wrongly convicted ended up having eyewitness accounts that turned out wrong.
“I’m surprised because DNA can incriminate you,” Pitts said. “Most people can go to jail based on DNA, and so I don’t understand how the same thing that can incriminate you can’t clear you.”
Read the full story of Bharadia's case in this Sunday's AJC and on myAJC.com, and read how the state's DNA law intended to help clear innocent people may be leaving them in prison. Find past coverage of the AJC's "DNA Denial" series here.
About the Author
