On the morning of September 22, 1988, an 11-year-old girl, identified as R.D., reported to her mother that as she was waiting for a bus to go to school in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, she had been grabbed by a Black man. She said the man had sexually assaulted her.
R.D. described her assailant as a slim, tall, light-skinned Black man in his late teens or early twenties with short hair, and a long, narrow, clean-shaven face. She also described him as being cross-eyed. She said he was wearing pinkish pants and a red-and-white shirt with some sort of emblem on it.
R.D.’s mother took her to the Area B Boston Police Station to make a report. There an officer completed an incident report. R..D. then was taken to the emergency pediatric care unit at Boston City Hospital. A rape kit was taken, andR.D. and her mother spoke with a detective from the Sexual Assault Unit of the Boston Police.
On the following morning, R.D.’s mother drove around the neighborhood looking for someone who might fit the description of her daughter's assailant. At some point that morning, she spotted 23-year-old Marvin Mitchell on Humboldt Avenue in the city’s Roxbury neighborhood. At the time, Mitchell was a slim, tall, and reasonably light-skinned black man in his early twenties.
On that morning in particular ,he was also wearing a sweatshirt with a large red-and-white emblem on it. Unlike the description of the assailant, however, Mitchell had a well-developed mustache and goatee and was not cross-eyed. Nor was he wearing pinkish pants. R.D.’s mother phoned the Area B Police Station and reported that she had located her daughter's assailant.
Boston police officers Trent Holland and Robin DeMarco had learned of the reported rape and been given a description of the assailant during roll call at the Area B Police Station. Based on the call from R.D.’s mother, the officers spotted Mitchell standing on a Roxbury street corner. They arrested Mitchell for public drinking, though Mitchell was never prosecuted for a drinking offense.
Mitchell was taken to the Area B Police Station. Mitchell would later say that he was interrogated by Holland concerning, among other things, what clothes he had worn the previous day. In response, Mitchell said that he told Holland that he was wearing the same gray pants that he was wearing at the time of his arrest.
Both Holland and DeMarco would claim that Mitchell spontaneously said that he was wearing pinkish-colored pants the previous day. Neither officer noted Mitchell’s supposed incriminating statement in an incident report and neither officer reported the alleged statement to the Sexual Assault Unit.
Holland and DeMarco notified the Sexual Assault Unit concerning their suspicion that Mitchell was R.D.’s attacker. The police arranged to have R.D. and her mother brought to the police station.
Mitchell was photographed and fingerprinted. Then the photo of Mitchell was shown to R.D. as part of an eight-picture photographic lineup. She identified Mitchell as looking like the man who raped her. After R.D. confirmed the identification of Mitchell in another photo array, Mitchell was arrested for the rape.
On November 4, 1988, a grand jury returned a four-count indictment against Mitchell, alleging two counts of forced sexual intercourse with a minor and two counts of unnatural sexual intercourse with a minor. During the grand jury proceeding, a detective from the sexual assault unit summarized the evidence against Mitchell, which did not include his purported pink pants admission.
After the indictment, but prior to trial, Holland and DeMarco received the Commissioner’s Commendation for apprehending Mitchell.
In December 1989, Holland contacted Assistant District Attorney Leslie O'Brien, who was prosecuting Mitchell. The trial was scheduled to begin the following month. Holland revealed for the first time Mitchell’s purported statement that he had worn pinkish pants on the day of the crime. Holland was then listed as a witness in the Commonwealth’s case against Mitchell.
By that time, Mitchell had submitted to a blood test that the defense contended excluded him as the source of a mixture of semen and blood on the victim’s sweatshirt.
The trial began on January 18, 1990, before Suffolk County Superior Court Judge J. Owen Todd. R.D. identified Mitchell as her attacker. Her mother testified about how she came to see him on the street.
David Brody of the Boston Police Crime Laboratory testified that, while the blood mixed with semen found on R.D.’s sweatshirt did not have Mitchell’s blood type, the victim’s blood type could have been “masking” Mitchell’s blood type, so he could not be ruled out as the attacker.
Holland was intended to be the prosecution’s final witness. Before he testified, Judge Todd ordered an examination of him outside the presence of the jury. During the examination, Holland testified that while he was asking Mitchell routine booking questions, Mitchell admitted he was wearing pink pants the previous day.
After Mitchell’s attorney objected, Judge Todd said he was not satisfied that the prosecution had demonstrated that Mitchell’s statement was made following a valid waiver of his Miranda rights. At the prosecution’s request, Judge Todd adjourned the trial until the following day for a ruling on whether Holland could testify.
After court had recessed, Holland told O’Brien that DeMarco, who was still Holland’s partner, would also have information relevant to Mitchell’s alleged statement.
The following day, two local newspapers published articles reporting that Holland, who was currently investigating the high profile Charles Stuart murder case, had been cited in a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision for having possibly committed perjury.
When the trial resumed that morning, the prosecution and defense agreed that Holland’s testimony would be stricken and he would not be called as a witness.
DeMarco, who had not been subpoenaed to testify and had not been identified by the prosecution as a witness, was then called to testify instead of Holland.
DeMarco testified that, during Mitchell’s booking, she and other officers were having a conversation about how people often wear the same clothes every day. According to DeMarco, Mitchell interjected by stating “I didn't have these clothes on yesterday ... I had pink pants on.” Based on DeMarco’s version of events, Judge Todd held that Mitchell’s statements were not procured in violation of his Miranda rights and were therefore admissible.
The evidence closed on January 19, 1990. Three days later, on January 23, 1990, the jury convicted Mitchell on one count of forced intercourse with a minor and one count of unnatural sexual intercourse with a minor. Judge Todd sentenced Mitchell to nine to 25 years in prison.
Mitchell’s appeals were denied.
During his incarceration, Mitchell’s mother and brother died. He maintained his innocence and vowed to clear his name to honor their memories.
In 1995, Mitchell contacted attorney David Kelston, asking for help. Kelston and lawyer Noah Rosmarin took Mitchell’s case pro bono and arranged for DNA testing.
In 1997, Cellmark Diagnostics of Germantown, Maryland, conducted the DNA tests. Cellmark reported that Mitchell was excluded as the source of the biological evidence.
The defense then filed a motion for a new trial. On April 23, 1997, the Suffolk Superior Court granted Mitchell’s motion to vacate his convictions and granted him a new trial. Mitchell was released.
On May 23, 1997, the prosecution dismissed the case.
In 1998, Mitchell filed a federal lawsuit seeking compensation from the city of Boston. The lawsuit was settled in 2001 for $450,000. He also was awarded $500,000 in compensation from the state of Massachusetts.
– Maurice Possley
Posting Date: 08-29-2011
Last Update Date: 02-26-2026
