He's serving life in prison for murder. But his DNA wasn't at the scene.

Prosecutors said Stephen Yarborough was sexually assaulted, then fatally stabbed in his Roxboro, N.C. home in 2007. The house was filled with physical evidence: A bloody palm print. Blood on his eyeglasses. Stains on his underwear. Two cigarette butts from an ashtray that had spilled onto the floor.  

Much of that evidence was tested for DNA. None of it matched the man serving life in prison for the crime. When the victim’s rape kit was finally analyzed with the latest technology 15 years later, Dominaque Thorpe's DNA wasn’t there, either. But under North Carolina law, those results haven’t helped him at all. 

That’s because a state law says it’s up to a judge to decide whether the results of post-conviction DNA tests are “favorable” or “unfavorable” to the defense. If a judge finds them unfavorable, the conviction and sentence stand. Similar laws are on the books in 20 other states.Laws in 21 states (shaded blue) leave it up to a judge to decide whether or not the results of post-conviction DNA testing would have been helpful to the defendant at trial. In Thorpe’s case, no foreign DNA at all was found in the victim’s rape kit. After he "considered the testimony, ... considered the exhibits offered by the state and the defendant, considered all submissions of the parties and the arguments of counsel, and reviewed the official file," North Carolina Superior Court Judge John M. Dunlow decided the lack of DNA was unfavorable.