By 1993, Washington's lawyers had reached the end of their appeals. The last hope for them was Gov. L. Douglas Wilder. Washington's attorneys drafted an appeal for pardon and sent it to Wilder. But Wilder wanted DNA tests done before making a decision. The new test excluded Washington's DNA. Prosecutors then floated a new theory - the DNA belonged to an accomplice of Washington's.

By December 1993, as Wilder's governorship was coming to an end and Washington's execution date was nearing, the governor ordered one more DNA test - on a blanket. However, Washington's lawyers couldn't find out what it showed - the results were kept secret. On Wilder's last day of office, a call came to the lawyers. They had two hours to accept Wilder's clemency offer, life in prison for Washington rather than execution. In its investigation, however, FRONTLINE obtained a copy of that last DNA test. The test, reviewed by Wilder on January 14, 1994--the day of his clemency decision--concluded that Earl Washington Jr. was "eliminated" as a possible donor of the genetic evidence in the case.

In February 1999, the Virginia General Assembly rejected legislation that would have made possible a new trial for Washington, and others in his situation, by extending Virginia's "21-day rule" for hearing new evidence after final sentencing.

For years, Charles proclaimed his innocence. In 1990, when Charles learned of the power of DNA evidence to re-open previously tried cases, he began writing letters requesting a test of the evidence in his case. For years, his requests were ignored, blocked, or denied by state and federal officials. Charles kept writing however, as did his family, and eventually his case became one of the hundreds of files stacked at the Innocence Project where law students and DNA experts, including lawyer Barry Scheck,take on cases where DNA could prove prisoners' innocence.

The Innocence Project, coupled with FRONTLINE's media attention, finally helped pressure the state of Louisiana to agree to a DNA test in May, 1999; by November, results of the test excluded Charles as a possible perpetrator of the crime. Charles, now 46, was released from prison on December 17, 1999. "I don't have time to be angry, but I do want to know why," Charles said to a New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper reporter on the evening of his release. "Why did this take so long? I know I left some innocent men behind."

In July, 1997, the test came back negative, indicating that Criner could not have contributed the genetic material found on the victim. Criner believed he'd be freed soon, but these hopes were shortlived: the DNA test did not persuade local and state officials to grant Criner a new trial. Overturning the ruling of a District Judge, a 5-4 majority of judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded in May of 1998 that the DNA evidence would not have changed jurors' minds. Judge Sharon Keller, writing for the majority, found "overwhelming, direct evidence" that established Criner's guilt beyond the doubts raised by the new DNA evidence. In his dissent, Judge Charles Baird stated that the majority undervalued the power of the DNA evidence to change jurors' minds and moved for a new trial. In his investigative piece "Hard Time," reporter Bob Burtman uncovered additional evidence of Criner's possible innocence.

Originally at trial, O'Dell represented himself; afterward, he continued to make his case, sending letters on stationery headed with an address of "P.O. Box 500-Death Row." In one letter, O'Dell petitioned the Circuit Court for release of the evidence in his case for DNA testing. In June, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his last appeal. That same month, the Virginia Circuit Court rejected a petition filed on O'Dell's behalf to release the evidence for testing. His innocence still questioned, and his case being closely followed by anti-death penalty groups in Virginia and around the nation, O'Dell was executed in July of 1997.

Following his death, efforts to conduct further tests on the evidence in O'Dell's case continued unabated. Late in 1997, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, petitioned the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach to release evidence for testing, but the Court denied the request and suggested that the evidence be disposed of as required by law.

In a 1999 law review article on the case, Lori Urs, an anti-death penalty advocate who married O'Dell just prior to his execution in order to gain access to the evidence in the case, argued strongly against previous court opinions in the case which, she felt, relied on mistaken early reports of a blood "match" in the case and did not take seriously enough the import of the subsequent DNA testing.