Case Category

13 Cases

Main Menu

Location

Defendant(s)

Date of Alleged Crime

Gilbert Stokes was convicted of murdering 18-year-old Jyron Seider during the robbery of a Belle Glade, Florida street dice game.  Stokes was a member of the “Dogs Under Fire” gang while Seider was not.  An appeals court overturned Stokes’ conviction because the prosecutor repeatedly tried to create the impression that Stokes was motivated to kill Seider because he was a non-gang member.  No evidence supported that assertion and it was clear that Stokes socialized with non-gang members.  The court stated, “Here, the State lacked strong evidence and it is questionable, under the facts of this case, whether the jury would have found Stokes guilty without hearing evidence of his DUF membership.”  The appeals court also overturned the conviction because the trial judge improperly allowed a detective to give hearsay testimony that alleged witnesses who did not come to court to testify had implicated Stokes in the murder.

DNA evidence and two eyewitnesses link the state’s star witness to the murder.  The two witnesses say that Stokes was not involved.  As of Dec. 2005, Stokes remains imprisoned while the prosecution decides whether to retry him.  (JD30 p14)  [2/07]

Amado was convicted of the shooting murder of 28-year-old George Sneed.  The conviction was due to testimony that an eyewitness, Frederick Johnson, had selected a photo of Amado, had identified the assailant as "Bugsy," and had associated the name "Bugsy" with Amado.  When called to testify, Johnson readily answered a series of question on the sequence of events leading up to the murder.  However, his testimony became evasive and confusing when asked about his previous identification of Amado.  The prosecutor had to repeatedly refresh Johnson's "recollection of events," by showing him what purported to be a transcript of statements he had given to police.  Johnson appeared to deny identifying Amado and claimed that he had selected Amado's picture because it "looked familiar."  The prosecutor never asked Johnson if Amado was the killer.  On cross-examination by defense counsel, Johnson denied that Amado was the killer or was present at the scene of the killing.  Three detectives were called as witnesses and testified to Johnson's previous identification of Amado.

According to Amado's attorney, "The eyewitness in the case identified a photo that looked like Amado, but when he came into court and saw my client he said he knew Amado wasn't the killer."  In 1982, an appeals court ruled that the trial court erred in presenting contrary testimony to prove identification.  It reversed Amado's conviction and directed a verdict of acquittal.  (BUSL) (Google)  [4/08]

Chambers was convicted of the murder of Sonny Liberty, a police officer.  Two Woodville police officers, James Forman and Aaron "Sonny" Liberty, tried to arrest a local youth named C. C. Jackson at Hayes’ Café, a bar and pool hall on First West St.  However, a crowd of 50 to 60 people gathered who frustrated their arrest attempt.  Forman radioed for backup and Liberty removed his riot gun, a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun, from his patrol car.

After three deputy sheriffs arrived, the officers again attempted to make the arrest.  In the commotion, five or six pistol shots were fired.  Officer Liberty was shot four times in the back with .22 caliber bullets.  Before he died, he turned around and fired both barrels of his riot gun into an alley in the area from which the shots appeared to have come. The first shot was wild and high and scattered the crowd standing at the face of the alley. Liberty appeared, however, to take more deliberate aim before the second shot and hit a man in the back of the head and neck as he ran down the alley. That man was Leon Chambers.

One deputy would later testify that he saw Chambers shoot Liberty.  Another would testify that he could not see if Chambers had a gun, but saw him “break his arm down” shortly before the shots were fired.  However, officers at the scene made no effort to secure Chambers or search for the murder weapon.  The deputies said they thought Chambers was dead and attended to Liberty, who was taken to a hospital where he was declared dead on arrival.  Three of Chambers friends brought him to the same hospital to which Liberty was taken.  Chambers was later charged with murder.

At trial a defense witness testified that he was looking at Chambers when the shooting began and was sure that Chambers did not shoot Liberty.  There was also no proof that Chambers had ever owned a gun.

Besides this defense, Chambers’ attorneys tried to introduce evidence that another man, Gable McDonald, had shot Officer Liberty.  McDonald had left his wife and moved to Louisiana within days of the shooting.  When he returned to Woodville five months later, an acquaintance, known as Reverend Stokes, convinced him to give a sworn statement to Chambers’ attorneys that he had shot Officer Liberty.  Once McDonald’s confession was signed, he was turned over to police who put him in jail.  A month later, at a preliminary hearing, McDonald repudiated his confession.  The local justice of the peace accepted the repudiation and released him from custody.  The local authorities undertook no further investigation of his possible involvement.

McDonald had once owned a .22 caliber pistol, but claimed to have lost it many months before the shooting.  A lifelong friend of McDonald’s was willing to testify that he had seen McDonald shoot Liberty.  One of Liberty’s cousins was willing to testify that he had seen McDonald with a pistol in his hand immediately after the shooting.  Three other witnesses were willing to testify that McDonald had confessed to shooting Liberty prior to his confession to Chambers’ attorneys.  There was also another witness who disputed a recantation statement by McDonald that he was at a café several blocks away at the time of the shooting.

The trial judge largely thwarted attempts by Chambers’ attorneys to introduce evidence against McDonald.  The attorneys were able to call McDonald as a witness, but he stuck to his recantation.  They were not allowed to impeach his testimony by questioning him adversely.  The judge ruled that McDonald was not an adverse witness because he did not implicate Chambers in the murder.  The attorneys were also not allowed to call witnesses who heard McDonald confess to the murder, as their testimony was considered unreliable hearsay.  Chambers was convicted.

On appeal, the defense asserted that Chambers was denied due process because the trial judge barred much of the evidence that McDonald had shot Liberty rather than Chambers.  State courts denied Chambers’ appeal, but his appeal eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.  In Feb. 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in Chambers’ favor.  It ruled that McDonald was an adverse witness because his exculpatory recantation was inculpatory of Chambers and that Chambers’ right to confront and cross-examine an adversary did not depend on which side, prosecution or defense, happened to first call him as a witness.

The Court also noted prohibitions against hearsay were premised on preventing the introduction of unreliable testimony.  However, the proposed testimony in Chambers’ case was heavily corroborated and did not consist of self-serving statements of McDonald, as they were against his self-interest.  The state had asserted that allowing exceptions to the hearsay rule would subvert justice even when given against self-interest.  It gave the following hypothetical:

"If the rule were changed, A could be charged with the crime; B could tell C and D that he committed the crime; B could go into hiding and at A's trial C and D would testify as to B's admission of guilt; A could be acquitted and B would return to stand trial; B could then provide several witnesses to testify as to his whereabouts at the time of the crime.  The testimony of those witnesses along with A's statement that he really committed the crime could result in B's acquittal.  A would be barred from further prosecution because of the protection against double jeopardy.  No one could be convicted of perjury as A did not testify at his first trial, B did not lie under oath, and C and D were truthful in their testimony."

The Court noted that B's absence at trial was critical to the success of the justice-subverting ploy.  In Chambers’ case McDonald was present to testify.  The Court allowed exceptions to the hearsay rule in Chambers’ case.  It is not known if any attempt was made to retry Chambers, but he was reportedly released in 1973.  (Chambers v. Mississippi)  [7/07]

Dr. Jay C. Smith was sentenced to death in 1985 for the 1979 murders of Susan Reinert and her two children.  Smith was the principal of Upper Merion High School (in Montgomery County) for 12 years and Reinert was a teacher there.  Reinert's fiancé, William Bradfield, was also a teacher at the same school as well as president of the Teacher's Union.  Bradfield was convicted in 1983 of conspiracy to murder Reinert and her children as he was named beneficiary of Reinert's life insurance.

Reinert was last seen alive driving away from her Ardmore home with her two children at 9:20 p.m. on Friday, June 22, 1979.  Her dead body was found in her car in a Harrisburg parking lot the following Monday morning.  Her two missing children are presumed dead.  An autopsy revealed she was badly beaten 24 to 36 hours before her death and that she died early Sunday morning from an injection of morphine.  It also revealed that she had sand between her toes implying she could have visited a beach area like Cape May, NJ.  In addition, she had written directions on her to an area just north of Cape May.  Cape May is approximately 100 miles southeast of Reinert's home, while Harrisburg is approximately 100 miles west.

Bradfield had an alibi from 11:15 p.m. Friday on, when he got together with three friends, reputable high school teachers, and left with them, spending the weekend in Cape May, NJ.  The prosecution did not believe that he could have traveled to Harrisburg during this period and it was alleged that Bradfield had employed Smith as Reinert's killer.

Smith was convicted of murdering Reinert and her two children in 1985.  At Smith's trial, the prosecutor did not call Bradfield as a witness, but instead called a series of witnesses who recounted their recollections of what Bradfield said.  The judge allowed this hearsay testimony after the prosecutor assured him that the state attorney general found that such testimony was allowed under the law.  A jailhouse informant, who had been imprisoned for perjury, claimed that Smith had confessed to the crime.  This informant was wired with a hidden recording device, but on every recording in which the informant brought up the subject with Smith, Smith stated that he had nothing to do with the Reinert murders.

The PA Supreme Court overturned Smith's conviction in 1992 because the judge permitted hearsay testimony, the police withheld evidence that sand was found between Reinert's toes, and five state troopers perjured themselves on this point.  The troopers did not want Smith's jury to hear about the sand as it allowed the defense to argue that Reinert had been in Cape May and that Bradfield had personally killed her.  The Court found the prosecution's conduct so egregious that it broke new legal ground and barred a retrial.

The chief case investigator, Trooper John J. Holtz, was later found to have accepted $50,000 from author Joseph Wambaugh for information on the Reinert investigation.  The money was provided on the condition that suspect Jay Smith be arrested.

Smith's exoneration should have undermined Bradfield's conspiracy conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence.  At Bradfield's trial, there was no direct evidence that he conspired with Smith, but without Smith, there is not even circumstantial evidence that he conspired with anyone.

Despite his excellent alibi, evidence suggests that Bradfield orchestrated Reinert's murder and tried to frame Smith for it.  Bradfield had warned associates that the evil Dr. Smith planned to kill Reinert for some time before the murder.  Smith was previously convicted of robbing a Sears store by posing as an armored car driver to collect the day's receipts.  Smith was due to be sentenced and imprisoned the same day and in the same city that Reinert's body was found, so it seemed that Bradfield used his last opportunity to kill Reinert and throw suspicion on Smith.  It seems doubtful that Smith, who had no motive for killing Reinert, would drive her car with her dead body to Harrisburg, then return home and drive his own car to his sentencing.

Bradfield died in prison in 1998.  The case is the subject of three books, Echoes in the Darkness by Joseph Wambaugh (1987), Engaged to Murder by a Philadelphia Inquirer editor (1988), and Principal Suspect by Smith's trial and appeal attorney (1996).  The case was also the subject of a TV mini-series.  [1/06]

Jeffrey Stewart Dicks and another man, Donald Wayne Strouth, were convicted of the capital felony murder of James Keegan.  Keegan was killed during the robbery of a Kingsport clothing store.

At Strouth’s trial, the state presented hearsay evidence that Strouth had committed the murder. Different people related that Strouth had said to them that he hit the victim in the head with a rock, that he had to hurt the victim, and that he had to slit his throat. The state vouchsafed this evidence as trustworthy as it was inculpatory of Strouth. However, at Dicks’ trial the same evidence was deemed untrustworthy and prohibited, as it was exculpatory of Dicks. One would think the reverse situation might apply, as the evidence might be trustworthy enough to prove reasonable doubt, but not absolute guilt.  Other witnesses offering evidence of Dick’s innocence were also prohibited from testifying. Dicks was prevented from presenting a full defense as allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chambers v. Mississippi.

The state alleged that a set of footprints put Dicks at the scene. These footprints were reportedly seen but not documented in any way. The state said they took photographs of the footprints, but the camera malfunctioned. However, the camera did not malfunction when they took photographs of the victim. The “expert” witness who testified about the footprints admitted that he was a non-expert and did not know what he was doing.

The prosecutor submitted a pair of bloodstained jeans into evidence, alleging they were Dicks' pants. He had previously introduced them as Strouth's at his trial. When his apparent dishonesty was caught, the prosecutor removed them and stipulated that they did not belong to Dicks.

The state alleged that a coat, which was burned by the Dicks’ family, though not by the defendant, had bloodstains of the victim on it. As with the footprints, the non-evidence of a bloodstained coat was hardly proof of anything and could not reliably be used to prove Dicks’ guilt. Secondly, even if Dicks participated in the murder, his coat would not likely be bloodstained. Other evidence indicated the victim was unconscious and prostrate, having been hit by a rock, and was not standing up when his throat was cut, as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, while the victim’s blood did spurt on bottoms of Strouth’s pant legs, it would not likely spurt on any perpetrator’s coat.

Dicks had been tentatively scheduled for execution in Sept. 1998, but he died in his cell of heart related problems in May 1999. Dicks’ mother, Shirley Dicks has written a book about the case entitled, They're Going To Kill My Son.  (JD01) (JDS) (www.shirleydicks.net)  [2/08]

Deeb, a convenience store owner, had allegedly hired three men to kill a female employee on whom he had a $20,000 accident policy.  However, Deeb had such policies on all his employees as a hedge against worker compensation claims.  The prosecution alleged that the three men then mistakenly killed a woman who was not an employee.  The murdered woman did not seem to be the victim of a contractual killing as she was raped and tortured, as were two of her friends.  None of his three alleged co-conspirators testified against Deeb even though they were charged with capital murder like Deeb and were in a position to negotiate for a reduced sentence.  One trial witness testified that Deeb had acknowledged he would receive insurance money if one of his employees ever was murdered.  Deeb was convicted and sentenced to death.

Deeb’s conviction was overturned because the judge allowed a jailhouse informant to give hearsay testimony about statements allegedly made by one of Deeb’s alleged co-conspirators.  This informant described a murder for hire scheme in detail.  Deeb was acquitted at retrial in 1993.  (NL)

Osborne was convicted of murdering Sam Davenport, 82, and his wife Lillian, 76.  He was sentenced to death.  The victims were hit over the head and their house was set on fire.  They died of smoke inhalation.  Osborne, 17, and his friend, Joe Reid, 15, said they heard breaking glass from the Davenport home when they passed it while riding a motorbike on the night of the murders.  Osborne phoned his mother, who in turn phoned the police.  When the police arrived at the scene, the house was in flames.

After repeated interrogations, police got 15-year-old Reid to state that Osborne committed the murders while he waited outside.  Before Reid could testify at Osborne’s trial, he drowned while swimming in Jellico, Tennessee.  His death was ruled accidental.  At Osborne’s trial, the prosecutor read Reid’s statement.  The defense objected, but the judge overruled the objection.  On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned Osborne’s conviction.  Reid's testimony was ruled inadmissible because a dead witness cannot be cross-examined.  Osborne was acquitted at retrial after spending three years on death row.  (Louisville Courier-Journal) (TWM)

While married to a different man, Sharee Miller had an online romance with an ex-police detective, Jerry Cassaday, from Reno, Nevada, whom she met on the Internet.  Sharee had told him numerous lies such as being wealthy.  She had also traveled to Reno five times and had a physical affair.  In her emails, she said she was married to a terminally ill husband, Jeff, who would die soon and that they could be together soon.  Then she told him her husband died, but she had to marry his brother, Bruce, because of family pressure.  She twice told Jerry she was pregnant with his child.

Regarding the first pregnancy, she told Jerry she lost the child because her husband had violently raped her.  Regarding the second pregnancy she said her husband had beaten her until she miscarried.  She even used cosmetic make-up to fake a picture of herself, showing herself all bruised up.  She also sent some emails allegedly from her husband to Jerry saying that he found out about the pregnancy and killed Jerry’s “bastard” child.  Sharee had also told Jerry that her husband was in the Mafia.  Jerry had trouble with drugs and alcohol and moved from Reno, Nevada to his hometown of Odessa, Missouri.

Sharee’s husband, Bruce Miller, 48, worked third shift at an auto plant in Flint.  He also owned a junkyard, B & D Auto Parts, where he worked when he was not working at the plant.  One night while Bruce was alone at the junkyard, Jerry showed up and murdered him.  Police thought Bruce was the victim of a robbery as money he had on him was missing.  In her online romance with Jerry, Sharee still was not willing to join Jerry, even though she was free of her husband.  In apparent despair, Jerry, then 39, committed suicide three months after the murder.  He left a suicide note and an alleged transcript of instant messages between himself and Sharee that implicated Sharee in the murder.  He said he had murdered Bruce with Sharee’s help.

Despite her infidelity, Sharee was reportedly happy in her marriage to Bruce.  He was her third husband and provided stability that she had not had before.  She also had no known motive to kill him.  She did not even have a small life insurance policy on him.  Police found email correspondence on Jerry’s computer between Sharee and Jerry.  There was nothing in these emails that directly implicated Sharee in the murder.  They somewhat supported Sharee’s claim that she was trying to scare Jerry, so he would not call her house so much.

Sharee was tried for the murder of her husband.  Jerry’s suicide note and his transcript of instant messages, which showed Sharee participating in the planning the murder, were introduced as evidence.  The transcripts could easily have been faked.  Because he had been jilted, Jerry had motive to falsely implicate Sharee in the murder.  There was little reason to regard them as reliable or trustworthy.  Being dead, Jerry could not be cross-examined.  Jerry was also an ex-police detective who likely was more adept than an average person in deciding how to frame an innocent person.

Sharee was convicted.  Her infidelity and the lies she told to Jerry do not make her an especially sympathetic person.  Nevertheless, since the evidence used to convict her is inherently unreliable, Sharee’s conviction is also inherently unreliable.  (AJ) [9/07]

Robert Angleton, also known as Bob, was a bookie who took bets on sporting events.  He was charged with murdering his 46-year-old wife, Doris.  Following the murder, Bob told police that he suspected his brother Roger was the killer.  Despite Roger’s checkered past, Bob had employed him in 1989.  He fired him less than a year later.  After being fired, Roger felt Bob owed him $200,000 and even tried to rob him of it at gunpoint.  Roger then threatened to put Bob out of business, by reporting him to the IRS.  Bob ignored him, but Roger started making phone calls to customers, posing as an IRS agent.

After realizing that Roger could ruin his bookmaking business, Bob started paying him $2500 a month.  While the payoffs worked for a while, in 1997 Roger demanded even more money.  Bob says he received a letter from Roger saying if he didn’t get the money, "I will hurt you in a way that will be with you for the rest of your life."  Bob ignored the letter, but six weeks later Doris was killed.

Roger had fled following the murder, but was arrested two months later in Las Vegas.  He had with him audiotapes of two men planning the murder.  Prosecutors believed the two men were Roger and Bob.  Roger claimed he was hired by Bob to murder Doris.  Prosecutors also learned that Doris had filed for divorce two months earlier.  Doris had an online lover that Bob said he was unaware of.  Prosecutors believe that Doris could have threatened to expose Bob’s bookmaking business in order to obtain a larger divorce settlement.

Shortly before a prosecutor was about to offer Roger a deal to testify against Bob in exchange for getting out of jail, Roger committed suicide in his cell.  Roger left a note stating that he had killed Doris on his own as an act of revenge, and that Bob was not involved.  The prosecutor convinced a judge that Roger’s note was unreliable hearsay, and therefore inadmissible.  The prosecutor hired an audio expert who had once worked for the FBI to analyze Roger’s tapes.  Contrary to the prosecutor’s hopes, the expert reported that he was “very confident” that Bob’s voice was not on the tapes.  After listening to the tapes, the jury thought the voices on it were too muffled to identify Bob’s voice.  They acquitted him.

While Roger was imprisoned, aspiring crime writer Vanessa Leggett visited him and made 50 hours of audiotapes of her interviews with Roger.  On them Roger pointed a finger at Bob and claimed that Roger had agreed to pay him $100,000 a year for ten years in exchange for killing Doris.  Roger claimed he taped his conversations with Bob as insurance in case Bob failed to pay up.  Armed with this new evidence, prosecutors planned to try Bob again, this time in federal court, three and a half years after his acquittal in state court.  Roger’s “dying declaration” suicide note would still be inadmissible, but his taped statements to Leggett would be admissible, even though Bob would be denied his constitutional right to confront Roger regarding their truthfulness.

Four days before his second trial was to begin, Bob, out on bail, boarded a plane and flew to Amsterdam.  He did not want to face the possibility of a conviction.  He carried with him $135,000 and a fake passport.  Dutch officials spotted the fake passport and took Bob into custody.  After the U.S. began extradition proceedings against him, Bob’s Dutch lawyers argued that international treaty protects against double jeopardy and prohibits the Dutch government from sending Bob back to face murder charges a second time.  Not only did a Dutch court agree, but so did the prosecutor.

Dutch courts eventually agreed to extradite Bob, but only after the U.S. filed new charges against Bob of passport and tax fraud and also agreed not prosecute him for murder.  Bob pleaded guilty to the new charges in 2004 and will be released from prison in 2014.  Bob’s two daughters have stood with him and have never believed he killed their mother.  The U.S. government says it has found a way to prosecute Bob again for murder upon his release from prison.  Leggett has written a pro-prosecution book about the case, entitled Murder by the Book.  It is expected to be released in 2007.  (48 Hours)  [2/07]