Location

Defendant(s)

Date of Alleged Crime

Wilburn L. Henderson was sentenced to death for the murder of Willa Dean O'Neal.  The murder occurred during an alleged robbery of $41 at a Ft. Smith furniture store that the victim owned with her husband.  In the store police found a yellow piece of paper containing two phone numbers that had been given to Henderson by a real estate agent.  Henderson conceded that the paper was his and that he must have dropped when he was in the store days before the murder.  Under police interrogation Henderson had given a statement that he had just happened to have been in the store when another man committed the crime.  He later recanted the statement saying he only made it because he feared police would harm him.  According to the prosecution, Henderson had obtained a gun from a pawnshop and then pawned it back just after the murder.  However, ballistics tests on the gun were inconclusive that it was the murder weapon.

An appeals court overturned Henderson's conviction because his lawyer failed to investigate other suspects, particularly the victim's husband, Bob O'Neal.  At retrial, Henderson was again convicted after the prosecution presented a witness, Clarence Wilson, who placed the husband elsewhere at the time of the crime.  However, at an earlier federal hearing, Wilson testified differently saying he left the store while Bob O'Neal was still inside.

According to the victim's daughters from a previous marriage, the victim had talked of divorcing her husband.  She had also filed an alienation of affection suit against a woman with whom her husband was having an affair.  The husband owned the type of gun, a .22 caliber pistol, that was used to shoot his wife.  He claimed that it was stolen after the murder.  Also, according to different witnesses, he made numerous incriminating statements.  For example, at trial when the coroner testified that he believed the victim was shot in the head while sitting in a chair, the O'Neal reportedly whispered to the woman sitting next to him, "No, that's not the way it was. She dove out of the chair to miss the bullet."  While Henderson was on death row, O'Neal wrote a letter to the state insisting Henderson had been wrongfully convicted.  O'Neal died in 1992.

Prior to his second trial, Henderson was offered several plea deals that would have spared his life, including one that would have allowed him to apply immediately for parole.  But Henderson turned them down.  According to his lawyer, he never wavered on maintaining his innocence.  Henderson was executed by lethal injection on July 8, 1998.  (Chicago Tribune)  [8/08]

Gerald C. Wentzel was convicted in 1947 of the strangulation murder of Mrs. Miriam Green, a 29-year-old divorcee. Green was last seen entering her apartment on the early evening of Friday, Dec. 6, 1946.  Green’s mother said her daughter had planned to visit her that Friday, but she did not visit, nor did she call to say why.  Green did not report for work Saturday morning, nor did she call in sick.  The thermostat for her apartment building was located in her apartment.  She had diligently taken care of resetting the thermostat after the furnace went off, but had not that weekend.  Because of the cold, neighbors had knocked on her door several times during the weekend, but had gotten no response.  Finally, on Monday afternoon, Dec. 7, neighbors entered her apartment and found her dead.

 Wentzel, who was married, had been seeing the victim four or five times a week. He told police he had gone to Green’s apartment on Sunday night, found her dead, and left without reporting her death.  He had been on a hunting trip 200 miles away and had a solid alibi from Thursday until Sunday night.

 At trial a medical doctor testified.  After police found Green’s body, they asked this doctor to determine if she was still alive.  The doctor testified he did not believe the victim had been dead more than 12 hours, and thus could have died Sunday night.  On cross-examination he admitted he had never done work on corpses, thus he had no experience in determining time of death.

 The coroner’s physician then testified.  He presented gruesome autopsy photos of the victim to the jury.  He felt the victim had died 12 to 24 hours before he examined her at an autopsy Monday night.  However, on cross-examination he agreed the victim could have been dead for 48 hours or 72 hours.

 The defense presented the victim’s undertaker who had 21 years of experience in handling corpses.  He felt the victim had been dead for 48 to 72 hours prior to Monday night.  When asked if she could have been dead for less than 48 hours, he indicated that in all his experience he had never seen a body as decayed as the victim’s who had been dead for less than 48 hours.  Wentzel was sentenced to 10 to 20 years of imprisonment.

 Wentzel’s appeal to the PA Supreme Court was denied, but a three-judge minority issued a vigorous dissent, agreeing with Wentzel’s claim that he was convicted on insufficient evidence.  In 1950, Clarence Woodley, an American soldier stationed in Germany, confessed to the murder while imprisoned on a robbery charge.  After investigating the confession, the local prosecutor rejected it as false.  Nevertheless, the publicity surrounding the confession stimulated an investigation by The Court of Last Resort.  Based on its conclusion that Wentzel’s alibi was solid and that the victim could not have died later than Saturday night, the PA Board of Pardons commuted Wentzel’s sentence to time served.  (Not Guilty)  [8/08]

Christopher Parish and Keith Cooper were charged with robbery and attempted murder.  Two intruders allegedly shot and robbed Michael Kershner in apartment F on the third floor of an apartment building located at 729 Monroe Street in Elkhart.  At the time of the shooting five other people were reportedly in the apartment with Kershner.  However, despite testimony that Kershner bled profusely in the car which took him to the hospital, investigating officers found no evidence the apartment was the scene of a crime.  Cooper, identified as the alleged shooter, was acquitted of the attempted murder, but convicted of the robbery and sentenced to 40 years in prison.  Parish was convicted of both charges and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The trial presented a conflict between identification witnesses and alibi witnesses.  There were problems with the identifications.  Prior to getting Kershner's initial identification, police got two non-critical witnesses to identify Parish.  Although Parish was 20 at the time of the crime, Kershner identified him from an array of six photos in which Parish's photo as a 13-year-old was placed alongside photos of much older men in their 20’s and 30’s.  This lineup suggests that police believed the shooter was especially young and that were deliberately trying to get Kershner to identify Parish.  By the time of trial, the prosecution lost the photo array and a supplemental report written about Kershner's identification.  That it "lost" these items suggests Kershner's initial identification was dubious.

Eddie Love, a reported apartment occupant at the time of the crime and an initial target of the shooter, identified Cooper at his trial, but refused to testify at Parish's trial.  Instead Detective Steve Rezutko gave a hearsay account of Love's supposed identification of Parish.  When interviewed later by defense investigators, Love, who was 15 at the time of the crime, said Rezutko had intimidated and coerced him into signing a statement identifying Parish as well as falsely identifying Cooper as one of the assailants at Cooper's trial.

The assailant who was the shooter reportedly left behind behind a hat.  This hat was identified as belonging to Cooper.  The prosecution performed DNA tests on the hat which excluded it from belonging to Cooper.  Nevertheless, the prosecution withheld the DNA test results from the defense.

During trial, a prosecution witness, Jermaine Bradley, pulled a stunt that was possibly suggested to him by an experienced member of the prosecution.  Bradley claimed on the witness stand that Parish verbally threatened him in the courtroom prior to his testimony.  The claim was dubious because:  (1) Bradley did not report it until he resumed testimony the following day.  (2) The prosecution witnesses were kept segregated and were not milling about in the courtroom.  (3) No one else in the courtroom heard the alleged threat.  The claim served to prejudice the jury that Parish was a violent person.  It was cited by the prosecutor during his closing argument and by the judge at Parish's sentencing.  A defense investigator later found two courtroom witnesses who escorted Bradley to the witness stand on the day of the alleged threat.  The two stated under oath that Parish did not say anything to Bradley.

Parish had twelve alibi witnesses who could testify that he, his wife, and children were 110 miles away, visiting relatives in Chicago, during the hours surrounding the shooting.  Most, but not all were family members.  However, Parish's lawyer, Mark Doty, only produced seven of these witnesses at trial, all family members, and subjected them to unnecessary cross-examination by failing to tell them to report the alibi to the police right away.  Doty publicly admitted fault for this negligence.  Doty also failed to use available evidence to challenge that a crime had even occurred at the victim's apartment.

There is some evidence that Kershner and his friends fabricated the location of the shooting.  Two witnesses later said that Kershner was shot in a laundromat parking lot across from the apartment complex.  Eddie Love, also, corroborated their account.   Parish presumably did not know the reason for the deception, if true, when he wrote the Justice Denied article referenced below.  In its support, Kershner was on home detention at the time of the shooting and presumably did not want the police to know that he was outside his apartment.  However, Kershner's family who moved away in 1999 were unaware of case developments until 2008 when contacted by a law clerk handling a civil case against the city of Elkhart.  According to Kershner's sister, Chris Smallwood, their family strongly denies the location was fabricated and she presents a plausible story.  In her support, it does not appear likely that numerous prosecution witnesses would have perjured themselves on this point.

In 2005, an appeals court overturned Parish’s conviction was and granted him a new trial.  In 2006, Cooper was given early release from prison.  Also in 2006, prosecutors dropped charges against Parish citing evidence that its witnesses lied at the first trial, making a second trial problematic.  (JD30 p7) (Parish v. Indiana) (Elkhart Truth) (Smallwood Emails)  [8/08]

George Allen Lewis was convicted of the rape and murder of a 36-year-old neighbor, Karen Gregory.  Gregory lived at the corner of 27 Ave. and Upton St. in Gulfport, FL.  Around 1 a.m. on May 23, 1984, more than a dozen of Gregory’s neighbors heard a loud piercing scream.  Most paid little attention, but on the morning of the 24th Gregory was found raped and brutally murdered.  When interviewed later, Lewis said that upon hearing the scream he walked towards Gregory’s house to investigate, but turned around after he failed to see anything suspicious.  Lewis was a firefighter and a neighborhood crime watch volunteer.  He had a crime watch sign in his yard.  Lewis had a sterling reputation and was friends with the case investigator, Detective Larry Tosi.

When questioned eight months later, Lewis changed his story, saying he just walked to the front of his house and did not walk along the street.  He was then asked to take a lie detector test, which he failed.  After being told that he failed, he changed his story again.  He also gave slightly different stories after two more lie detector tests.  Two years after the murder, investigator Tosi had a crime scene photo of what appeared to be a bloody (barefoot) footprint enlarged and compared to Lewis’ footprint.  The forensic comparers reported a match.  Lewis then admitted it was his footprint and that he entered Gregory’s house following the murder to investigate, but said he did not murder Gregory.

Gregory’s body was found outside a bathroom.  Lewis’ bloody footprint was found inside the bathroom.  At trial Lewis said that after he entered Gregory’s house and came upon the body, he got sick and entered the bathroom to vomit in the toilet.  Afterwards he ran like a scared rabbit.  He said that later, during the investigation, he tried to be helpful, but thought it best not to mention that he walked through the murder scene.  To construct a motive, the prosecution speculated that routine everyday tensions caused Lewis to snap and commit the brutal rape-murder.  Lewis’ family and fellow firefighters, who presumably know him better, strongly maintain his innocence.

Lewis’ case provides reasonable doubt.  It is plausible to believe that Lewis, as a crime watch volunteer, might have entered Gregory’s house to check that everything was fine.  Also as a firefighter, Lewis was trained to enter houses based on what his senses told him.  If he saw smoke billowing from a house's window, he most likely did not wait for social approval before entering.  His job required him to take charge.

Reportedly, there was broken door glass outside Gregory's home, which might have drawn his attention.  Perhaps he heard the sounds of the victim's last moans or of the killer exiting out the rear.  It is plausible that Lewis inadvertently walked into a pool of the victim’s blood before the true horror of the situation dawned on him. Or not wanting to vomit on the floor, he stepped in the victim’s blood while walking over her body to get to the toilet.  Although the real killer could have left a bloody footprint, he likely fled before most of the victim's blood had drained from her body.  There may not have been any pools of blood for him to step in.

Secondly, Lewis had legitimate reason to fear that reporting the crime would a lead to the murder being pinned on him.  He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  It is in the interest of justice that individuals not incriminate themselves if they are innocent.  In extreme cases, it might even be advisable for an innocent person to clean up a crime scene, or even bury a body. Since Lewis was clearly in a incriminating situation, his failure to report the crime cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

Thirdly, rather than implicate him in the crime, Lewis' false stories tend to exonerate him.  Had he planned the crime beforehand, he likely would have snuck up to the victim's house, worn a disguise, or taken some precaution so that a neighbor could not identify him.  Then when questioned later about the crime, he would deny knowing anything about it.  In actual fact, when questioned, Lewis acknowledged walking along the street to investigate the scream.  His acknowledgment implied that he was fearful that a neighbor might have seen him on the street and he did not want to be caught in a lie by denying everything.  Even that acknowledgement he apparently did not want to make.  After talking to Investigator Tosi, and finding out that no neighbor saw him, he changed his story eight months after the crime to say he only walked to the front of his house.  In addition, it does not seem likely that Lewis would have entered Gregory’s house barefoot if he planned to struggle with her.

Fourthly, there was an alternate suspect who stopped by Gregory’s house a half day after her murder and left a note on the car of Gregory’s absent boyfriend, saying he stopped by, but “saw no signs of life.”  When questioned this suspect had a cut on his hand, but reportedly had an alibi.  Lewis will be eligible for parole in 2010.  A 1992 book was written about the case, entitled Unanswered Cries by Thomas French.  (AJ)  [8/08]

Daniel Taylor was convicted of the murders of Jeffrey Lassiter and Sharon Haugabook.  The victims were residents of a second-floor apartment at 910 W. Agatite Ave.  Under police interrogation, the then 17-year-old Taylor confessed to the crime.  According to the confession, Taylor and three fellow gang members entered the apartment to rob the victims while four additional gang members waited outside as lookouts.

Just before Taylor was to be formally charged with the murders, he protested that he could not have committed the crimes because he had been in police custody when they occurred.  When police checked their records, they found that Taylor was arrested at 6:45 p.m. on the night of the murders.  The murders occurred at 8:43 p.m.  A copy of Taylor's bond slip showed he was not released from the Town Hall District lockup until 10 p.m.

Nevertheless, police still charged Taylor with the murders.  To corroborate to his confession, they found a witness, Adrian Grimes, a drug dealer and a rival gang member, who, at trial, testified that he saw Taylor at 7:30 p.m. in Clarendon Park.  Two police officers, Michael Berti and Sean Glinski, also testified that they saw Taylor at 9:30 p.m. when they emerged from an apartment half a block from the murder scene.  The jury chose to believe Taylor's confession over police records.  Taylor was sentenced to life in prison.

Following Taylor's conviction, Grimes said he lied at the request of detectives and to receive leniency on a narcotics charge.  The officers who said they saw Taylor at 9:30 p.m. testified they dropped him off at a DCFS shelter at 10 p.m.  However DCFS records show that he did not arrive there until 3 a.m.  In addition, four months before the officers report, a judge had ordered Officer Berti off the witness stand in an unrelated case and stated, "I don't believe a thing he says. He goes down in my book as a liar."

Besides Taylor, seven of his fellow gang members were charged with the murders.  No physical evidence connected any any of them to the crime.  While in police custody all seven confessed to the crime and each said Taylor was with them.  Four of them were convicted of the crime, one was acquitted, and charges against the other two were dropped after their confessions were thrown out.  (Chicago Tribune)  [7/08]

Frank Ewing, a black man, was convicted of raping a 25-year-old white woman after being brought to the victim and identified by her.  The victim, A. F., was raped at her home on Stokes Lane, west of Hillsboro Pike, a few miles south of Nashville.  A police officer testified that Ewing confessed to the crime.  However, Ewing had strong alibi that he was working 25 miles away at the time of the crime.  The alibi was supported by multiple witnesses, none of whom had known Ewing long or had a plausible reason to lie.  The alibi was also supported by written records.

At trial, however, Ewing's white employer, J. M. Summers, was his only alibi witness, and on the day of his testimony he had misplaced records of Ewing's employment.  The rape had occurred on a Monday.  Without his records, Summers mistakenly remembered that Ewing had left his employment at the end of the week.  The prosecutor was able to bring out that Ewing had been working elsewhere at the end of the week and his Summers' statement was wrong.  On appeal, further alibi evidence was submitted including the written records, but appeals courts declined to reverse Ewing's conviction.  Ewing was executed on May 21, 1919.  ("Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives on Failed Justice")  [7/08]

Steven Murray Truscott was sentenced to death for the murder of his 12-year-old schoolmate, Lynn Harper.  Harper disappeared near RCAF Clinton, an air force station, a few miles south of Clinton, Ontario.  Truscott and Harper were 7th grade classmates at the same school.  On the early evening of June 9, 1959, Truscott, then 14, gave Harper a ride on the crossbar of his bicycle from the vicinity of the school and the two traveled north along Country Road.  Truscott maintained that he dropped her off unharmed at the intersection of Country Road and Highway 8.  He said she told him she had squabbled with her parents and planned to hitch a ride somewhere.  He said that after dropping her off he looked back and saw that a vehicle had stopped and that Harper was in the process of entering it.  Harper's father reported her missing at 11:20 that evening.

Two days later Harper was found in a wooded lot off of Country Road.  She had been raped and murdered.  Within hours Truscott was arrested and charged with Harper's murder.  At trial, all evidence against him was circumstantial and centered on placing Harper's death within a narrow time frame which implicated him.  A pathologist testified that Harper died between 7:00 and 7:45 p.m. – an extremely precise determination even by today's forensic standards.  Years later, the pathologist would amend his testimony and place Harper's death within a 12-hour time frame.  Truscott was convicted and sentenced to hang, but four months later his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.  In 1966, Isabel LeBourdais rekindled interest in the case by publishing The Trial of Steven Truscott in which she argued that Truscott had been convicted of a crime he did not commit.  In 1969, Truscott was released on parole and in 1974 the National Parole Board released him from the terms and conditions of his parole.

In 2000 interest in the case was again revived after a documentary on Truscott appeared on CBC's "The Fifth Estate."  Subsequently, journalist Julian Scher published a book on him entitled Until You Are Dead.  Both of these sources suggested that significant evidence in favour of Truscott had been ignored at his trial.  In 2001, lawyers filed an appeal to have the case reopened.  In 2007, the Ontario Court of Appeal acquitted Truscott, and in 2008, Truscott was awarded $6.5 million for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment.  (CBC)  [7/08]

John A. Johnson was convicted of the kidnapping and murder of seven-year-old Annie Lemberger.  Annie had been kidnapped from her home at 2 South Francis St. in Madison.  Her body was found three days later in Lake Manona with a head wound.  Since an autopsy found no water in her lungs, it was assumed she died from the wound prior to being thrown into the lake.

On the morning of Annie's disappearance, Annie's mother told police that upon retiring for bed the previous night she locked all the doors and windows in her home.  Annie slept in a cot in the same room as her nine and six-year-old brothers who slept in another bed.  The door to their parents' room was left ajar.  In addition the family owned a terrier who barked at the slightest sound.  The next morning, all the windows and doors still remained locked except the window closest to Annie's cot, which had a triangular hole broken out of the glass.  The hole was reportedly too small for even a woman's hand to fit through, so it was initially thought that a group of boys may have committed the crime.

One of the suspects arrested by police was John A. Johnson.  He asserted his innocence during an all night grilling by police and was released.  However he was rearrested after police learned of his past record of two commitments to insane asylums for taking liberties with girls, and one sentence for the nonsupport of his wife and two daughters.  Johnson continued to maintain his innocence and his wife and daughters attested that he was at home and could not have left without them knowing about it.  In court Johnson pled "not guilty."  However, after being returned to jail, officers learned that Johnson had once seen a black man lynched.  The lynching made such a deep impression on him that the mere mention of it made him cringe.  Sometime thereafter officers informed him that there was a mob waiting outside the jail waiting to get at him.  They warned Johnson to stay away from the jail windows because there were men on nearby buildings waiting to get a shot at him.

After Johnson became livid with fear of being lynched, an officer told him he could escaped being lynched by giving a confession.  Johnson then fully confessed to the crime in court, insisted his trial be held immediately, and that he be sentenced and taken to Waupun penitentiary that same day.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor and upon arrival at the penitentiary he proclaimed his innocence but said he nevertheless was greatly relieved.

Some years later Johnson wrote letters complaining that he was wrongfully convicted.  A former judge who received a letter looked into Johnson's case and became completely convinced of his innocence.  In late Sept. 1931, hearings were held on a pardon application for Johnson.  Testimony emerged that Annie's father had thrown a beer bottle at her in a drunken fury and hit her.  He placed her back in her cot from which she had originally arisen, but she was later found dead by her mother.  Annie's father was then arrested for Annie's murder, but because the statute of limitations for second-degree murder had expired after 10 years, charges had to be dropped.  In Feb. 1932, Governor Blaine commuted Johnson's sentence to time served.  (CTI)  [6/08]

Frank and Norma Howell were charged with the armed robbery of $67 from Jack Cott's Esso gas station, which was located on Waynesburg Pike, about three miles east of Moundsville.  The robbers were a tall slim man and a short stout woman, a description that fit the Howells.  Despite presenting alibi evidence, Frank was convicted due to the eyewitness testimony of Jack Cott.  He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.  Norma was acquitted at a separate trial, although the evidence against her appeared stronger than that against Frank.  On leaving the courthouse following her acquittal, Norma was arrested for a robbery in Cadiz, OH, but was subsequently acquitted of that charge.

In 1931 Irene Crawford Schroeder and Walter Glenn Dague, two convicts awaiting execution in Pennsylvania, confessed to the robbery of Cott's Esso station as well as the Cadiz, OH robbery.  Frank Howell's prosecution attorney, his defense attorney, Jack Cott, and others went to Pennsylvania to hear the confessions, which were recorded in a detailed affidavit.  After the visit, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that Schroeder and Dague were guilty and that the Howells were innocent.  Officials recommended the pardon of Frank Howell and WV Governor Conley granted it shortly thereafter.  (CTI)  [6/08]

William Habron was convicted of the murder of Constable Cock, a local lawman.  Habron was a patron of the Royal Oak, a pub near Manchester that was on the constable's beat.  Habron was frequently getting into fights with other patrons, which Cock had to break up.  After one fight Cock threatened to arrest Habron the next time he got into a fight.  Habron replied, "It'll be a sorry day for you, the day you arrest me."  The next time Cock passed the pub and heard sounds of a fight, he entered without waiting to be called and saw Habron and another patron in the midst of a fight.  Cock arrested Habron.  However, Habron had actually been on his best behavior.  The other patron had interpreted Habron's behavior as a sign of weakness and, inspired by liquor, decided that it was a good time to pick a fight.

The next day a magistrate dismissed the case against Habron as it was well substantiated that Habron was blameless in the fight.  In the courtroom following the dismissal, Habron reportedly walked up to Cock and told him, "I promised you a sorry day if you ever ran foul of me. I'll do you in for this." Near midnight the same day Cock was shot to death.

Habron was arrested for the murder.  At trial, the circumstantial evidence against Habron was supplemented by testimony about the perpetrator's boot prints.  A police officer testified that boot prints left by the murderer matched Habron's boots.  The soles of Habron's boots had a row of nails on each side as well as two rows of nails down the center.  The officer testified that the number and the position of nail marks in the boot prints matched Habron's boots.  However, no photographs or casts were made of the prints, so the judge and jury had to rely solely on the officer's testimony.  The defense argued that Habron's style of boots and nails was common.  Habron was sentenced to death by hanging. However, the crown accepted the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment and commuted Habron's sentence.

Two years later, in Oct 1978, another constable was shot while interrupting a burglary in the London suburb of Blackheath.  While this constable was not killed, the suspect was caught.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the attempted murder of the constable.  Following conviction, the suspect was identified as Charles Peace, wanted for the murder of Albert Dyson.  Peace was then convicted of this murder and sentenced to death.  Following his sentencing, Peace confessed to the murder of Constable Cock.  He said that Cock had interrupted him during a burglary.  Peace gave sufficient details of the crime that authorities were fully convinced of his confession.  Habron was pardoned and Parliament awarded him £500.  (CTI)  [6/08]

On April 5, 1922, three men robbed the First National Bank of Arcadia of $2,800 in cash plus $5,420 in bonds and travelers’ checks. The men exited the bank and piled into a car driven by a fourth man, their getaway driver. Police soon located the robbers’ car. It had been stolen and the robbers had abandoned it to get into another car.

Within 45 minutes of the robbery, police stopped a car occupied by Broulio Galindo, Jose Hernandez, Salvador Mendival, and Faustino Rivera. Although police found no loot in the car, they did find five guns and two canvas sacks. The bank employees had stated that the robbers spoke perfect English, but none of the men in the car could speak English. The men, all Mexicans, would tell police that they were orange pickers and that the guns were for rabbit shooting.

The bank employees who witnessed the robbery identified Galindo, Hernandez, and Rivera as the robbers. Mendival was thought to be the getaway driver, and was partially identified by a telephone company employee who was working near the bank at the time of the robbery. Police found that Galindo and Hernandez had been previously convicted of felonies. Rivera died in jail prior to trial. At trial the defendants had to testify through an interpreter.  The prosecution could not explain how they spoke perfect English during the robbery, nor did it attempt to explain what happened to the loot. Galindo, Hernandez, and Mendival were convicted of robbing the bank. However, they were all pardoned in 1924 after the actual perpetrators were discovered.  (CTI)  [6/08]

Beck was convicted of individually defrauding ten women out their jewelry, mostly rings, using the same confidence scheme.  The swindler had posed as the Earl of Wilton and claimed to have a home in St. John's Wood.  Beck was identified by all ten women.  In addition he was identified as John Smith, a man who had been convicted of perpetrating a identical confidence scheme in 1877.  At trial Beck's defence wanted to cross-examine the crown's handwriting expert to established that documents submitted into evidence as having been in Beck's handwriting were actually in the same hand as those attributed to Smith in 1877.  In addition it wanted to present testimony that Beck had been in South America in 1877 and for several years thereafter.  However, the judge prohibited this defence.  Legal rules prohibited the crown from mentioning a prior conviction, so the judge apparently felt the defence should be prohibited as well.

Evidence later surfaced that Smith had been examined by a prison doctor in 1879, who stated in his report that Smith had undergone circumcision.  Beck was examined and found to be uncircumcised.  The only effect of this new evidence was that Beck, who had been assigned Smith's old prison number, was given a new prison number.  Beck was released from prison in 1901.

In 1904, Beck was again arrested for defrauding women using the same confidence scheme.  He was again convicted, but his sentencing was deferred until further investigation could be made.  During this period, while stories of defrauded women were in the newspapers, a pawnshop owner called police about a man pawning rings in his shop.  The man said his name was William Thomas and that he was innocent of any wrongdoing.  However, he was identified by several swindled women who also identified rings in his possession as their property.  Following Thomas' conviction, he admitted that he was John Smith and that he was responsible for the frauds for which Beck had twice been convicted.  Beck was soon pardoned and Parliament awarded him £5,000 for his wrongful imprisonment.  (CTI)  [6/08]

Ernest H. Priovolos was convicted in 1990 of the 1986 murder of his former neighbor and girlfriend, Cheryl Succa.  Succa, 21, was found dead with a broken neck under a stone bridge in the 2400 block of Washington Lane in Huntingdon Valley.  Police originally classified her death as an accident.  They said that in the dark she probably stumbled down the bank of the creek. She may not have seen the large rocks and she hit her head.  However, after a career prison informant named John Hall came forward, police ruled her death a homicide.  Hall is known to have provided testimony in an extraordinary number of cases.  In 1994-95 alone he snitched out defendants in 5 murder cases.

Hall shared a prison cell with Priovolos in Bucks County Prison who was there on a drug related charge.  Hall testified that Priovolos bragged to him in the fall of 1988 that he knocked Succa over the bridge with a karate chop and took her purse after becoming angry that she would not have sex with him. Edward Bauman, another inmate and a reported follower of Hall, corroborated Hall's testimony.  At trial, a prosecution witness caused a mistrial by testifying that Priovolos had sexually assaulted her in 1985.  No charges were ever filed for the alleged assault.  At his second trial, Priovolos was convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to 12 to 27 years of imprisonment.  The prosecution had sought the death penalty. (Google) (See also Walter Ogrod (Phila 1988), Michael Dirago (Bucks 1985)) [6/08]

David Hendricks was convicted of murdering his wife, Susan, 30, and their three children, Becky, 9, Grace, 7, and Benjy, 5.  The murders occurred at 313 Carl Drive in Bloomington.  While traveling in Wisconsin, Hendricks called police to check on his family.  No one had answered the phone all weekend and he was worried.  When police and neighbors searched his home the next day, they found that Hendricks' entire family had been hacked to death with an ax and butcher knife.  When Hendricks returned later that day, police questioned him and checked his clothes and car for bloodstains. But the search was inconclusive, and Hendricks' alibi of having left for Wisconsin around 11:30 p.m. on November 4, appeared solid.

While his wife was at a baby shower, Hendricks said he taken his children out for a pizza at about 7:30 p.m. on November 4. According to him, they then played in an amusement area and returned home at 9:30 p.m. He said his wife returned at 10:45 p.m. and he left for his business trip shortly thereafter.  But after studying the children's bodies, medical examiners discovered an apparent hole in Hendricks' story. Ordinarily, food leaves the stomach and moves into the small intestine within two hours. However, in all three children, vegetarian pizza toppings were still in their stomachs, which led investigators to estimate their time of death sometime around 9:30 p.m., while Hendricks was still at home.  Hendricks' defense attorney hammered away at the only physical evidence against him, pointing out that physical activity or trauma can affect the rate of digestion.  However, Hendricks was convicted of four counts of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Hendricks' conviction was later overturned because an appeals court found the prosecution's argument of an alleged motive irrelevant and prejudicial. The prosecution introduced evidence that Hendricks was a member of a conservative religious group which shunned divorce and that he made passes at female models he had hired for advertising purposes.  At Hendricks' 1991 retrial the prosecution presented the testimony of Danny Wayne Stark, a jailhouse informant, who said that Hendricks confessed to the slayings.  However, the defense presented three inmates who testified that Stark was known as a liar.  The retrial jury acquitted Hendricks.  Jurors said the prosecution had not proven its case.  A book was written about the case entitled Reasonable Doubt by Steve Vogel.  (Google) [6/08]

Dowling was sentenced to death for the murder of 44-year-old Jennifer Lynn Myers.  Myers had been robbed at her frame shop and art gallery 14 months prior to her murder.  At the time of the robbery, Dowling was a General Manager for a restaurant company.  To attend training he had driven past the scene of the robbery 45 minutes before it occurred, and again 15 minutes after it occurred.  Myers said the assailant wore a dark cap and aviator style sunglasses.  Myers also said the assailant was left-handed and had a military or police demeanor.  The assailant told her that he had just gotten out of prison and did not want to go back.  Dowling is right-handed, had no military or police training, had no prior convictions, had never been imprisoned, and did not own any clothing that matched the assailant's.  He was also 10 years younger, 5 inches taller, and 20 pounds heavier than Myers' description of her assailant.  However, he did have a pair of aviator style sunglasses at his home.

Four months after the robbery, Myers identified Dowling as her assailant.  The day before Dowling's arrest, Myers suddenly remembered she had been sexually assaulted as well as robbed.  Following the robbery, the assailant reportedly crossed a road right in front of a police car and got into his car.  Although an Officer Haines would later testify that he looked right at the purported assailant, he could not identify Dowling as the man he saw, nor his car.  An elderly couple also saw the purported assailant.  After undergoing hypnosis, they would later identify Dowling and his car.

Eight months after Dowling's arrest, while he was out on bail, Myers was shot to death at a her new framing gallery miles away from her previous shop.  Her murder occurred only two weeks before Dowling's trial was set to begin.  Dowling was re-arrested and accused of killing Myers to prevent her testimony.  Following the murder, Dowling twice filed motions to dismiss the robbery case against him on the grounds that he would not be able to cross-examine his accuser.  The trial judge delayed ruling on the motions, giving police and prosecutors two months to meet with other witnesses and coach new statements from them about what Myers allegedly told them.  These statements were ruled admissible as "excited utterance" exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Following Dowling's robbery conviction, the prosecution then used this conviction to argue motive for the murder, and following his murder conviction, they used it to as an aggravating factor to justify Dowling's death sentence.

In 2001, three years after his convictions, Dowling got photocopies of two boxes of withheld discovery material from both of his trials.  In it was proof that the prosecutor coached and tampered with witnesses in both trials.  It also contained proof that Dowling's alibi for the murder had been verified a week after his arrest.  Police verified that Dowling had been in Harrisburg at the time of the murder.

There are other suspects in the murder.  Myers had been shot with a .357 caliber gun, a weapon that her husband owned.  Lab tests matching the husband's gun to the crime scene bullets were purportedly inconclusive.  The defense has not been allowed to have its own expert make an independent determination.

The only hard evidence against Dowling is the timing of Myers murder, two weeks before Dowling's robbery trial.  If one ignores exculpatory facts, this evidence would presumably be sufficient to convict, as it is highly unlikely that a complete stranger would happen to murder Myers shortly before Dowling's trial.  However, some facts raise reasonable doubt:  (1) If Myers' husband or someone she knew wanted to murder her, the date of her murder was an excellent time to do so and throw suspicion on someone else.  (2) It is rare that robbery defendants murder their accusers.  While it is a possible motive, it is hardly a compelling one.  A spouse or an aggrieved acquaintance may have a more compelling motive.  (3) Dowling had no prior convictions and his conviction for robbing Myers is simply not believable.  Before convicting him of murder, one would prefer to see some direct evidence against him, or evidence sufficient to rule out alternative suspects.  (4) Dowling has an alibi in Harrisburg, which, unless disproven, has to be taken at face value.

Legally, if Dowling gets exonerated of his wrongful robbery conviction, his murder conviction would have to be overturned.  In retrying Dowling for murder, legal rules against unfair prejudice might inhibit of prevent the state from introducing Dowling's arrest for robbery.  If so, the state might be unable to establish motive, upon which its case relies.  Even if the state develops sufficient evidence against Dowling, he could not be guilty of first-degree murder as Myers intended to do him serious harm with her false or careless testimony.  In 2007, Governor Ed Rendell signed a death warrant for Dowling.  Dowling's execution has since been stayed.  (IIPPI)  [6/08]

Denny Ross was tried in Akron for the murder of 18-year-old Hannah Hill.  Hill appeared to have been raped before she was severely beaten and then strangled.  Her body was found stuffed in the trunk of her Geo Prizm six days after her death.

At jury trial deliberations, in Oct. 2000, a juror stated that an alternative suspect, Brad O'Born, had passed a lie detector test, and that therefore Ross had to be guilty.  He then changed his position on Ross' guilt to agree with the group because he had a problem at home and needed to finish his jury service that day.  The judge considered the evidence of the juror's misconduct and consulted with the prosecution and the defense.  The prosecution agreed to a mistrial but the defense opposed it unless it was declared with prejudice, which the judge refused to do.  Knowing that the jury was likely to acquit, the judge then declared a mistrial without prejudice.  However, by the time of his ruling the jurors' had filled out verdict forms acquitting Ross of the three most serious charges he was facing, including murder.  A new judge then barred a retrial on double jeopardy grounds. That decision was subsequently reversed in late 2002 by a state appellate court.  In 2005, a federal judge reinstated the decision barring a retrial.  However, in 2008, a federal appeals court reversed his decision.  Ross' attorneys plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The case was featured on an American Justice episode entitled, Who Killed Hannah Hill?  (LVRJ)  [6/08]

McCauley was convicted in 1989 of the 1977 murder of 21-year-old Devera Frink.  Frink had left her waitressing job at the Nittany Mall at 10 p.m. on June 25, 1977.  She was then seen hitchhiking, a few miles away, in State College at 11 p.m.  She was last seen alive about 15 minutes later in Boalsburg, a short distance from her apartment.  Some time later, at 1:30 a.m., a motorist found her body more than 50 miles away under the twin-span bridges of U.S. Route 322 at the Thompsontown exit.  She had been beaten, raped, and choked, but had been alive when she was thrown off one the bridges.  The bridge she was thrown off was 44 feet above where her body was found.

An initial suspect in the murder, Robert E. Brown, gave a false alibi, when questioned about the murder, then committed suicide three days later.  In 1983, McCauley, then imprisoned on an unrelated charge, was released on a furlough.  After failing to return, he faced escape charges.  In order to avoid returning to prison, McCauley tried to obtain a deal by claiming to know something about the Frink murder.  McCauley, who was 17 at the time of the murder, claimed to have accompanied Brown, then 40, and another suspect, Jesse Taylor, then 22, in Brown's van on the night of the murder.  He said the pair picked up Frink at the Nittany Mall and drove her around drinking and smoking pot for several hours.  He said he was passing out when Taylor became violent and started raping Frink.  Brown allegedly held her down.  McCauley said the pair later took her out of the van and threw her off a bridge as he peered out the rear window of the van.  He could not describe Frink or the distinctive red-and-white outfit she was wearing.

For his "confession" and willingness to testify against Taylor, McCauley did not receive a plea deal that was acceptable to him.  Even if McCauley's confession was true, his mere presence in the van did not implicate him in the murder.  Some years later, in 1989, he was prosecuted for the murder under the felony murder rule.  Under this rule, he could be guilty of felony murder if he participated in a felony which led to the murder.  Thus if he participated in the kidnapping or rape, both felonies, the state could convict him of murder.  However, McCauley was not charged and could not be convicted of either felony, as the statute of limitations for them had expired.  McCauley had since recanted his confession.

At McCauley's trial, state police chemist Janice Roadcap testified that a hair found on the victim's leg matched one of McCauley's chest hairs. When jurors were asked why they convicted McCauley, several of them, without prompting, cited the hair as the most compelling piece of evidence against McCauley.  Roadcap's testimony in other cases has since come under scrutiny because it led to wrongful convictions.  In 2005, DNA testing was done on the hair.  Results showed that it did not come from McCauley.  DNA testing was subsequently done on semen stains found on the victim's clothing.  Tests showed that it had come from two unknown males.  As of 2008, McCauley is petitioning for a new trial.  (Patriot-News)  [6/08]

Glen (aka Glenn) Edward Chapman was sentenced to death for the murders of Betty Jean Ramseur, 31, and Tenene Yvette Conley, 28.  The bodies of both victims were found in abandoned houses within two blocks of each other in southeast Hickory.  DNA tests showed that Conley, a prostitute, had had sex with Chapman within days of her death.  A report by a forensic scientist later showed that Conley likely died of a drug overdose, rather than by foul play.  Three witnesses told jurors Chapman confessed to killing or talked about killing Ramseur. But two of those witnesses have since recanted, saying they lied because they were afraid of police and prosecutors. The third witness said she believes Chapman was joking when he told her he had killed Ramseur.  "If anyone asked me at trial, I would have testified that police pressured me into testifying and that I did not believe Edward killed anyone."

In Nov. 2007, a judge overturned Chapman's convictions.  The judge found that:  (1) The lead investigator, Detective Dennis Rhoney, withheld information that a key witness in the Ramseur murder identified someone other than Chapman.  (2) Rhoney did not reveal that a jail inmate was overheard admitting that he killed Ramseur.  (3) Detectives never reported that witnesses said Conley was seen alive with someone who had a history of violence against her in the days after prosecutors said she died.  (4) Rhoney lied during his trial testimony against Chapman.  (5) Chapman was inadequately defended by his court-appointed attorneys.  Chapman's appeals attorneys had argued that his trial attorneys, Thomas Portwood and Robert Adams, failed to interview several critical witnesses and were "excessive users of alcohol."

Chapman's trial also featured juror misconduct.  According to affidavits signed by two jurors, the jury discussed whether Chapman killed a 13-year-old Shelby girl whose body was found the same summer as Ramseur's and Conley's.  Chapman was never charged in the girl's slaying, nor was that slaying discussed in the trial. Also, one juror, Irene Freeman, slept through essential testimony until the judge ordered her to wake up. In April 2008 the state dropped charges against Chapman and he was released.  (DW) (News & Observer) (Google)  [6/08]

John and Coke Brite, brothers, were convicted of the murders of deputy sheriffs Martin Lange and Joseph Clarke, as well as the murder of Captain Fred Seaborn, a U.S. Navy officer. The Brites, who were gold prospectors, returned to a cabin on their rented land, where their parents stayed, and then headed out again. At nightfall they set up camp on the land of a neighbor, B. F. Decker, and went to bed. Two intruders then entered their camp, another neighbor, Charley Baker, and his friend, Fred Seaborn. At trial, Baker alleged they were looking for a strayed horse that Baker owned. It was later learned that Baker had been using the cabin on the Brites’ property for rent-free storage and had motive to drive the Brites from their land. Baker and Seaborn picked a fight with the Brites, which proved to be a mistake as the Brites made quick work of them. Baker then went to a judge and talked him into issuing warrants charging the Brites with assault.

Baker got the deputy sheriffs to depart from normal procedure and serve the warrants by sneaking into the Brites’ camp the same night at 1 a.m. Later, the brothers said they fought for their lives, thinking Baker had brought a gang to attack them. Neighbors reported hearing a “roar of gunfire.” The deputies and Seaborn ended up dead, but Baker escaped unharmed.

Following the killings there was great local sentiment against the Brites. A posse was sent to find them with orders to “shoot on sight and shoot to kill.” Even if the brothers escaped the posse, it seemed most likely they would be lynched. After interviewing Baker and other witnesses, the district attorney, James Davis, did not like what he was hearing. He concluded that even if everything Baker had told him was the truth, the brothers had acted in self-defense. Davis then arranged for the brothers to turn themselves in and spirited them out of the county.

Davis refused to prosecute the brothers. However, a grand jury indicted them and appointed a special prosecutor. The Brites were convicted of first-degree murder and initially sentenced to death. Baker gave many inconsistent and contradictory statements about the night of the killings. However, all his stories indicated that the deputies successfully snuck up on the Brites and were on top of them, clubbing them with blackjacks. It was not clear how the Brites could have resisted. The brothers did not remember anything about the killings other than the initial clubbing and finding dead bodies around them later. The brothers' report seems especially credible in the case of John Brite whose behavior immediately following the killings indicated he was clubbed somewhat senseless.

The case later came to the attention of a program called “The Court of Last Resort” in which wrongfully convicted prisoners’ cases were studied and reported on in Argosy Magazine. In its investigation Argosy found evidence that Baker never mentioned and took some steps to deny. The brothers had a good-sized dog with them named Smoky. Both the Brites and a neighbor, B. F. Decker, stated that the dog was in the Brites’ camp. Decker distinctly remembered the dog barking shortly before the shooting. It was a peculiar growling bark that a dog makes when it is engaged in some sort of struggle.

During the assault, the dog grabbed hold of the back of Deputy Clarke’s coat while he was blackjacking Coke Brite. The dog brought Clarke to his knees and pulled the end of the coat over his head. At this point, Clarke’s rump was higher than his head. In an attempt to stop the dog, a member of the Baker party apparently fired a shot at the dog and missed. The bullet entered the base of Clarke’s spine and exited out his right shoulder.

At the Brites’ trial it was alleged that all bullets fired in the melee were fired from the Brites’ rifle. However, recovered shell casings indicate that only two bullets were fired from the rifle. In addition, the base of the rifle was used as a club, indicating the Brites had run out of ammunition. The bullet that hit Seaborn and the bullet that hit the leg of Officer Lange could have come from the Brites’ rifle. At trial the Brites were convicted of first-degree murder for firing two shots though Officer Lange’s forehead as he lay on the ground. Evidence, however, indicates that these shots could not have been fired from the Brites’ rifle, nor could the shots have been fired while Lange was on the ground. Evidence also indicates that another shot, from a rifle, had been fired from outside the Brites’ camp towards the location of the Brites.

After Argosy magazine printed its investigation of the Brites’ case, it became clear to authorities that the brothers could not be guilty of first-degree murder. In Sept. 1951 the Brites were released on parole.  (CLR) (Sacramento Bee) (People v. Brite)  [6/08]

Erin Walsh was convicted of the second degree murder of Melvin Eugene "Chi Chi" Peters, an African Canadian.  The crown alleged that Walsh's motive in the killing was racial animosity.  They did not consider that he grew up in a housing project surrounded by African Canadians.  Walsh claimed that Donald McMillan, David Walton, and Peters twice attempted to rob him of his money and drugs. He testified that after their first attempt, he managed to escape, and ran to some nearby CNR workers, begging them to call the police, which they did. When he then tried to make his way to his car to escape, the would-be robbers found him again.  This time they forced him into the front, middle seat of his car at gunpoint. Walsh struggled for possession of the gun, but ultimately it ended up in the hands of McMillan, where it discharged and killed Peters.  There was no evidence to corroborate Walsh's testimony.  The crown had McMillan and Walton testify to a different story.  Following Walsh's conviction, he spent the next twenty years in prison.

In 2003, Walsh wrote to the New Brunswick Provincial Archives and received the complete crown file of his case. In it were reports that were completely exculpatory of him and which supported his version of events:  (1) Less than an hour after the fatal shooting, a St. John police officer heard one of the robbers, Walton, ask the other robber, McMillan, why he shot Peters.  (2) A local store owner stated that the shells used in the gun were purchased one day before McMillan said they were purchased, when Walsh was a thousand miles away from St. John.  (3) Seven witnesses signed statements attesting that Walsh ran away from McMillan, Walton, and Peters after they had attempted to rob him at gunpoint just prior to forcing him into the car. These witnesses supported Walsh's claim that he asked people to call the police just 10 minutes before Peters was shot.  In Mar. 2008, after a Federal Justice and the NB Attorney General agreed that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, the Court of Appeals quashed Walsh's conviction.  (CBC)  [6/08]

Coleman was convicted of the 1981 rape and murder of his sister-in-law, Wanda McCoy. He was sentenced to death and executed on May 20, 1992. Before this crime, Coleman was accused of attempted rape in April 1977. He was convicted because the victim identified him as the perpetrator despite his having a solid alibi provided by his high school principal. In Jan. 1981, Coleman was suspected of masturbating in front of two librarians at the public library, but maintained his innocence. Charges against him were initially brought in connection with his later murder charge, but apparently were only brought to prejudice the public since they were later dropped.

No direct evidence linked Coleman to the murder, but the prosecution theorized at trial was that the victim knew the perpetrator because there were no signs of forced entry to her house. A report later surfaced that there was a mark near the lock on the front door that was possibly a pry mark. In addition, the victim's hands, her sleeves, and her upper thighs were blackened with dirt. This evidence suggests she was attacked and dragged outside before she and her assailant went inside.

Coleman had an alibi witness, whose testimony and timecard made it almost impossible for Coleman to have had time to commit the murder, but a prosecution witness with a changing story, made it seem that Coleman had an additional half-hour to commit the rape and murder.

An investigation by Jim McCloskey and attorney Kitty Behan implicated McCoy's closest neighbor as the real killer and undermined the state's weak case against Coleman. As his execution date approached, Coleman received enormous press attention, including a cover story on Time Magazine. This press attention put pressure on Gov. Wilder's office to postpone the execution until the new evidence could be heard. Rather than postpone the execution, Wilder's office scheduled a dubious polygraph test for Coleman on the morning of his execution. No defense personnel or polygraphist was allowed to witness it. Within hours, it was announced that Coleman had failed and he was soon executed. Results of the test were never released because Coleman was dead and the "case was closed." A 1997 book by John Tucker entitled May God Have Mercy tells Coleman’s story.

In 2001, Centurion Ministries and some news organizations petitioned the judiciary to permit post-execution DNA tests. However, none of the victim’s semen stained clothes had been preserved, undermining confidence in the chain of custody of the semen evidence. The state, known formally as the Commonwealth of Virgina, claimed to have preserved a tiny sample of the assailant's semen, but it also had a sample of Coleman’s semen, as indicated in Tucker’s book. Coleman, himself, indicated apprehension at giving the state a semen sample, and rightly so. Once the state had custody of Coleman's semen it could take a small swab of it and claim the swab was a sample of the assailant's semen.

In retrospect Coleman should have given blood, a mouth swab, or some other form of DNA. It is not clear why Coleman had to give the state a semen sample since the state had no intention of performing DNA tests and would actively oppose them for years.  Apparently, such a submission was prompted by Coleman's defenders who trying to force the state to perform such tests. Secondly, if Coleman's semen, rather than another form of his DNA, was required in early DNA testing, it could have been given to his attorney and held in confidence.  Then if the state agreed to DNA testing, or a judge ordered it, Coleman's semen could have been given to an independent testing lab without it passing into the state's hands.

Given the state’s record of often extreme hostility on the Coleman case, there is little basis to “trust” that the state would honestly submit evidence that could potentially prove it executed an innocent man.  In 2006, DNA tests were eventually ordered which “proved” Coleman guilty. No one doubts the semen sample allegedly taken from the victim matched Coleman’s DNA. However, there exists reasonable doubt that the sample ever came from the victim. In its eagerness to obtain DNA tests, Coleman’s defender, Centurion Ministries, promised to accept the results of the tests. Out of apparent pride in keeping its promise, it now says it knows that Coleman is guilty.  Whatever Coleman's actual guilt, the state wrongly convicted him and executed him based on the evidence then available.  Its evidence that Coleman might not have had an alibi for the crime is hardly proof of anything.  The state might have reliably proved Coleman's guilt, posthumously, by preserving the victim's semen stained clothing.  It chose not to, leaving its hypothesis of Coleman’s guilt an unproven assertion.  (TruthInJustice) (CM)  [6/08]

Patrick Eugene "Hooty" Croy was sentenced to death for the murder of Bo Hittson, a Yreka police officer. A weekend of partying led to an ill-fated shoot-out between police and a group of Native Americans, including Croy. Croy was convicted of attempted robbery, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, assault, and the murder of the police officer.

In 1985, California Supreme Court overturned most of Croy's convictions. The Court found that the trial judge had read the wrong instructions to the jury, allowing the jury to convict Croy of robbery even if he did not intend to steal. Because the murder conviction was based on the theory that Croy had intentionally committed a robbery that had caused the officer's death, the murder conviction was reversed.

At retrial in 1990, Croy’s defense presented evidence that Croy acted in self-defense during the shoot-out, including evidence that Croy himself was shot twice during the altercation, expert testimony regarding the antagonistic relationship between law enforcement and local Native Americans at the time of the crime, and that Officer Hittson had a blood alcohol level of .07 at his time of death. Croy was acquitted of all charges for which he was tried, based on self-defense. The trial court entered a finding that, if the conspiracy and assault charges had been included in the retrial, Croy would have been acquitted of them as well. Croy was resentenced on these charges and was released on parole.

In 1997, Croy violated parole and was given an indeterminate life sentence. In 2005, Croy’s original conspiracy and assault convictions were also overturned. The state decided not to appeal and Croy was freed in Mar. 2005. He had served 19 years in prison, 7 of them on death row.  (Source)  [6/08]

Beaman was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Jennifer Lockmiller, an ISU student.  On Aug. 28, 1993, Lockmiller was found in her Normal apartment strangled by a clock radio cord and stabbed in the chest with a pair of scissors.  The state established sexual jealousy as a possible motive for Beaman committing the murder, but given the number of Lockmiller's boyfriends, the motive appeared hardly unique to him.  Beyond this possible motive, the state's evidence was essentially non-existent.  Even if the evidence, by itself, were sufficient to convict, Beaman's alibi raises some measure of doubt, as does the evidence against an alternative suspect.

An appellate court affirmed Beaman's conviction with one justice dissenting.  The dissenting justice found the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  In May 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned Beaman's conviction, ruling that he should have been allowed to introduce evidence of another viable suspect.  The state had withheld much of this evidence prior to trial.  This suspect, identified as John Doe, was a steroid using, physically abusive boyfriend of Lockmiller to whom she owed money.  The suspect had agreed to take a polygraph test but then failed to take it because he would not follow the instructions of the polygraphist.  The Court also agreed that Beaman's lawyers never properly investigated and presented evidence about his alibi.  (Illinois v. Beaman)  [6/08]

Randolph was convicted of sexually assaulting a 6-year-old girl.  The girl did not initially recognize Randolph as her assailant.  However, a few minutes later, after talking to her aunt, she accused Randolph.  During a grand jury investigation, the girl described her assailant in ways that did not match Randolph, including his clothing and height.  There was also no physical evidence connecting Randolph to the assault.

At his lawyer's request, Randolph entered a Alford plea in which he did not have to admit guilt in exchange for a time served sentence of 4 months plus 10 years of probation.  Randolph later failed to show up for an alcohol counseling session, a condition of his probation.  A judge then incarcerated him for the remainder of the 10 years.  Following Randolph's release, he had to register as a sex offender.  In 2008, after prosecutors said the case against Randolph was so weak it should not have been pursued, a judge exonerated Randolph of all charges and declared him innocent.  (Boston Globe)  [6/08]

Alton Logan was convicted of murdering Lloyd Wickliffe, a security guard, during the robbery of a McDonald's restaurant at 11421 S. Halsted St. in Chicago.  Another security guard, Alvin Thompson, was wounded. The gunmen got no money, but stole the guards’ handguns. Police arrested Logan after a tip and got three eyewitnesses to identify him. Logan, his mother, and brother all would later testify that he was at home asleep when the murder occurred.  While investigating another man, Andrew Wilson, for the unrelated murders of two policeman, police found the shotgun used in the McDonald's robbery.  Police never charged Wilson in the McDonald's robbery as there were only two perpetrators in the robbery and they had already built a case against Logan and a codefendant, Edgar Hope.

Hope later told Wilson's attorneys, Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz, that Logan had nothing to do with the McDonald's shooting and that Wilson was the shooter.  When the attorneys asked their client if he was responsible for the McDonald's shooting, Wilson said, "Yep, that was me."  Wilson's attorneys thought about speaking up to prevent Logan’s conviction, but attorney-client confidentiality prohibited them.  Instead they signed an affidavit regarding Wilson's confession and sealed it.  Kunz said they prepared the document “so that if we were ever able to speak up, no one could say we were just making this up now.”  They later obtained Wilson's permission to reveal his confession following his death.

After Wilson died in Nov. 2007, the attorneys came forward with Wilson's confession to the crime.  In April 2008, Logan's conviction was vacated and he was released on $1000 bond.  Logan is scheduled to go to court in July 2008 to find out if the state plans to drop charges against him, or retry him.  Logan has served 26 years in prison.  (Tribune)  [5/08]

Levon "Bo" Jones and Larry Lamb were convicted of the murder of Leamon Grady.  Jones was sentenced to death while Lamb was sentenced to life imprisonment.  A federal judge overturned Jones' conviction in 2006, declaring that the defense provided by Jones' initial defense attorneys was so poor that they missed critical evidence pointing to his innocence. The sole witness accusing Jones of the murder, Lovely Lorden, later admitted in an affidavit that she "was certain that Bo did not have anything to do with Mr. Grady's murder" and that she did not know what happened the night Grady was murdered.  Jones' first trial lawyer never bothered to gather the many conflicting statements of Lorden, let alone do the kind of investigation necessary in a first degree murder case. It is possible Lorden would have admitted the truth earlier had the case been investigated and had she been adequately cross-examined.  In May 2008, the prosecution dropped charges against Jones, just days before his scheduled retrial.  Jones was released the next day.

Jones' codefendant, Larry Lamb, was also convicted due to the testimony of Lorden.  Lamb has always maintained his innocence and had turned down a plea offer of a six-year sentence.  Lamb plans to ask the newly formed North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission to review his case.  (ACLU)  [5/08]

Hatchett was sentenced to 25 to 40 years in prison for kidnapping and raping a 23-year-old Sterling Heights woman.  After accosting the victim in the parking lot of a Super Kmart at 14 Mile and Van Dyke, a gunman forced her into her car, drove away, and raped her.  Hatchett was arrested three days later in the woman's 1990 Dodge Spirit.  He admitted stealing the car and the victim identified him as her assailant.  Following a seven-hour interrogation in which investigators promised Hatchett a deal, he confessed to the crime.  DNA tests, however, showed that the sperm left in the victim did not match him.  At Hatchett's bench trial, Judge George Steeh convicted him after ruling that the lack of a DNA match could "hardly be found to represent a reasonable doubt considering all of the evidence in the case."

Years later, after Prosecutor Eric Smith reinvestigated the case, apparently at the request of the Innocence Project, he dismissed charges against Hatchett.  Hatchett walked free in April 2008.  (Detroit Free Press)  [5/08]

Titus Lee Brown, Jr. was convicted of the stabbing murder of Israel Guzman Rangel.  The murder occurred in a South-Central Los Angeles parking lot.  The chief prosecution witness was Ricardo Pimental Baldavinos.  Pimental testified that he saw Guzman being attacked by two men. Pimental drew his unloaded gun and approached the assailants in an attempt to scare them away. Presented with a series of photo lineups a few days later, he identified Brown as the killer. However, Pimental's identification was weak: The incident occurred at night; Pimental had never seen the assailant before; he only saw the assailant briefly, though his estimates of time varied from "a couple of seconds" to "five minutes"; he had been drinking earlier in the evening; he could not recall whether the assailant had facial hair; when first contacted by the police, Pimental denied any knowledge of the incident; and Pimental failed to identify Brown's photo when presented in a photo lineup at trial.

The prosecution argued that robbery was the motive behind the stabbing.  Although there was no eyewitness testimony that Guzman had been robbed, the prosecution offered the testimony of Detective J. D. Furr, a police officer who investigated the crime. Furr offered his expert opinion that Guzman had been killed during a robbery.  Furr testified that his opinion was based on an examination of the scene of the crime, a ring found on the ground, interviews with the victim's family, and the fact that the victim's wallet and gold chains, which Furr believed the victim had been wearing on the night he was killed, were not found.

Some days after the jury returned its verdict, the prosecutor revealed to the trial court that the victim's allegedly missing wallet and gold chains had been given to Guzman's next of kin by hospital personnel, who presumably had discovered them on Guzman's person. The prosecutor had known this fact before trial, but did not inform defense counsel. Nor did she inform Detective Furr, whose expert opinion rested on the absence of those items.  Given the lack of robbery as an apparent motive, it seems likely that Guzman's killer harbored some grievance against him.  Without evidence that Brown even knew Guzman much less had a grievance against him, it seems doubtful that a jury would have convicted him solely on Pimental's weak identification of Brown.

The trial court found that the prosecutor's actions constituted prosecutorial misconduct. It, however, denied defense counsel's motion for a new trial and instead reduced the conviction from first to second-degree murder. Even though the court felt sure that the jury had convicted based on a felony murder theory, it felt there was sufficient evidence to convict Brown of second-degree murder.

The California Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, though it condemned the prosecutor's actions; the state supreme court not only refused to take Brown's side, it ordered the lower court's opinion "depublished", so as to spare the prosecutor, Wendy Widlus, any embarrassment. The case had to go to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before Brown received a new trial.  No information could be found on whether Brown was retried.  However, the Northwestern Law School website lists Brown as an exonerated person.  (Brown v. Borg) (Google)  [5/08]

Von Williams was convicted of raping at gunpoint a Bridge City woman and her teenage daughter.  The assailant wore a ski mask, blindfolded his victims, and assaulted them in a dark room.  Nevertheless the victims claimed to have caught a glimpse of their assailant from underneath their blindfolds.  Following the assault, the adult victim's boyfriend convinced her that assailant must be someone she knew because he took great steps to avoid being seen by her.  The victim called her friend Lois, who mentioned that Von Williams, her boyfriend, had been out drinking till the wee hours of the morning.  The victim had met Von Williams just once, two weeks before, at a two-hour dinner party.  The victim then convinced herself that Von Williams was her assailant.  At trial, both the victim and her children identified Von Williams as the assailant.

Two months after Von Williams' conviction, another man, Jon Barry Simonis, known as the "Ski-Mask Rapist," confessed to 77 crimes in 7 states, including the rapes for which Von Williams was convicted.  Simonis knew details about the rapes that no one outside the prosecutor's office knew.  When shown a videotape of Simonis' confession, the adult victim repeated, "no, no, no, no, no, no," refusing to admit that someone other than Von Williams had committed the assaults.  However, it seemed clear from the shocked expressions of her teenage children that they recognized Simonis.  After prosecutors saw the videotape, they joined the defense in a Dec. 1981 motion to vacate Von Williams' conviction and dismiss all charges.  (Witness for the Defense) (Google)  [5/08]

Woodard was convicted of the murder of Beverly Ann Jones, 21, a woman he had dated for 7 months.  Jones' stepfather said Woodard had come to their home in the early morning of the day of her disappearance. Neighbors said they had heard the couple fighting.  Several days before Woodard's trial, authorities learned of three other witnesses had seen Jones shortly before she died.  The witnesses, Ed Mosley, Theodore Blaylock and Eddie Woodard, told investigators she had gotten into a car with several men at a 7-Eleven. Mosley and Blaylock couldn't identify the men or their car. It was the last time Jones was seen alive.  This information was withheld from Woodard's defense.  Jones' body was found in the Trinity River bottoms in south Dallas. She had been sexually assaulted.

In Dec. 2007, DNA test results cleared Woodard.  Jones' stepfather was re-interviewed and recanted his trial testimony that Woodard had come to his house.  Woodard was set free in Apr. 2008, after serving 27 years in prison.  Woodard is the longest serving inmate in the United States to be released as a result of DNA testing.  (Google)  [5/08]