[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., N.C., LA., OHIO, IND.

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 10


PENNSYLVANIA:

A Practitioner's 5-Point Plan to Improve the Pa. Supreme Court


They are reform-minded. They are energetic. They are (relatively) younger. They 
are the 3 newly elected Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices, who are set to 
join the court in January 2016, returning that court to full strength for the 
1st time in seemingly forever.

1 of the 3 justices-elect, state Superior Court Judge David Wecht, campaigned 
on a 5-point plan focused largely on judicial ethics reform, a goal that I and 
apparently many others strongly support. Along the same lines, as someone who 
has focused on the output and performance of federal and state appellate courts 
for the past 25 years, I am devoting this month's column to my own 5-point plan 
intended to improve the quality and timeliness of the state Supreme Court's 
decision-making process. If Pennsylvania's highest court were to implement some 
or all of the following 5 proposals, surely many attorneys and litigants would 
be more satisfied with that court's output and overall performance.

-- Point 1: Decide whether to grant or deny petitions for allowance of appeal 
(requests for discretionary appellate review that make up the bulk of the 
court's docket) within three months after briefing on that question is 
complete. At present, it frequently takes between 6 months to a year, and 
sometimes even longer than a year, for the Supreme Court to announce whether it 
will grant or deny a petition for allowance of appeal. This delay in the 
court's initial decision whether to even accept review of a case is 
inexplicable and inexcusable. The U.S. Supreme Court, by contrast, decides 
whether to grant or deny review of cases in a far shorter timeframe during the 
9 months of the year when that court is in session.

Although deciding which cases will receive discretionary review in 
Pennsylvania's highest court is one of that court's most important duties, 
distinguishing between the cases that satisfy the rigorous criteria for 
discretionary review and those that do not is relatively straightforward. Once 
the wheat has been separated from the chaff, the justices merely have to decide 
which of the cases that remain they are interested in deciding right now.

Whether to hear and decide a particular case presents a judgment call, but this 
sort of judgment is what appellate judges in Pennsylvania are elected to 
perform. If a justice isn't certain whether a particular case should be 
reviewed right now, instead of simply taking more time to decide, the response 
should be to deny review, because if the issue is important enough it will 
arise again before long.

-- Point 2: Decide all argued cases within 6 months to a year after oral 
argument. Far too many cases pending on the merits before the state Supreme 
Court take more than a year from oral argument to be decided. It would be 
preferable if the timeline for deciding all but the most unusually complex case 
was 6 months to a year.

Once an appellate court finds itself chronically behind in deciding appeals on 
a timely basis, it can be very difficult to dig out of such a rut. Now that 
Pennsylvania's highest court will be turning the page with the arrival of 3 new 
justices on the 7-justice court, the court cannot only aspire to but actually 
implement a far more prompt timetable for deciding argued cases.

-- Point 3: Eliminate the formulaic nature of Pennsylvania Supreme Court 
majority opinions. In recent years, the justices serving on the state Supreme 
Court appear to have agreed that all of the court's majority opinions must 
follow a formula. After describing the issue(s) under consideration and the 
relevant factual and procedural background, the court's majority opinions next 
turn to exhaustively describing the opposing parties' arguments, together with 
the arguments of any amici involved in the case.

There is absolutely no requirement that an appellate opinion devote countless 
paragraphs - and the time and effort necessary to write, review and approve 
them - to describing the competing arguments of the parties in minute detail. I 
am concerned that the formulaic nature of Supreme Court majority opinions may 
be largely to blame for the otherwise inexplicable delays in issuing decisions. 
If more attention were paid to deciding cases and explaining the reasons for 
those decisions instead of comprehensively summarizing and regurgitating the 
contents of the parties' merits briefing, surely many cases could be decided 
far more quickly and cogently.

-- Point 4: Eliminate the right of direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme 
Court of criminal convictions for which a death sentence has been imposed so 
that those appeals will be heard and decided in the first instance, in common 
with all other direct criminal appeals, by the state Superior Court.

One of the reasons the workload of Pennsylvania's highest court can get bogged 
down is the court must hear and decide a category of cases that constitutes the 
most complicated of all criminal cases - death-penalty cases on direct appeal 
from the trial court in which the sentence was imposed. All other criminal 
cases, no matter how complicated and even if they resulted in a sentence of 
life imprisonment, are heard on direct appeal in the first instance in the 
state Superior Court, with discretionary review available thereafter in the 
Supreme Court.

I have tried to justify the statutory provision that requires a direct appeal 
to the Supreme Court in all death-penalty cases. Perhaps it was enacted to 
protect the life of the condemned, to ensure that no criminal defendant would 
be put to death unless a majority of Pennsylvania's highest-ranking judges 
ruled that it was lawful and appropriate. Or perhaps it was enacted to 
streamline the review process, so that the imposition of the criminal penalty 
deemed most serious (and certainly most irreversible) could occur without 
dragging on forever throughout the appellate process.

Whatever the original reasons happened to be for requiring direct appellate 
review in the Supreme Court of a judgment of conviction and sentence in a 
death-penalty case, those reasons no longer make any sense today. If getting 
the answer right were the reason, surely intermediate appellate review would 
provide an additional opportunity for error correction while also sharpening 
the issues that otherwise may qualify for Supreme Court review. And if 
streamlining the process for imposing the death penalty were the reason, in 
2015 one thing we know for sure is that criminal defendants sentenced to death 
are nowhere near the imposition of that sentence on direct appeal due to the 
seemingly never-ending process of review, for which direct appellate review 
merely serves as a 1st step.

In sum, the high cost of speeding up Supreme Court review of a trial court's 
judgment of conviction and sentence in a death-penalty case does not seem worth 
it. The cost is reflected in slowing down the court's disposition of the rest 
of the court's very important workload.

Point 5: Create a page on the state Supreme Court's website listing all of the 
cases in which allowance of appeal has been granted, containing the question(s) 
presented in each case and linking to PDF copies of the merits briefing. The 
court already has its own website, and all merits briefs are already either 
being electronically filed as PDF documents or being scanned into PDF documents 
once filed.

It would be a wonderful resource, for the civic education of the public, for 
students interested in the law and government, and for journalists who cover 
Pennsylvania's highest court if the court were to create and maintain such an 
online repository of the court's merits cases. Moreover, the free and easy 
online availability of briefs filed in merits cases would provide one more 
reason for the court to scrap the formulaic nature of the court's current 
majority opinions. If someone wishes to learn in intricate detail what the 
parties and amici have argued, he or she can merely go online to see what the 
briefs have said.

All but 1 of these 5 proposals are within the court's own control to implement; 
the proposal concerning death-penalty appeals will require action from the 
General Assembly. These proposals will, if adopted, improve the Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court's decision-making process, and therefore I hope that the merits 
of these proposals will be as apparent to the justices themselves as they are 
to at least one experienced appellate practitioner.

(source: Howard Bashman, The Legal Intelligencer)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Man accused in killing argues against death penalty option


A 21-year-old man accused of having a hand in the 2013 bludgeoning death of a 
woman in an apartment near North Hills made a series of requests in Wake County 
Superior Court on Monday in advance of his January trial date.

Defense attorneys for Travion Devonte Smith, 22, of Raleigh, were unsuccessful 
Monday in their attempt to take the death penalty off the table as a possible 
punishment in his case.

In a hearing that is scheduled to continue Tuesday, Jonathan Broun, one of 
Smith???s defense attorney, contended that prosecutors had withheld critical 
information that raises questions about the accusations against Smith.

Smith is 1 of 3 people charged in the death of Melissa Huggins-Jones, a mother 
and new arrival to Raleigh. Huggins-Jones had moved to Raleigh from Tennessee 
and had just started a new job. Newly divorced, she set up her home with her 
daughter, 8 at the time, and expected her son to join them after the school 
year.

On May 14, 2013, the girl left the apartment and sought help from a 
construction worker, who followed the child to the apartment and the discovery 
of the crime scene.

Investigators did not immediately have suspects in the case.

But a laptop stolen from the apartment that turned up in Wake Forest with 
telling DNA evidence led investigators to Smith and 2 co-defendants. Also 
charged with murder in the case was Ronald Lee Anthony, a 25-year-old who has 
pleaded guilty to 1st-degree murder and accepted a sentence of life in prison 
without parole in exchange for prosecutors dropping their pursuit of capital 
punishment.

Sarah Rene Redden, 20, also faces charges related to the case.

On Monday, Broun noted that Redden, initially described as the getaway driver, 
had changed her account of the night from her early reports to police. She 
initially said Anthony and Smith killed Huggins-Jones, but since then has 
recanted and shifted the primary responsibility to Anthony.

"She is now saying that it was Ronald Anthony and Ronald Anthony alone who 
killed Melissa Huggins-Jones," Broun said Monday during the hearing presided 
over by Judge Paul Ridgeway. "Ronald told her that he stabbed her to death. 
Travion didn't personally hit stab or hurt Miss Huggins-Jones, according to 
this statement. She also said she had no indication that Travion ever when into 
Ms. Huggins-Jones' bedroom or was present in the room when Ronald Anthony 
killed her."

Broun contended that Redden's initial account of the night - that both men took 
turns bludgeoning Huggins-Jones - was offered because she did not want Anthony, 
her boyfriend at the time, to take full blame.

Broun argued that because Redden had changed her account to make Smith less 
culpable that he no longer should be eligible for the death penalty if 
convicted.

Ridgeway told the attorneys that at this point in the proceedings, the death 
penalty would remain an option, but that would not keep him from reconsidering 
such a request later in the legal process.

(source: News & Observer)






LOUISIANA:

Southern Rep's death penalty drama brings humanity, persuasive argument to 
challenging issue


Few political or moral issues divide this country as much as the death penalty; 
the simple fact that Southern Rep has tackled the issue with its newest drama 
will upset and even anger some.

The very nature of the controversies surrounding the topic will lead some to 
declare that the company is engaging in little more that political agitprop 
dressed up as theater.

Nevertheless, by presenting the world premiere of "Song of a Man Coming 
Through," Southern Rep has created one of the most reasonably argued and 
convincing cases against state-sponsored execution, while also revealing the 
methodical depersonalization that allows advocates of the death penalty to 
readily declare another human being as unworthy of living.

"Song of a Man Coming Through" tells the story of Earnest Knighton Jr., a black 
man in rural Louisiana who got caught up in drugs and crime from his youth. 
Eventually, while high on speed, he was involved in a Bossier City armed 
robbery in 1981, in which a victim was shot and killed. (Knighton, who admitted 
his guilt in the robbery, said the shooting was inadvertent.)

SONG OF A MAN COMING THROUGH

--What: Southern Rep presents the true story of convicted Louisiana murderer 
Earnest Knighton Jr., and the priest, lawyer and paralegal who reluctantly 
become his greatest advocates. The Episcopal priest, Joe Morris Doss, and his 
son, Andrew Doss, wrote the play. Aimee Hayes directs the cast, which includes 
Robert Diago DoQui, Lance Nichols, Mike Harkins, John Neisler, Cecile Monteyne, 
and others.

--Where: First Grace United Methodist Church, 3401 Canal St..

--When: Performances at 8 p.m. Thursdays through Saturdays, and at 6 p.m. 
Sundays, through Nov. 21.

--Admission: $20-$40. For information, call 504.522.6545, or visit the 
company's website.

Brought to trial, Knighton's court-appointed lawyer was an ill and overworked 
public defender. A jury convicted him and he was sentenced to death. Despite a 
legion of appeals on a variety of grounds, which drew national attention, 
Knighton was electrocuted on Oct. 30, 1984.

"Song of a Man Coming Through" was written by one of Knighton's appellate 
attorneys, Joe Morris Doss, and his son, Andrew Doss. Having earned his law 
degree, the elder Doss later became an Episcopal priest. A significant part of 
his ministry has centered of efforts to end the death penalty. While a member 
of the clergy, he was entreated to serve as a co-counsel through the appeals 
process by his friend, attorney Julian Murray.

The drama of the play is tense throughout as the pair of lawyers and their 
paralegal work through the maddingly tedious process in which a man's life 
hangs in the balance. Keeping their eye on the legal ball, ironically, even the 
lawyers, at first, tend to depersonalize Knighton. "We're just your lawyers," 
he is repeatedly told. The job is to spare his life, nothing more - not to 
befriend him, not to get to know him beyond the facts of the case.

It is as much the struggle of that dehumanization that gives the story its 
vitality, as well as its title. Unlike most prison dramas, in which no one is 
guilty in the pen, Knighton admits his culpability from the outset. One of the 
surest signs of his rehabilitation is that he is a man who wants that guilt 
recognized and desires absolution for his crime.

The strongest argument that the play makes - though it failed to persuade the 
appellate judges in the 1980s - is to establish with distinct clarity the 
arbitrary and capricious nature in which the death penalty was and continues to 
be applied in this country. On a larger scale however, it is Knighton's cry to 
be recognized as a man who is due the dignity, whatever his crimes, to be seen 
as a human person.

Wisely, the script doesn't attempt to turn Knighton into an angel. In Robert 
Diago DoQui's performance, however, audiences will find the heart and soul of 
the piece. There is an impassioned simplicity presented. As the action goes on 
around him, he sits on death row. And sits and sits. Even with death looming, 
time is all he has, and it weighs heavily on him. DoQui's performance conveys a 
man who has come to a kind of peace, while seeking means of salvaging something 
good from his destroyed life. It is a performance that quietly catches the 
audience with a shattering impact by the end.

Playing Doss, Mike Harkins captures well the struggle of serving as legal 
co-counsel, focusing on the technicalities of saving Knighton's life, which 
often prevents him from fulfilling his calling to minister to the man's soul. 
It is one of the most empathetic performances I've seen Harkins give.

John Neisler plays the lead lawyer, Murray, with a patrician authority and 
commitment to the purity of the law. Initially reluctant to take on the 
appeals, not wanting the responsibility of holding Knighton's life in his 
hands, Neisler gives Murray the appeal of a modern-day Atticus Finch. His 
passion for the case may be muted, at first, but seeing the fire in Neisler's 
eyes, we never doubt that it is there.

As the paralegal assisting the 2 lawyers, Cecile Monteyne serves as the bridge 
into this legal world for the audience, both as technical guide and 
representative of our emotional reaction to the case. She is uncertain of how 
close she dare allow herself to get, before the realization of just how 
all-encompassing such a struggle can be. Monteyne deeply expresses the 
life-changing affects of such an ordeal.

One of the most unexpectedly intriguing characters of the play is an unnamed 
fellow inmate played by Lance Nichols. As he provides bits of wisdom for 
Knighton, he also offers comic relief at points. As he seems to worm his way 
into Knighton's conscience, however, we wonder whether is he the voice of a 
devil demanding that Knighton just give up, or that of an angel bucking him up.

Samantha Beaulieu touches the heart as Knighton's wife, struggling to move on 
with her life, knowing that even if his sentence is commuted, she'll never see 
her husband again.

The behind-the-scenes political maneuverings that affect such cases are well 
depicted in the meetings with the original district attorney who prosecuted 
Knighton, along with the governor, played with conviction respectively by David 
Sellers and Ian Hoch. In a brief scene to show that Knighton received improper 
legal representation in his trial, Mark Burton is quite effective as the 
overwhelmed public defender who was frustratingly off his game for the capital 
case.

As a matter of full disclosure, I note that I consider myself ardently 
pro-life, and that includes firm opposition to state-sponsored execution. I can 
note, however, a significant failing in the script that those favoring the 
death penalty will rush to point out - what about Knighton's victim? The actual 
crime is never fully or clearly addressed. The audience only learns of it in 
bits and pieces: the botched armed robbery, committed under the influence of 
drugs, in which Knighton's intent to kill is questionable, at best. We know 
very little, however, of the victim and are left wondering, perhaps, how these 
noble lawyers might respond to an encounter with his family?

While the show is talky by its very the nature and has little real action, 
director Aimee Hayes has her cast moving in and out of the playing space in the 
church sanctuary with purpose. "Song of a Man Coming Through" can, however, use 
some sharp editing. While explaining the lengthy appeals process may be 
somewhat necessary, the first act gets bogged down in turgid, legal minutiae.

Despite these flaws, Hayes shows that this is a major work that demands 
attention. She strikes a particularly delicate balance, delivering the message 
of the show without letting it become mere propaganda. Indeed, also without 
trivializing that message, there is a strong element of showmanship here.

Framed by choruses of gospel music, the audience is drawn in from the moment it 
enters. The final moments of the play bring all the emotions together in a 
manner that left me physically trembling. What could be a miserably depressing 
evening, instead, becomes a grace-filled and powerfully life-affirming 
experience.

(source: nola.com)

****************

1 juror saves Mickelson from death----Jury votes 11-1 in favor of death penalty 
for confessed killer


The man convicted of 1st degree murder in the 2007 death and dismemberment of 
86-year-old Charles Martin Monday was sentenced to life in prison without 
possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.

A Caddo Parish Jury convicted Mickelson of the murder on Oct. 28, and after 2 
days of testimony during the sentencing phase, voted to sentence Mickelson to 
life in prison on Oct. 30.

When the jury came in with their verdict, they told the Court their verdict was 
unanimous, but asked to be polled privately.

Today, acting Caddo Parish District Attorney Dale Cox revealed to NBC6/FOX33's 
Jade Cunningham that the jury was not unanimous in their decision, but instead 
11 jurors voted in favor of the death penalty, while 1 juror voted for life in 
prison.

In Louisiana law, in order to invoke the death penalty, the jury must bring 
back a unanimous vote. If even 1 juror votes against the death penalty, the 
sentence is life in prison.

Cox said he believes the reason the jury announced a unanimous verdict and 
asked to be privately polled was to protect the juror who voted against the 
death penalty.

"I can tell you the jurors did that (said their decision was unanimous) was out 
of concern for the 1 juror, and I think that is magnanimous and I applaud 
that," Cox said.

This was Mickelson's 2nd trial in Martin's death. He was convicted of 1st 
degree murder and sentenced to death for the same crime in 2011; but in 2014, 
the Louisiana Supreme Court in a split vote threw out that conviction, due to a 
technicality during the jury selection process.

Mickelson's attorneys tried several times throughout the trial to get the judge 
to declare a mistrial, filing motions with the trial judge, the 2nd Circuit 
Court of Appeals and the Louisiana Supreme Court asking that Cox be recused 
from the case. All 3 courts denied the motions.

Following the sentencing decision, defense attorneys told NBS6/FOX33 they did 
not know whether Mickelson would appeal his conviction.

(source: arklatexhomepage.com)

*******************

Loyola University New Orleans Hosts Sister Helen Prejean


Prejean will deliver a talk, "Dead Man Walking: The Journey Continues," at 7 
p.m. on Monday, Nov. 16 in Holy Name of Jesus Church at Loyola, 6363 St. 
Charles Ave. The event is free and open to the public. Prejean, a Louisiana 
native and member of the Congregation of St. Joseph, will share her continued 
work with death row inmates and their victims and highlight perceived problems 
of our justice system, particularly the death penalty. Prejean is a regular and 
welcome visitor at Loyola New Orleans, where she was awarded an honorary 
doctorate in May 2005.

The talk helps to kick off a year-long celebration of LUCAP at Loyola and is 
sponsored by the advocacy organization together with Loyola's Office of Mission 
and Ministry, University Ministry and University Chaplain. Started in 1975, 
LUCAP is a student-initiated, student-led volunteer service and advocacy 
organization open to all Loyola students, offering them opportunities for 
direct service; reflection on larger, related social justice issues; and 
advocacy and organizing through projects in areas such as: rebuilding, hunger 
and homelessness, tutoring and mentoring, and environmentalism.

"As the Catholic Church enters its Year of Mercy beginning in Advent, the 
United States enters an election year in 2016 and Pope Francis continues to 
call for global abolition of the death penalt, Sr. Helen challenges us to talk 
about life, death and social justice," said Kurt Bindewald, director of the 
Office of Mission and Ministry at Loyola. "We are honored to have Sr. Helen 
Prejean as our guest, as we celebrate 40 years of social justice work performed 
by Loyola students in the community through the Loyola Community Action 
Program."

Prejean's work was documented in her book "Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness 
Account of the Death Penalty," which was made into a major motion film and an 
opera. One of the best known voices for the abolition of the death penalty in 
the U.S., Prejean also heads a national nonprofit organization, The Ministry 
Against the Death Penalty.

"MADP believes the death penalty causes harm to all those affected by it, 
including victims' families and prison officers, as well as the condemned and 
their families," Prejean states on the organization's website. "We are 
committed to promoting compassionate alternatives to the death penalty, 
including restorative justice and funding for victims' families. We believe in 
the dignity and rights of all persons and recognize that government-sanctioned 
killing is a violation of those rights."

Social justice is a key underpinning of a liberal arts Jesuit education at 
Loyola, where for more than 40 years, LUCAP has provided volunteer service and 
addressed social justice issues in the Greater New Orleans area.

Ongoing projects include work with area nonprofits including Caring Across 
Cultures; Cafe con Ingles; Habitat for Humanity; Ozanam Inn; Hunger Relief; 
People for Animal Welfare and Service (PAWS); Student Advocates on Mental 
Illness (SAMI); Best Buddies and the Uptown Shepherd Center.

On campus, LUCAP also helps to support:

--Students Against Hyper-Incarceration, an advocacy project focused on 
addressing the mass incarceration of African-American men in the United States, 
and ending the 'school-to-prison pipeline' that perpetuates this unjust 
practice;

--Loyola Immigration Advocacy, which works toward comprehensive immigration 
reform;

--Green Light, which aims to build gardens in local New Orleans residents' 
backyards and help residents to harvest their own produce, and

--Students Seeking Solidarity, a group committed to working for international 
peace through justice.

(source: loyno.edu)






OHIO:

Man still fights extradition in 2012 murder


3 years after Kyle Sheppard surrendered to authorities in his native Canada in 
the Nov. 2, 2012, murder of his wife in Toledo, he is continuing to fight 
extradition to the United States.

Kyle Sheppard, 32, is being held in jail in Montreal on a warrant from Lucas 
County charging him with murder in the strangulation of Katie Sheppard, 29, who 
was found on the front porch of the couple's Rivard Road home. She was wrapped 
in a blanket with a belt around her neck.

Mr. Sheppard fled to Canada the same day then turned himself in to police Nov. 
4 in Saguenay, Quebec. He has been in jail ever since.

Jeff Lingo, chief of the criminal division for the Lucas County Prosecutor's 
Office, said there is little prosecutors can do until Mr. Sheppard is 
extradited to Toledo. Speedy trial rules, which require that a defendant held 
in custody be brought to trial within 90 days of his arrest, do not apply when 
a defendant flees, Mr. Lingo said.

"This is the 1st extradition from Canada I have been involved with, but we 
respect the Canadian system and are awaiting our opportunity to proceed with 
the prosecution," he said.

Daniel Brodsky, a Toronto-based defense attorney who represents Mr. Sheppard in 
Canada, said that may not happen at least until next summer.

While 2 courts already have ruled against him and ordered his extradition, late 
last month, Mr. Sheppard appealed his case to the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

He contends the Minister of Justice should seek "genuine unequivocal 
assurances" that the state of Ohio would not seek the death penalty against him 
if he is convicted and that he should not be surrendered until the police 
investigation in Toledo is finished.

"If the investigation is still ongoing, then Mr. Sheppard must be protected and 
remain in Canada until such time as it is done and the requesting state 
confirms no death [penalty]," his appeal states. "If there is even a single 
possibility that the requesting state might seek the death penalty after the 
investigation progresses, then Mr. Sheppard cannot be surrendered."

Mr. Brodsky said both sides will have the opportunity to respond in writing and 
then oral arguments will be scheduled in the case.

In Lucas County, Mr. Sheppard was indicted on alternate counts of murder, both 
of which carry a possible sentence of 15 years to life in prison. Mr. Lingo 
said the case does not qualify for the death penalty, and the prosecutor's 
office is not seeking the death penalty.

Mr. Brodsky said his client is in a difficult position. Among rulings handed 
down in his case, a judge in 2013 found that statements Mr. Sheppard reportedly 
made to Canadian police upon his arrest were inadmissible because the officers 
did not give him the opportunity to have a lawyer present and they failed to 
keep appropriate notes of their interview.

In the conversation, Mr. Sheppard allegedly said he strangled his wife because 
he suspected she was cheating on him.

(source: Toledo Blade)






INDIANA:

Murder exoneree Kwame Ajamu to speak at IU McKinney School of Law


On Friday, Nov. 13, the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law 
Wrongful Conviction Clinic, in conjunction with the Indiana Abolition 
Coalition, will host Kwame Ajamu, who was exonerated of murder in February, 12 
years after his parole following 28 years in prison for the crime.

Ajamu's story is one of a wrong righted after years of punishment. The exoneree 
will speak at 7:15 p.m. in the Wynne Courtroom of the law school's building, 
Inlow Hall, 530 W. New York St., on the Indiana University-Purdue University 
Indianapolis campus.

At the age of 17, Kwame Ajamu, then known as Ronnie Bridgeman, was sent to 
death row from a Cleveland courtroom for the 1975 stabbing and shooting murder 
of a money-order salesman. No physical or forensic evidence linked Ajamu, his 
brother and a friend to the heinous crime. Rather, the prosecution's case 
rested on the testimony of Eddie Vernon, who was 13 when he testified. All 3 
were convicted.

Ajamu's death sentence was commuted to life in 1978, when Ohio's death-penalty 
statute was declared unconstitutional. He was paroled in 2003 after serving 28 
years.

The Ohio Innocence Project agreed to reinvestigate the case after a 2011 
magazine article highlighted inconsistencies in Vernon's eyewitness testimony. 
In November 2014, Vernon told a judge reviewing the matter that the police gave 
him the details of the crime.

In February 2015, Ajamu was declared innocent.

The law school's Wrongful Conviction Clinic, directed by professor Fran Watson, 
is a founding member of the Innocence Network. The international group of about 
60 organizations is "dedicated to providing pro bono legal and investigative 
services to individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which they 
have been convicted." The network is also dedicated to policy reforms leading 
to the prevention of wrongful convictions.

About 16 to 20 students each year are accepted into the Wrongful Conviction 
Clinic program. Their success stories include the 2001 release of Larry Mayes 
of Gary, Ind., who was exonerated of rape based on DNA testing that resulted 
from the work of Watson and four of her clinic students. In 2008, a federal 
court approved a $4.5 million settlement for Mayes, who spent 21 years in 
prison on the wrongful conviction.

(source: iupui.edu)