LITTLE ROCK — A circuit court must consider DNA and other evidence in the cases of three West Memphis men convicted for the 1993 murders of three 8-year-old boys, the Arkansas Supreme Court said Thursday.
The court left it to the Craighead County Circuit Court to decide whether Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley should receive a new trial on the basis of the evidence, which includes a claim of juror misconduct.
The decision was unanimous.
Echols requested a new trial after DNA evidence that was found at the time of the crime was tested with new technology that showed that the three men were not the source of DNA found at the crime scene.
In 2008, the Circuit Court refused to consider the evidence in Echols’ quest for a new trial. The Supreme Court found that the lower court had misinterpreted part of a statute that allowed new DNA evidence to be considered.
Based on its decision in the Echols case, the Supreme Court also ordered the lower court to consider the genetic material testing in the cases of Baldwin and Misskelley.
Tests show that the genetic material does not belong to Echols or the other two men, and the absence of DNA evidence linking them to the crime scene means they did not commit the murders, Echols’ attorney said.
Echols and Baldwin were convicted of capital murder in Craighead County Circuit Court in the slayings of the three West Memphis boys. Misskelley was tried separately after confessing.
The three boys were mutilated and drowned.
Echols, who was 18 when he was arrested, was sentenced to death. Baldwin was 16, and Misskelley was 17. They received life sentences.
The victims were Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Stevie Branch, all second graders. Their hogtied bodies were found in a water-filled ditch near Interstate 40 in West Memphis. Prosecutors said the boys had been tortured and beaten.
The defendants became known as “The West Memphis 3” as the case received widespread attention over the years from celebrities and civil-rights activists who supported the convicts’ quest for new trials.
Echols’ appeal was based on whether Circuit Judge David Burnett properly interpreted a 2005 Arkansas law that allows DNA evidence not available in the original case to be considered along with other evidence in a new trial or appeal.
When he rejected Echols’ request for a new trial, Burnett said that the DNA evidence had to be stronger than the evidence of guilt and had to show a “compelling claim of actual innocence.”
Burnett, who heard the men’s original case and ongoing appeals, was elected to serve District 15 in the Arkansas Senate on Tuesday and is not allowed to sit as a judge in the matter. The court ordered that the case be reassigned to a new judge by the 2nd Judicial District.
Baldwin and Misskelley had asked that Burnett be recused from the case.
“I did what I thought was appropriate as a circuit court judge, I applied the law as I read it,” Burnett said Thursday. “With the atmosphere generated by the people opposed to their conviction, [the Supreme Court] is probably just being very careful.”
Arkansas Code Annotated 16-122-201 states that a convicted person can secure his freedom if he can prove that “scientific evidence not available at trial establishes the petitioner’s actual innocence.”
The Supreme Court found that Echols had to show that “a new trial would result in an appeal” based on the DNA testing.
In 2005, DNA evidence found by police at the crime scene was tested by Bode Technology Group in Lorton, Va. The test showed that the genetic material did not belong to Echols, Baldwin or Misskelley.
The DNA evidence includes two hairs. One found in the shoelace of Michael could belong to the stepfather of Stevie Branch, Terry Hobbs, the testing showed, according to a brief filed by Echols’ attorney.
Another found on a nearby tree stump could belong to David Jacoby, the testing showed, and Jacoby was with Hobbs around the time Hobbs’ stepson disappeared, according to the brief. The results did not conclusively show that the hairs belonged to either man.
Traces of genetic material found on Stevie’s genitals was also found not to belong to the three convicted men.
Misskelley had asked the court to also consider animal hair and other evidence found at the crime scene. The circuit court considered the evidence and denied him a new trial based on it. The Supreme Court upheld that decision.
In 2001, the Arkansas General Assembly approved the state’s DNA testing statutes, which are Arkansas Code Annotated 16-112-201 through 16-112-207.
The Legislature amended the law in 2005 to allow testing that “may produce new material evidence that would ... raise a reasonable probability that the person ... did not commit the offense.”
Arkansas Assistant Attorney General David Raupp said the statute should not be applied retroactively to the tested DNA results because testing began before the 2005 amendment took effect and was not done at an acceptable testing facility nor held to acceptable standards.
The state argued that Echols was not eligible for a new trial under the more-stringent amendment because the results did not prove that he did not commit the crime.
It also said that nothing in the testing law requires “the test results to be conclusive as to the petitioner’s claim of actual innocence.” The Supreme Court also questioned how DNA evidence alone “could ever produce legally-conclusive evidence of innocence under the state’s interpretation of the statute.”
The court said that because Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley had asked for the tests before the amendment was passed, it does not apply to their request.
Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said his office is reviewing the decision.
“My office intends to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to defend the jury verdicts in this case,” he said.
Echols’ wife, Lorri Davis of Little Rock, said she hopes the men get a new trial after 17 years.
“It’s been what we’ve been fighting for all these years,” Davis said. “It’s so huge and so gratifying to finally be in this situation.”
Capi Peck of Little Rock helped found the advocacy group Arkansas Take Action,which works to raise public support for a new trial.
“We can hardly contain ourselves, finally the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor,” Peck said.
The Supreme Court has heard several appeals from the men, many of which were denied.
The Echols case opinion was written by Justice Ron L. Sheffield. The Misskelley opinion was written by Justice Robert L. Brown. Baldwin’s opinion was written by Chief Justice Jim Hannah.
Justice Elena Cunningham Wills recused herself from all three cases. Special Justice Jeff Priebe participated in her place.
At the Supreme Court the cases are CR08-1493, Damien Wayne Echols v. State of Arkansas; CR09-60, Charles Jason Baldwin v. State of Arkansas; and CR08-1481, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley v. State of Arkansas.
Arkansas, Pages 9 on 11/05/2010