Bluhm Blog

A mother's love . . . Remembering Bobbie Steidl

What does a mother do when a son is sent to death row for a double homicide he didn't commit?  One can only imagine the personal anguish Bobbie Steidl felt for 17 years while her son Randy fought for his life and his freedom.  But what she did was attend each and every one of Randy's court appearances and provide him the inner strength that enabled him to survive those dark times.

Bobbie was there, of course, when Randy walked into the sunshine and away from Danville Correctional Center on May 28, 2004.  Bobbie lived to see Randy make a life for himself on the outside, maintain employment, purchase a home, and become a national spokesperson against the death penalty.  By the end of Bobbie's life, Randy had moved close enough to his mom to be able to stop and check on her every day.  He was finally in a position to care for her, just as she had cared for him all those years of his wrongful incarceration.

Bobbie was a tiny woman, but her heart was huge and her love was boundless.  Next to any list of exonerees should be a companion list of those family members and friends behind the scenes who push lawyers, investigate facts, raise funds, and lend critical moral support to wrongfully convicted prisoners awaiting vindication.

Barbara "Bobbie" Steidl belongs at the top of that list.  She passed away on February 23, 2009, at the age of 79.  She will be greatly missed by all who knew her and especially by her sons Randy and Rory Steidl.

Read about Randy's case

Read about Randy's anti-death penalty work

  

(Randy Steidl and his mom on the day of Randy's release from prison)

A lonely death . . . then exoneration

Timothy Cole, separated from family, friends, and decent medical treatment for his asthma, lapsed into unconsciousness in his Texas prison cell and died on December 2, 1999.  He had served 14 years of a life sentence for a rape he always maintained he did not commit.

Earlier this month, Cole was officially exonerated after DNA testing proved him innocent.  It is unutterably sad that Cole, a college student with a promising future at the time of his arrest, did not live to see his complete vindication, especially after he turned down an offer of parole if he would just admit his guilt.

What is particularly disturbing about this wrongful conviction is that the actual perpetrator, Jerry Johnson, confessed to the crime as far back as 1995, four years before Cole's death.  Johnson wrote to the court and asked for assistance in confessing to the crime.  He also wrote to the district attorney who had prosecuted Cole.  Johnson was ignored.  Only after he penned a letter in 2007 to Cole, whom he did not know had died, did someone take Johnson seriously.  Cole's family received the letter and started the process that exonerated Cole -- and conclusively fingered Johnson.

Even as far back as Cole's trial, though, there were red flags that called into question Cole's guilt.  These included:

• The rapist was a chain smoker, whereas Cole was an asthmatic who did not smoke.
• Cole had an alibi: he was at his brother's apartment with several friends at the time of the crime.  (These witnesses were branded liars by the prosecutor.)
• No physical evidence linked Cole to the rape.
• The evidence against Cole rested on the cross-racial identification testimony of the victim, who first identified Cole from a photo lineup consisting of a color Polaroid of Cole and five black-and-white photos of other men.

It is therefore not surprising that Johnson, who was a chain smoker and who was jailed for similar crimes in the same geographic area, should turn out to be the true rapist.

I would hope that the judge and prosecutor who received Johnson's confessions gave them serious consideration and had good reasons for not replying or initiating DNA testing on their own.  I fear, however, that Johnson's letters were either filed or trashed without a second thought.  In all likelihood, systemic reluctance to admit error resulted in Timothy Cole never again breathing free, and indeed never again breathing at all.

NPR story on Timothy Cole

Innocence in Juvenile Court?

In a decision that is otherwise not particularly noteworthy for wrongful conviction purposes, the First District appellate court recently pointed out that the Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not apply to juvenile proceedings.  In re Timothy P., No. 1-07-1518 (January 28, 2009).  Several previous appellate court cases have so held, although the Illinois Supreme Court has never spoken on the issue. 

The Post-Conviction Hearing Act is the primary procedural vehicle used for asserting innocence claims based on new evidence.  It is also the means of attacking constitutional violations that occurred at a defendant's trial.  What are we to take from the exclusion of minors' adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court from this Act?  Does this mean that no innocent minor is ever found guilty in juvenile court or that no minor has his constitutional rights violated?

We know this is not the case.  Rather, there is reason to believe that young people may be even more susceptible to wrongful convictions.  The growing list of exonerees includes many individuals who were accused when they were under 18.  While most were tried and convicted in adult court, this is because the vast majority of exonerations are in murder and rape cases, which are most often tried in adult court even when the accused is under 18.  We also know that the likelihood of a false confessions increases when the accused is a young person.  Certainly, there are young people who have falsely confessed to lesser crimes who have subsequently been convicted in juvenile court.

In fact, there is reason to believe that juvenile court might be particularly susceptible to wrongful convictions.  With no jury trial right, the same trial judge that may have previously presided over a case of the minor is the fact-finder in the new case.  This mihgt create an inherent bias in the judge's mind against the minor. Moreover, very few juvenile cases are appealed, so the appellate court is not given the opportunity to correct errors in judgment.  Further, the culture of juvenile court -- which at times discourages zealous advocacy in lieu of "the best interests of the minor" -- may contradict the presumption of innocence.  The reality is that the issue of wrongful convictions in juvenile court is largely unexplored.

Why should we care?  While it is true sentences in juvenile court may be less severe, there are serious consequences.  A minor may be imprisoned until he is 21.  A sentence of probation puts a minor in the system, and a subsequent, even non-criminal infranction could lead to prison time.  Even a small adjudication may affect a young person's future. For example, a misdemeanor sex offense requires a minor to register as a sex offender.  All felony offenses require the minor to submit his DNA into a state and national federal database.  And a juvenile adjudication may affect a minor's job or college prospects in the future, specifically a government job.  

The Illinois Supreme Court should address the issue of the applicability of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act to juvenile proceedings.  Alternatively, the general assembly should clarify the Act to make clear that it includes delinquency proceedings.  It does not make sense that Act does not apply to juvenile adjudications.

Latest Illinois exoneree: Alan Beaman

 

When false murder charges against a man who spent 13 years in prison are finally dropped, it is hard to know how to feel.  There is a measure of joy that the ordeal is over, but also great sadness at the years wasted and the damage inflicted -- and anger that it ever had to happen.  A week after Alan Beaman's exoneration on January 29, 2009, anger is uppermost in my mind as I reflect on the case.

First I must disclose that I am not an unbiased observer.  I have been representing Alan for six years.  (My colleague Jeff Urdangen has logged a dozen years in this fight for justice.)  During this time I have pored over all aspects of the case, and I have become very well acquainted with my impressive client Alan and his equally remarkable family.  My conclusion from this study is that Alan is absolutely innocent of the 1993 murder of his ex-girlfriend in Normal, Illinois, for the simple reason that he was 140 miles away in his Rockford home when it happened.

One of our mantras at the Center on Wrongful Convictions is that we cannot correct all miscarriages of justice one by one, so we must use individual cases to shed light on flaws in the criminal justice system that lead to erroneous convictions.  Each exoneration presents a "teachable moment."  What lessons can we learn from the Alan Beaman case?  Why is it that despite no evidence of guilt other than supposition and innuendo, and indeed clear evidence of his innocence, Alan was indicted and convicted?  Why did his conviction stand for 13 years until the Illinois Supreme Court ordered a new trial in May 2008, labeling the case aginst Alan "tenuous" and wholly circumstantial?

In a word, the answer is "Prosecutor."  The prosecutor holds a uniquely powerful position in the criminal justice process that rivals even that of the judge.  Alan Beaman's prosecutor, James Souk, involved himself early in the homicide investigation and eventually took it over.  When information surfaced during the investigation that supported Alan's alibi, the police were directed to try to refute it rather than shift their focus to more likely suspects.  (This phenomenon of tailoring an investigation around a premature conclusion is called "tunnel vision.")  Faced with a high profile murder of a college student in a college town, they indicted Alan rather than leave the crime unsolved.  At trial, the prosecutor hid evidence that supported Alan's innocence and misled the jury about the strength of the State's case.  Thus, the jury that decided Alan's guilt or innocence did not have access to all of the relevant evidence, including information about other potential suspects.  That angers me.

What is the appropriate response to a case like this?  We need to pay attention to the people in whom we invest the awesome powers of the prosecutor.  Candidates for prosecutor should be well screened, and when elected prosecutors (or their staff) abuse their power, they should be voted out of office.  Similarly, when a court of review finds that a prosecutor has committed an ethical or constitutional violation, there should be consequences and sanctions.  Finally, the public must express its outrage when prosecutors cross the line.  In the case of Alan Beaman, it may be that public support for his cause contributed to the dismissal of the wrongful charges against him.

To read more about Alan's case, try these links:

WMBD-TV story

Daily Pantagraph story

Center on Wrongful Convictions

(Photo by Steve Smedley/The Pantagraph)