Jason Baldwin, after life without parole

Jason Baldwin stood trial at 16-years-old for three murders

Jason Baldwin stood trial at 16-years-old for three murders

Jason Baldwin spent more than half of his life in prison before he was released in August of 2011.In June of 1993, he was charged with the murders of three 8-year-old boys – Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers –  in West Memphis, Arkansas. Three teenagers were eventually tried in connection with the homicides. Jessie Misskelley was the first to receive a trial that resulted in a conviction. Jason subsequently stood trial with his best friend, Damien Echols, in 1994. Jason received life without parole, while Damien was given the death penalty.

In the nearly two decades since the murders occurred, the three have fought a seemingly uphill battle in the courts to prove their innocence. DNA testing has helped to support these claims in that none of the three convicted match DNA obtained from the crime scene.

The story behind their conviction and fight for freedom is one that has captivated countless people. However, the events that have taken place since their release and the steps each have taken to rebuild their lives is just as interesting. A quick look at the past of one of these men, Jason Baldwin, sheds some light on his most recent endeavors to raise awareness about juvenile justice and wrongful convictions.

Life in Prison

Jason was 16-years-old when he was convicted and sent to prison, presumably for the rest of his life. After his trial and transfer to prison, Jason spent two months on the diagnostic unit because officials felt it was the safest place for him given his young age and the nature of his conviction. “The administration feared I wouldn’t survive,” he told me during an interview. “They tried to get me to sign up for the suicide prevention unit.” Jason declined and opted to move on to the Varner Unit.

Jason’s initial experiences, as a teenager in prison, contrasted sharply with how he remembers it just prior to his release. When he first began serving his sentence he was the target of significant violence. “I’ve had my skull shattered,” he recalled, “…My collar bone broken.” He had to learn to adapt to the volatile conditions in the adult prison system quickly. “I just tried to treat everyone with respect,” he explained. “But I stood my ground and didn’t take any crap from anybody.”

The light at the end of the tunnel for Jason was the documentary film release of Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills in 1996. Jason believes that Paradise Lost helped to corroborate what he had been expressing to those around him since his arrest – that he was innocent of the triple homicides for which he was convicted. The film’s release marked a turning point for Jason by changing the way people viewed him inside and outside of prison. The movie also sparked the movement that would eventually lead to the release of all three – who became known collectively as the West Memphis Three.

In prison Jason encountered others who were sentenced as juveniles and given life without parole. He came to understand the complexities of the prison system – especially as it pertained to the incarceration of youth and the imprisonment of those wrongfully convicted.

I asked Jason what he thought about life without parole sentencing for those who are innocent of the crime as well as those who did in fact have involvement. “It does not matter the length of the sentence when you condemn any person for a crime they did not commit,” he said in response. “One moment of incarceration is too long for the innocent.”

Jason then turned his attention to the matter of juvenile life without parole in general. “I was raised with lifers. I would personally love to see many of these guys granted their second chance at living free.” He then added, “On the flip side I’ve met people who I believe are not ready to live in free society. That is not to say that the future won’t bring change for them as well…there are those that I feel deserving and others not at this juncture for that second chance.”

Holly has stood by Jason for over a decade. The two now call Washington their home.

Holly has stood by Jason for over a decade. The two now call Washington their home.

Starting Over

Immediately after Jason’s release he and Damien went to the Department of Motor Vehicles in Marked Tree, Arkansas to get a state ID. The following day, he and others traveled to Washington with Eddie Vedder and stayed in his beach house. He quickly took a liking to the Washington area and has remained there since. He lives with his girlfriend, Holly Ballard, whom he met while he was incarcerated. She learned of his case after reading Mara Leveritt’s book, Devil’s Knot.

The two now spend time together doing what they both enjoy, such as riding bikes and watching movies. Jason has also caught up on some of the things he missed out on while he was in prison, such as learning to drive a car.

Jason, Damien, and Jessie’s release from prison was a dramatic and controversial event. Jason was initially reluctant to take the Alford Plea because he wanted the opportunity to achieve exoneration and clear his name. Even now – nearly two years after the agreement was signed – Jason acknowledges that it has complicated exoneration efforts. “It’s tricky now,” he said. He still remains hopeful in this regard though. “That’s where all these films come into play. They put pressure on all the people in Arkansas to do the right thing.”

While discussing the present status of Jason’s case, I asked if he had an opinion as to who may have perpetrated the crimes. He told me that he did not know who committed the murders. Like so many people personally touched by the tragedy, Jason would like definitive answers. However, he was clear he would never want to make the mistake of accusing the wrong person or people. He maintains an open mind as new information continues to come to light about the murders that happened nearly twenty years ago.

After his release from prison, Jason eventually became involved in the film version of Mara Leveritt’s book, Devil’s Knot. He described approaching those in charge of putting the movie together because of concerns Damien had about the direction of the script. He met with Elizabeth Fowler and inquired about the approach they were taking with the film. She invited him to take a look at the script and recommend changes. Jason took her up on the offer and went on to become an executive producer of the film.

Jason described the film version of Devil’s Knot as a broader view of what happened to West Memphis when the murders took place. It stars Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth, among others. Jason said the film shows “how a community can be so hurt that they will sacrifice innocence.” He talked about the experience of being on the film set with Pam Hobbs, the mother of Steven Branch. He was impressed with the love and respect those working on the film paid to her, saying that it was comforting to see the healing she experienced as a result. He described the work as “one of the greatest things I have done or experienced in my life.”

The film is scheduled for release toward the end of this year.

Jason - free at last

Jason – free at last

His Advocacy

Since his release, Jason has maintained a balance between building a new life outside of prison and his sense of commitment to helping others. He has been attending college on a scholarship established through Eddie Vedder’s Vitalogy Foundation. He is close to earning his associate’s degree and plans to continue his education and obtain a bachelor’s degree at the local university.

In 2012, Jason was invited by an organization to attend the oral hearings before the United States Supreme Court for Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama. He gave a speech at a luncheon that took place afterward. Months later the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that struck down life without parole as a mandatory sentence. Though juveniles may still receive life without parole sentences, the courts are now required to use discretion. Judges must consider potentially mitigating factors such as a person’s age at the time of the crime and degree of involvement.

On February 5th of 2013, Jason testified in support of Washington House Bill 1338. The bill proposed changes to the state’s approach to the long-term sentencing of juveniles in the system. Jason began his speech with the following: “My name is Charles Jason Baldwin and at the age of 16 I was tried and wrongfully convicted for three counts of capital murder in the state of Arkansas. Facing the death penalty, I was instead given life without the possibility of parole. Both of these sentences present the harrowing aspect of dying in prison, which is unfathomable to a juvenile who should have his whole life ahead of him. In the end I would serve more than 18 years of that sentence – more than fifty percent of my life – before finally being released.”

During his testimony he touched on some of his experiences in prison and how he made a conscious decision to go into that environment with an open mind.  This enabled him to see the people he was incarcerated with as human beings. He also noted how he personally observed the growth of those sentenced to life without parole during his time as substance abuse counselor and GED teacher. “I can list a great number of these individuals whom I believe are redeemable and deserve a second chance.”

Jason closed his testimony by saying he made a promise to those he was incarcerated with that he would not forget them. “Today I’m here to keep that promise. For the remorseful inmate who has turned his life around, I say that we must grant this person mercy. We prove in doing so that life cannot be disregarded or thrown away. All life is sacred and worth a second chance for those who honestly seek it. This is possibly the greatest lesson I learned as a former inmate, serving juvenile life without the possibility of parole.”

Most recently, Jason co-founded a new organization known as Proclaim Justice. I asked him to provide some insight into the mission of the organization and how it came about. “Proclaim Justice was put together in an effort to prevent and prevail over wrongful convictions,” he began. “Injustice occurs everywhere in the world. It is a complicated issue, the factors of which can range from shoddy policy work to downright abuse of power.” He explained that he was fortunate because HBO filmed his trials, providing the world with an intimate view of the trials and convictions. Without the documentary, no one would have had the opportunity to view “the surrounding atmosphere that contributed to that injustice.”

Jason, Damien, and Jessie were heavily scrutinized by local media covering the trials, but Paradise Lost was a powerful reminder that the media may also help to compel people to take action in the face of perceived injustice. Armed with this knowledge, John Hardin who has extensive experience in media relations, approached Jason about founding an organization that would focus on bringing attention to specific cases of injustice. “We believe that by bringing awareness to the other side of cases where there is injustice that discussions can be made to correct and prevent these wrongs,” Jason said of the organization’s objectives.

I interviewed John about the organization and his decision to partner with Jason. John described Jason to me as “activist-minded”. He went on to say, “I know he’s got a passion for working the rest of his life to help people who are in the same situation he was in.”

Though Proclaim Justice is still in its beginning stages, the organization has already signed on to help two people incarcerated within the Arkansas prison system, such as Daniel Risher and Tim Howard. John has also been assisting an organization known as Centurion Ministries with the case of Benjamine Spencer. Following Spencer’s conviction in relation to a 1987 murder, a judge declared during a 2008 hearing that he was innocent. Three years later the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the judge’s finding. To date Spencer has served 26 years in Texas for a murder that many believe he did not commit.

John and Jason have high hopes for the organization, but recognize it will take a great deal of work to reach the goals they have established. Both seem fully committed to the cause, however.

Though it is hard to predict what is in store for Jason in the future, it seems he is on a unique and promising path. I was impressed with what Jason has already accomplished in the fairly short amount of time he has been released. If the past is any indicator, he will likely go on to achieve great things. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the much-needed change he helps to ignite.

For more information about Proclaim Justice, click here to go to the organization’s site.

Advertisements

Trial by convenience

Damien Echols (left) and Jason Baldwin (right) stood trial together in 1994

Damien Echols (left) and Jason Baldwin (right) stood trial together in 1994

In cases where two or more people are charged with the crime of homicide, the question about whether or not to try the accused together is almost always raised. Theoretically, trying two people for a single crime appears to make sense because it decreases the costs and time associated with multiple trials. This also reduces the trauma experienced by families and friends of the victim when exposed to these trials.

However, the truth of the matter is that combined trials usually contribute to an atmosphere of prejudice against at least one of the defendants. When deciding if this approach is truly responsible, one might ask if it is appropriate to favor efficiency over a defendant’s right to a fair trial. If you are undecided on this issue, perhaps the following cases will help demonstrate why combining trials is an unjust practice.

West Memphis, Arkansas

In the summer of 1993, three teenagers in West Memphis, Arkansas were arrested and charged with the murders of three 8-year-old boys. Two of the defendants – Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols – faced trial together. The defense attorneys argued against a combined trial for several reasons. For starters, Jason’s attorney, Paul Ford, was concerned about the impact negative media coverage of Damien would have on his client. In Mara Levitt’s book, Devil’s Knotshe wrote the attorney “did not want Jason to be painted with the same broad brush as Damien”.

Ford also raised issues pertaining to the contradictory nature of some of the evidence. For example, one of the witnesses for the prosecution stated she had observed Damien on a service road in the general area where the three boys were found. However, her eyewitness account did not include Jason. This was problematic because the prosecution based their case on the claim that Jason, Damien, and another teen by the name of Jessie Misskelley, were together when the three boys were murdered.

The presiding judge, David Burnett, decided against two separate trials for Jason and Damien. His reasoning was that combining the trials was a matter of “judicial economy“. He also added that he did not feel that a joint trial would jeopardize either of the teenagers’ right to a fair trial.

The jury on that particular trial was advised to consider Jason and Damien separately in terms of their alleged involvement in the murders, but we will never know if the jury was truly able to do that. Based on the case files made publicly available, a number of people provided information to the police that directly contradicted the prosecution’s contention that Jason and Damien were together the evening the murders occurred. Providing proof in the form of alibi or eyewitness accounts that the two were separated would have significantly damaged the state’s case against all three teens. However, in a joint trial this can create confusion and hinder each of the defendants’ defenses.

An unfortunate aspect of Jason’s defense was that witnesses could have provided an alibi for Jason throughout the evening of May 5th, but they were never called to the stand. Jason’s defense rested after calling a single witness: Charles Linch. It is fair to conclude that a separate trial, combined with a more zealous defense on Jason’s behalf, might have resulted in a completely different outcome for Jason.

With that said, the three teens accused of the murders were subsequently convicted in two trials. Jessie received his trial first. Jason and Damien’s trial came second. Over the course of 18 years, a time-consuming and expensive legal battle has taken place in the appellate courts to acquire freedom for the three convicted. DNA testing has helped to support Jason, Jessie, and Damien’s claim of innocence.

In August of 2011, the three who had became known as the “West Memphis Three” were released from prison after entering an Alford Plea. Such a plea does not require an admission of guilt. Instead, it depends upon the person’s willingness to acknowledge the prosecution’s ability to meet its burden of proof in court. The precedent for this plea arrangement stems from the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.

The West Memphis Three are now free, but at what cost?

Louisville, Kentucky

Josh Young (far left) could receive a joint trial with his accuser, Josh Gouker (far right)

Josh Young (far left) could receive a joint trial with his former accuser, Josh Gouker (far right)

Josh Young is now 17-years-old. He was only 15 when his stepbrother, Trey Zwicker, was murdered in May of 2011. The police arrested Josh in connection with the crime after his father fled the state with the teen. At the time it appeared as though detectives considered Josh’s father, Josh Gouker, a suspect in the case.

Gouker and his son were arrested in Alabama in June of 2011 on gun charges. Gouker was also held on a kidnapping charge in relation to a woman who claimed he forced her to drive at gunpoint. He was released from jail in the state of Alabama during the month of September, but was remanded back into custody by October.

During this time period, Gouker contacted the detectives investigating Trey’s murder. He told them that his son had committed the crime and that he had not known about Josh’s involvement until after. His claims contradicted statements he made previously. In an attempt to prove he was telling the truth to police, Gouker orchestrated phone calls to several family members and friends. Though he tried to get various people to corroborate his claim that Josh was the perpetrator, some of conversations that took place presented clear red flags that Gouker was trying to divert suspicion off of himself by casting it onto his own son.

Eventually Gouker admitted that he had murdered Trey on his own, but by then the damage was done. Now the younger and elder Josh both stand accused of the murder. Moreover, the prosecution wants to try the two together. This, despite Josh’s defense attorney’s claim that he “plans to introduce 20 new factual items that will show the teen did not kill Zwicker, 14, by beating him with a baseball bat.”

Josh Young’s defense attorneys want him tried separately from his father. Trying Josh beside his father presents a number of hurdles for the defense, including the potential for Gouker to influence or attempt to manipulate witnesses for Josh’s defense. Discovery evidence demonstrates he has done this in the past and so there is reasonable concern he may do it again.

A combined trial would also force Josh to stand trial next to his accuser. Instead of having the opportunity to challenge his accuser in court in the traditional sense, he runs the risk of being perceived negatively when the jury learns more about Gouker. This is a similar dilemma to the one mentioned previously in which Jason Baldwin’s defense attorneys worried that he would be impacted by the evidence presented against Damien – even though much of it had nothing to do with Jason.

Gouker’s defense wants a separate trial as well.

Judge Barry Willett is expected to make a decision about trying Josh and his father separately or together on March 22. Hopefully the judge will preserve each defendants’ right to a fair trial. Only time will tell.

The trouble with interrogating minors

Scenes from Michael Crowe's interrogation

Scenes from Michael Crowe’s interrogation

We know from organizations like the Innocence Project that coerced or false confessions are a major contributor to wrongful convictions. The Project’s site states the following: “In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions, or pled guilty.”

But why would someone who is innocent of a crime confess to doing it? This is the question that everyone considers when they first learn that a person has made an incriminating statement and then later claims it was coerced.

What kind of person admits to committing a crime they did not do?

It is a good question that requires analysis of the psychology behind police interrogations and the systematic breakdown of a person’s resolve. The trouble is that people who are innocent are just as susceptible to the incredible strain placed on a person during the process as those that are guilty of having committed a crime. Children and teenagers are particularly vulnerable as evidenced by the case of Michael Crowe.

In 1998, 12  year old Stephanie Crowe was found stabbed to death in her bedroom. Police quickly focused their investigation on Stephanie’s 14 year old brother, Michael. His interrogation lasted for 27 hours, conducted over the course of three days. Two of Michael’s friends also made incriminating statements to police – one of which was a confession. Michael confessed to having murdered his sister as well, though DNA evidence later showed the crime was committed by a transient named Richard Tuite.

Police used an interrogation technique known as the Reid Technique in Michael’s case. This is a popular method of interrogating individuals police feel may be involved in a crime. The approach consists of two separate stages and is discussed in a brief filed on behalf of Damien Echols, prior to his accepting an Alford Plea that allowed him to walk off death row in Arkansas. Echols, along with two other teenagers at the time, were convicted of murdering three children in West Memphis, Arkansas. Though confessions given by one of the teenagers, Jessie Misskelley, were never admitted into evidence during the joint trial of Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols, they were credited with influencing the jury because the foreman knew about the confession and purportedly told the other jurors about it.

Misskelley’s statements to police were problematic because initially they did not match the facts of the case. In his first incriminating statement to police he indicated the murders happened in the morning, which was impossible since all three children attended school that day and various sightings of the boys were reported to police up until approximately 7 p.m. the evening they disappeared. Examination of the statement provides clear examples of the police influencing changes made by Misskelley, ranging from the time the crime was allegedly committed to other critical elements.

The first stage of the Reid Technique contains three steps. First, the officers separate the suspect from family and friends. Typically the interrogation is done in a small, uncomfortable space that increases feelings of pressure and vulnerability. Second, the person or people conducting the interrogation accuse the suspect of being untruthful. It is not unusual for police using this approach to refuse to hear what the suspect is saying and to continually express the belief the suspect is guilty of the crime. Third, the police often tell the suspect they have physical or other types of evidence implicating them in the crime. Sometimes an officer will refrain from outright lying and will ask questions like, “If I told you that we found your fingerprints on the weapon used, what would your explanation be for that?”

The second stage kicks the process up several notches. First, after the suspect has been interrogated at length and led to believe that the police will not hear of their innocence, they are told there might be a way out of the situation. The suspect is essentially advised of any benefits of confessing to the crime. For example, a confession will put an end to the interrogation. An officer might even offer sympathy, saying something like this: “I can understand if you just reached the end of your rope and you lost your temper. Sometimes accidents happen.”

This coincides with the second crucial step, which is to minimize the involvement of the suspect.

“You didn’t mean to do it.”

“We know this is not the kind of person you are.”

“You only witnessed someone else committing the crime.”

“You didn’t want to participate.”

The final step consists of explaining that a confession is the only way out and is in their best interest. Keep in mind that these two stages go on for hours. The suspect’s resolve is broken down in carefully calculated steps. It is all dependent on the interrogator’s ability to convince the suspect that relief will only come from offering a confession.

Children and teenagers are especially susceptible to the above-described conditions. Many youth, when in the presence of authority, feel a responsibility to cooperate and assist with the investigation. Few realize they have the right to do otherwise, even when that is expressed to them during the reading of their Miranda rights. Children and teenagers are taught to not only act respectfully in the presence of law enforcement, but to trust them as well.

The issue of interrogating minors has surfaced once again because of the Cristian Fernandez case. Cristian was 12 years old when he was charged in the death of his younger brother. The child’s defense is asking the judge to suppress two statements he made to police on the grounds he did not understand his rights when he gave them, and he was not cognizant of the consequences of giving such statements.

He is charged with felony murder (aggravated child abuse and murder), which despite his young age could carry a life without parole sentence if the judge deems it appropriate. Previously, when State Attorney Angela Corey sought the indictment for this charge, it was the only sentence Cristian could receive if convicted per Florida’s mandatory minimum requirements. Unless he accepted a plea deal.

Cristian originally said his brother fell off a bunk bed. He later claimed he pushed his brother into a bookshelf. Upon injuring his brother, the adolescent told his mother about his brother’s injuries and the mother waited – for unknown reasons – approximately eight hours to seek help for her unconscious and bleeding son. That decision may have cost her youngest child his life, but little has been made public about the reasoning behind waiting. News reports have indicated she spent much of this time on the Internet, researching head injuries and engaging in other activities.

Cristian is also charged with sexual battery because of a statement his younger brother – 4 or 5 at the time of the alleged incident – made to another person. Only a partial transcript of the interrogation regarding this charge is available; however, it causes confusion as to what the young child was referring to when he made the statement. The transcript is troubling, and not for the reasons Angela Corey and the other prosecutors she now has working on his case would have you believe.

Then there is the fact Cristian has been sexually and physically abused throughout his life. His mother gave birth to him when she was the same age he was when charged with murder. His father has had little to nothing to do with him. Prior to the murder, Cristian’s stepfather took his own life by shooting himself in the head. Cristian was not present when this happened, but his other siblings were. The youngest was covered in blood and trembling when police responded to the incident. The stepfather is believed to have committed suicide to avoid prosecution in connection with badly beating Cristian.

In a recent turn of events, the psychologist who was originally contracted by State Attorney Corey became a witness for the defense. This was in light of his determination that Cristian did not sufficiently understand what it meant to waive his rights. The same psychologist had previously provided Angela Corey with a detailed assessment of Cristian, combined with the finding that despite his troubling past, the accused was amenable to treatment and would respond well to intensive inpatient therapy.

Then there is the matter of lost evidence. On June 28th, the prosecution called various people to the stand to testify regarding the explanation of rights to Cristian and his understanding of those rights before he made statements to police. The prosecution asked to call his previous public defenders to the stand to question them about their visits with the child. The attorneys were protected by client-attorney privilege, but the judge did allow them to provide information about the number of times they visited their client.

Why? Because the Department of Juvenile Justice apparently lost or misplaced that information.

Detective Soehling questioned Cristian and testified that she made “technical” mistakes in her reports. She even admitted to destroying her reports, giving no reason for having done it. The detective had not received formal training with regard to questioning juveniles and though she claimed he understood his rights, she offered no evidence or testimony that supported she had the training and experience to recognize when a child understands their legal rights. She did not individually expound on any of the rights, or ask Cristian to paraphrase them in a way that would indicate understanding.

Cristian was not given guidance or advice from any adult outside of law enforcement. He was on his own when he was questioned. The state’s original psychologist is claiming he did not understand his rights. The case already reflected badly on Angela Corey when she became angry at those who questioned her approach. She refuses to consider that 189,000 people have signed my petition asking her to reverse her decision to try him as an adult. It shouldn’t have come as any surprise that she would pursue, with gusto, the prosecution of George Zimmerman – the Florida man accused of committing second degree murder against a 17 year old teenager named Trayvon Martin. What kind of picture does this newest information paint of Corey’s prosecution of am adolescent?

But that is what Angela Corey does. She throws the book at people. While this might be considered a positive attribute in some cases, it becomes a liability in others when she refuses to acknowledge the clear differences between juveniles and adults. It becomes an issue when she refuses to consider potentially mitigating factors in each individual case.

On the second day of the hearing regarding the suppression of statements, the defense called child psychiatrist David Fassler to the stand. Dr. Fassler testified that Cristian did not understand his rights and provided information about the advanced scientific understanding of human brain development in adolescents. He has lectured on these types of matters at Yale, Harvard, and before Congress.

If Judge Cooper agrees to suppress the statements made by Cristian Fernandez, it will significantly weaken the prosecution’s cases against the defendant. It remains to be seen if she will take this action. Cristian’s case is just one more that emphasizes the dangers and problems associated with interrogating minor children. This is an area of the American legal system that requires significant reform, especially if courts continue to try and sentence children as adults.