Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: James Evans Case Makes National Law Journal News With Federal Court Ruling

TCCOR Means: The Circuit Court Opinion Read

Now comes James Evans before three Circuit Judges of an Illinois Federal Appeals Court, praying for relief from what many have called, an unjust Illinois state justice system that Evans claim was “ineffective” in the exhaustion of his postconviction relief efforts. Evans was convicted in two cases (murder, and conspiracy to commit murder) after separate trials back in 1998, and was condemned to the Illinois state division of corrections for a total of 107 years (60 years for murder, and 47 years for soliciting murder).

He has always maintained his innocence for the 1995 killing of Nekemar Pearson in the town of Alton Illinois and for conspiring to kill witnesses. In fact Evans has consistently claimed that he was framed, and that the prosecution engaged in serious misconduct which led to his subsequent convictions. He has been requesting discovery from his cases since 2005 to aid in bolstering his claims of actual innocence and to demonstrate how law enforcement officials broke the law in his cases.

After decades of court filings, postponements, several court orders, and other unnecessary delays, Evans still hasn’t received the discovery materials from his cases. Prosecutors have been ordered by the courts to turn over the materials in (4) separate court orders, and to this date have still failed to do so. Evans became frustrated with the process as the state courts appeared to be unwilling to compel prosecutors to comply with court orders and move the case along, and Frustrated by the continuous delays he felt that his request for postconviction relief had become such an inordinate delay, that the Illinois exhaustion remedies were “ineffective”. In a surprise turn of events, three federal Appeals Court judges agreed with Evans. A national Law Journal (Law.com) article by journalist Riley Brennan reported how the federal 7th Circuit Court of Illinois ruled in a motion filed by Mr. Evans.

Federal law requires that convicted persons exhaust all appeal remedies available on the state level before praying to the government for relief, but the problem here is that cases where the state’s process fails to follow the law, it becomes problematic, and applicants such as Evans, rights are violated by the ineffectiveness of the state’s deliberate or unintentional failed process. One of the most glaring aspects of Evans claims is Illinois’ own case law. Illinois has long ruled that postconviction proceedings should taken a little more than one year to conclude. Yet, 20 years later Evans’ case is still pending before the Illinois state courts.

With very few options available to him, James Evans invoked 28 U.S. 2254 and turned to the federal courts for relief (Congress wanted to prevent citizens from being held in confinement unjustly for infinity without oversight of state’s judicial proceedings, and established laws to enable convicted citizens to challenge their custody through a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and that’s just what Evans did). Unfortunately, Evans Habeas was initially denied by federal District Judge David Dugan (a former Madison County Illinois Superior Court Magistrate). Evans filed an Appeal before the United States Court of Appeals For the 7th Circuit (a higher court). The case was argued on February 16, 2023 and was decided on April 27, 2023 (actual oral arguments).

Circuit Court Judges Ripple, Scudder, and St. Eve offered an Opinion which sided with Evans claims that the state of Illinois postconviction relief process had become “ineffective”. In what can only be described as excoriating, the judges said “The delay Evans has experienced of twenty years and counting is beyond pale and indefensible. We, therefore vacate the district court’s judgement and remand”. The judges went on saying “Our case law makes clear that a state-law remedy can become ineffective or unavailable by virtue of delay if the delay is both inordinate and attributable to the state. See Carter v. Buesgen,
10 F.4th 715, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2021); Lane, 957 F.2d at 364–66 (TCCOR).

In Marvin Carter’s case he waited over four years for the state of Wisconsin courts to rule on the merits of his direct appeal. the judges argued that “we found such a delay not only extreme but also attributable to the state. Carter’s case was only a mere fraction of the delay that Evans endured, and the judges blamed the state of Illinois mostly for the inordinate delay in Evans case. the judges said that a few examples prove the point. Some of the evidence that was used to convict Evans was eavesdrop recordings of conversations with Evans and his cousin Tommy Rounds that rounds recorded for the authorities, in which prosecutors say Evans conspired to have witnesses killed.

“Take Evans’s discovery requests. Evans alleged that the state manipulated the audiotapes of his conversations with Rounds and induced witnesses to perjure themselves at his solicitation trial. To prove those claims, Evans repeatedly asked the state to produce the tapes, beginning in at least December 2008. (Evans claims he had requested the tapes as early as 2005, but the record is unclear on that point.) And multiple times, the trial court ordered the state to comply. First the court issued an order in December 2008 instructing the state to “provide all copies” of the tapes. The state did not
comply. Then, in June 2009, the court directed that since the litigation was “now six years old,” “all … productions,” including the tapes, “are to be completed immediately.” The state still did not comply. In July 2010 the court found itself ordering the state to hand over the tapes yet again, this time within ten days. While the state may have produced some tapes after this order, it failed to produce others. It was not until June 2011—nearly a year past the ten-day deadline set forth in the July 2010 order and two-and-a-half years after the court’s first order—that the state came forward with more of
the missing tapes. But that was not the end of Evans’s discovery saga” (TCCOR).

The discovery (audio tapes) are a crucial element of Evans’ claims of innocence and prosecutorial misconduct (especially the ones introduced into evidence at his trials), because Evans has always claimed that the recordings played before the jury were audios of multiple conversations edited or manipulated to appear as one conversation. Evans has been trying to obtain the audiotapes for the purpose of forensic testing to determine their authenticity. “While the state had produced some relevant tapes, Evans had still not received others. The trial court ordered the state to produce the remaining tapes in September 2011, but the state claimed that it did not have them in its possession. Retrieving them should not have been difficult: the trial court had the tapes (at least the ones introduced into evidence at Evans’s trials) in the underlying dockets for Evans’s two cases and, by June 2011, was aware that the prosecutors had not located them. But another two years passed before the clerk’s office gave Evans permission to review the exhibits. In a hearing in March 2012, the trial court alluded to why it took so long to find the tapes—it had forgotten to search the dockets for both of Evans’s underlying trials because it had “overlooked the
fact that you actually have two cases here.” And despite the clerk’s office apparently locating the exhibits in 2013, Evans still maintains that he has not received all the tapes” (TCCOR).

The “cat and mouse” exchanges between Evans, the trial court, and state prosecutors went on for years while Evans’ postconviction application wasn’t moved along the state’s relief process, but the 3 judge panel were focused on what they learned in the record, and acknowledged that “the court told Evans in 2012 that the delay ‘isn’t really your fault,’ that ‘the State’s Attorney maybe hasn’t been clear on who has what records,’ and that the court ‘want[ed] to get that [confusion] resolved.’ So, Evans’s case remained in limbo” (TCCOR). Read the complete article as published in the Law.com journal here.

It should be noted here, that its extremely rare for a Writ of Habeas to be accepted, heard, and agreed upon by U.S. Courts releated to convicted person(s), and many followers of his story are now asking “what will happen in his case now.” The unjustifiable 20 year delay in Mr. Evans case should bare proof that there are aslways uncertainties related to court appeals. However, Mr. Evans claims will now be heard in a federal court room and not in Madison County Illinois. This is something that is believed to be dredded by Evans’ original trial court. After all, the suspiciousness of not producing discovey evidence (tapes) used to convict Mr. Evans for over 20 years is simply beyond mere coincidence and at least is highly suspect.

What we know now for certain is the state courts will have to produce those recordings played before the jury at Mr. Evans trials, all of them. Futhermore, if the federal court rolls up its sleeves and take a good look at the evidence, much more will be layed to bear in the Evans case. Such as suppression of exculpatory evidence, recantation of witness testimonies, and other disturbing factors related to the Evans convictions which include testimony from a “jailhouse snitch” in the form of Demond Spruill. Spruill’s very involvement in the Evans prosecution and subsequent convictions is problematic in itself. Demond Spruill reportedly testified that Evans had allgedly confessed to him regarding the Pearson killing, but Spuill had also done this exact same thing before in at least 8 other separate and unrelated murder cases, after officials strategically placed Spruill in the jail cell with these defendants.

It was very clever to suggest or rationalize that this inordinate delay was due to prosecutors forgetting that Mr. Evans actually had two court dockets and that it wasn’t readily known which docket actually contained the discovery tapes that James Evans has been seeking, but the bottom line here is that the tapes are suppose to have been in the state’s possession all along, as the 7th Circut Court stated in its Opinion. Yet, the state still hasn’t turned over the targeted evidence to Mr. Evans. The posturing and stalling tactics in this case by the state is not an anomoly, and often times usually proves unfortunately, later rather than sooner, that illegalities were committed during the prosecution of a criminal defendant. The state of Illinois has a lot more than tapes to be concerned about in the Evans case.

I’m Journalist And Crime Blogger David Adams

The People’s Champion Blog

ReplyForward

David Adams

David B. Adams grew up in the Highlandtown section of Baltimore's southeast district and is his parent's youngest child. He experienced pervasive poverty, which taught him humility and compassion for the plight of others. His exposure to violence and gritty urban life were some of his early lessons of life's many hardships. Adams credits the upheavals he endured during his conformity with helping to shape the foundation of his outlook and perspectives on society. With a steadfast commitment to giving voice to the voiceless, Adams is a journalist, crime writer, and blogger renowned for tireless investigative journalism and advocacy on behalf of vulnerable populations. As founder and administrator of The People's Champion, Adams sheds light on critical social issues, championing the rights of: - Homeless individuals - Victims of violent crime and their families - Wrongfully convicted individuals - Missing and exploited children; Additionally, he is a seasoned investigative reporter, Adams has earned recognition for relentless pursuit of truth and justice. With a strong national and global focus, on inspiring meaningful change and crucial conversations impacting all of humanity.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

TCCOR Means: The Circuit Court Opinion Read

Now comes James Evans before three Circuit Judges of an Illinois Federal Appeals Court, praying for relief from what many have called, an unjust Illinois state justice system that Evans claim was “ineffective” in the exhaustion of his postconviction relief efforts. Evans was convicted in two cases (murder, and conspiracy to commit murder) after separate trials back in 1998, and was condemned to the Illinois state division of corrections for a total of 107 years (60 years for murder, and 47 years for soliciting murder).

He has always maintained his innocence for the 1995 killing of Nekemar Pearson in the town of Alton Illinois and for conspiring to kill witnesses. In fact Evans has consistently claimed that he was framed, and that the prosecution engaged in serious misconduct which led to his subsequent convictions. He has been requesting discovery from his cases since 2005 to aid in bolstering his claims of actual innocence and to demonstrate how law enforcement officials broke the law in his cases.

After decades of court filings, postponements, several court orders, and other unnecessary delays, Evans still hasn’t received the discovery materials from his cases. Prosecutors have been ordered by the courts to turn over the materials in (4) separate court orders, and to this date have still failed to do so. Evans became frustrated with the process as the state courts appeared to be unwilling to compel prosecutors to comply with court orders and move the case along, and Frustrated by the continuous delays he felt that his request for postconviction relief had become such an inordinate delay, that the Illinois exhaustion remedies were “ineffective”. In a surprise turn of events, three federal Appeals Court judges agreed with Evans. A national Law Journal (Law.com) article by journalist Riley Brennan reported how the federal 7th Circuit Court of Illinois ruled in a motion filed by Mr. Evans.

Federal law requires that convicted persons exhaust all appeal remedies available on the state level before praying to the government for relief, but the problem here is that cases where the state’s process fails to follow the law, it becomes problematic, and applicants such as Evans, rights are violated by the ineffectiveness of the state’s deliberate or unintentional failed process. One of the most glaring aspects of Evans claims is Illinois’ own case law. Illinois has long ruled that postconviction proceedings should taken a little more than one year to conclude. Yet, 20 years later Evans’ case is still pending before the Illinois state courts.

With very few options available to him, James Evans invoked 28 U.S. 2254 and turned to the federal courts for relief (Congress wanted to prevent citizens from being held in confinement unjustly for infinity without oversight of state’s judicial proceedings, and established laws to enable convicted citizens to challenge their custody through a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and that’s just what Evans did). Unfortunately, Evans Habeas was initially denied by federal District Judge David Dugan (a former Madison County Illinois Superior Court Magistrate). Evans filed an Appeal before the United States Court of Appeals For the 7th Circuit (a higher court). The case was argued on February 16, 2023 and was decided on April 27, 2023 (actual oral arguments).

Circuit Court Judges Ripple, Scudder, and St. Eve offered an Opinion which sided with Evans claims that the state of Illinois postconviction relief process had become “ineffective”. In what can only be described as excoriating, the judges said “The delay Evans has experienced of twenty years and counting is beyond pale and indefensible. We, therefore vacate the district court’s judgement and remand”. The judges went on saying “Our case law makes clear that a state-law remedy can become ineffective or unavailable by virtue of delay if the delay is both inordinate and attributable to the state. See Carter v. Buesgen,
10 F.4th 715, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2021); Lane, 957 F.2d at 364–66 (TCCOR).

In Marvin Carter’s case he waited over four years for the state of Wisconsin courts to rule on the merits of his direct appeal. the judges argued that “we found such a delay not only extreme but also attributable to the state. Carter’s case was only a mere fraction of the delay that Evans endured, and the judges blamed the state of Illinois mostly for the inordinate delay in Evans case. the judges said that a few examples prove the point. Some of the evidence that was used to convict Evans was eavesdrop recordings of conversations with Evans and his cousin Tommy Rounds that rounds recorded for the authorities, in which prosecutors say Evans conspired to have witnesses killed.

“Take Evans’s discovery requests. Evans alleged that the state manipulated the audiotapes of his conversations with Rounds and induced witnesses to perjure themselves at his solicitation trial. To prove those claims, Evans repeatedly asked the state to produce the tapes, beginning in at least December 2008. (Evans claims he had requested the tapes as early as 2005, but the record is unclear on that point.) And multiple times, the trial court ordered the state to comply. First the court issued an order in December 2008 instructing the state to “provide all copies” of the tapes. The state did not
comply. Then, in June 2009, the court directed that since the litigation was “now six years old,” “all … productions,” including the tapes, “are to be completed immediately.” The state still did not comply. In July 2010 the court found itself ordering the state to hand over the tapes yet again, this time within ten days. While the state may have produced some tapes after this order, it failed to produce others. It was not until June 2011—nearly a year past the ten-day deadline set forth in the July 2010 order and two-and-a-half years after the court’s first order—that the state came forward with more of
the missing tapes. But that was not the end of Evans’s discovery saga” (TCCOR).

The discovery (audio tapes) are a crucial element of Evans’ claims of innocence and prosecutorial misconduct (especially the ones introduced into evidence at his trials), because Evans has always claimed that the recordings played before the jury were audios of multiple conversations edited or manipulated to appear as one conversation. Evans has been trying to obtain the audiotapes for the purpose of forensic testing to determine their authenticity. “While the state had produced some relevant tapes, Evans had still not received others. The trial court ordered the state to produce the remaining tapes in September 2011, but the state claimed that it did not have them in its possession. Retrieving them should not have been difficult: the trial court had the tapes (at least the ones introduced into evidence at Evans’s trials) in the underlying dockets for Evans’s two cases and, by June 2011, was aware that the prosecutors had not located them. But another two years passed before the clerk’s office gave Evans permission to review the exhibits. In a hearing in March 2012, the trial court alluded to why it took so long to find the tapes—it had forgotten to search the dockets for both of Evans’s underlying trials because it had “overlooked the
fact that you actually have two cases here.” And despite the clerk’s office apparently locating the exhibits in 2013, Evans still maintains that he has not received all the tapes” (TCCOR).

The “cat and mouse” exchanges between Evans, the trial court, and state prosecutors went on for years while Evans’ postconviction application wasn’t moved along the state’s relief process, but the 3 judge panel were focused on what they learned in the record, and acknowledged that “the court told Evans in 2012 that the delay ‘isn’t really your fault,’ that ‘the State’s Attorney maybe hasn’t been clear on who has what records,’ and that the court ‘want[ed] to get that [confusion] resolved.’ So, Evans’s case remained in limbo” (TCCOR). Read the complete article as published in the Law.com journal here.

It should be noted here, that its extremely rare for a Writ of Habeas to be accepted, heard, and agreed upon by U.S. Courts releated to convicted person(s), and many followers of his story are now asking “what will happen in his case now.” The unjustifiable 20 year delay in Mr. Evans case should bare proof that there are aslways uncertainties related to court appeals. However, Mr. Evans claims will now be heard in a federal court room and not in Madison County Illinois. This is something that is believed to be dredded by Evans’ original trial court. After all, the suspiciousness of not producing discovey evidence (tapes) used to convict Mr. Evans for over 20 years is simply beyond mere coincidence and at least is highly suspect.

What we know now for certain is the state courts will have to produce those recordings played before the jury at Mr. Evans trials, all of them. Futhermore, if the federal court rolls up its sleeves and take a good look at the evidence, much more will be layed to bear in the Evans case. Such as suppression of exculpatory evidence, recantation of witness testimonies, and other disturbing factors related to the Evans convictions which include testimony from a “jailhouse snitch” in the form of Demond Spruill. Spruill’s very involvement in the Evans prosecution and subsequent convictions is problematic in itself. Demond Spruill reportedly testified that Evans had allgedly confessed to him regarding the Pearson killing, but Spuill had also done this exact same thing before in at least 8 other separate and unrelated murder cases, after officials strategically placed Spruill in the jail cell with these defendants.

It was very clever to suggest or rationalize that this inordinate delay was due to prosecutors forgetting that Mr. Evans actually had two court dockets and that it wasn’t readily known which docket actually contained the discovery tapes that James Evans has been seeking, but the bottom line here is that the tapes are suppose to have been in the state’s possession all along, as the 7th Circut Court stated in its Opinion. Yet, the state still hasn’t turned over the targeted evidence to Mr. Evans. The posturing and stalling tactics in this case by the state is not an anomoly, and often times usually proves unfortunately, later rather than sooner, that illegalities were committed during the prosecution of a criminal defendant. The state of Illinois has a lot more than tapes to be concerned about in the Evans case.

I’m Journalist And Crime Blogger David Adams

The People’s Champion Blog

ReplyForward

David Adams

David B. Adams grew up in the Highlandtown section of Baltimore's southeast district and is his parent's youngest child. He experienced pervasive poverty, which taught him humility and compassion for the plight of others. His exposure to violence and gritty urban life were some of his early lessons of life's many hardships. Adams credits the upheavals he endured during his conformity with helping to shape the foundation of his outlook and perspectives on society. With a steadfast commitment to giving voice to the voiceless, Adams is a journalist, crime writer, and blogger renowned for tireless investigative journalism and advocacy on behalf of vulnerable populations. As founder and administrator of The People's Champion, Adams sheds light on critical social issues, championing the rights of: - Homeless individuals - Victims of violent crime and their families - Wrongfully convicted individuals - Missing and exploited children; Additionally, he is a seasoned investigative reporter, Adams has earned recognition for relentless pursuit of truth and justice. With a strong national and global focus, on inspiring meaningful change and crucial conversations impacting all of humanity.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

Posted in Featured