ARKANSAS
WESTERN DISTRICT
DAMIEN ECHOLS and CHARLES JASON BALDWIN, PLAINTIFFS,
vs. CR-93-450A &
450 B
THE STATE OF
______________________________/
JESSIE LLOYD MISSKELLEY, JR. PLAINTIFF,
CR-93-47
vs.
THE STATE OF
_____________________________/
JOINT STATUS MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED
BY NON-CAPITAL CASE PETITIONERS BALDWIN AND MISSKELLEY
DEPT: JUDGE BURNETT
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Status Memorandum from non-capital case Petitioners Baldwin
and Misskelley is to report to the Court on recent
developments in the above-entitled matter, and to outline the proposals of
non-capital Petitioners Baldwin
-1-
and Misskelley for further proceedings.
One of the concerns in addressing this Memorandum to the Court at this juncture
is that capital case Petitioner Damien Echols has notified the parties, through
counsel, that he intends to amend his Federal habeas petition currently pending in the
2. STATUS OF POST-CONVICTION
TESTING OF THE EVIDENCE, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE REVIEW, AND PRODUCTION OF REPORTS.
A. DNA Testing
The parties in this matter continue to cooperate in seeking to timely complete
testing of physical evidence and review of scientific evidence issues. The
Baldwin and Misskelley defenses
thank the Prosecuting Attorney, Brent Davis, and personnel at the Arkansas
Crime Laboratory, for their continuing assistance.
-2-
Since counsel met with the Court earlier this year, DNA testing has
proceeded. At the time of the meeting of counsel with the Court, testing
using STR techniques had been completed, and the parties had received reports
from the agreed-upon laboratory, the Bode Technology Group of
As a result of the STR testing, at least two partial foreign DNA profiles (not
those of Petitioners, or of the victims) were found on evidence from the crime
scene, and on a swab taken from one of the victims. In part as a result
of that development, as well as because a variety of hairs (both human and
animal) were recovered from the scene by the Arkansas Crime Laboratory
personnel and West Memphis police officers, the parties agreed to further DNA
testing of hairs, and to review of evidence from the current scene transmitted
to the Bode Technology Group to assess whether additional DNA testing could be
applied to evidence to yield further results.
This ‘new’ component of testing has largely been managed (by
agreement of the parties) by counsel for Petitioner Echols. This phase of
testing yielded further evidence regarding hairs, including some mitochondrial
DNA profiles which the parties have been
-3-
further investigating. At least one profile, as has been publically
reported, was largely consistent with one person known by the parties (other
than a victim or one of the convicted Petitioners) to have resided in the area,
and to have had links specific to one of the victims.
Review of hair testing results continues, and DNA scientists working on the
case have been asked to report whether additional techniques can be applied to
provide additional information regarding material in the hands of the
parties. It may be that the Echols defense can
further update the Court on specifics of DNA testing issues not reported on here.
B. Review of Causes of Injury
and Forensic Pathology Issues
At the same time as the above-mentioned DNA testing activities, through a
cooperative effort which has resulted in exchanges of expert information
between the parties, all three Petitioners provided Prosecuting Attorney Brent
Davis information concerning scientific review of the original forensic
pathology findings. With Prosecuting Attorney Brent Davis’
cooperation, and with the assistance of Medical Examiner Dr. Frank Peretti, and Arkansas Crime Laboratory supervisors (and
criminalists) Kermit and Lisa Channell, several
consulting forensic pathologists and odontologists
who have reviewed the findings and evidence in this case, met in May, 2007 at
the Arkansas Crime Laboratory with the State’s scientific evidence
experts to
-4-
review a number of issues, including the mechanisms of injury to the
victims.
Because of the parties’ concerns that there be a full, fair, and accurate
review, requests for further data were made of the Arkansas Crime Laboratory
and Medical Examiner’s office, and pertinent scientific evidence issues
continue to be reviewed by experts in the fields of forensic pathology, odontology, and crime scene investigation.
3. AGREEMENTS TO DISAGREE
As previously reported to the Court, there are some areas of scientific
evidence endeavor that the parties have agreed to
disagree about, which will likely require resolution by the Court. These
areas include, but are not limited to: the opportunity for the defense to review fiber evidence;
fingerprint evidence review; additional DNA testing and review. As to
this last matter, the Baldwin and Misskelley defenses defer to the Echols defense
in view of its now primary role in managing the DNA testing processes.
4. STATUS OF BALDWIN AND
MISSKELLEY CASES
Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 37 petitions were timely filed and
are pending before the Court in the Baldwin and Misskelley
cases. The State and the Baldwin and Misskelley
defenses have agreed that after the conclusion of
scientific evidence review, and any further litigation necessary to the
completion of scientific evidence testing/review, Baldwin and Misskelley will submit amended petitions
-5-
integrating relevant scientific evidence findings, along with other factual
allegations as provided by ongoing post-conviction investigation. The
State has agreed not to contest the timeliness of these amendments so long as
they are made in an orderly way, without the filing of a series of amended
petitions.
5. THE BALDIN AND MISSKELLEY
DEFENSES ANTICIPATE THAT THIS CASE WILL BE READY
TO PROCEED IN THE MANNER OUTLINED FOR THE COURT
As noted in the introduction to this Status Report, the Baldwin and Misskelley defenses anticipate
that there will be no delays on necessary State post-conviction litigation as
the result of any amendments to the habeas
corpus petition filed by Damien Echols. Petitioner Echols is
involved in some, but not all, of the litigation concerning Baldwin and Misskelley. According to discussions among counsel,
it does not appear that any developments in the Echols case will affect
scheduling issues.
-6-
CONCLUSION
Should the Court wish to meet with the parties, hold a telephonic status
conference, or obtain further written information about the case, the Baldwin
and Misskelley defenses
will make themselves available as directed by the Court. This Joint
Status Memorandum is
Respectfully Submitted by the Following Parties:
PETITIONER CHARLES JASON BALDWIN
J. Blake Hendrix, Esq
John T. Philipsborn, Esq.
Dated: October 26, 2007
By: _______________________
JOHN T. PHILIPSBORN
Attorneys for Jason Baldwin
PETITIONER JESSIE MISSKELLEY
Michael N. Burt, Esq.
Jeffery M. Rosenzweig Esq.
Dated: October 26, 2007
By: _______________________
MICHAEL N. BURT, Esq.
Attorney for Jessie Misskelley, Jr.
-7-
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Steven Gray, declare:
That I am over the age of 18, employed in the County of San Francisco,
California, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 507
Polk Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, California 94102.
On today’s date, I served the within document entitled:
JOINT STATUS MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY NON-CAPITAL CASE PETITIONERS BALDWIN AND
MISSKELLEY
(x) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at San Francisco,
California, addressed as set forth below;
(x) By electronically transmitting a true copy thereof;
( ) By serving a true copy by facsimile to the person and/or office of the
person at the address set forth below
Michael Burt
600 Townsend Street, Suite 329E
San Francisco, CA 94103
Jeff Rosensweig
Law Offices
300 Spring Street, Suite 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Blake Hendrix
Law Offices
308 South Louisiana Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Brent Davis
Prosecuting Attorney
Second Judicial Circuit of Arkansas
1021 S. Main Street
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Dennis P. Riordan
Don M. Horgan
523 Octavia Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Deborah R. Sallings
Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams
35715 Sample Road
Roland, AR 72135
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 26th day of October, 2007, at
Signed: ____________
Steven Gray
