Actual Innocence Project for Jonathan H. Irons

Case Summary and Information Packet

Table of Contents

State of Missouri v. Jonathan Irons Case Summary 1

Legal Analysis & Case Comparison 11

The Investigation Assignment 21

Eyewitness/Victim Profile 22

Profile of Jonathan Irons 24

Appendix 27 Case Time-line Newspaper Articles

State of Missouri vs. Jonathan H. Irons: Case Summary

In 1998, Jonathan H. Irons, a Young African-American was wrongfully convicted of Assault in the First Degree, Armed Criminal Action, and Burglary in the first Degree by an all -white jury in St. Charles, Missouri. Irons was sentenced to serve 85% of a 50 year term in the Missouri Department of Corrections on December 4th, 1998. Irons was represented by a court appointed public defender named Christine Sullivan. This case is a good example of what happens when a young, uneducated, African-American is poorly represented and does not receive a fair trial by a jury of his peers. Ironically, the same system used to wrongfully convict innocent people can be used to exonerate them as well, even sometimes many years after they have exhausted their appeals. The following is a factual summary of the record in STATE v. IRONS, which consists of trial Transcripts (Tr.000), depositions (Dp.Tr.00), evidentiary hearing transcripts (E.Tr.00), police reports, affidavits, and a supplement legal file (Supp.L.F.00):

Testimony of Stanley Curtis Stotler:

At trial, Stanley Stotler testified that on January 14th, 1997, between 6:30 and 6:40pm, he arrived at his home at 1305 Shallow Lake in 0' Fallon, Missouri (Tr. 62). When he arrived home, he went to his bedroom to change clothes for his 7:00pm hair appointment (Tr. 63). When he walked into his bedroom, he heard the closet door click shut (Tr. 64). Frightened, he retrieved a nine millimeter semiautomatic pistol from underneath the mattress at the head of his bed, loaded it, and then he cocked it (Tr. 65). Stotler immediately pointed the gun to the closet door, but Stotler did not hear any more noise from within the closet (Tr. 66). He then walked over and picked up his cordless phone and loudly called out towards the closet stating that he knew someone was in the closet, and that he was going to call the police if they came out (Tr. that 66).

Stotler testified that shortly after he made the statement that he was going to call the police, the closet door opened and an individual was standing in the closet door (Tr. 68). The individual said to Stotler, "Don't call the police, they are looking for me" (Tr. 68). Stotler testified that the individual that was in his closet was a black man (Tr.68). Then the State prosecutor asked Stotler if he was able to identify the person that was in his closet, Stotler stated "yes," and pointed directly at Jonathan H. Irons, who was the only African-American male in the courtroom to choose from. (Tr. 68 & 322). Stotler testified that he had the gun pointed at the individual's chest, and between 5 to 10 seconds had passed before the closet door was shut again, concealing the individual from his eyesight. Stotler stated that he noticed a small gun in his hand (Tr. 69). Next, Stotler stated that he glanced down at his cordless phone, started to dial, and then glanced back up at the closet door (Tr. 71). He saw a flash of light and was shot in his right arm (Tr. 71). Stotler stated that upon impact, he immediately dropped his weapon out of his right hand, fell back on his right knee, and then after he realized what had just happened to him, he began to search for his weapon (Tr. 71). Stotler then stated that he turned around and noticed that his gun was under the corner of his bed. As he tried to stand up, he was again shot in his right temple and he fell down on both knees (Tr. 72). Stotler stated that he finally was able to grab his weapon with his right hand and managed to fire off one round into the direction of the closet, before he dropped his weapon again (Tr. 73). Stotler then managed to walk to the phone located in his kitchen and call "911" (Tr. 74). Stotler emphatically told the "911" operator as well as the police that he never fired his weapon, that he was only shot once, that he did not see what the assailant

was wearing, nor did he notice any distinguishing facial features on the assailant (Tr. 75, 90, 94, & 175). Stotler was taken to the emergency room at St. Joseph's Health Center in St. Charles, Missouri, where he was treated for his bullet wounds and underwent emergency brain surgery (Tr. 100-101). Stotler remained in the hospital receiving medical treatment from January 14th, 1997, the date of the incident, until the first week of March, 1997 (Tr. 77). On February 6th, 1997, Det. Neske conducted a photo lineup which included a photo of Irons (Tr. 172-173). After Stotler stated that he could not identify anyone, Neske asked him to (literally) take his "best guess" (Tr. 175 & 181). Stotler then "guessed" that it could have been either the third or sixth photo shown in the photo array of 6 photos (Tr. 176-177 & 182). The photo of Irons was photo number 3.

(Note: The photo of Irons had been blown up larger than the rest of the photos which enhanced his facial features, and photos number 3 and 6 were located at the far right-hand side of the photo array.)

After Det. Neske conducted a neighborhood area canvass, he stated that he was looking for a smaller caliber weapon, because the shells left at the crime scene indicated that it was a .25 semi-automatic pistol. He also learned that Irons was carrying a small weapon and that he was wearing dark clothing and a gray hooded sweatshirt (Tr. 157-166). Det. Neske testified at trial that approximately two weeks after Stotler was assaulted, he spoke with Stotler about the description of the assailant (Tr. 169). However, he knew beforehand that Stotler was not able to give a clothing description or describe any distinguishing facial features of the assailant to the "911" operator, because he had a chance to listen to the "911" tape recording before he spoke with Stotler. At trial on October 18th, 1998, Det. Neske testified that Stotler initially told him that the assailant had a hood on and that it was pulled tightly around his face (Tr. 170). However, Stotler testified at trial that the assailant's hood was down (Tr. 75).

Stotler stated that during the time that he was in the hospital and after he was released, he had several conversations with a combination of police officers and detectives concerning the description of the assailant and the events of that night in preparation for his future testimony (Tr. 93-98 & Dp.Tr. 31-32, 40-43). Police allowed Stotler to examine the police reports and they gave him a copy of the police report, which contained a copy of the photo lineup conducted by Neske, a description of what Irons was wearing when he got arrested one week later from the date of the incident, and other information which indicated that "Jonathan Irons" was the suspect in custody for shooting him (Tr. 96 & Dp.Tr. 37-38). During the preliminary hearing and the deposition of Stanley Stotler, Stotler gave a detailed description of what Irons was wearing at the time of his arrest, and his description was also an exact match of what was included in the police reports (Tr . 75-76 and compare to police reports). He also identified Irons as the person who shot him at the preliminary hearing (Tr. 326 & Dp.Tr. 39). However, the record will also reflect that Irons was the only African-American male in the court room in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs to actually choose from (E. Tr. 11). Furthermore, Stotler testified at his deposition hearing that he believed that he correctly identified Irons as his assailant at the preliminary hearing merely because he read on the doors just right outside of the courtroom, "State of Missouri versus Jonathan Irons" and that it was clearly made known to him that Irons was indeed the suspect. He also stated that although no one told him directly, it was indicated to the court by Ella Boone that the only African-American male in the courtroom was in fact Irons (Dp. Tr. 39-40). He also stated that other than at the preliminary hearing, he had never seen Irons before in his life, nor cared to either (Dp.Tr.40).

By the time of trial, Stotler was able to provide to the jury a detailed description of Irons and what he was wearing. Stotler was so well prepared and convinced by the time of trial that Irons had actually assaulted him that he had to be asked several times by the judge, the prosecution, and the defense counsel to wait until a question was asked before he gave information to the court (Tr. 66-68 & 71-72). He even emphatically and sarcastically reminded the court that "he swore to tell the truth and the whole truth" after the court again instructed him to answer questions only when he was asked to do so. (Tr. 71-72). Then in closing arguments, the prosecuting attorney told the jury, "Dont be fooled by Irons age... he wouldnt have been bound over for trial, if Stotler hadn't identified him at the preliminary hearing" (Tr. 325-326).

The Police Investigation:

After Stotler had called "911," police began arriving on the scene at approximately 6:42pm (Tr. 54). Lt. Casteel of the O'Fallon police department was the first officer to arrive at 1305 Shallow Lake Dr. in response to Stotler's call (Tr. 105). When he arrived, the front door was open and through that door, he could see Stotler standing in the kitchen, talking on the telephone to the 911 operator (Tr . 1 06). Casteel searched the house and found no one else inside (Tr. 107); but Stotler stated that he had not seen anyone leave (Tr. 91). Stotler was then taken to the hospital and detectives were called to the house (Tr. 107-108). Casteel noted that a basement window had been broken from the outside in (Tr. 113-114). Deputy Sheriff Ricky Leutkenhaus processed the scene (Tr. 125). Two spent .25 caliber automatic shell casings were found in the bedroom (Tr. 116) along with one spent .9 mm. shell casing that was found in the southwest corner of the bedroom (Tr. 119). One full metal-jacketed bullet was removed from the bedroom closet wall (Tr. 127). A CD player with headphones and power cords were found outside the house in a "shop and save" plastic grocery bag (Tr. 130) and were determined at that time not to be the property of Stotler (Tr. 138). Luetkenhaus testified that he seized a .25 semiautomatic pistol II in conj unction with this investigation" (Tr. 130); However, there was no evidence presented as to where the gun came from, who it belonged to, or whether it was the actual gun that was used to assault Stotler (Tr. 1-333). According to the police reports and trial transcripts, Stotler's home was burglarized twice in a 60-day period; the first was on December 16, 1996 around 6: 30 pm and then again on January 14th, 1997 between 6:30 and 6:40pm. Identifiable prints were recovered from Stotler's residence on both incidents. However, those prints were only compared to Irons and Stotler, but they did not match either person ('I'r. 141, 145-146). There was also a small spot of blood recovered from the coat that Irons was wearing when he was arrested a week after the incident had occurred. But after tests were conducted, Irons and Stotler were eliminated as being the source of the blood (Tr. 285). Det. Neske testified at trial that on January 14th, 1997, he conducted an area canvass of the neighborhood surrounding 1305 Shallow Lake Dr. to determine whether Irons had been in the neighborhood that night (Tr. 157-159). He stated that he talked with John O'Connor, Erin Windau, Tim Russell, Cris White, and the Beckman sisters (Tr. 160-161). He came to the conclusion that Irons actually had been in the neighborhood and that he had been carrying a small caliber pistol, so he filed a wanted form, which is a request for pickup," because he wanted to question Irons (Tr. 161). (Note: a wanted is different from an arrest warrant. A wanted is a mere pick-up order for questioning and a warrant is issued when there is sufficient evidence to actually charge someone for committing a crime.) Police also determined that Irons had been hanging out in the neighborhood for a while and had friends that went to school with him in that neighborhood as well (Supp.L.F. 10). The Prosecuting Attorney's office had a long list of witnesses, however, the prosecutor

purposefully only called a few witnesses to testify at trial who were favorable to his prosecuting position. (See transcripts & police reports)

Testimony of Erin Windau:

Erin Windau was an associate of Irons from school (Tr. 197). She testified at trial the she was with Irons at Tim Russell's house, which was on Buffalo Rock Dr. located in the Osage Meadows neighborhood as well as Stotler's home (Tr. 197-198). She also stated that Irons had a gun that "looked like" the gun that Leutkenhaus had seized in conjunction with this investigation (Tr. 198).

Testimony of Scott Emberton:

Scott Emberton lived on Shallow Lake Dr. He testified that he saw Irons walking down the street around 6:00pm wearing a hooded sweat shirt, dark pants, and carrying a plastic bag. He didn't recognize the blue and tan winter coat that had been taken from Irons at the time of his arrest (Tr. 205).

Testimony of Tim Russell:

Tim Russell testified that Irons had been at his home on January 14th, 1997, between 5 and 6pm and he stayed for about 45 minutes to an hour (Tr. 224). He also stated that Irons had a couple of CDs with him, but he was not carrying a sack (Tr. 223). He stated that Irons was wearing a mechanic's jumpsuit (Tr. 225), and that Irons had shown him a small gun that Russell thought had looked like a chrome .25 with a wooden handle on it, similar to the one Luetkenhaus had seized in conjunction with this investigation (Tr. 222).

The Arrest:

Irons was arrested on January 20, 1997 in Troy, Missouri (Tr. 183-185). He and another individual had been caught after a short police chase, and Irons was turned over to O'Fallon Police (Tr. 184-185). The probable cause for arrest: Irons had been seen in the neighborhood by people that knew him, he had been showing a gun to people, he had allegedly pointed a gun at someone that evening, and officers claimed that the method that he used to commit other burglaries was similar to the method used in this one. However, there was no evidence ever introduced to prove or even confirm that he pointed a gun at someone, nor was Irons ever charged with committing any other burglaries (Supp.L.F. 8-10). After being brought back to OFallon, Irons was questioned by Det. Michael Hanlon. According to Hanlon, Irons allegedly made several statements that suggested that he may have had personal knowledge of the crime (Supp. L. F. 4). However, Hanlon stated that he did not use any recording devices, and no other officers were present during this particular interrogation. He said that he took notes, but he also threw those notes away before anyone else had a chance to review his notes, and that he did not have anything in writing, because Irons did not want to sign anything (Supp.L.F. 13-16).

Det. Neske testified that Det. Hanlon and Det. Morrell had informed him that Irons had spoken to them, but that they did not have any proof to verify that he had spoken to them (Tr. 164-165, Supp.L.F. 24-25, & 30-31). Det. Neske stated that he wanted to speak with Irons himself so that he could get a written confession, but Irons had refused to give a statement (Supp.L.F. 30-31). (Det. Morrell did not testify at trial because his testimony was suppressed before trial due to a Fifth Amendment civil rights violation.)

Summary of Irons' Alibi & Supporting Evidence:

Irons' court-appointed public defender presented a defense of "misidentification" to the trial court. However, his counsel failed to conduct a reasonable investigation concerning the circumstances surrounding the crime scene, the identification, and instructed Irons not to testify in his own defense at trial concerning his whereabouts, why he had been carrying a .380 semi-automatic gun, or about the freshly bought alcohol contained in his plastic bag. Irons was instructed not to testify because of his age, his educational level, and his juvenile record. Had his public defender subpoenaed Crystal and Amber Beckman to testify at his trial, Irons would have been able to prove that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime, because he was at their house around 6:40pm with a white plastic bag in his hand. Irons would have had to run full speed to get to the Beckman's home located on 1378 Trading Post LN. from the crime scene located at 1305 Shallow Lake Dr., then run back at full speed to place his plastic bag full of alcohol at the crime scene. And more than likely, the Beckman sisters would have noticed if he had been running or was out of breath (See: affidavits and police reports). Irons is strongly believed to be actually innocent of the crime that he was convicted of by his family, friends, and other members of society that have taken the time to read his case with a concerned eye, and his case is currently pending review in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. After a thorough review of the entire record and evidence that was not presented at trial, Irons is diligently preparing to have his case thoroughly reinvestigated to obtain any undisclosed evidence, to interview witnesses that were never subpoenaed for trial, to re-interview Stotler, and to obtain confirmation of police misconduct which lead to his wrongful conviction. Irons is seeking to conduct a thorough investigation to obtain confirmation and to gather facts necessary to further prove his actual innocence; and to expose those responsible for his wrongful conviction. Irons is seriously in need of any available assistance in his fight for justice. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated and remembered.

Legal Analysis and Case Comparison NEWSOME v. McCABE Cited as 319 F.3d 301 (7th Cir. 2003)

Fifteen years after his conviction for killing Edward Cohen, James Newsome was pardoned on the grounds of innocence: fingerprints and other information strongly imply that Dennis Emerson committed the crime. Newsome filed a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 seeking damages from police officers who, he contends, induced three witnesses to identify him as the killer. Two years prior to this action, the court held that officers McCabe and McNally are not entitled to qualified immunity and were held liable to pay damages to Newsome. A jury found that by concealing evidence favorable to the defense, McCabe and McNally had violated Newsomes constitutional right to due process of law and awarded him $15 million in damages and added some $850,000 in attorney fees and costs. They not only instructed the identifying witness to pick a specific suspect out of a lineup, they also concealed their improper activities by warning the identifying witness that he risked jail time if he informed prosecutors of officers' manipulation. Anthony Rounds, Josie Nash, and John Williams supplied the principle evidence at Newsomes criminal trial. Rounds and Nash, who had been in Cohen's grocery store when the murder occurred, positively identified Newsome as the killer; Williams, who had been outside, testified that he saw Newsome flee. By the time of the civil trial more than 20 years later, Nash had died and Williams could not be found, but Rounds denounced his earlier testimony, which was the direct result of insistence by McCabe and McNallly that he select No.3 (Newsome) in a lineup. Newsome testified that he saw the officers coach the witness during the lineups. The officers admitted (as Williams had testified during a suppression hearing) that they improperly displayed photos before the lineup occurred to improve the chance that Williams would pick Newsome. The officers wanted the civil trial court to disbelieve the testimony that Rounds gave at the civil trial, or at least give an innocent reading to his testimony that the officers threatened him with imprisonment if he told the prosecutors what actually happened at the lineup. According to the City of Chicago, all McCabe and McNally meant is that Rounds faced a criminal investigation unless he told the whole truth-- a standard warning to witnesses who spin out inconsistent tales. The jury heard Rounds. It knew that he was contradicting testimony given at Newsomes criminal trial. Rounds testimony about the warning, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, permitted the jury to find that McCabe and McNally not only manipulated the identification, but obstructed the ability of the prosecutors and defense counsel to get at the truth in the criminal trial. Newsome effectively accused the officers of suborning perjury. McCabe and McNally were not held liable for conspiring with the eyewitnesses to commit perjury; their liability is under the due process clause, because they concealed exculpatory evidence-- the details of how they induced the witnesses to finger Newsome. By the time of criminal trial, Rounds, Nash, and Williams may have sincerely believed that Newsome was the murderer. Those witnesses did not need immunity; instead they and Newsome needed protection from steps that the police used to take advantage of memorys frailty, and Newsomes lawyers needed (but did not receive) information vital to probe whether manipulations had occurred. Most people have difficulty remembering or describing the features of strangers. A person who sees a criminal for only a brief moment of time takes away a vague sense of appearance and behavior-- and that sense may be focused by a sketch, photograph, showup, or lineup after the events. Sometimes the witness zeroes in on the correct person, sometimes not; there is an element of chance and an opportunity for manipulation.

Once the witness decides that " X" is it, the view may be unshakable. Psychological research had established that the witness faith is equally strong whether or not the identification is correct. The court describes these findings in Krist v. Elilly & Co., 897 F.2d 293 (7th Cir.1990): "An important body of psychological research undermines the lay intuition that confident memories of salient experiences... are accurate and do not fade with time unless a person's memory had some pathological impairment... The basic problem about testimony from memory is that most of our recollections are not verifiable. The only warrant for them is our certitude, and certitude is not a reliable test of certainty... [T]he mere fact that we remember something with great confidence is not a powerful warrant for thinking it is true". (897 F.2d at 296-97) See "Elizabeth F. Loftus & James M. Doyle, Eyewitness Testimony: Civil & Criminal" (3rd Edition 1997); "Daniel L. Schacter, The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers" (2001). Jurors, however tend to think that witnesses' memories are reliable (because jurors are confident of their own), and this gap between the actual error rate and the jurors' heavy reliance on eyewitness testimony sets the stage for erroneous convictions when (as in Newsomes prosecution,) everything depends on

uncorroborated eyewitness testimony by people who do not know the accused. This is why it is vital that evidence about how photo spreads, showups, and lineups are conducted be provided to defense counsel and the court. It is also why the constitutional violation justifying an award of damages is not the conduct of the lineups, but the concealment of evidence about them. Secreting evidence is not covered by absolute immunity.

Case Comparison:

Even though a thorough investigation (concerning the circumstances surrounding the police investigation and the identification procedures used) has not been conducted yet in the "STATE OF MISSOURI v. JONATHAN H. IRONS" case, it is substantially clear that the exculpatory evidence concerning the details of how the police instructed, manipulated, and persuaded the eyewitness/victim Stanley Stotler to specifically focus on and accuse "Jonathan Irons" as being the assailant has been concealed--just like in the "Newsome v. McCabe" case. However, Stotler's deposition and his testimony at Irons' trial actually exposes a significant portion of the concealed police misconduct which lead Stotler to focus on and accuse Irons as being his assailant. Moments after Stotler was assaulted, he called "911" and told the operator that he had been shot only once by a black man, that he had not fired his weapon at the assailant, that he could not describe any distinguishing facial features of his assailant, and that he did not notice what the assailant was wearing. Then after the police had conducted an area canvass, processed the crime scene, and interviewed Stotler while he was in the hospital and later after he was released, Stotlers recollection of the incident and his description of the assailant suspiciously begin to change. Stotler testified at his deposition that he had several conversations with a combination of police and detectives concerning the description of the assailant and the events of that night in preparation for his future testimony. (Why?) He testified that the police allowed him to examine their police reports and they gave his a copy of the police report that contained a copy of photo lineup with a photo of Irons stating that he was their prime suspect, a description of what Irons was wearing the day he was arrested one week later after the incident had occurred, and a description of Irons' physical features. (Why?) Then after his conversations with police and after he was allowed to review and retain a copy of one of the police reports, Stotler accused and identified Irons as being his assailant, and he became able to give a detailed description of Irons and the events of that night. Stotler's descriptions suspiciously matched the police reports

detail for detail~ Det. Neske testified at Irons' trial that Stotler told him at first that the assailant had on a hooded sweatshirt and the hooded sweatshirt was tied tightly around his face; which was a complete contradiction of what Stotler testified to at trial-- "that the assailant's hood was down." Stotler also initially told the police that he had never fired his weapon at his assailant. But after several conversations with the police and after he examined the police reports, he changes his statements by saying that he actually had fire his weapon. The main questions that still have not been asked or answered officially are: "Why did the police talk to Stotler about his description of the assailant, knowing that he was not able to do so initially?"; "Why did the police allow Stotler to review their police reports and give him a copy of a police report that contain a photo of Irons and information that indicated that he was their prime suspect?"; "How and why did Stotler change his testimony to fit the police reports?lI; and IIWhy didn't the police testify to or record the details of their conversations with Stotler in their reports?" Since the police never answered these questions, these questions and many more remain unanswered. These are critical questions that a thorough and professional investigation shall officially answer. As a result of police misconduct, Stotler may have actually started to believed that Irons was the one that assaulted him by the time of trial. The police told Stotler in so many words that they believed that Irons assaulted him, because they discovered fingerprints, footprints, DNA evidence, and other information that suggested to them that Irons was guilty, even though the police knew that the test results were not back yet at that time of their conversations with Stotler. However, when the test results carne back, they proved that the same fingerprints, footprints, and DNA evidence together with other information that the police presumed to suggest that Irons committed the crime, actually cleared Irons and strongly implied that someone other than Irons had committed the crime. In fact, Stotler supplied the principle evidence at his preliminary that was use to bind Irons over for trial. Even the state prosecutor admitted at Irons trial that the only reason that Irons was actually bound over for trial was because Stotler identified Irons at the preliminary hearing (Tr. 325-326).

The In-Court Identification Procedure

Furthermore, any testimony and evidence concerning the in-court identification of Irons at the preliminary hearing is unreliable because the procedure used was unnecessarily suggestive and it resulted in a irreparable misidentification of Irons. According to the United States Supreme Court rulings in Manson v. Brathwaite, 97 S.Ct. 2243 (1977) and Foster v. California, 89 S.Ct. 1127 (1969) and even in the Missouri Supreme Court rulings in State v. Story, 646 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Mo.banc 1983); State v. Hornbuckle, 769 S.W.2d 89,93 (Mo.banc 1989); and State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 453-54 (Mo.banc 1999): Reliability rather suggestiveness, is the "linchpin" in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. Reliability is to be assessed under the totality of the circumstances. The factors to be considered are: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the subject at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the subject; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself. And in Sum, the crucial test for the admission of identification testimony is two-pronged: (1) was the pretrial identification procedure impermissible suggestive, and (2) if so, what impact did the suggestive procedure have upon the reliability of the identification made by the witness. Identification testimony is usually admissible because "courts rely upon the good sense and judgment of jurors for determining the trustworthiness of the identification." In this case, it was impossible for the jury to make a sound judgment, because the jury was not provided with all of the facts.

Test Analysis:

Although Irons' court appointed public defender failed to challenge the reliability of Stotler testimony before trial, the facts still clearly establish that Stotler's testimony and any evidence concerning the identification is unreliable and impermissible suggestive for the following reasons: (1) Stotler testified that he only had 5 to 10 seconds to view the assailant; (2) he could not have pay very much attention to the details of his assailant and the circumstances of that incident, because he initially told the police and the "911" operator that he did not notice what the assailant was wearing or notice any distinguishing facial features, that he did not fire his weapon and that he had only been shot once; (3) moments after the incident had occurred, he was not able to give a description of the assailant other than that it was a black male; (4) other then at trial, Stotler only identified Irons (who was the only black African-American male in the court room to choose from) at the preliminary hearing. However, Stotler testified at his deposition that "he had never saw Irons before and the only reason that he was certain that he correctly accused and identified the right person was because he read right outside the preliminary hearing court room

doors, "State of Missouri versus Jonathan Irons." He also stated that even though he was not told directly, prosecutor Ella Boone gave the indication that the only African-American male in the courtroom was in fact Jonathan Irons; and (5) several months had paste between the date of the crime and the in-court identification of Irons at the preliminary hearing. Between that time frame, Stotler had several conversations with a combination of police and detectives concerning the description of the assailant and the events of that night in preparation for his future testimony.

He was also allowed to thoroughly examine and study the police reports which indicated that Irons was the prime suspect. Also during this time frame, Stotler suspiciously went from not being able to identify anyone, to being absolutely certain that Irons had assaulted him. How and why did his statements changes?

Two-Prong Test Analysis:

Stotler's identification testimony should not have been admissible at Irons' trial for the following reasons: (1) Stotler had no other suspect to choose from but Irons, because Irons was the only black African-American male in the courtroom in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs to choose from at the preliminary hearing. Stotler testified that the only reason that he was certain that he had identified the correct person was because he read on the outside of the courtroom doors, "State of Missouri versus Jonathan Irons." He testified that although Ella Boone did not directly tell him that the man in the courtroom was actually "Jonathan Irons," she gave the indication that the man was in fact Irons. And the only time that Stotler identified Irons other than at trial was at the preliminary hearing. There is no independent basis for the in-court identification, because Stotler was not able to identify Irons from a photo lineup prior to the preliminary hearing and a physical lineup procedure was never conducted; and (2) Since the in-court identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the identifications that Stotler made at the preliminary hearing and at trial are unreliable and resulted in a irreparable mistaken identification of Irons. Because by the time of trial, Stotler may have actually believed that Irons had assaulted him. And under the totality of the circumstances, Irons would not have been bound over for trial had Stotler admitted that he was not able to identify anyone and/ or the details of how the police instructed, manipulated, and persuaded him to focus on and wrongly accuse Irons. Even though Stotler mayor may not have been aware of all of the evidence in this case, which in its entirety proves that it is impossible for Irons to have committed the crime, he still accused the wrong person in front of the jury. After examining and considering all of the evidence, the only reason that the jury could've used to find Irons guilty was the fact that Stotler had got on the witness stand and pointed the finger at Irons with dramatic certainty. In this case the police as well as the prosecution may threaten to prosecute Stotler for perjury, if he comes forward with the truth-- that he made an honest mistake because of police misconduct and outrageous government conduct. Even if Stotler is willing to come forward with the truth, he may be afraid to tell the truth for fear of being charged with perjury out of retaliation. But Irons does not fault Stotler, he faults those that are responsible for obstructing justice by instructing him, manipulating him, and persuading him to focus on and accuse Irons of assaulting him. What member of our society could fault Stotler while knowing about the outrageous government conduct involved that lead him to commit perjury in the first place?

Conclusion

After a legal analysis and comparison of the "Newsome v. McCabe" case and the "State v. Irons" case, it is clear that the essential elements and circumstances of these cases are indistinguishable from one another. A thorough and professional investigation must be conducted to officially confirm these allegations. And once these allegations have been confirmed, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires and guarantees that Jonathan Irons receive due process of law, meaning that his conviction shall be reversed and vacated, and he shall be eligible to receive compensation for the damage that was inflicted upon him unjustly; just like James Newsome and many other people that have been wrongfully convicted. Jonathan Irons' life was destroyed and he was wrongfully deprived of his liberty, because of outrageous government conduct and police misconduct. In order for justice to prevail, all of the evidence and the facts must be exposed in a court of law. Jonathan Irons must receive liberty and justice, and his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness must be protected by those that follow and uphold the U.S. Constitution just like any other American citizen.

THE INVESTIGATION ASSIGNMENT

Purpose: The purpose of this investigation shall be to uncover the undisclosed police misconduct that lead to the wrongful conviction of Jonathan Irons, and to locally and nationally expose the outrageous government conduct and police misconduct involved to my family, friends, to the general public, and to the proper authorities of the

criminal justice system via corresponding/ communicating through the mail, the judicial system, the media, etc... so that society can learn from this case and prevent similar situations from happening to someone else. Any uncovered evidence will also be use to liberate Jonathan Irons and to hold those involved accountable for their unconstitutional actions and or for their failure to take appropriate action.

Primary Objectives:

1. To obtain officially documented confirmation of the alleged outrageous government conduct and police misconduct that lead Stanley Stotler to mistakenly focus on and accuse Jonathan Irons of assaulted him, and to obtain an officially documented recantation from Stanley Stotler stating that he was mistaken about the actual perpetrator being Jonathan Irons. 2. To thoroughly re-interview the involved police concerning their conversations with Stotler's about his descriptions, his future testimony, and the identification, and to thoroughly re-examine all of the related police reports and the "911" recording. 3. To interview and collect affidavits from witnesses that were never called to testify as to Jonathan Irons' alibi: Crystal and Amber Beckman, Charles Roby, Heather Cameron, and Kelly and "Pound" Shaw. 4. Uncover any undisclosed evidence favorable to Irons defense such as documents, physical evidences, witnesses, etc... 5. If at all possible, to have the fingerprints and the footprints recovered from the crime scene re-anal sized, re-entered into the A.F.I.S., and compared with other people.

Eyewitness/Victim Profile

Name: Stanley Curtis Stotler Last Known Address: 1305 Shallow Lake DR, O'Fallon, Missouri Age: around 46 yrs. old Race: White Sex: Male Height & Weight: Unknown Hair Color: Dark in color Marital Status: Unknown ~: At least 3 children Religion: Unknown Education Level: Unknown Military Service: Unknown Last Know Occupation: (1) "Advanced Communications Group" located in Chesterfield, MO in 1997; and (2) "Brooks Fiber Propertiesl1 also Located in Chesterfield, MO in 1998 Arrest and/or Criminal Record: Unknown

It is anticipated that Stotler may be objectively hostile, deceptive, and antagonistic to the purpose of any interview conducted by any person representing the interests of Jonathan Irons. Meaning that he may indeed pose a difficulty as to the extent of the information that he is willing to divulge, the circumstances under which he divulges it, and the total lack of volunteered information. The motive for the witness to be objectively hostile or deceptive is clear when considering that he could be or could have been threaten with a criminal investigation if he changed his story after the fact. Thus, tactful questioning techniques may fail to develop explanations to account for the discrepancies, contradictions, and to uncover the concealed information concerning the outrageous government conduct and police misconduct involved in the wrongful conviction of Jonathan Irons. The record alone clearly establishes that Stotler may be deliberately and knowingly telling lies, concealing the truth, or misrepresenting the sequence of events. The solution to this potential problem may include at least the following: (a) Allow Stotler to review all of the evidence as well as his statements and testimony prior to and during trial. (b) Make a direct accusation and demand for explanation during the interview. (c) Make a request for the Stotler to execute a transcribed copy of the interview, under oath, as a declaration, an affidavit, or by recordation by a certified shorthand reporter, and compare to interview results from the involved police. (d) Noticing Stotler's deposition and attempting to clarify the deceptive record. (e) Request Stotler to submit to a lie detector or polygraph examination. (f) Close the interview and institute an investigation of the witness to determine the motivation of the deception. (g) Explain to Stotler that he is not at fault, but he played a essential role in the wrongful conviction of an innocent person, and he made a mistake that needs to be corrected. (h) Explain to him that there is evidence to support the conclusion that the police used suggestive identification procedures and use "leading" questions during his conversations with police and detectives to manipulate his memory so that they could increase that chances that he might specifically focus on and accuse Irons, because the police believe that they found the right person; and that the use of suggestive procedures and leading questions turn otherwise truthful and reliable people into unreliable and obvious uncomfortable and deceptive witnesses . (Give him good examples and scenarios)

Profile of Jonathan Irons

Name: Jonathan Houston Irons Current Address: M.S.P., P.O. Box 900, Jefferson City, Missouri Date of Birth: 1/29/80 Race: African-American Sex: Male Height and Weight at The Time of Incident: 5'9" and 170lbs. Marital Status: never married No children Siblings: number unknown at this time Education Level at Time of Incident: 6th grade level Occupation at Time of Incident: Unemployed Arrest and/or criminal Record: A few non-violent felony charges as a juvenile, prior to the wrongful conviction in question on his adult record

Jonathan Irons, a misguided and troubled teen, grew up in an unstable home, and grew up without ever knowing his biological parents. In fact, he still doesn't know his father's name. He was raised by his great aunt in a large but poverty stricken household located in Wentzville, MO. As Irons gradually grew older, he began to hang out in the streets and started selling drugs on the street. He claimed to sell drugs so that he could take care of himself and help his grandmother make ends meet. Irons claims that he also started carrying a gun for protection, because he had been robbed on several occasions and feared that it would happen again. At the time of the incident, Irons was 16yrs old. He was by no means considered to be a nice person by the police, nor was he known to express respect for authority. In fact, he was viewed by the police to be disrespectful and out of control. The fact that he had started carrying a gun was intimidating in itself and sent chills through police, thus making him a target for the police. The police may have felt that they needed to do whatever was necessary to get Irons off the street regardless of whether he actual innocent or guilty. Irons was not able to afford a lawyer, but he was given a court appointed public defender. Irons was convicted by an all white jury ranging from middle aged to elderly, which is obviously not a jury of his peers. Irons did not receive a fair trial by any means. Irons is now diligently seeking to obtain a fair trial. Questions: (1) Would it be morally or legally right for "anyone" to knowingly violate the United states Constitution in order to ensure that a person gets wrongfully convicted for a crime that he actually didn't commit?; (2) It is right to presume that just because a person (teenager) carries a gun, had a bad attitude, and sells drugs that he is automatically guilty for shooting some one?; and (3) Is it right to hold a person accountable for a crime that he actually didn't commit? . \ (Neske" ::Lf6\\~ 'lS ~ \ ,C\lllft\'S ~S ~ co\lh, h k~ Ct 9olt{ ~ ~'" W\lr\ lNt 'ooYL)

Appendix

STATE OF MISSOURI

) ) AFFIDAVIT OF JOHNATHAN H. IRONS )

COUNTY OF COLE

AFFIDAVIT

FILE Copy

Day of Initial Arrest:

1 . On Monday the 20th of January in 1997, I was arrested by police after a short foot chase. Between five (5) and ten (10) minutes before my arrest, I had sold drugs to a woman that was living at the house where I was arrested at which is located in Troy, Missouri. At this time, I do not know the name of this woman nor do I know her address. I never received the initial arrest report which should contain her information and who were the arresting police officers.

2. As I was getting ready to leave her residence, I noticed that a brown unmarked police car was pulling slowly into her driveway and stop halfway. I also noticed that local and state high police cars began to surround her residence as well. So I and another individual named "TII ran out of her back door. I ran because I was afraid that I was in the middle of a major drug bust.

3. After I was arrested, I was taken to a jail in Troy, Missouri. I was booked and I was released into the custody of Lieutenant Michael Hanlon of the O'Fallon Police Department. He and another officer then transported me to the OFallon Police Department.

4. While I was being transported, Lt. that they wanted to do was ask me a I would be free to leave after that. 11 statement.

Hanlon told me that all couple of questions and I didnt I t respond to his

5. At the time of my arrest, I had over a $1,000 in cash money that I had made off of selling drugs. I was wearing a brown stocking cap, a brown and navy blue reversible winter coat, a gray hooded sweatshirt, a black and red Chicago Bulls jersey over a white t-shirt, and a pair of black Nike cross trainers. All of my possessions were taken from me.

Interrogation by Lieutenant Michael Hanlon:

6. Lt. Hanlon pulled to the interview room. of a small card, he acknowledge that I did.

me out of the holding cell and tool me He began with reading me my rights off asked me if I understood them, and I

7. He then asked me whether of not I was willing to cooperated with him and answer his questions. I told him that I was hungry and that I wanted to eat first before I did anything else.

(Page 2 Of 3)

8. After I had finished eating, he asked me whether or not I remembered being in Osage Meadows which is located in O'Fallon, Missouri. I told him that I went there all of the time, because I hung out there with the neighborhood teenagers that went to school with me. But I didn't remember the last day I was there in that subdivision.

9. He then asked me if I knew anything about the shooting that took place on the 14th of January in Osage Meadows. I told him that I didn't know anything about it.

10. He responded in an angry tone and told me that "T was full of shit! " And said that "he knows that I know something about it~" Then he started telling me details about the shooting.

11. Then he told me that he wanted some names of who I thought it might have been. I responded and told him that "I was not a snitch and that I didn't want anything to do with it."

12. Then he got up go down for a long yelled back at him and that I plead the

and started yelling in my face that "I would time if I didn't give him some names." I and said that "I wasn't signing anything Fifth (5th) Amendment."

13. Then he pushed me on the forehead with his hand and told me that" I watched too much T. V . . . " Then he left me in the interrogation room for about 30 to 40 minutes and then he returned and apologized to me for yelling at me. I told him in response that I still wasn't going to sign anything and that I wanted to go home, because I was through answering questions. Then he told me that "he was going to make sure that I would never go home if I didn't give him some names real fast." After realizing that I wasn't going to talk to him, he took me back to the holding cell and locked the door. 14. During this interrogation, I noticed that he was writing on some paper while I was eating, but I did not notice any recording devices present, nor was there anyone else in the room during this interrogation beside Lt. Hanlon and myself.

Statement To Officer Bill Stringer:

15. While I was being booked by Officer Bill Stringer, I asked him in a sarcastic tone "whether or not he found my fingerprints at the crime scene." He told me that "he didn't know..." Then he proceeding with the standard booking questions.

Interview By Detective Richard Morrell:

16. Between 12:30 and 1:00am, I was awakened by Det. Morrell. He asked me "if I want to go smoke a cigarette with him, before he took me home." I said, "yes, but my grandmother would be very upset with me if she found out that I was arrested."

17. He took me to the interrogation room and gave me a cigarette

\ ::>Z of- '$Z) (Page 3 Of 3)

to smoke and a soda.

18. While I was smoking the cigarette, he told me that "he believed that he could help me get out of trouble if I gave him some names, because he believed that I was a good kid and that I wasn't the one who did the shooting." I told him that "I didn't know anything about it and that I wouldn't tell even if I did.'

19. Then he asked me "why I was helping the guilty go free?" Again told him that "I didn't know anything about the shooting."

20. Then he suddenly grabbed me and slammed me against the wall of the interrogation room so hard that the clock fell down off the wall. And he said "Listen kid... you're in serious trouble right now... and if you don't tell me the truth, I will put you away for good!" I started crying and I spit in his face and he let me go so- that he could wipe his face. Then I ran to the other side of the room to get away from him.

21 . Then he walked over to the video camera and took out the tape, and grabbed me by the arm and he took me back to the holding cell.

22. He never read me my rights and no one but a video camera was present during that interview besides Det. Morrell and myself.

Interrogation by Detective John Neske:

23. On January 21 st in 1997, I .was transported to the st. Charles County Jail by Det. Neske. He took me to the interrogation room and handed me a "Miranda Rights" form and an ink pen. He read each right off to me and asked me to put my initials next to each right that I understood.

24. He then stopped me and asked me if I wanted give a written statement. I told him that "l didn't have anything else to say to any police officer."

25. Then he asked me to sign the refusal if I didn't want to waive my right to remain silent. Then I signed the refusal section, and he took me back to the booking area.

I, Jonathan H. Irons, swear under the penalty of perjury that the forgoing affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

sworn , 2004.

to

before

ROBYNCOMBS Moniteau County My Commission Expires March 28, 2007

STATE OF MISSOURI

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES ROBY

COUNTY OF ST. CHARLES

AFFIDAVIT

1. Between 3: 30p and 4: OOp, on Tuesday the 14th of January in 1997, I received a call at my parent's house from Jonathan H. Irons and he asked me "if I would come pick him up so that we could go hand out together." I told him that I would and that I would be there in about twenty (20) minutes.

2. Between 3:45p and 4:00p, I arrived at his grandmother's house to pick him up. I drove my parent's tan colored mini-van. He got in and started bragging about how fly his outfit was and we started laughing. I saw that he was wearing a black Tommy Hilfiger winter skull cap, a white Tommy Hilfiger T-shirt, a dark grey and black checkered flannel coat, a black pair of Tommy Hilfiger Jeans, and a black pair of Nike boots. He had a black pager on his waist. Before we left his driveway, he reached into his left back pocket and pulled out a chrome .380 handgun with th wooden grips, and set 'it on the seat right next to him on his left.

3. While we were riding around, I noticed that he was counting some money. I asked him where did he get it and how much was it. He told me that he had made it selling weed (Marijuana) and that he thought that it was a little over $1,000. Then when he had finished, he told me that he needed to try and sell the rest of his weed to some of his friends in the Osage Meadows subdivision located in O'Fallon, Missouri. So I dropped him off at the first entrance next to the gas station, between 4:30p and 4:50p, and I told him to call me and tell me where he wanted me to come get him whenever he was finished.

4. Around 6:05p, I received a call from him at my parent's house located in Wentzville, Missouri. He told me to come pick him up and that he would be standing out on "Buffalo Rock Drive," which is located in Osage Meadows subdivision.

*** Subscribed and lillll lOG)-- ..zD%-: c:~C(j7 7J

5. Around 7:00p, I pulled up and stopped in front of 1366 Buffalo Rock. He was hugging a girl named Erin through her window. Then he walked over and got in with me. We agreed to go to Midrivers Mall in st. Peters, Missouri. We watch a movie, flirted with some girls, and went to the video arcade to some video games. I don't remember what the movie was or what games we played. Then around 9:30p and 10:00p, we left and went back to my parent's house. He stayed the night, but left on foot in the morning before I went to school. I, Charles Roby, swear under the penalty of perj ury, that the forgoing affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and recollection. / ,/ , C." r) .." .//

~T--tc)_L~."..--:j {::~~/" .> P' Affiant's sig;n~

sworn to before ;me this dOVlday of j -JESSICA D. !ViCCLUSKEV : Notary Public - Notary Seal ! State of Missouri - County of Lincoln i My Commission Expires Feb. 1, 2010 Commission #06833767

COUNTY OF ST. CHARLES

) ) SSe )

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF MISSOURI,

I, Crystle Beckman, first being duly sworn, deposes and wishes to volunteer the folluwing information of my own free will, for whatever purposes it may serve. I am legally an adult and I am of sound mind. I Ii ve at 201 Ashf ord Oak Ct., Wentzville, MO 63385, and my telephone number is (314)651-8684:

I have known 'Johnny Irons for a long time. I use to go to school with him and he u~e to hang out in myoId neighborhood called "Osage Meadows" on a frequent basis even prior to January of 1997. On January 14th, of 1997, Johnny Irons came over to myoId house, which was located at 1378 Trading Post Ln., O'fallon, MO 63366, around 5:15p.m. ,the first time and I was in the middle of cooking dinner so I had my mother answer the door for me. She told me that she informed him that I was busy at the moment and she asked for his name so that she could tell me who it was. She told me that he told her that his name was' "Jay," so she came back in and told me that Jay came by. At that time, I didn't remember anyone by the name of "Jay" so I went to the window to see who it was. I only saw the back of him, but I knew that it was Johnny. It looked like he was wearing some dark blue pants, a gray and blue flannel, and like a dark stocking hat. He was walking up the street at that time. Then around 5:30-5:45p.m., Johnny came back again and we were eating dinner so my mom went to the door and told him we were eating, so he left. Then around 6:40p.m., we were having bible study and he came again, but my sister answered the door and I heard her tell him that we were in the middle of having a family bible study and that we 'couldn't come outside. I saw that he had a white plastic bag with him, but neither of us could what was in it. From what I could see, he did not appear to be winded, nervous, or upset about- anything. I was available to testify at the trial held on 10/19-21/98, however no one contacted me

or my sister named Amber Beckman, nor were we ever subpoenaed or interviewed concerning our knowledge concerning the whereabouts of Johnny Irons on January 14th, of 1997 other than Detective J. Neske on January 15th, of 1997. I am still willing to testify to these facts under oath in a court of law.

I have read my two (2) page affidavit which bears my signature. I hearby-declare and certify that the facts contain herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

* Subscribed and sworn to before me ~UIlVj ,2006.

~J1 ~ L ex~khta V'0

AF; ANT, Crystal Beckma-n 8-S-t\-

this ~day of

NOTARY PUBLIC

GINA M. La RUE NotarY Public, NotarY seal State of Missouri St Charles CountY ~ . . cvnire"- Ma" 10, '\N~ Uv Commission '-"t'" - } 5 I> Commission # o~032a -