Damien Echols waves to supporters following his release from prison on August 19, 2011.Link to Video of August 19, 2011 Hearing (part 1)(youtube)
Link to Video of August 19, 2011 Hearing (part 2)(youtube)
I paced back and forth in my prison cell, two steps to the door and then two steps back. Over and over and over I paced, at all hours of the day and night. I couldn't sleep, couldn't eat, couldn't read, couldn't even sit still. I wept. I cursed. I raged. To see home so close and yet still beyond my reach was pain beyond articulation."
--Damien Echols describing his feelings as he waited for word in August 2011 as to whether Jason Baldwin would agree to enter an Alford plea (plead guilty and yet maintain innocence) and gain release for the West Memphis Three (Damien Echols, Life After Death, 2012).
Transcript of August 19, 2011 Hearing
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS WESTERN DISTRICT
STATE OF ARKANSAS, PLAINTIFF
VS.
DAMIEN ECHOLS and JASON BALDWIN, DEFENDANTS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, ARKANSAS WESTERN DISTRICT
STATE OF ARKANSAS, PLAINTIFF
VS.
JESSIE MISSKELLEY, DEFENDANT
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
August 19, 2011
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Came on for hearing before the Honorable David N.
Laser, Circuit Judge, in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPEARANCES: Scott Ellington, Alan Copelin, Mike Walden, Attorneys at Law, Jonesboro, AR 72401 and Melanie Alsworth, West Memphis, AR, for the State.
Stephen Braga, Washington, DC and Dennis Riordan and Donald Horgan, San Francisco, CA and Laura H. Nirider, Chicago, IL and Patrick Benca, Little Rock, AR for Defendant Echols.
J. Blake Hendrix,Little Rock, AR and Erin Cassinelli for Defendant Baldwin.
Jeff Rosenzweig, Little Rock, AR for Defendant Misskelley.
(COURT REPORTER'S NOTE: Court convened on 2 August 19, 2011, in Jonesboro, Arkansas at 9:30 a.m.)
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
(Attendees respond.)
THE COURT: All right, we are on the record and out of public purview in CR-93-458, State of Arkansas versus Damien Wayne Echols. We're here in CR-93-450, State versus Charles Jason Baldwin. And we're here in Clay Western, 1993-47, State versus Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. All the parties are present and represented by counsel. We have here on behalf of the State, Ms. Melanie Alsworth -- or Mr. Scott Ellington, the prosecuting attorney for the Second Judicial District. Melanie Alsworth, the deputy prosecutor from Crittenden County, Mike Walden, deputy from Craighead County, and Alan Copelin --
MR. COPELIN: Right here, Your Honor. Mike's --
THE COURT: -- also from Craighead County. We have for Mr. Echols, Dennis Riordan and Donald Horgan from San Francisco, Stephen Braga from Washington, D.C., and Ms. Laura Nirider from Chicago, also on behalf of Echols. Well, Mr. Patrick Binka, are you here, Patrick?
MR. BINKA: I am, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay, Patrick's here on behalf of Mr. Echols, the local counsel as well. On behalf of Mr. Baldwin, we have Mr. Blake Hendrix and we have Ms. Erin Cassinelli. On behalf of Jessie Misskelley, we have Mr. Jeff Rosensweig. Did that cover everybody?
MR. BRAGA: Yes, Your Honor. Yes.
THE COURT: Okay, good. And, as everyone has known for a couple of days or more, this is a hearing held out of the presence of the public, which we anticipate following by a public hearing at about 11 o'clock, at which time we will proceed to do much of what we're going to talk about here in this private session -- this session out of the -- out of the purview of the public. It's on the record with all defendants present. There won't be any rulings made at this hearing. This will be -- will be a preliminary hearing with such questions and answers as are necessary in order that everyone understands what is proposed here, what we're about, what the practical ramifications of the proposed Alford plea involve and that sort of thing. I want to make sure this record will be made public in the event -- in the event there's any sort of challenge directly or indirectly of these proceedings down the line, whether it be by virtue of any -- anything that might be brought against an attorney or brought by either party to set aside any portion of what we are doing. And, otherwise, it'll simply be for -- for private benefit in order that we -- I want to be very clear on -- what we're doing here is a bit unusual. This case is certainly has attracted a lot of attention, and the rights and obligations of the parties are very, very significant in this case. The victims' family are involved and a divergence of positions in the matter, and defendant families are also involved in these proceedings. So I want to be as transparent as possible about all this and I want it to -- I want to be certain that this is -- this is -- this is a procedure that's done because the parties mutually agree that this is the right thing to do under the circumstances, and that it's not subject to any -- any -- any outside influences or any coercion or threats or anything of that nature, and that everybody is doing what's proposed to be doing here because they believe it's in their best interest to do it. And, with that, I've introduced the parties and so forth. What the Court understands is that -- I'll give you a general outline of the proceedings the Court understands is going to be followed here in our open hearing in this case. The Court will be asked, after some preliminary statements are made, to enter a conditional order for a new trial, which will in effect conditionally vacate the sentences that were imposed at the earlier -- earlier trials in the case. And -- and, will, subject to additional work to be done, grant a new trial in the case, which will revest this Court with jurisdiction to make further proceedings regarding disposition and sentencing, either by virtue of -- of how we handle that. Specifically, in this case it's contemplated that after the conditional order for a new trial, which I assume counsel have been over with their particular clients.
MR. BRAGA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Echols, I assume you've been over it with your counsel?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And understand the contents of it?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, once that is done, we will proceed. It's my understanding that the proposal will be at that point, once that is done, and the Court will determine itself, and I can let you know at this point in time under the circumstances, the Court -- the Court believes that it is in the best interest of -- of all involved, and it's consistent with the -- with the facts to enter a conditional order for a new trial in this case. I make that decision in conjunction with, but yet independent of, in a sense, of anything that's been done here. So the -- I commend everyone for working this case the way it's been worked. The information's come in timely and all, and we've gathered -- we've moved a lot of -- of -- we've covered a lot of ground since we had a first hearing in this case and I'm pleased. Once the order for a new trial is entered, without any further ado, it's my understanding that the -- that a plea proposal has been made in this case would be based on the conditional order for a new trial, that the defendants each wish to accept and the State will -- will make a -- a statement as to certain facts that can be proved by the State in connection with this case upon which a jury, on a new trial, could make a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defendants will not acknowledge or confess guilt to those, however, the defendants will acknowledge that they are aware that that evidence is there, that it will come in, and that under the circumstances they see a -- a real heavy risk involved in proceeding with the trial as opposed to the alternative of entering an agreed disposition as to lesser and alternative sanctions. So far, is everybody on board and understand? Is that what we're about?
MR. BRAGA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, the -- the bottom line of this is going -- and that's what's called an Alford plea. It was approved by the United States Supreme Court in -- in North Carolina v. Alford back a few years ago. It's -- it's effect is a little bit different from -- obviously different from the standard guilty plea where a person actually confesses to the -- and allocutes as to the actual facts charged. And it's a little bit different from a nolo contendere plea, in a sense. The Alford plea, I want to make sure everybody's on board. There will be a finding by the Court. Once I find the pleas accepted and everybody's aware of the terms and conditions and it's -- and it's intelligently entered into, there will be a finding by the Court of guilt on the part of all three defendants to the offense of first-degree murder.
MR. ROSENZWEIG: Mr. Misskelley will ask --
THE COURT: Mr. Misskelley will be --
MR. ROSENZWEIG: -- first and two seconds.
THE COURT: -- first and two seconds.
MR. ROSENZWEIG: That's right.
THE COURT: Because that's what his previous trial resolution was. And -- and that will -- and it will play as a conviction for -- for subsequent purposes. In other words, if there is going to be -- there will be like a period of suspended imposition of sentence. I'm sure all that's been explained. There are certain conditions, there are certain conditions that apply, for instance, to Mr. -- Mr. Misskelley that may not apply to Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin. Y'all have been over those individually, I assume, Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: These conditions have to be complied with. The do nots and the do’s, and if they're not complied with, then the State can revoke those -- those suspended impositions, you know, and invoke additional time based on a 40-year maximum, less the amount that's been used up by the sentencing in this case, as far as future offense is concerned. If you should draw a new felony charge, this plea, this Alford plea, will likely be useable against you for enhancement or otherwise. Do each of you understand that, Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: The -- and the Court will sentence -- based upon that Alford plea, the Court will sentence each of the defendants to a sentence of -- the bottom line is time served. There are people from the Department of Corrections here who will have the processing paperwork done here on site, so it will not be necessary you be returned to the ADC to be processed out. That will be done, and you'll be given copies -- you've signed off, I assume, you've probably signed off on your conditions, have you, Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And that will be entered -- those will be entered -- judgment of commitment orders will be entered, the conditions will be entered. This is a pre '94 case; I don't think it'll be necessary to do a prosecutor's report or a departure report. So that will be it. And -- and we know from media and otherwise -- and I'm not telling you defendants anything that you don't know -- there is a large divergent view out there in the public domain about this case, some more vocal than others, which I suppose is as it should be. It's going to happen anytime you have a matter of this seriousness and with questions and so forth. There's also, I think, a big disconnect between the public purview of a case and the legal system's view of the case, you know. And so that going to be stuff that's going to have to be dealt with, you know, by various people over time and this and that. And actually I may be in a position -- (Two attorneys enter the courtroom.)
THE COURT: This is closed hearing, counsel. Y'all are welcome to come if you can fit into the open hearing, but --
MALE VOICE: Okay.
(Attorneys leave the courtroom.)
THE COURT: One of those was Mr. Paul Ford, who formerly represented Mr. Baldwin. And the paperwork should all be done to the point that -- that everything can be wrapped up here today. It'll be up to you three, based on your advice of counsel, what you want to do as to what access you will have. I'll lift a gag order after this proceeding goes through in public hearing, so you'll be free to talk to the extent -- and I would simply caution you to listen closely to your counsel insofar as under what circumstances you talk and how you talk. Your counsel has demonstrated an excellent ability to look out for your interest in this case, and I think they bear listening to in that regard. We'll also have an opportunity that counsel, if counsel wishes to speak with the media, they'll be able to. And that counsel will be for the State and for the -- and for the defense. The -- the -- Mr. Echols, the way it -- this is a for instance, the recommendation to your case, Mr. Echols, is 216 months and 78 days, 18 years and 78 days, imprisonment in the Department of Correction with credit for 216 months and 78 days, with a period of suspended imposition of sentence additionally for a period of 120 months, with the same as to B and C, the other two.
MR. ECHOLS: Right.
THE COURT: So that will be three concurrent dispositions in that regard. And -- and I assume it's the same as to the other actions, as to Mr. Baldwin and Misskelley. In your case, Mr. Echols, if -- if your suspension is revoked for violation, we may impose upon you a sentence of up to 252 months and 287 days, 21 years and 287 days in the Department of Corrections. Do you understand that?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And what are the numbers on Mr. Baldwin?
MR. WALDEN: Judge, I -- I -- you may be working from old first drafts.
THE COURT: I'm working from what?
MR. WALDEN: I've got the -- I've got the final drafts here, and then there's one on each defendant, and you can go from those. I would point out, on Echols and Baldwin, we just added the 120 SIS on -- on one count, so we wouldn't have this concurrent, consecutive --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WALDEN: -- so it's -- that makes it clear that it's 122 --
THE COURT: Mr. Baldwin 216 months, 78 days, with credit for 216 months and 78 days as to the three counts, but the suspended imposition on one count of 120 months.
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And -- and in -- in your case, you would be liable for 252 months and 287 days in the event of a revocation of your suspended imposition. Do you understand that?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And I believe that would be the same with Mr. Echols.
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And I don't have -- or Mr. Misskelley's, let me see his materials. I've tried to stay up to speed on this, but Mr. Misskelley, yours would be --
MR. WALDEN: Same --
THE COURT: -- 216 months and 78 days, with credit for -- full credit for that, and 120 months suspended imposition on one count. The -- and in -- in the event -- and you would be liable for an additional 252 months and 287 days, or 21 years and 287 days in the ADC for a violation or revocation. Do you understand that?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Those are the numbers I wanted to make sure everybody's clear about. So the understanding is here, you have -- you have all executed a -- Mr. Echols, you've executed a guilty plea statement pursuant to Alford in this case?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is that correct?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: That's been over by you with your attorneys and fully explain to you and you had your questions answered and signed off on it?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And the same with you, Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You've been over yours and signed off on it?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, at this point in time, does counsel for either the State or the defendants have additional questions you wish to bring up at this hearing in order to make sure there are no unanswered questions? Mr. Rosenzweig.
MR. ROSENZWEIG: A venue issue, and we would formally waive venue because Mr. Misskelley is a --
THE COURT: As to the --
MR. ROSENZWEIG: -- Clay County --
THE COURT: -- Clay County venue.
MR. ROSENZWEIG: Yes, sir. And so we --
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. ROSENZWEIG: -- would waive for -- waive venue.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. It's so ordered.
MS. ALSWORTH: May I ask for some direction from the Court, please, if that's okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me.
MS. ALSWORTH: I'm -- I'm looking at some --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me.
THE COURT: Melanie.
MS. ALSWORTH: Sir?
THE COURT: She's not hearing you. Do we not have a -- we don't have a podium? Don't have room for a podium.
MR. ROSENSWEIG: Right there. Right there. Right there in front of you.
THE COURT: Here's one right here.
MS. ALSWORTH: Yes, sir. Regarding the statement of facts that will be presented this morning, I believe that we've agreed on a rather diluted statement, and I understand the reason for doing that, the sensitive nature of the case. I would just ask for an opportunity this morning while we're in this in-chambers meeting to provide additional facts that the Court could incorporate to find that there is a factual basis for the pleas.
THE COURT: All right. All right.
MR. HENDRIX: Your Honor, we have an agreed -- and I hope you've had an opportunity to see the agreed factual basis for the pleas.
THE COURT: Well, the only one that I've seen is the -- is the long form.
THE COURT REPORTER: Could I have a name, please?
MR. HENDRIX: Blake.
THE COURT: Blake Hendrix.
MR. HENDRIX: Your Honor --
THE COURT: You represent --
MS. ALSWORTH: That's my copy, Your Honor, so --
THE COURT: -- Baldwin. Is this the --
MR. HENDRIX: That -- that's it, Your Honor. That's the agreed factual basis for the --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HENDRIX: -- plea to be read in open court, and we hope Your Honor will read through it and concur that it's sufficient in order to make this legally binding.
THE COURT: Well, I -- I said I want to make sure that it is and -- but I don't have any objection if Ms. Alsworth wishes to -- at this hearing, if she wishes to introduce an expanded version of the factual scenario that'll be accepted. You can either do it in written form or you can read it, however you want to do it.
MS. ALSWORTH: I would just like to provide some additional facts and I can do it verbally. I don't have anything --
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. ALSWORTH: -- written that I could submit to the Court.
MR. HENDRIX: And, Your Honor, just with that caveat that very likely there may be things said that -- that we dispute. We do not want to get in the way of -- of this proceeding going forward.
THE COURT: Well, this proceeding doesn't really -- doesn't really -- the defendants don't -- don't stipulate to the truth of any of the matters, as I understand it. Simply that they are matters that would be in evidence, if the case went forward. Is that correct?
MR. HENDRIX: That's correct, Your Honor. The long and short of it is, the document that you have in front of us that was to be read in open court is what we specifically agreed establishes the --
THE COURT: You're saying the rest of it has some contested facts in it?
MR. HENDRIX: Very likely.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRAGA: Yes, Your Honor, Stephen Braga for Mr. Echols. Just getting onto that, it's a little unusual case because there's already been a trial and a conviction affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, so the factual basis isn't sort of we don't know anything about what it is, what does the government have, what are they going to show. The brief statement before, Your Honor, we think, in -- in conjunction with the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision on the direct appeals makes it abundantly clear that there's sufficient evidence on which the defendants could be convicted; they were convicted. So I think the basis for an Alford plea is there. I -- I would just worry about going too much into controverted facts for the reasons stated by Mr. Hendrix.
THE COURT: Well, I'm doing it in the open session, but I'm talking about doing it in this session and I'll tell you that my position -- and I'm thinking out loud -- we're -- we're taking a further step that's been taken. We're -- we're doing a conditional new trial in this case, which puts us back at square one.
MR. BRAGA: Right.
THE COURT: And we don't assume anything at that point in time. And the factual basis has to be laid in order to justify the plea that's being proposed, even an Alford plea. So -- so I'm going to permit in. I will -- I will permit you to add, amplify the additional factors in the Chambers discussion. Ms. Alsworth, you want to do that now?
MS. ALSWORTH: Thank you, Your Honor, whenever --
THE COURT: All right.
MS. ALSWORTH: -- the Court's ready.
THE COURT: All right, and -- and counsel of the three -- and Mr. -- Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Misskelley, all saying this abbreviated version?
MR. BRAGA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And I assume they've all been over the expanded version as well?
MR. BRAGA: We -- we are aware of what the --
THE COURT: You're aware --
MR. BRAGA: -- expanded --
THE COURT: -- of it and --
MR. BRAGA: Yes.
THE COURT: -- have talked about it?
MS. ALSWORTH: And I don't plan to read the entire thing. I think that there is a paragraph in there that says that there is substantial direct and circumstantial evidence in the record that supports the guilty pleas, and I would just like to briefly go over some of --
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. ALSWORTH: -- the facts and --
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. ALSWORTH: -- the Court can make findings. Your Honor, as far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, the autopsy reports on the victims showed that there were many injuries that were consistent with multiple weapons being used. One was a sharp object, such as a knife. One weapon was consistent with the size of a broom handle. One weapon was large and blunt. Additional observations were the knots that were used to bind the victims. The knots were of three different types, indicating that more than one person was involved. Your Honor, I believe that there was evidence collected in the form of fibers from some of the victims' clothing at the scene that was subsequently compared to fibers taken from two of the defendants' homes that were microscopically similar to the fibers collected from the victims' clothing. Also, Your Honor, there was a knife that was found in the lake behind Mr. Baldwin's residence. This knife was a survival-type knife. Believe that the testimony could possibly establish that the pattern of the knife was consistent with some of the injuries on the victims. Testimony from the State would establish that Mr. Echols was known to carry a knife very similar to this, with the only exception on the end of his knife was a compass that was not present on the knife that was recovered from the lake. Your Honor, as far as the direct evidence is concerned, would point the Court to the statements that the State would introduce that were allegedly made by Mr. Echols, admitting his involvement in this case, which was overheard by girls at a softball game. Regarding Mr. Baldwin, he allegedly made a statement while he was in juvenile detention to another detainee in Craighead County. And with Mr. Misskelley, he made statements to law enforcement officers after he was Mirandized, implicating himself in these crimes. The facts from Mr. Misskelley's statement and what we allege Mr. Baldwin's statement to be are consistent with the actual evidence in the case and we'd ask you to consider those as well.
THE COURT: All right. And counsel and defendants in the case, you understand that that evidence is out there, that the State purports to introduce it and make the argument based upon it connecting you with this offence. You understand that?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Even though you don't agree with it?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. HENDRIX: And, Your Honor, in response, again, we agree that there is a sufficient factual basis for this Alford plea and not to atomize too much what has just been said, but to show that I know Your Honor is granting our DNA petitions and, in the conditional order, finding that there has been presented to you clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable fact finder could acquit these gentlemen. And --
THE COURT: I think they use the term compelling, perhaps.
MR. HENDRIX: That's correct, Your Honor.
MR. BRAGA: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I think they used the term compelling --
MR. HENDRIX: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- and -- and the Court's job is to determine whether -- whether a new jury hearing the same situation that was heard before plus everything that's come in since then, would likely reach a different result --
MR. HENDRIX: Yes, sir, that would --
THE COURT: -- than was reached before.
MR. HENDRIX: And largely, Your Honor, that was based on now scientific evidence that has shown that the knife in question was very likely not, in fact, a murder weapon, but that the wounds that have been referenced were actually caused by animal predation.
THE COURT: Well, I'm -- I'm aware of those, yeah, of those arguments.
MR. HENDRIX: Okay.
THE COURT: The -- while we're on that point, the Court has not yet ruled -- did not rule. Three things come to mind and I'm sure counsels' been over these with the -- the defendants. One was the -- the jury misconduct issue -- the juror misconduct issue that related to the jury foreperson in the Craighead County trial with Mr. Echols had not been ruled on at this point. And the -- another one was the -- was to what extent the -- the DNA that -- obviously the DNA that was already in in front of the Supreme Court, you know, stays in and is, I think, is probably the most compelling DNA that's been received to this point, you know, following the subsequent, you know. The further and further removed we get from the locus in the case, you know, the negative findings mean perhaps less. But in any event, also I haven't ruled on that, although my -- my view is to let whatever DNA is out there come in, certainly at the evidentiary hearing before me. The Supreme Court also authorized me to do whatever the Court felt was appropriate insofar as how to handle Mr. Misskelly's statement that was used against him at his own trial, as to how it might be used against the other two defendants in the case. And the Court has not made a ruling on that. The Supreme Court even indicated I could do it by affidavit or I could do it by -- by the statements themselves or otherwise. And I haven't -- I'm not exactly sure, following it all the way through, whether or not how I handle it at the evidentiary hearing would be necessarily binding on how we handle it at the -- at a new trial when a new trial was granted, you know. But I'll simply say along those lines that it's -- and I don't think I'm telling counsel for either side anything that y'all don't already know, that I believe that in matters of that -- that importance, the right to cross examine is very important. And the Court’s inclination is to preserve the right to cross examine without regard to the latitude given to me in the Supreme Court decision. I just believe that, well, that's a basic fundamental -- fundamental right. So those issues, and I don't think -- I can't recall any other issues that were not really touched on by the Court, can counsel?
MR. BRAGA: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, and so far -- so far, Mr. Echols, are you up to speed on what we've talked --
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- about here? And you, Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay, are there any other -- does counsel have any other questions about the proceedings?
MR. BRAGA: None for Mr. Echols, Your Honor.
MR. COPELIN: One -- one thing, Judge, is the Court commonly, when you take a plea, advised that the defendants have accepted the plea offer, but in this case, actually the defendants proposed the Alford plea offer and the State accepted it. If that's -- that's the facts and that's the -- the position that we take, so I don't know if that --
THE COURT: I'll simply state the plea agreement has been reached.
MR. COPELIN: That's fine. Thank you.
THE COURT: I don't really care which way it started or which way it's emanated from or to, but that a plea agreement has been reached.
MR. ELLINGTON: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Echols, do you have any questions you wish to ask your counsel or the Court at this point about these proceedings?
MR. ECHOLS: None that I can think of right now, sir.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: No, sir, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: No, sir.
MR. COPELIN: And one other thing, are you going to ask -- are we going to hear how each of the defendants plan to respond to you here in Chambers as far as how they plea, so that -- that we can -- so that you can know how, you know, the wording that the --
THE COURT: Let me hear from counsel first.
MR. BRAGA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Braga.
MR. BRAGA: Consistent with our discussion yesterday, Mr. Echols will say at the appropriate point, Your Honor, I am innocent of these charges, but I am entering a guilty plea pursuant to Alford based on my counsels' advice in light of the fact that I've determined it's in my best interest based on the entire record.
THE COURT: You're prepared to do that, Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same for you?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay, does counsel wish to make a statement and let the -- and let them agree with it from the standpoint of wording?
MR. BRAGA: That would probably be easier, Your Honor. I did want to make a brief statement about sort of why I think an Alford plea is appropriate for the record, but --
THE COURT: State it.
MR. BRAGA: -- it would be very brief.
THE COURT: Go ahead and state it, if you want to now.
MR. BRAGA: Yes, Your Honor. This -- this obviously, as you said, there's a large divergence of opinion on this case. It's been a war for 18 years. The Alford plea is a unique kind of plea, rarely used, but there specifically for the best interest of the defendant, the interest of justice and judicial efficiency when you have this kind of war. How do we stop this war? They're forced to fight for 18 more years. Alford plea says no. The defendants get to maintain their innocence, the prosecution gets a guilty plea, finality is reached. The -- the requirement of Alford, adopted by the Supreme Court in North Carolina v. Alford that Your Honor cited, is it's got to be in the best interest of the defendant. So what's the trigger for that? That he could be convicted, that there is some evidence out there that could convict him. In Mr. Echols case, the -- the softball girls referenced by Ms. Alsworth, if their testimony alone were accepted by a jury and the jury didn't pay attention to anything else, that would be sufficient to convict him; he understands that. He's on death row. This deal allows him to get off of death row. That's Alford. And Alford is not --
THE COURT: The stakes are very high --
MR. WHATEVER: -- pled --
THE COURT: -- in other words.
MR. WHATEVER: -- to avoid the death penalty. So the Alford plea is particularly appropriate in this case for Mr. Echols, we would say, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Hendrix.
MR. HENDRIX: Your Honor, what I would simply propose is, is if I said Mr. Baldwin was pleading guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford and Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 24.
THE COURT: And he will agree with that?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, and --
MR. ROSENZWEIG: And --
THE COURT: Mr. Rosenzweig.
MR. ROSENZWEIG: -- and I'll probably say -- I'll do something similar, Your Honor, and Mr. Misskelley will -- will agree.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COPELIN: So you're -- the defendants are actually not going to say I'm pleading guilty pursuant to Alford.
THE COURT: They're pleading guilty pursuant to Alford in North Carolina versus Alford.
MR. COPELIN: But it's not coming out of their mouth, it's coming out of --
THE COURT: It's going to --
MR. COPELIN: -- counsels' mouth.
THE COURT: -- come out of counsels' mouth and then they're going to agree that that is their plea.
MR. COPELIN: I thought that when we talked earlier you were going to -- that --
THE COURT: I mean they will state that is their plea. I think the wording is -- is important, though.
MR. COPELIN: And --
THE COURT: And I'm not wanting it unless we have to have each of the defendants try to wing it separately.
MR. COPELIN: But the Court actually asked counsel in a brief -- just a conference yesterday if they were going to pen something for their -- so that their clients could read it aloud during -- you asked if they were going to compose something for them to -- to --
THE COURT: And I don't think they said they -- they were. They said they could work it out, something of that nature and that's what we're doing here sort of.
MR. COPELIN: Well, and that's what I'm asking you if -- I mean, I -- I would -- the State would prefer to hear it come from the defendants' mouth if -- if they have to write it on a post-it card and let them read it, that -- that it comes out of their mouth that I am pleading guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford. That -- that's what I've told the victims' families because that was my understanding originally that was going to be said. And so that's why I'm -- I'm just -- if I hadn't told the victims’ families that, and I'm not trying to be --
THE COURT: Well, what I'm going to do is ask counsel to say -- that I'm going to ask the defendants themselves if they are in fact pleading guilty under North Carolina v. Alford because they believe it's in their best interest to do so, all things considered in this case. And they will answer me yes.
MR. COPELIN: Understand. I -- I --
THE COURT: Doesn't that accomplish what you're talking about?
MR. COPELIN: I wanted the words -- I wanted to hear the words coming out of their mouth: I plead guilty pursuant to -- or pursuant to U.S. -- North Carolina v. Alford, I plead guilty. And -- and that's what I wanted to hear, but the Court --
THE COURT: All right, if you want to write something down for them to say, that's fine.
MR. RIORDAN: Whatever way Your Honor wants to --
THE COURT: Go ahead --
MR. RIORDAN: -- do it. We --
THE COURT: -- and do that --
MR. RIORDAN: -- have written it down --
THE COURT: -- Mr. Braga --
MR. RIORDAN: -- for Mr. Echols.
THE COURT: -- to satisfy the State.
MR. COPELIN: Thank you.
THE COURT: And -- and counsel, just, you know, if it wants to come out that way, fine. We -- we'll short circuit the process that way.
MR. HENDRIX: And -- and, Your Honor, as agreed upon wording that I'm going to write for my client, I'm going to write that I, Jason Baldwin, plead guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford and Rule 24 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, and I believe I am innocent.
MR. COPELIN: That's fine.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MR. COPELIN: That -- that's -- I just wanted to hear it because that's what I told the victims' families.
MR. HENDRIX: Although I believe myself to be innocent of the charges.
THE COURT: Okay, fine. And each of you do that sort of thing, I don't think we'll have a problem at all.
MR. HENDRIX: Very good, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. All right, anything else, counsel?
MR. BRAGA: Nothing from Mr. Echols, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, we've got about 20 minutes before we open the matter up.
MS. ALSWORTH: You have my statement.
THE COURT: I do?
MS. ALSWORTH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: This one?
MS. ALSWORTH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. ALSWORTH: Thank you.
MR. COPELIN: And to make it clear, Melanie's not going to read the -- this added facts when the public gets here.
THE COURT: This is correct. She'll read the short form that's --
MR. COPELIN: Right.
THE COURT: -- that's been agreed on between counsel.
MR. HENDRIX: All right, Thank you.
THE COURT: All right, we'll reconvene here at 11:00. Yes, Sheriff?
THE SHERIFF: Your Honor, Mr. Byers has been out in front of the courthouse, extremely --
THE COURT: Byers?
THE SHERIFF: Yes, sir. -- extremely vocal and extremely hostile and has made some threats.
THE COURT: Well --
THE SHERIFF: So I don't know what his actions are going to be in hearing.
THE COURT: Well, if he's -- if he appears to be a security risk at any point in time, or a disruptive risk at any point in time, I have no problem with him being kept out of the hearing.
MR. COPELIN: Mr. Branch as well.
THE COURT: Huh?
MR. COPELIN: And Mr. Branch as well. He's the one that went over --
THE COURT: Branch is the one that was on the -- I understand that. But, no, I do not want any -- I want to err on the side of security. All these, Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Misskelley are in our protective custody at this point, and I want everybody protected and even if it means -- I mean, I -- I don't want to be in the business of excluding victim family from the public proceedings, but by the same token if the risks -- the security impact outweigh the benefits of them being here, then they are to be kept out. I'm going to leave that in your discretion.
THE SHERIFF: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Then they can watch it on -- they can watch it on the feed that we're going to have. Okay, we're adjourned. We'll be back in session at 11:00.
(Court stood adjourned briefly at 10:48 a.m.)
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated please, those of you who can. All right, I’m David Laser, Circuit Judge, Division Nine, the Second Judicial District of the state of Arkansas, which includes both Craighead and the Western District of Clay County, Arkansas, as well as seven other courthouses in single or split districts in this district. We're on the record in the cases of State of Arkansas versus Damien Echols, Charles Jason Baldwin, Craighead CR-93-450 and 458. And we're also here on Clay Western, CR-93-147, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley, Jr. The Court notes that -- that all three defendants are present and were also present at a preliminary closed-session hearing that was just conducted with no affirmative action being taken. It was simply in order to make sure that everybody was completely informed and onboard as to what has been proposed to the Court by the parties in this case. Counsel have been previously identified and we have on behalf of Mr. Echols, Mr. Dennis Riordan, Mr. Donald Horgan, Mr. Stephen Braga, Ms. Laura H. Nirider and Mr. Patrick Benca. We have counsel on behalf of Mr. Baldwin Mr. Blake Hendrix and Ms. Erin Cassinelli. And we have counsel on behalf of Mr. Misskelley Mr. Jeff Rosenzweig. The State is represented in this case by Mr. Scott Ellington, prosecutor for the Second Judicial District, and deputy prosecutors Melanie Alsworth, Michael Walden, and Alan Copelin. As indicated, subject to the Court's approval, certain dispositive agreements have been reached by and between the State and the defendants in this case to bring a resolution to the issues in this case. I have been presented for review a conditional order for a new trial in this case, which if approved by the Court would, in order to reinvest this Court in the jurisdiction of this matter in order that this Court might be in full power to do whatever is necessary to be done to implement the -- the plea agreement and to enter final judgments and commitments in this case, would have to be approved subject to additional steps to be taken, upon which that is a condition. The conditional order for a new trial is -- is one that's presented by agreement of the parties. Mr. Walden, tell me the State's position as relates to the proposed continued conditional order.
MR. WALDEN: Your Honor, as the Court indicated, you should have two orders in front of you that were agreed to by the parties -- all the parties for the defendants and the State. One is in the Clay County case involving Mr. Misskelley. The other's in the Craighead County case --
THE COURT: Speak up a little bit or either move forward toward the reporter, please.
MR. WALDEN: The other is in the Craighead County case involving Mr. Echols and Mr. Baldwin. Each of these are titled order of conditional order granting new -- conditional order of new trial. It's an effort by the parties, really, in response to recent overtures by the defense to bring this matter to a resolution. And if the conditions as set forth in those orders are met, then the State is agreeable to the dispositions that -- that are contemplated by those orders. I think that if the Court wants me to summarize them, essentially we're asking the Court to -- to grant these -- grant the -- in accordance with the jurisdiction that you've assumed, go ahead and grant the new trials, making the findings necessary to grant those new trials or recognizing that this granting of a new trial is on the condition that -- or is on the condition that certain other conditions are met after that, and those would be the entry of the pleas that are contemplated by the parties. I believe it contemplates entries by Mr. Echols and Mr. Baldwin to three guilty pleas pursuant to Alford versus North Carolina, and everyone, I think, is aware that that's the method by which someone can enter a plea of guilty and still maintain innocence. Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Echols would enter the pleas to the three counts of murder. Mr. Misskelley, in accordance with -- more in line with his jury verdict from Clay County, would enter a plea to one first-degree murder count, two second-degree murder counts on the first-degree murder count. He would get the same sentence as the others. Each of them involves a sentence to essentially -- the Court has the numbers in front of him. They are -- they are timed-served sentences that would be followed by an additional period of suspended imposition of sentence that would last for 10 years from this date. That has certain conditions, obviously the most significant of which to, you know, be of law-abiding character and not violate the laws of the State of Arkansas or any other state. The State's position is that we're agreeable to a new trial being granted for that sole purpose.
THE COURT: The State acknowledges for the basis proposed to the Court as a conditional new trial, that there is a basis for the Court to grant a new trial --
MR. WALDEN: We --
THE COURT: -- in this case.
MR. WALDEN: -- we acknowledge that the Court, based on the record before it, could make that finding. And -- and based on that we are entering into this agreement, but again, for the sole purpose of allowing the pleas to take place with the understanding that if the pleas don't take place, the Court would rescind its order of a new trial, and that would be revoked and we will be back on the track that we've been for the last several years, heading toward a new trial --
THE COURT: We'd proceed to gather evidence and have an evidentiary hearing on December 5th as scheduled, towards the end of the Court making a ruling as to whether or not it recommends a new trial in the case.
MR. WALDEN: Is that sufficient --
THE COURT: I think so.
MR. WALDEN: -- for the State?
THE COURT: I want to hear from the defense. Someone on behalf of -- Mr. Braga?
MR. BRAGA: Yes, Your Honor, on behalf of Mr. Echols. Mr. Walden has accurately summarized the understanding between the parties. Mr. Echols has been advised about it. We're agreeable to the conditional order for a new trial to implement the other two steps of the recommendation, the Alford plea and the sentence, which I understand we'll discuss a little more in detail later.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Hendrix.
MR. HENDRIX: And, Your Honor, I echo the words of Mr. Braga and Mr. Walden. This is a fair summary of the agreement that's been reached between the parties in the ultimate resolution of the case. Thank you.
MR. ROSENZWEIG: And Mr. Misskelley is in concurrence with everyone else.
THE COURT: Okay, and, Mr. Echols, you heard what your counsel has said. You're in agreement with that?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. The Court having received evidence since we had our initial scheduling in this case and hearing the proposal of the parties, believes that there is a basis in this case for its ordering a new trial, conditional on the fulfillment of certain other requirements of this proposed Alford plea. And the Court will enter a conditional order for a new trial at this time on behalf of both Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Misskelley.
MR. BRAGA: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's my understanding now as relates to the -- and an order will be entered to that effect. Now that we're at the state where the Court has entered an order of a new trial in the case, before we proceed on with the -- with the plea in the case, counsel -- does the State wish to make -- does the State have a recommendation or wish to modify the charges in this case before we proceed to sentencing and guilty plea?
MR. COPELIN: Your Honor, yes. You have the paperwork there in your hands. The State will so move to amend the charges we previously filed to those reflecting first-degree murders, three counts, for Mr. Echols; first-degree murder for three counts for Mr. Baldwin; one first-degree murder and two second-degree murders for Mr. Misskelley, commensurate with the negotiated plea that you have with you.
THE COURT: All right. All right, the Court will so note and the charges will be modified accordingly. The -- at this point in time I want to proceed with the -- with the Alford plea. If you would, please, Mr. -- Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Misskelley, if you would stand, please, and face the Court and speak up loudly enough that you can be heard. You are Damien Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: That's correct.
THE COURT: Mr. Echols, how old are you?
MR. ECHOLS: I am 36 years old.
THE COURT: How much education and schooling do you have?
MR. ECHOLS: Ninth grade high school, completed a GED after that.
THE COURT: All right, are you under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, medication, or substance?
MR. ECHOLS: None at all.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Baldwin, how old are you?
MR. BALDWIN: I'm 33, Your Honor.
THE COURT: How much education or schooling do you have?
MR. BALDWIN: Completed seventh grade, I've earned my diploma through GED, and I have 30 plus hours of college.
THE COURT: Are you under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, medication, or substance?
MR. BALDWIN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Misskelley, how old are you, sir?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Thirty-six.
THE COURT: How much education or schooling do you have?
MR. MISSKELLEY: The ninth grade, sir.
THE COURT: Ninth grade?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do -- do you read and write and understand English?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Have you been over all the paperwork with your counsel, had your questions answered, and had things read to you that you could not read for yourself and fully understand what's going on here?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir, I do.
THE COURT: All right, are you under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, medication, or substance?
MR. MISSKELLEY: No, sir.
THE COURT: Okay, for the three of you here on charges -- Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin, you're here on charges of three counts of first-degree murder as opposed to capital murder. And Mr. Misskelley, you're here on the charge of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. Do you understand that?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do each of you understand that -- that you do not have to plead guilty in any form or fashion to any of these charges, but have a right to go further and go fully to have the Court proceed to rule as to whether or not you're entitled to a new trial? And if you be determined to be entitled to a new trial, to fully challenge the proceedings through trial, a new trial, through verdict and, if adverse to you, on appeal. Do you understand that, Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you understand that, Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you understand that, Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And do you understand that during those proceedings you would all have, as you have in the past, you all have full -- you'd have a right to be fully and completely represented by counsel at all stages of the proceeding, whether it be for a determination of motions, whether it be determination of trial, whether it be subpoenaing witnesses, whether it be cross-examining State's witnesses as to whether or not to -- to testify, and as to all your rights and obligations in the proceedings. Do you understand that, Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand that, Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you further understand that if you proceed forward with this plea, this Alford guilty plea, and it is accepted by the Court, each of you will have waived and given up your right for the Court to -- to go to jury trial in this case? And you will have waived any right to appeal from any sentence that's imposed here today. Do you understand that Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: I do understand that.
THE COURT: Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: I do understand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Knowing all this at this point in time -- and does counsel -- does counsel agree so far that the proceedings in this case are in the best interest of the -- of the defendants, Mr. Braga?
MR. BRAGA: Yes, we do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Hendrix?
MR. HENDRIX: I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Rosenzweig?
MR. ROSENZWEIG: I do also, Your Honor.
THE COURT: At this point in time I would like to ask the -- the State to -- to read a statement of agreed information that is going to be offered -- that would be offered as evidence in this case if this matter went to trial, which in addition to a more amplified statement made in chambers would provide the basis for the -- for the plea. Ms. Alsworth?
MS. ALSWORTH: Yes, Your Honor. The State would offer evidence in its case-in-chief that would substantially prove the guilt of all three defendants as follows: That on the evening of May 5, 1993, three children were reported missing, Steven Branch, Chris Bowers, and Michael Moore. The next day they -- their bodies were found in an area known as Robin Hood Hills. The State would provide evidence as to the cause of death for each of these children, the manner of death for each child, being that of the homicide. That in the course of the investigation by the West Memphis Police Department that the defendant, Jessie Misskelley, was interviewed and confessed to his participation. That the State would also provide testimony that defendant Baldwin made incriminating statements while he was in juvenile detention. And that defendant Echols also made incriminating statements to a group of individuals. Additional direct and circumstantial evidence would be offered by the State to prove the guilt of the defendants and would corroborate the statements made by each.
THE COURT: All right, having heard those statements, Mr. Echols, what -- how do you wish to plea in this case?
MR. ECHOLS: Your Honor, I am innocent of these charges, but I'm entering an Alford guilty plea today based on the advice of my counsel and my understanding that it's in my best interest to do so, given the entire record.
THE COURT: Have you been threatened or coerced or intimidated in any way to give rise to this plea?
MR. ECHOLS: No, sir, I have not.
THE COURT: And you are entering this plea because you believe that it is in your best interest to do so, and want to go this route as opposed to taking the risk of -- of higher penalties and more -- and more penalties at trial?
MR. ECHOLS: That's correct.
THE COURT: Mr. Baldwin, having heard the statement made by the State as to a portion of the proof that's expected in this case, how do you choose to plea in this case?
MR. BALDWIN: Your Honor, first of all I am innocent of murdering Chris Bowers, Michael Moore and Stephen Branch; however, I've been serving 18 years in the penitentiary for such. I agree that it is in the State's best interest, as well as my own, that based upon North Carolina versus Alford, that I plead guilty to first-degree murder for those crimes.
THE COURT: All right, and the same as it relates to you, Mr. Misskelley. How do you wish to plea in response to the provable charges in this case?
MR. MISSKELLEY: I am pleading guilty under North Carolina versus Alford and the Arkansas Rules although I am innocent. This is -- and -- and this plea is in my best interest.
THE COURT: All right, thank you. Do each of you, Mr. Echols, are you fully and completely satisfied with the service, advice, council of all your attorneys that have been representing you in this case --
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- in connection with these post-conviction proceedings?
MR. ECHOLS: Very much so, yes.
THE COURT: All right, any complaints whatsoever?
MR. ECHOLS: None.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Baldwin, I'll ask you the same question. Are you fully and completely satisfied with the service, advice, council of your representatives -- attorney representatives in this case that have handled these post-conviction proceedings on your behalf?
MR. BALDWIN: Your Honor, I am.
THE COURT: Any complaints whatsoever?
MR. BALDWIN: No, sir.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Misskelley, I'll ask you the same question. Are you fully and completely satisfied with the service of your attorney in handling these post-conviction proceedings and advising you and getting us to this point?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir, I am.
THE COURT: Have any complaints whatsoever --
MR. MISSKELLEY: No, sir --
THE COURT: -- toward --
MR. MISSKELLEY: -- I have none.
THE COURT: -- your counsel?
MR. MISSKELLEY: No, sir.
THE COURT: The Court finds that this is a complying plea within -- that's a basis pursuant to North Carolina versus Alford, that there is a factual basis for the plea, and that the pleas are voluntary and will be accepted and received by the Court. Having said that, the -- the plea agreement in this case indicates that, as relates to -- to you, Mr. Echols, the proposed plea and sentence recommendation would be that, as to one count of first-degree murder, you would be -- as to three counts of first-degree murder, you'd be sentenced to concurrent sentences of 216 months and 78 days, 18 years and 78 days, in the Department of Correction, with credit for that full sentence, 216 months and 78 days jail time, followed on one count only by a 120-month period of suspended imposition of sentence, subject to your compliance with certain terms and conditions, all of which are set forth on paperwork that you've been over with your counsel and signed off on. Is that correct?
MR. ECHOLS: That's correct, sir.
THE COURT: And is that a correct statement of the proposal in your particular case?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Baldwin, as relates to the proposed plea and sentence recommendation in your case, the -- the same recommendation would be made as relates to Mr. Echols; do you understand that?
MR. BALDWIN: I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you understand that it would be time served, and on one count it would be subject to a 120-month period of suspended imposition of sentence?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Misskelley, you understand in your case that there'd be one count of murder in the first degree with the same basic sentence that's recommended in Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin, and a 120-month period of suspended imposition on that single count --
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: -- with two-- with two counts of second-degree, as was the result of your first trial?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And is that the correct plea and sentence recommendation in your case?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And in your case, Mr. -- Mr. Misskelley, you understand that if you should, during the course of the 120-month period of suspended imposition and sentence, fail to comply in any way with those terms and conditions, draw another charge or otherwise violate that law or the conditions of your suspended imposition, you could be -- that -- that suspended sentence could be revoked and you'd be required to serve an additional 252 months and 287 days, 21 years and 287 days, in the Arkansas Department of Corrections? Do you understand that?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir, I understand.
THE COURT: And that has been fully explained to you by counsel?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you've signed off on documentation to that effect?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir, I have.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Echols, by the same token, a violation or a failure to comply with terms and conditions of your suspended imposition of sentence during that time frame would result in your being liable for up 252 months and 287 days, 21 years and 287 days, additional in the Arkansas Department of Corrections?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You've each been over -- and, Mr. Baldwin, the same for you; is that correct?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You've each been over the -- you've each been over your conditions of suspended imposition, which are not necessarily the same for each of you. There are differences in, but you've been over them item by item with your counsel and signed off on them in agreement of those; is that correct, Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir, I have.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Baldwin?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Misskelley?
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
MALE VOICE: Your Honor, if you go do this, you're going to open a Pandora's box.
FEMALE VOICE: That's right.
MR. BRANCH: You're going to give -- you're going to give the key --
FEMALE VOICE: They're murderers.
MALE VOICE: -- to everybody --
THE COURT: Sir --
FEMALE VOICE: -- on death row --
THE COURT: -- sir, would you have --
MALE VOICE: -- you’ll be opening the cell door.
THE COURT: -- a seat, please?
MALE VOICE: That's what you’re going to do.
FEMALE VOICE: They’re murderers.
THE COURT: Have a seat, please.
MALE VOICE: That's what this precedent's going to do.
FEMALE VOICE: (unintelligible.)
MALE VOICE: You're wrong, Your Honor. You can stop it right now if you will. (Two male gentlemen escorted from the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right, the -- does anyone have anything -- anything for the State to be said before sentence is pronounced in this case?
MR. COPELIN: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Any defense counsel wish to make any additional statement before sentence is pronounced?
MR. BRAGA: Just briefly, Your Honor, I would like to say that Mr. Echols has had ample opportunity to discuss the arrangements to the proposal, the sentencing recommendation from Mr. Binka and I. He's gotten input from Mr. Riordan and Mr. Horgan and Ms. Nirider through me. He's a bright, intelligent young man. He's making a voluntary decision.
THE COURT: All right, the Court finds each of the defendants guilty of first-degree murder, and the modified charges pursuant to the Alford case, even though they profess their innocence in connection with the matter. That's what this sort of plea is calculated to -- to do, and to give folks a reason, or a way, to -- to end a matter of this nature in the best interest of everybody concerned. Having done that, the Court will now pronounce sentence in this case. Mr. Echols, you will be -- each of you will be -- Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Misskelley, you'll be each sentenced to serve 216 months and 78 days, 18 years and 78 days, in the Department of Correction on the charge of first-degree murder with full credit for that time already served, 216 months and 78 days, followed on one count of -- of first-degree murder in each of these cases, Mr. Echols, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Misskelley, of 120-month period of suspended imposition of sentence, subject to designated terms and conditions, which gives rise to additional liability if you fail to comply with any of the terms of the -- of the conditions. As the Court indicated to you earlier on, this -- even though it's -- it's a guilty plea with a profession of innocence, it's a guilty plea under the law, and it will go down for future reference as such. And, in the event either of you should commit another offense of any sort, it could be used as a means of enhancing a sentence in that particular case just as if you had gone to trial and been convicted and sentenced. Anything further to be offered by the state?
MR. COPELIN: Have they acknowledged that they read the rule -- the rules of suspended sentence?
THE COURT: They've each -- I've had them each acknowledged as we went along that they've been over the -- of the terms and conditions of the suspended imposition and signed off on them. That is correct, Mr. Echols?
MR. ECHOLS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Baldwin? Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Misskelley?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. MISSKELLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, the Court, having sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement, I'm advised that the Department of Corrections people are here to -- to put in place the processing paperwork so it will not be necessary for either of the defendants to be taken back to the Department of Corrections and can be processed out here. There's going to be additional opportunities for some -- some media contact with people, but not right now. We have some processing things of that nature to do. I want everyone to remain in the courtroom at this point in time. I'm going to allow the -- I'm going to allow the defendants and counsel to take their leave from the courtroom for the -- for the State and the defense. I want everyone to remain in the courtroom except counsel and the parties that are subject to post-proceeding interviews. State counsel may leave as well and, as far as the plea agreement, the hearing is concluded. But I want -- I'm going to take about 10 minutes of your time, folks that are here in the audience. We’re still in session. The Court's still in session and I don't want any outbursts. I commend you for -- for being orderly to this point, and I want that to continue. I -- the Court's very much aware -- the Court's very much aware of the nature of this proceeding and -- and the extreme emotions that are there on both sides of this particular matter. And the Court takes no position as to -- as to what occurred when this tragedy occurred and these innocent lives were taken. That's not part of what I do in connection with this. But I am aware of the divergence of opinion about that. I'm aware of the controversy that's existed. I'm aware of the involvement of the people in this case, and I commend people in the case that have assisted the defense, that have assisted anyone in connection with this case towards the end of seeing that justice is served to the best that we could do. It has been helpful. Counsel in this case have operated pro bono, which means without pay. DNA sampling and expensive testing has been done by virtue of -- of money raised by caring, supporting people in support of the defendants in the case and I commend them for that. Sometimes outside help is in fact a big help in bringing -- in giving us something that we may not have ordinarily access to or resources to, so I -- so I appreciate that. And -- and for those of you who are -- who have been a participant in that regard that are here, I commend you personally and publicly for -- for having done that. This is -- it's hard to imagine a battle that has raged this long in a particular situation, and I realize that this result is confusing. It's -- in the time that I've been on the bench, the better part of 14 years, I believe it's the first time we've ever used an Alford plea, but this was a proposal that came to me by agreement between counsel and not something that the Court suggested. But the Court does believe that in this particular case, as I've stated, that it is in the best interest of everyone at this particular point. The -- I think I pretty well set out exactly what the effect of this is. The -- there's not a lot of case law about this throughout the nation, except the United States Supreme Court case. And in Arkansas there's not really any precedent to amount to anything as to the exact nuts and bolts of the implementation of the Alford plea, although it's pretty well understood that an Alford plea is an acceptable way of disposition in Arkansas. And we've had -- we've had -- we've had excellent working between counsel in this case. Quite frankly, I held the earlier non-public hearing in this case in order that this Court could be absolutely certain that there were not any unanswered questions. There was no -- it's one that ordinarily -- ordinarily conferences like this occur when you have counsel come in for the State and for the defense and they meet with the judge and then they come back out and then things happen in public. I believe that in this particular case, because it's the right thing to do, that the defendants should be actively involved in the process. I wanted them to be actively involved in the process. I did not want to hear secondhand from anyone what was going on. I wanted to make sure that they were doing what they wanted to do and -- and also to make sure that they had been absolutely informed as to all the ramifications of this, that the State and everyone knew full well what was going on. And once I satisfied myself of that -- and that was another reason that I was probably more vague about the aspects of the hearing than ordinary, because I wanted to make sure that that understanding, that level of understanding and informed agreement had occurred before we finalize it. And -- and I am pleased that we've done that. So this won't answer all your questions. I don't expect it to. It will give rise to discussions for a long time to come. The -- I don't think it'll make the pain go away to the victim families. I don't think it'll make the pain go away to the defendant families. I don't think it will take away a minute of the 18 years that these three young men served in the Arkansas Department of Corrections. What I just described is tragedy on all sides. And ordinarily I don't talk this much about a case, but since I've got a captive audience here -- and I do believe that this is an unusual situation. It's an unusual disposition and I wanted to make sure that we are as transparent as we can be in this process. Let's hold on just a minute. I'm not ready to release y'all quite yet. How long have we been, about 10 minutes? Okay, I think -- I think we're free to recess and I ask you to do it in an orderly fashion. Let's -- let's let the media -- let's let the media proceed first; so bailiffs, if you'll help me with this process, we'll let the media proceed first. All right, once our media gets out, then I would like for -- I would like for our victim family to be allowed to leave. Anyone connected with the victims' family. Victims' family. And let's give them just two or three minutes, then -- then we’ll escort the -- the remaining persons from the courtroom. Again, I appreciate your attendance and hope for the best as things flesh out over the next few weeks, months, and years.
Key Events Leading to August 19, 2011 Release
September 10, 2008
Judge Burnett issues orders denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Echols' April 11 Motion for a new trial, Baldwin's May 30 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for New Trial, and Misskelley's June 5 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for New Trial.
October 2, 2009
Testimony concludes in Baldwin's and Misskelley's Rule 37 hearings in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
January 20, 2010
Judge Burnett denies Baldwin's and Misskelley's Rule 37 petitions.
September 30, 2010
The Arkansas Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Echols' appeal.
November 4, 2010
The Arkansas Supreme Court reverses Judge Burnett's September 10, 2008 orders and remands the defendants' cases back to circuit court for evidentiary hearings to consider new DNA evidence and a charge of juror misconduct.
November 30, 2010
Circuit Court Judge David Laser is appointed to preside over the evidentiary hearings ordered by the Arkansas Supreme Court, replacing retired Judge David Burnett, who presided over the original trials and all subsequent hearings.
March 17, 2011
Judge Laser issues an order stating that the evidentiary hearing is "scheduled for December 5, 2001 through December 21, 2011."
April 18, 2011
Judge Laser issues an order authorizing and directing additional DNA and other scientific testing as requested by defendants.
August 18, 2011
Judge Laser issues a Notice which states that, “The court will take up certain matters pertaining to the cases of defendants Baldwin, Echols and Misskelley on Friday, August 19, 2011. One session will be conducted out of public presence with all defendants present, and another session will be conducted in open court. The session conducted in chambers will likely begin at 10 a.m., followed by a public session, which will begin about 11 a.m."
Friday, August 19, 2011
Hearing before Judge Laser, leading to the release of Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley. Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley enter "Alford pleas" which means that they plead guilty but do not admit to the act, and are allowed to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors might have enough evidence to convict them. In accordance with the plea negotiations, Judge Laser sentences all three to time served.