WHAT
IS THIS CASE ALL ABOUT? AND WHAT IS THIS RALLY ALL ABOUT?
In
1976, Ronnie Wallace Long was convicted by an all white jury, of the
rape of a prominent citizen of Cabarrus County whose husband had been an
executive of Cannon Mills. In 1976, a conviction for first-degree
rape resulted in a life sentence, which the NC legislature defined at that time
as an 80-year sentence. Ronnie was also convicted of first-degree
burglary and that sentence runs concurrently with the sentence for rape.
Following
the guilty verdict, bedlam broke out in the courtroom. Police used
mace. Race riots broke out in Concord.
For
38 years, Ronnie has professed his innocence of the crime of which he was
convicted. The NC Supreme Court denied Ronnie’s direct appeal in 1977 and
his post-conviction motion in 1987 was also denied.
So
why are we here today? The problem? Critical evidence
gathered by the prosecution and law enforcement in 1976 was withheld
from Ronnie’s trial lawyers (James Fuller & Karl Atkins,
members of the law firm of Julius Chambers, a prominent civil rights
lawyer who recently passed away). The critical evidence was exculpatory
in nature.
Today,
there is evidence that is missing. Today, there is evidence sitting at
the Cabarrus County Courthouse that can be DNA tested, but the court has denied
our request for DNA testing.
SO
WHAT HAPPENED in 1976?
On April 25, 1976 the victim was raped in her home on Union Street. The
perpetrator climbed a white painted column to get onto a flat roof and entered
the upstairs window that was unlocked. The perpetrator initially tried to
rob the victim of money, then dragged her down a hallway where the rape took
place.
Ten
days later, on May 10, 1976, Ronnie, then a nineteen year old with no prior
criminal record appeared in Cabarrus County District Court, accompanied by his
father Ike (who passed away a few years ago). Ronnie was charged with a
misdemeanor trespass charge for being in a public park. That day, the
trespass case was dismissed and he returned home where he lived with his
parents and where he grew up with his seven brothers and sisters.
That
same evening, Sgt. David Taylor and Officer Marshall Lee of the
Concord Police Department went to Mr. Long’s home and asked him to come to the
station to straighten out the warrant. Ronnie voluntarily drove
his Dad’s car to the police station, believing he was going to attend to some
unfinished paperwork related to his morning court appearance on the dismissed
trespass charge. Unbeknownst to him, he was a suspect in a rape case and
he would never go home again. He was taken into the State’s custody that
evening and there he has remained for the past thirty-eight years.
THE
STATE’S CASE AT 1976 TRIAL:
The
State’s case at trial relied almost entirely on the testimony of the
victim. She testified that on April 25,1976, she was attacked and raped
in her home by an individual she described to the police just after the crime
occurred as:
“A
black male, height, five foot five to five foot nine, slender build, slim
hips. Spoke plain and softly, used correct English. Subject was
wearing a dark waist length leather jacket, blue jeans with a dark toboggan
pulled over his head. Could possibly have been wearing gloves.”
The
victim’s description did not include any mention of the perpetrator having any
kind of facial hair. A police photograph taken of Ronnie on the day
of his arrest reveals that he wore a moustache and a “scruffy beard”.
Ronnie also has very blue/hazel-ish eyes, a noticeably distinct characteristic.
At
trial, the only direct evidence introduced that linked Ronnie to the crime was
the victim’s eyewitness identification. The only scientific
evidence introduced by the State was a latent shoe print lifted from the crime
scene that the State’s own SBI expert witness could NOT conclusively
link to the shoe prints of the shoes Ronnie was wearing on the day he was
arrested.
The
State also introduced as evidence against Ronnie:
- a
black leather jacket he was wearing the day he was arrested
- a
pair of black leather gloves and
- a
green toboggan that was recovered from his father’s car.
Ronnie
has consistently and persistently denied, from the beginning of this case, that
the toboggan belonged to him. At the trial, Sgt.Taylor
testified that the hairs that can be seen in the toboggan are light in
color. Ronnie’s hair was black.
Before
Ronnie’s court appearance on the trespass charge, police officers went to the
victim’s home and told her it would be necessary for her to go to court on May
10 – the day they had issued the trespass summons - to observe all persons in
the courtroom”, stating that “we have reason to believe that maybe this
day there might be a man in the courtroom that [she] could identify. . .as the
man who raped [her]”.
Police
officers, Sgt. Taylor and Lt. Vogler, picked the victim up from
her home and drove her to the courtroom. The victim was instructed by the
officers to sit in the courtroom and look around to see if she recognized
anyone.
The
victim testified at trial there were 35- 50 people in the courtroom that day
and “there were some blacks in there, like maybe, a dozen”. The
police officers were sitting in the jury box where they could see the victim
and she could see them.
The
victim testified she sat in the courtroom “constantly looking around” for about
an hour or an hour and a half
before Ronnie’s trespass case was called. She testified she did not see
Ronnie during the entire time she was looking around. When asked at trial
if she saw “anybody that even closely resembled [the suspect] in the court
room?” she answered, “no.”
She
also stated that in her mind she knew why she was
asked to go to court that day.
The victim testified that when the judge called Ronnie’s trespass case, she
recognized him and indicated to the officers by nodding that Ronnie was the man
who raped her.
The
officers immediately took the victim to the police station and showed her 6 or
8 pictures in a photo array. Of course, she had just identified Ronnie in
the courtroom. The victim was asked at trial if there was anything
distinctive about the dress of any individuals depicted in the photographs that
drew her attention to anyone, and she replied: “It was the leather jacket. She
testified that Ronnie was the only one in any of
the pictures that had on a black leatherjacket.
The
victim further testified that she was not sure if she had been told Ronnie’s
name before she saw him in the courtroom or when she viewed the photos. Despite
her alleged certainty that Ronnie was the perpetrator, the victim admitted:
- she
never visited in black people’s homes;
- did
not have black people ever visit in her home;
- she
did not know very many black people and did not have much experience with them
- she
was very frightened
- her
assailant threatened her with a knife while repeatedly yelling, “don’t look at
me”
- kept
shoving her head to the side so that she could not get a good look at his face and
- the
toboggan was pulled down over his head
Ronnie’s
lawyers put forth an alibi defense, calling witnesses who testified:
-
that he had spent the afternoon planning a high school reunion party;
-
spent time at home in the evening (at the time of the attack of the victim)
talking to his girlfriend and young son on the phone;
-
listened to music in his room and
-
then, around 10:00 p.m., drove with a friend to a party in
Charlotte.
The
victim testified that the attack occurred around 9:30-9:45 p.m. when Ronnie’s
witnesses testified he was at home. Witnesses who were at the party
in Charlotte testified that they did not observe any scratches or
injuries on Ronnie or any scratches on his leather jacket that night at
the party.
The
defense pointed out to the jury that:
- Victim
had little to no interaction with African-Americans
- her
initial description of the perpetrator did not resemble Ronnie or include a
description of the perpetrator having facial hair;
- she
was terribly frightened;
- she
had a knife to her throat;
- it
took her a long time to identify Ronnie even though she sat in the courtroom
for an hour or more looking for him;
- she
initially told the police her attacker was black but then changed her testimony
to “light skinned” or “yellow looking”;
- she
recognized Ronnie because he was wearing a leather jacket;
- the
toboggan hid the perpetrator’s face;
- she
was, understandably, extremely emotionally upset.
The
defense also pointed to the lack of physical evidence connecting Ronnie
to the crime:
- SBI
Agent Dennis Mooney admitted that he could not say that the latent
shoe print found at the crime scene was made by Ronnie’s shoes;
- there
was no paint from the column on the house seen on the leather jacket or
leather gloves
- there
were no scratches on Ronnie or his jacket even though the victim
admitted she fought her assailant;
- the
hair that could be seen in the toboggan was light in color as opposed to
Ronnie’s hair which was black; and
- no
blood was found on Ronnie’s clothing.
Pictures
of the crime scene showing where the victim’s clothing was laying when the
police arrived at the scene were introduced at trial. The clothing itself was
not introduced as evidence. The clothing collected consisted of the
victim’s housecoat, pants, underwear, pantyhose and bedroom slippers.
The
jury rejected Ronnie’s alibi defense and convicted him. But there is more
to the story.
Aaron
Pharr, a
lifelong friend of Ronnie and his family, took Ronnie’s case to be reviewed by Professor
Richard Rosen of the UNC School of Law, who was then the head of the
UNC Innocence Project. Professor Rosen decided Ronnie’s claim of innocence had
merit and asked me to take the case. I agreed and asked Janine Zanin
to work with me on the case. Janine is currently the Assistant Director
of the Externship Program at UNC School of Law. I am a solo practitioner
in Chapel Hill.
WHAT
WE DISCOVERED
In May of 2005, Judge Erwin Spainhour granted our Motion to Locate and
Preserve Evidence. As part of that court order, the Cabarrus County District
Attorney’s Office, the Concord City Police Department and the N.C. State Bureau
of Investigation were ordered to:
1.
Submit for inspection all records relating to any and all evidence
collected in the case and
2.
Provide defense counsel with copies of all test results or reports
prepared in connection with the matter.
In
June of 2005, we filed a motion to have a DNA test conducted on the hairs found
on the toboggan to see if they matched Ronnie. At the June 16th hearing, the
SBI reported that “the only evidence found by the SBI that pertains to these
matters is a latent shoe print that was used to link the defendant to these
crimes.” As we later discovered, that was a complete falsehood.
Our motion for DNA testing was denied.
Also
at the June 2005 hearing, the Concord Police Department reported that the only
item found in their possession relating to this case was the master case file,
consisting entirely of paper work and a spiral notebook listing various items
of evidence that were “not specific to this case.” District Attorney,
Roxanne Vanekhoven, told the Court that she had reviewed the police
department file and there was nothing in it of evidentiary
value. Despite that misleading representation, the court ordered that we
be permitted to examine the file in the possession of the Concord Police
Department.
The
court also directed North East Medical Center to locate and preserve all
biological evidence in the hospital’s possession. In a letter to Judge
Spainhour, North East Medical Center indicated they turned everything over to
the Concord Police Department in April of 1976. That turned out to be
true.
WHAT
WEFOUND – ASTONISHING AND JAW DROPPING:
In
1976, Ronnie’s lawyers did NOT have the medical records of the
victim. They were completely unaware that the Concord
Police Department gathered physical evidence that was sent to the SBI for
testing – never told this to Ronnie’s lawyers. The SBI’s testing of
physical evidence did not link Ronnie to the crime scene –
what we lawyers call “exculpatory evidence” – evidence that
excludes a person from the one having committed the crime or points to
innocence or could create a reasonable doubt in juror’s minds.
The
medical records we found showed that Dr. Lance Monroe, the
physician who examined the victim at the hospital on the night of the crime,
collected physical evidence from the victim:
-her
pubic hair;
-fluid
from the victim’s vaginal vault which was placed onto microscopic slides; and
-vaginal
fluid found in the vagina, placed onto two swabs that were secured in a lab
test tube.
In
other words, a rape kit had been conducted. The medical records
indicated that this physical evidence was released to Officer Marshall
Lee of the Concord Police Department who delivered the items to the
evidence custodian at the police department, a detective named Van Isenhour.
At
the trial, there was no testimony by Dr.Monroe that any
biological evidence had been taken. There was also no testimony by anyone
for that State that the physical evidence was picked up from the hospital by
the Concord Police Department.
Detective Isenhour testified that he lifted
a partial latent shoe print from one of the porch columns on the victim’s
home. He testified he had no way of knowing when the shoe print was made
and that it could have been made as long as one month prior to the night of the
rape.
Detective Isenhour told the jury that he
asked the SBI to compare the crime scene shoe print to Ronnie’s shoe
prints. He did not tell the jury he took any other evidence
to the SBI for testing. At trial, SBI Agent Mooney
testified that in his opinion the shoes taken from Mr. Long “could have made”
the shoe track impression found at the scene but admitted on cross examination
that he could not say that the print “was made” by either of Mr.
Long’s shoes. Both the defense and the jury were led to believe
that the latent shoe print was the only piece of physical evidence
recovered from the scene.
To
our great surprise, when Janine and I reviewed the police department file, we
were astounded. The police file showed that the police department and hospital
not only collected evidence, it was sent to the SBI for
testing. Ronnie’s trial lawyers had no idea.
EVIDENCE
KEPT FROM RONNIE IN 1976 – THE SBI REPORTS
The
police case file showed that the physical evidence was personally
delivered by Detective Isenhour on May 11, 1976 - the day
after Ronnie’s arrest - to the SBI lab for testing. Those reports were NEVER
disclosed to Ronnie’s trial lawyers – not by the prosecutor and not by the
police department. In January of 2006 – 30 years later – we found
the SBI written reports as a result of a search of the SBI lab in Raleigh.
AND
BY THE WAY, ISENHOUR, A FEW YEARS AFTER RONNIE WAS CONVICTED,
WAS HIMSELF CONVICTED OF MAIL FRAUD IN FEDERAL COURT FOR STEALING CHECKS
OUT OF MAILBOXES AND SPENT TIME IN FEDERAL PRISON.
The SBI reports indicate Detective Isenhour drove the following items
to the SBI for testing:
a. the green toboggan;
b. the black gloves;
c. the black leather
jacket;
d. a head hair taken from
Ronnie when he was arrested;
e. a pubic hair taken from
Ronnie;
f. carpet fibers taken
from the victim’s home;
g. paint from outside column of
the house;
h. a hair found at the crime scene;
i. head and pubic hair
taken from the victim;
j. matchbooks found at
the scene;
k. partially burned matches
found at the scene; and
l. the victim’s clothing.
There
is no indication that any of the medical evidence collected was
submitted to the SBI.
The
SBI compared the hair found at the scene to the hair taken from Ronnie. The
report indicates, “Microscopic examination and comparison of the hair
found at the scene . . . showed it to be DIFFERENT from the suspect’s hair
. . .”
The
report further indicates that:
- the
hair found at the scene was “more reddish” with a “heavier pigmentation” while
Ronnie’s hair was “more brownish gray” with “more scattered pigment.”
- The
medulla of the hair found at the crime scene was “wide” while the medulla of
Ronnie’s hair was “narrow”.
- The
hair found at the scene was “more oval” while Ronnie’s hair was
“flatter-ribbony”.
- The
examiner speculates that the hair found at the scene “may be negroid or indian
(Mongolian)”.
- The
examiner specifically concluded that the hair found at the scene was “different
from Ronnie’s hair”.
The
SBI also conducted an examination of the victim’s clothing for hair and a
comparison of any hair found with the hair taken from Mr. Long. The
results? “No hair or hair fragments similar to the suspect’s were found in
the victim’s clothing.”
The
SBI looked at the toboggan, the gloves and the leather jacket for the presence
of paint and carpet fibers to see if there was a match to the paint and carpet
fibers collected from the victim’s home. The report states the examination
of Mr. Long’s clothing “FAILED to reveal the presence of any fibers or paint
similar to those [submitted].”
The
SBI compared the matches found at the crime scene with the matchbooks allegedly
found in Ronnie’s father’s car. An examination of the matches “FAILED
to reveal sufficient identifying characteristics to allow the examiner to give
an opinion”
I
remind you that the testimony at trial was that the State could not
conclusively say that the shoe print from the crime scene matched Ronnie’s
shoes.
The
written SBI shoe print report was never provided to trial
counsel. That report states: “there were an insufficient number
of distinct characteristics noted by which to effect any identification.”
Detective Isenhour never
told Ronnie’s lawyers or the jury that he took all of the other items to the
SBI the same day he took the shoe
print evidence. Detective Isenhour testified at trial that the
toboggan, the leather jacket and the gloves had remained in his sole custody
and control from the time it was collected until the day of the
trial. Yet, we now know he took those items to the SBI lab. His
testimony was false (also known as purgery).
The
test results are astounding for none of them to show any match to
Ronnie. Rather, all of the SBI results pointed in the opposite
direction- the physical evidence in this case strongly pointed to
Ronnie’s innocence. Just as astounding is the fact that none of
this evidence was introduced at trial because Ronnie’s trial attorneys were
completely unaware that it had been collected, sent to the SBI, and tested.
MISSING
EVIDENCE AND DNA
Where
is the rape kit? Where is the clothing? Where are the other
items of physical evidence the SBI tested? We have the reports but not
the actual hair, carpet, fiber and other samples taken. We've been unable
to find any of the physical evidence in this case. We can only surmise
that it is either lost or was destroyed.
In
the 1970s, it was common in murder and rape cases for blood typing to be done
by the SBI in order to try to connect a suspect to a crime. Remember, DNA
testing did not exist in those years. Despite all of our efforts to
locate the rape kit, the victim’s clothing, the hair, the paint and the
carpet fibers – all of which could be DNA tested today –our efforts have
been to no avail.
We
have also been unable to determine whether any blood testing was done by the
SBI in this case. All of the other physical evidence was sent to the lab – why
not the rape kit? And why were the victim’s clothes not tested for the
presence of Ronnie’s blood on them?
Our
motion to have the hair in the toboggan DNA tested was denied.
That test could well eliminate Ronnie as the perpetrator of the crime.
Yet, we have not been allowed to conduct a DNA test.
THE
2008 MAR HEARING
Following
our investigation, we filed a motion asking that Ronnie be granted a new trial
on the basis that his constitutional rights had been violated - the State
failed to disclose evidence favorable to Ronnie. In late 2008, a full
hearing was conducted. Ronnie’s trial lawyers, James Fuller
& Karl Atkins, testified that they never knew nor
were they ever told about the SBI testing and the
results which did not connect Ronnie to the crime. They both testified
that if they had known such evidence existed, they would have presented
it to the jury. Both lawyers testified this would have been powerful
evidence in Ronnie’s defense.
Les Burns, the lead
investigator for trial counsel, kept his field file for 31 years and gave it to
us. Mr. Burns’ field file contained a copy of the complete discovery received
by trial counsel which definitively shows that trial counsel was not told about
the testing nor did they ever received the written reports. How did we
prove that? We compared Mr. Burn’s file with the documents the State
produced in 1976 - contained in the Cabarrus County Clerk’s Office. The
court documents match page for page, word for word, the file Mr. Burns kept all
these years.
Ron
Bowers,
who was an Assistant DA and who, along with Bob Roberts, the
Cabarrus County DA in1976, prosecuted Ronnie for the rape. Mr.
Bowers testified FOR Ronnie at the 2008 hearing. He
testified that the police department never told him that evidence had been
submitted to the SBI for testing, and that if he had known about it, he would
have told Ronnie’s lawyers and given them the reports. He also testified
that it was common in those days to conduct blood type testing and that if he
known about the rape kit, he would have had it tested. Mr. Bowers
testified that, in his opinion, Ronnie did not receive a fair trial
given that the police department hid critical evidence.
At
the close of the hearing, we argued that had Mr. Long’s trial attorneys been
aware of the evidence collected and known of the favorable test results, they
would have presented it, along with Mr. Long’s alibi defense, to the
jury. Not only would this evidence have helped support the alibi defense,
it would have greatly aided the defense’s position that the victim was mistaken
in her identification of Ronnie as the perpetrator. Despite proving that
exculpatory evidence was not turned over in 1976, our motion for a new trial
was denied.
The
denial of our motion for a new trial was appealed to the NC Supreme
Court. Briefs were submitted and oral arguments held. In February
of 2010, the NC Supreme Court issued a very short decision: THERE WAS A
3-3 TIE. In other words, three judges voted to give Ronnie a new
trial. There are 7 judges on the NC Supreme Court. Justice Brady,
who read the briefs and heard the arguments, declined to vote, resulting in the
tie that denied Ronnie a new trial.
Ronnie
then took his case to federal court but his motion for a new trial was denied
on a technicality – a new statute of limitations that Congress passed after
9/11.
Because
of the complexity of the matter and because litigation is still pending in the
NC courts, there is some chance Ronnie may have his sentenced reduced and be
eligible to be released some time next year. That remains to be seen.
The only
other legal remedy Ronnie has left is with the NC
Innocence Inquiry Commission which agreed a year or so ago to investigate this
case. Our hope is they will find evidence to DNA test, or find other ways
to exonerate Ronnie so he can be freed from prison and pronounced
innocent. Ronnie has been deprived for over thirty-nine years of his
constitutional rights due to the misconduct of the State (Concord Police
Department). Ronnie has claimed his innocence from the outset of this
matter. His family has stood behind him for over 39 years. It is
long past time for the truth to come to light and for justice to prevail.
**Donna
Bennick, Ronnie’s former attorney, wrote this speech. To confirm this speech,
she may be reached by the following:
(919)
968-6883 Office
(919)
619-0454 Cell
