Justice for Willie Manning

Willie Manning Tree of Life

Willie Jerome Manning has been on Death Row in Mississippi since 1994. He is appealing against a conviction for the murder of two students, Jon Steckler and Tiffany Miller, in 1992. He is awaiting the results of DNA testing and fingerprint comparison for this case, which, he claims, will clear his name (see more about this case below, at 1992 Steckler-Miller Case).

Willie was previously also convicted of the murders of two elderly ladies, Emmoline Jimmerson and Alberta Jordan, in 1993. However, in February 2015 the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned this conviction and ordered a new trial, declaring:
“the State violated Manning’s due-process rights by failing to provide favorable, material evidence.”
You can read a report about the court’s decision in this case at the Huffington Post.
(See more below, at 1993 Jimmerson-Jordan Case [Brookville Garden Case].)

Both cases were in the same area, and involved the same prosecutor, Forrest Allgood.

1992 Steckler-Miller Case

In this case Willie has many serious issues to raise, including:

  • Biological evidence should be DNA tested, using methods not available at the time of the murders (no physical evidence linked Willie to the murder scene: none of the fingerprints, hair, blood or fibers found at the scene corresponded with Willie’s). Expert hair testimony given at his trial (related to hair fragments from Miller’s car) has now been shown to have been flawed. DNA testing has not previously been conducted on several other items which were collected, for instance, scrapings from under the victims’ fingernails, a rape kit and hair from the victims’ hands.
  • Expert ballistics testimony given at Willie’s trial has also been shown to have been flawed.
  • The State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence about three of its witnesses (including evidence about the witnesses’ incentives to testify in favor of the State e.g. one witness received the enormous sum of $17,500, and had the penalties for pending criminal charges hugely reduced). Yet the prosecutor himself highlighted the crucial role of witnesses in the outcome of the case.
  • Secretly recorded tapes and transcripts of a telephone conversation between Willie and a key witness were not presented to the jurors. This conversation reveals the witness’s role as an undisclosed State agent (she asked questions provided by the Sheriff). Willie’s replies were not incriminatory; however, the witness herself contradicted her court evidence (e.g. saying that she did not know anything about someone shooting at a tree), and stated that she was being threatened with prosecution.
  • Another key witness, a jailhouse informant, made inconsistent statements and an improbable “confession” involving four people being in a two-seater car, when one of those four was actually incarcerated in Alabama at the time of the crime. This witness was also able to pass a polygraph (lie detector) test implicating someone else in the crimes even before he supposedly heard Willie “confess”.
  • The State used a further witness despite a warning by his uncle that he was likely to be lying.
  • The State speculated that a car burglary was connected with the murders; however, no firm proof linked the burglary to the murders, and the Sheriff acknowledged that no physical evidence linked Willie to the burglary. Footprints found at the scene did not match Willie’s footwear; a jacket alleged to be Willie’s was not identified as such by the FBI; and a ‘huggie’ described as being found near Willie’s home was in fact recovered five miles from his house. The token found at the murder scene may not have come from the burgled car, as four judges noted in their April 25 2013 dissent.
  • The State accepted that Willie had alibi evidence up to 11 pm on the evening of the murders (he was at the 2500 Club). During post-conviction investigations several witnesses stated that they saw Willie at the club later than 11 pm, including between midnight and almost 1 am.
  • There is a possible pattern of reliance on testimony procured unfairly (see below for points from his 1993 case).
  • African-American people were improperly kept off Willie’s trial jury.
  • Willie’s trial attorneys were ineffective at the penalty phase.

It was the case of the two students that brought Willie close to execution on May 7 2013, following a 5:4 decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court that denied him DNA testing and fingerprint comparison. 4 judges dissented from that decision, feeling strongly enough to issue separate statements (page 8 onwards) that included the following:

“Manning presented evidence at trial that undermined the State’s case against him.”

These statements, endorsed as they were by nearly half the judges involved in the decision,  calls into question the other 5 judges’ statement, publicized by the Attorney General, Jim Hood, that ‘conclusive, overwhelming evidence of guilt’ rendered testing unnecessary. Moreover, the 4 dissenting judges also noted that DNA testing might enhance public safety by identifying unknown perpetrators. (There is more about the judges’ decision on this website at More on Willie’s Cases.)

Shortly before Willie’s scheduled execution, as part of their review of widespread flaws in FBI forensic evidence, the Justice Department and FBI sent three letters to officials in Mississippi admitting that expert testimony given at Willie’s trial regarding hair and ballistics was flawed. Two of the letters were about hair testimony. One of these, which you can read here, states “testimony containing erroneous statements regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis was used in this case” and “it would be error for an examiner to testify that he can determine that the questioned hairs were from an individual of a particular racial group”. This testimony referred only to hair fragments from the floor of Miller’s car, and not to hair found in the victims’ hands, which has not previously been tested.

The FBI offered to provide testing of relevant hair evidence or related biological evidence.

The third letter (available here) outlined the errors that were made in ballistics analysis,

“The science regarding firearms examination does not permit examiner testimony that a specific gun fired a specific bullet to the exclusion of all other guns in the world.”

Willie had a ‘Motion to Stay Execution’ issued only 4 hours before the scheduled execution time on May 7 2013. The Mississipi Supreme Court judges split 8:1 on this motion, with the Presiding Justice, Justice Randolph, objecting. The decision was widely reported, including in The Washington Post. The Court did not issue a further order until July 23 2013, when it unanimously reversed its earlier 5:4 decision to deny testing. No reason was given for the reversal, but presumably all judges were now embracing views originally held only by the minority.

Willie asked the Mississippi Supreme Court for hearings to consider the reliability of expert testimony regarding ballistics and hair analysis, but in its ruling of July 25 2013 the Court denied him these hearings. A further request, to have his convictions set aside, was also turned down.

The Oktibbeha County Circuit Court ordered searches for evidence to be made in seven locations; the searches took place in April 2014 and evidence was found.

Andrew Cohen wrote extensively about this case in The Atlantic in May 2013: you can read his analysis here, here, here and here. You can also watch a video analyzing the case at Democracy Now.

1993 Jimmerson-Jordan Case (Brookville Garden Case)

In May 2013 Oktibbeha County Circuit Judge Lee Howard’s denied Willie a post-hearing memorandum in this case  (see Associated Press report carried by many newspapers e.g. Jackson Free Press).

Appealing this decision, Willie stated in two briefs, submitted December 2013 and May 2014, that this case involved substantial allegations of State misconduct resulting in wrongful conviction. He made the following points:

  • The crucial State witness, Kevin Lucious, committed perjury at Willie’s trial when he testified he watched from his apartment in Brookville Garden as Willie entered the elderly ladies’ apartment opposite. (Lucious’s trial testimony was unequivocal that he watched from his apartment; yet police canvass notes show that this apartment was vacant at the time, and that Lucious was not then living in a Brookville Garden apartment*).
  • The State erred in failing to disclose these police canvass notes to Willie’s trial counsel.
  • The State is mistaken in asserting that other witnesses corroborated Lucious’s trial testimony about seeing Willie enter the apartment: no other witness confirmed this.
  • Lucious testified at a post-conviction hearing that none of his trial testimony was true, and that he had lied because of pressure brought by the State.
  • Another witness, Herbert Ashford, undermined his own credibility by making statements that were contradictory.
  • The State erred in failing to disclose a crime lab report showing that a bloody shoe print next to one of the bodies could not have been left by Willie (the shoe print was size 8, whereas Willie’s shoe size is 10½ – 11).
  • Willie’s trial counsel was deficient in: failing to impeach Lucious; failing to interview Willie’s brother, Marshon Manning, and call him as a witness; failing to investigate Ashford or interview Teresa Bush, who was then living with Ashford; failing to investigate other possible suspects; and failing to investigate the shoeprint.
  • At the evidentiary hearing the Oktibbeha County Circuit Court erred in refusing to authorize for presentation all the documents that Willie had requested.
  • Forensic evidence yielded no clues as to the perpetrator. There were no prints found on the weapons used against the victims, and law enforcement found no DNA,  fibers, prints, or other physical evidence that pointed to any suspect.
  • Law enforcement made no arrest for well over a year following the homicides.
  • Amicus briefs submitted on Willie’s behalf point out that perjured testimony is the most common cause of wrongful conviction, especially in capital cases; and that incentivized witnesses contribute to these false convictions.

*Record Excerpts from this case, including the Police Department notes and the Mississippi Crime Laboratory footwear case notes, are available at the State of Mississippi Judiciary. The police canvass notes (page 36 of the document) show that Kevin Lucious was not living in Brookville Garden at the time of the murders.  (The murders occurred on January 18, 1993; Lucious moved into Apartment 11-E on February 1, 1993; Apartment 11-E was vacant when the murders happened. The police canvass notes were not disclosed by prosecutors to Willie’s trial counsel.) 

The oral argument for this case was heard in October 2014; a video showing this can be viewed here, and will become available at Mississippi College School of Law. The court heard arguments from the defense and the State, focusing on the recanted testimony and the two pieces of evidence that were not available to the trial defense attorneys (police canvass notes and evidence about the size of the shoe print). During the oral argument Justice Dickinson raised the possibility of improper conduct by the State:

“…the two pieces of information that are missing are pieces of information that it seems at least arguable would have been favorable to Mr Manning’s defense. And they’re both missing from the files that were provided to defense counsel. Do you find that odd?” (see October 2014 oral argument video, 1:25.30).

In a 7:2 decision on February 12 2015, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Oktibbeha County Circuit Court which had denied Willie post-conviction relief, reversed Willie’s conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial.

The recanted testimony of both Kevin Lucious and his girlfriend is alluded to, but does not contribute to the Court’s decision. The missing evidence about the size of the bloody shoe print is not mentioned in the ruling.

The Court’s decision is based solely on the State’s failure to provide the police canvass notes to the defense attorneys, who, in the judges’ view, could not reasonably have found this evidence for themselves. The Court concludes that if the police canvass notes had been disclosed to the defense, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.

The Court notes uncertainty about why this evidence was not disclosed:

“The Police Chief of Starkville, who at the time of the crime was the captain in charge of investigations and a lead officer in this case, testified at the PCR hearing [post-conviction-relief hearing, held in 2011] that he ordered the canvass of the apartment complex. The canvass cards were all present in the Starkville Police Department file. The district attorney testified that he never saw the canvass cards and that he would have investigated the discrepancy had he possessed the information. The record supports that neither the district attorney’s office nor the defense attorneys were aware of the evidence. The reasons why the information was not disclosed is immaterial.”

The oral argument provides more information about non-disclosure: Special Assistant Attorney General Melanie Thomas states there that the Starkville police chief testified at the evidentiary hearing (in 2011) that he copied the whole file, including the canvass notes, and gave it to the District Attorney (see October 2014 oral argument video, 1:10.25).

The Court concludes that there was “suppression of material evidence by a state actor”. This actor was presumably the Starkville Police Department, which the Court describes as “the primary investigative agency”; the Court makes it clear that the “prosecution team … includes both investigative and prosecutorial personnel”.

The Court also ruled that Willie’s counsel should not be deemed ineffective, as

“their preparation and presentation was hamstrung from the beginning due to undisclosed favorable, material evidence”.

The two dissenting judges adopted the State’s theory that Lucious may have been squatting in the empty apartment. At the oral argument Willie’s attorney, David Voisin, argued that this theory was “sheer speculation of hearsay of an unknown declarant” and that “the State did not present any confident proof of any kind of squatting” (see October 2014 oral argument video, 46:25.25).

You can watch a video clip about this case from an Al Jazeera America program (third video clip on the page).

The murders involved in the two cases were very different, as noted by former policeman, Vincent Hill (starts properly at 4.00 minutes):

“It doesn’t make sense… People are creatures of habit. Even serial killers are creatures of habit. They kill the exact same way every time… You don’t go shooting someone and then the next day saying, ‘No, that was too noisy – I want to stab them’.”

To read more about both cases, see More on Willie’s Cases.