Superior Court Judge Robert Ervin ruled that North Carolina death row inmate Glen Edward Chapman is enti­tled to a new tri­al based on ample evi­dence that he was wrong­ly con­vict­ed. Judge Ervin said that law enforce­ment offi­cials with­held evi­dence, used false tes­ti­mo­ny, and mis­placed or destroyed impor­tant doc­u­ments that could have sup­port­ed Chapman’s inno­cence claim. The judge’s order also revealed that Chapman’s defense attor­neys did not ade­quate­ly rep­re­sent him dur­ing his tri­al, and that expert tes­ti­mo­ny cast doubt that one of Chapman’s alleged vic­tims, Yvette Conley, was mur­dered at all. The tes­ti­mo­ny indi­cat­ed that Conley may have died of a drug over­dose. ​“The notion that a defen­dant can be put to death when no crime in fact occurred is trou­bling at best,” wrote Judge Ervin after hold­ing a series of evi­den­tiary hear­ings exam­in­ing Chapman’s inno­cence claims.

Chapman was sen­tenced to death for the 1992 mur­ders of Conley and Jean Ramseur. At first, pros­e­cu­tor Jason Parker offered Chapman a plea bar­gain because ​“it was­n’t the world’s great­est case,” but Chapman insist­ed that he was inno­cent and want­ed to clear him­self in court. Judge Ervin not­ed that among the cov­ered-up evi­dence sup­port­ing Chapman’s inno­cence claim was a wit­ness who said he saw a man with Ramseur on the night of the mur­der who was not Chapman. Prosecutors also con­cealed a report that a jail inmate had con­fessed to Ramseur’s mur­der. The judge explained that Chapman’s attor­neys did not have access to the report because a detec­tive per­jured him­self at Chapman’s orig­i­nal tri­al and his tes­ti­mo­ny dur­ing evi­den­tiary hear­ings was ​“not cred­i­ble.”

One of Chapman’s attor­neys, Frank Goldsmith, not­ed, ​“After 14 years, Edward Chapman has final­ly had his day in court.… This is a sig­nif­i­cant step in an inno­cent man’s quest for jus­tice. We can­not express the degree of our relief that Edward and the fam­i­lies of Ms. Ramseur and Ms. Conley have been grant­ed a new oppor­tu­ni­ty for the truth to be told and jus­tice to be served.”

(Charlotte Observer, November 12, 2007, and Defense Attorneys’ Press Release, November 7, 2007). 

See Innocence and Arbitrariness.

Citation Guide