WESTERN DISTRICT
DAMIEN ECHOLS and CHARLES JASON BALDWIN PLAINTIFFS
vs. CR-93-450A & 450B
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT
------------------/
JESSIE LLOYD MISSKELLEY, JR. PLAINTIFF
vs. CR-93-47
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT
-------------------/
JOINT STATUS MEMORANDUM
DEPT: JUDGE BURNETT
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Status Memorandum is to report to the Court on recent developments in the above-entitled case, and to outline the parties' proposals for further proceedings. Because this is a Joint Memorandum, some topics on which the parties may disagree are not dealt with here in any detail.
-1-
2. STATUS OF RE-TESTING OF THE EVIDENCE AND RELATED MATTERS
Thanks to arrangements made by the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, the West Memphis Police Department, and the Arkansas Crime Laboratory, over the past year the parties have spent a number of hours reviewing virtually every item of evidence acquired in the course of the investigation of the above-described cases. Criminalists from the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, and criminalists retained by the defense, participated in at least some of the evidence review process. In addition to looking at evidence at the West Memphis Police Department and Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, the parties also reviewed files and records in the care and custody of the Arkansas Supreme Court in an attempt to locate all of the pertinent evidence.
After the review of the evidence took place, and over a number of months, the parties negotiated to achieve agreement on at least some potentially dispositive testing and/or re-testing of evidence. The negotiations were lengthy in part because the parties were seeking to avoid litigation of post-conviction testing issues where possible. This process resulted in the drafting of a written agreement, reviewed by all counsel involved in these cases, which sets forth two lists of numerous items that will be subject to independent laboratory testing for the presence of DNA.
-2-
Through this Status Memorandum, the parties also inform the Court that there have been certain areas on which the parties have agreed to disagree. These areas include, but are not limited to: defense requests for examination and testing (or re-testing) of fiber evidence; defense requests for examination of hair evidence; DNA analysis of items that were not included in the agreed upon lists. However, the parties have agreed that because the results of the initial DNA testing may provide some dispositive evidence, results of those tests should be obtained prior to the scheduling of any litigation pertinent to further post-conviction evidence testing.
3. STATUS OF BALDWIN AND MISSKELLEY CASES
Timely filed Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 37 petitioners are pending before the Court in the Baldwin and Misskelley cases. The pertinent parties have discussed the further litigation of these two cases, and propose that after the conclusion of the agreed-upon DNA testing and any further necessary litigation, Baldwin and Misskelley will submit amended petitions.
4. TIME ESTIMATE FOR THE COMPLETION OF AGREED-UPON TESTING.
Once the evidence is actually in the hands of the agreed-upon laboratory, and the preparation of samples and materials is complete, it is estimated that it will take between 60 and 90 days for the parties to receive results. The accuracy of this time estimate is in
-3-
part contingent on the work schedules of the agreed upon laboratories. As contemplated by the agreement between the parties and related Order tendered to the Court, there may be a second round of testing for a limited number of samples prior to the completion of the testing procedures. This second round of testing could, factoring in the time for transmission of the samples, and the further testing procedures, add an additional 90 to 120 days to the process.
The time periods contemplated are contingent on the testing schedules set by the agreed-upon laboratories.
CONCLUSION
Should the Court wish to meet with the parties, hold a telephonic status conference, or obtain further written information about the case, the parties will make themselves available as directed by the Court. This Joint Status Memorandum is
Respectfully Submitted by the
Following Parties:
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Dated: 5-20, 2004.
By: Brent Davis [signed]
BRENT DAVIS, Esq.
Prosecuting Attorney
Second Judicial District
-4-
PETITIONER DAMIEN ECHOLS
Dated: May 12, 2004.
By: Robert C. Owen [signed]
ROBERT C. OWEN, Esq.
Attorney for Damien Echols
PETITIONER JESSIE MISSKELLEY
Michael N. Burt, Esq.
Jeffery M. Rosenzweig, Esq.
Dated: May 10, 2004.
By: Michael N. Burt [signed]
MICHAEL N. BURT, Esq.
Attorney for Jessie Misskelley, Jr.
PETITIONER CHARLES JASON BALDWIN
J. Blake Hendrix, Esq.
John T. Philipsborn, Esq.
Dated: May 10, 2004.
By: John T. Philipsborn [signed]
JOHN T. PHILIPSBORN
Attorney for Jason Baldwin
-5-
