THE WEST MEMPHIS THREE

The West Memphis Three

The West Memphis Three

Introduction

In March 1994, Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin were convicted of the capital murders of Michael Moore, Christopher Byers, and Steve Branch in Craighead County Circuit Court. Jesse Misskelley was also convicted of the same murders in a separate trial, which occurred earlier that year. When they were charged, Echols was nineteen years old, Baldwin was sixteen years old, and Misskelley was seventeen years old. The trials and convictions of these three men, now commonly referred to as the "West Memphis Three," have received substantial attention from around the nation due to the violent and horrifying nature of the crimes and because of the lack of any substantial physical evidence linking the men to the murders.(Barkan,2004)

In 2002, Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley all filed motions for forensic DNA testing pursuant to section 16-112-201 to section 16-112-208 of the Arkansas Code in the Circuit Court of Craighead County. These statutes provide a means for convicted persons to obtain relief based on new scientific evidence. Two years after Echols filed his motion for forensic DNA testing, the court issued an order for testing. Based on the test results, Echols filed a motion for a new trial on April 14, 2008. Both Baldwin and Misskelley filed similar motions for new trials, but the focus of this comment will be limited to Echols's motion to avoid confusion, and because the legal arguments underlying each respective motion were the same.

Without a hearing, Craighead County Circuit Judge David Burnett summarily denied Echols's motion on September 10, 2008. Judge Burnett also summarily denied Baldwin's and Misskelley's respective motions without a hearing.

This comment provides the factual background of the West Memphis Three case and the historical development of Arkansas's statute for post-conviction relief based on new scientific evidence. Then, it discusses the legal issues addressed in Echols's motion for a new trial, the State's reply, and the denial of Echols's motion by the circuit court. In light of these issues, this comment evaluates the propriety of the circuit court's denial of Echols's motion for a new trial. This comment first assesses the circuit court's decision to deny Echols's relief pursuant to section 16-112-208(b) of the Arkansas Code for inconclusive testing results.

Then, it explores whether Echols's proposed new scientific evidence meets the evidentiary standard provided by section 16-112-208(e) for a new trial. The resolution of the second issue involves the examination of two sub-issues: (1) whether Echols's proposed forensic evidence may be considered under the statute; and (2) what evidentiary showing is required by the language of section 208(e) of the statute. After evaluating the legal arguments presented by the State and Echols on each of these issues, this comment reaches the conclusion that the trial court erred in denying Echols's motion for a new trial.

Factual Background

Throughout the history of this case, the evidence has been heavily debated not only in the courtroom, but also in the surrounding media storm.12 Nonetheless, this section attempts to provide an objective and unbiased overview ...