Is Sean Ellis of Netflix’s Trial 4 guilty?
The answer depends on who you are asking:
** If you ask police officers in Boston or people who work for the public prosecutor in Suffolk Country (Boston), most will say yes.
** If you ask Sean Ellis himself or his lawyers or people who are close to him, the answer is a sharp no.
The history of Sean's case is long and complicated. If you want all the facts, and all the details, you will have to watch all eight episodes of the series on Netflix. In this answer I can only offer some basic information:
(1) The case begins in 1993 when a Boston police officer (John James Mulligan) is shot and killed while sitting in his car outside a supermarket (Walgreens) which is open 24/7. The killing takes place in the night, around 3 A.M.
(2) Two young African-Americans are accused of this crime. Let us call them A and B. Person A the shooter and person B his friend who is standing behind him. According to the Boston police, this was a joint venture. This term means both men are regarded as a cop killer. Sean Ellis is person B.
He claims he is innocent. He says he was at Walgreens around the time of the murder, but only because he was there to buy some pampers for the child of his girlfriend.
(3) What evidence do the police have against Sean? They have an eyewitness (Rosa) who says she saw a person crouching next to Mulligan's car when she entered the supermarket shortly before the shooting. How was Sean identified?
(4) The witness comes to the police station where she is shown a page with ca. 10 small photos of suspects. Rosa looks at the page and points to a photo. The police officers tell her no. Not that one! Rosa looks again and points to a second photo. Again, the police officers tell her no. Not that one!
Now there is a break during which a police officer talks to Rosa. After a while they return to the table. Rosa looks at the page again and points to a third photo. This time the officers say thank you. The third photo is of Sean Ellis!
A few days later, Rosa is asked to attend a line-up of seven or eight persons. She is asked to point out the man she says she saw crouching next to Mulligan's car. This time she picks Sean without any hesitation. This is obvious. This is easy. She can remember him from the photo session earlier.
(5) Eyewitness identification is always unreliable, especially if the light is low and the distance is far. In this case there was an additional factor involved:
One of the police officers who took part in the photo line-up was the boyfriend of Rosa’s aunt. She knew him. He was practically a family member. It was highly inappropriate for this officer to take part in the photo session, because he could influence her choice. He could suggest which photo was the “right" choice.
(6) in 1995, Ellis was charged and brought to trial. The first trial ended with a hung jury. The judge was forced to declare a mistrial.
A second trial was held with a new jury. This trial also ended with a hung jury. Again, the judge was forced to declare a mistrial.
It was becoming clear that the Boston police and the public prosecutor of Suffolk County were not giving up. They were going to bring this case to trial again and again, until they got the result which they desired.
A third trial was held with a new jury. This time the jury was able to reach a verdict. Ellis was found guilty.
One significant detail was changed in the third trial. One witness who had appeared in the first and the second trials was excluded. This witness was Sean’s uncle who had spoken positive words about his nephew and had supported his claim of innocence.
Perhaps his testimony had swayed some jurors during the first and the second trials? If indeed this was the case, it was not going to happen again. In the third trial, the uncle was not called to the stand. Perhaps this detail was enough to tip the scales and produce the result which the police and the prosecutor desired?
(7) Shortly after the three trials were over, new information appeared. This new information was highly relevant to the case, because it cast serious doubt on the version which had been presented by the police and the prosecution.
Mulligan was not a respectable gentleman; he was not an honest cop. He used to steal money and drugs from drug dealers. Since he was a police officer, and since his victims were drug dealers, they were not likely to report his crime to the police.
Mulligan also used to pick up young girls and ask for “special services.” He would pay them with money and drugs which he had stolen from drug dealers.
This does not mean that deserved to be shot and killed, but does show that many people had good reason to hate him. He had many enemies who had a strong motive to kill him.
Sean was not a drug a drug dealer. He did not know Mulligan and had no motive to kill him.
Mulligan had other tricks as well. He made false claims for overtime. In one year, he was able to double his ordinary salary by making false claims for overtime.
Mulligan owned eight apartments and several cars. How could he afford this on a police officer's salary? Clearly, he was living above his legal means.
These facts about the victim were never mentioned in court. Had they been mentioned, they might have caused the jury to give a different verdict.
(8) The investigation of the murder was conducted by officers from the drug squad who were also dirty cops. Their primary purpose was to protect themselves and to find a suitable scapegoat. Sean Ellis fit the bill.
The dirty cops who controlled the investigation made sure that no negative information about police officers was revealed to the public. At least not during the trials.
The police and the prosecution had information which might have helped Sean prove his claim of innocence. But this information was not shared with the defence.
The police had several leads which might have revealed the true perpetrator. But these leads were never explored and the prosecution never informed the defence about the existence of such leads.
In other words: the prosecution failed to share exculpatory evidence. This behaviour falls under the category prosecutorial misconduct.
(9) While in prison, Sean applied for parole; it was denied. He also applied for a new trial; it was denied.
After many years had passed (around 2013) there was a new development: Sean’s new lawyer was able to get permission to have a hearing about a new trial.
During this hearing, his lawyer said Sean deserved a new trial, because he never had a fair trial.
Having heard the new evidence, the judge agreed and ordered that a new trial should take place.
How did the public prosecutor respond? He appealed the court’s decision! But in the appeals court the prosecutor lost and the lower court's decision was upheld.
The prosecutor was ordered to hold a new trial. This would be trial 4. Hence the title of the Netflix series.
(10) In 2015, while waiting for the fourth trial, Sean was released on bail. He was free, but he had to wear an ankle bracelet, so his movements could be tracked.
What about the new trial?
It never happened!
Why not?
In 2018, the prosecutor made a public statement with two basic points:
(A) We regard Sean as guilty of murder.
(B) We are not going to hold a new trial.
In other words: Sean was a free man, but he was still regarded as guilty.
For Sean and his supporters, this message was bittersweet:
** It was sweet, because he was now a free man. No prison, no ankle bracelet.
** It was bitter, because he had not been declared innocent; he had not been exonerated.
CONCLUSION
Is Sean Ellis guilty or innocent? If you look at the evidence with an open mind, it is obvious that he is innocent.
He was the victim of a wrongful conviction. He served more than twenty-one years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
The full series, which is available on Netflix, offers much more evidence to support Sean’s case than I have mentioned here.
If you are interested in the question of human rights – if you want to know how a criminal justice system can work and sometimes make terrible mistakes - this series is definitely something for you.
PS # 1. When we see what kind of evidence is needed when a defendant is found guilty and sentenced to a long prison sentence, the bar seems to be surprisingly low in the US.
Many convictions are based on evidence which is highly dubious or in some cases even falsified.
When we see what kind of evidence is needed when a convicted prisoner wants to get a new trial or wants to get an exoneration after a wrongful conviction, the bar seems to be extremely high in the US.
Even though the prisoner and his lawyer can demonstrate serious flaws in the original trial, it is often not enough to get a new trial or an exoneration.
Perhaps this is because this would mean that the prosecutor would have to admit that the original prosecution was flawed and based on insufficient evidence?
PS # 2. For information about several other cases of wrongful conviction in the US, visit my blog for September 2020:
Wrongful convictions in the US
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment