Emerson Stevens with his attorneys, Jennifer Givens and Deidre Enright.   Photo credit: Alec Sieber/ UVa School of Law

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

In August, Governor Northam granted a full pardon to Emerson Stevens. Stevens had been convicted of killing a young mother of two in 1985 in a small fishing village on the Northern Neck. The pardon was based on evidence that “reflects Mr. Stevens’ innocence.”

Stevens maintained from the beginning that he was innocent. His first trial ended in a hung jury. The second jury found him guilty and sentenced him to 164 years in prison.

He was paroled in 2017 after being held in jail and prison for more than 30 years for a crime he did not commit. Although free on parole, he continued to fight to clear his name.

The only physical evidence used to like Stevens to the crime was a strand of hair found in his truck. The method used to associate that hair with the victim has been discredited. After the sheriff who had been in office at the time of the crime retired, the new sheriff in 2016 “found” a box of evidence related to the trial. It contained numerous documents that cast much doubt on the prosecutor’s case, including an FBI report. None of this had been disclosed to the Stevens’ attorney at the trial.

The contents of the box were a major factor in the granting of parole to Stevens.

In addition to prosecutorial misconduct, the State Police investigator assigned to the case used questionable tactics. In a 2020 interview, he admitted to planting an idea in Stevens’ mind a scenario that placed Stevens near the victim’s house the night she disappeared. The investigator told the reporter, “If you can’t get a direct confession, you just try to get them to talk. They’ll say things against their own interest as a way to wiggle out. The whole thing is to keep people talking and steer them in the direction you want them to go.”

Potential witnesses claim the investigator bullied them and asked them to lie in their testimony. The investigator denies theses allegations. However, his conduct was a major factor in the overthrowing by a court of a high-profile murder conviction several years after the Stevens case.

In his attempt to clear his name, Stevens petitioned the federal court of authorization to file habeas application attacking his conviction. The three-judge panel unanimously concluded that Stevens had “make the prima facie showing” that he needed to make in order to file the habeas application in federal court. At the same time, the court went to great lengths to point out the ability of the governor to pardon convicted persons.

One of the judges on the panel went further than the official opinion. In a concurring opinion, she concluded:

“Based on each of these new developments — combined with the new facts Stevens discovered in the October 2016 box — I simply cannot see how any reasonable factfinder could convict in this case. There is now no reliable physical evidence, the prosecutor’s theory that Stevens’s knife caused the back wounds is no longer viable, the jury would seriously question at least one prosecution witness’ credibility based on his false testimony, and the FBI report at least makes the prosecution’s theory that the body traveled ten miles upriver much more difficult to believe.”

Obviously, these comments by the federal judiciary were instrumental in Governor Ralph Northam’s decision to issue a full pardon.

Emerson Stevens owes his freedom to the efforts of two attorneys affiliated with the Innocence Project at the University of Virginia Law School, Deidre Enright and Jennifer Givens. Enright first started on the case in 2009. In addition to preparing and filing the numerous briefs, they, especially Enright, spent countless hours investigating the case and digging up the new evidence needed to prove his innocence.

The story has something of a happy ending, in addition to the pardon. Stevens’ family never lost faith in him. At his urging, however, his wife did divorce him after his conviction and later remarried. However, his children continued to visit him in prison regularly and, eventually, they brought their children to visit, as well. His wife’s second marriage did not work out and, after her divorce, she and Stevens reconciled. When he was paroled, they got back together. He now works as a house painter.

But that ending does not get him back the 30 years of his life that the prosecutorial and law enforcement misconduct cost him. And the family of Mary Harding, the victim, has not gotten justice.

Author’s note:  Maria M. Kashino spent over a year investigating this case in 2018-2019 for the Washingtonian magazine. Her two-part story, setting the story out in great detail, can be found here and here. Her article on the pardon is here. Those articles are the source of much of the information in this post.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

15 responses to “Convicted, But Innocent–Emerson Stevens”

  1. Steve Gillispie Avatar
    Steve Gillispie

    Bringing these cases to the forefront of public awareness is a great service.

    It is increasingly apparent that prosecutorial misconduct and abuse now permeates the US Justice system with the FBI being perhaps the worst of all prosecuting authorities. This abuse spans all races and ethnicities and will destroy our system of justice if not addressed and stopped.

    Nicely done!

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    Good article. The hair “evidence” reminded me of this:

    “One of the nation’s premier crime labs repeatedly failed to catch botched DNA testing in the case of a Virginia Death Row inmate who spent 17 years in prison before being exonerated, according to an independent review.”

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/chi-0505080296may08-story.html

    Now, just imagine both prosecutorial misconduct AND forensic lab misconduct.

    But at the end of the day – their “defense” is that a jury of their peers DID convict.

  3. DJRippert Avatar

    Once again, a big government failure. Once again, corruption among elected officials in Virginia. Once again, no consequences for those perpetuating the corruption. Once again, we will hear liberals claim that the government needs to tax and spend more so it can get bigger and provide benefits like the benefits provided to Emerson Stevens and the family of Mary Harding.

  4. The investigator told the reporter, “If you can’t get a direct confession, you just try to get them to talk. They’ll say things against their own interest as a way to wiggle out. The whole thing is to keep people talking and steer them in the direction you want them to go.

    You have the right to remain silent, and you should invoke that right immediately upon being detained by the police – especially if you have done nothing wrong.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      This short account is hardly the whole story. There was something at the time that made this person the suspect, and in his case once they’d determined he was the culprit evidence to the contrary was discarded. Police and prosecutors like to “win” and for them winning means a conviction, not the right outcome whatever that is. If somebody still lives who could be punished for withholding exculpatory evidence, they should be hung out to dry. Wayne is correct. Say nothing until you have legal advice, and speak through that person.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      This short account is hardly the whole story. There was something at the time that made this person the suspect, and in his case once they’d determined he was the culprit evidence to the contrary was discarded. Police and prosecutors like to “win” and for them winning means a conviction, not the right outcome whatever that is. If somebody still lives who could be punished for withholding exculpatory evidence, they should be hung out to dry. Wayne is correct. Say nothing until you have legal advice, and speak through that person.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        In cases where evidence is withheld or misused, not speaking won’t necessarily save you though and that’s the bigger problem IMHO.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        You are correct–my short account does not do justice to the whole story. The two-part story in the Washingtonian certainly goes into those details, including how, and perhaps why, the investigators did not pursue leads pointing to other persons being the killer.

    3. I’d like to add one more important point:

      If/when you are detained or arrested, you must overtly invoke your right to remain silent. The Supreme Courts has ruled that simply remaining silent is not the same thing as invoking, and that if you do actually state that you are invoking your right to remain silent then in certain circumstances your silence can be used as evidence of your guilt.

      https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html

  5. This is one more illustration of why the death penalty is insupportable. If juries never convicted the wrong man, I wouldn’t have a problem with the death penalty. But juries do convict the wrong man all too often. Stevens will never get back the 30 years he spent in prison, but at least he enjoys a small measure of justice.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      There will be a claims bill….financial recompense, not much for 30 years.

      Long ago I decided the death penalty was only appropriate in the case of a second, separate conviction of first degree murder. Murder once, and then a second time, clearly you are too dangerous to let live. Even as a prisoner you will likely kill again.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        In some respects and I know this is arguable – life in prison – the way we do prisons – is worse than death and I think some folks see that option as a higher quality “vengeance”.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      The travesty that was the first OJ Simpson trial convinced me that I could no longer support the death penalty. As a friend said to me after that trial, “It looks like they framed the right guy.”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        yet another “failure” of big govmint? 😉

  6. I enjoyed working with the Innocence Project on the one case in which I was involved. They are a dedicated group.

Leave a Reply