No Credible Witness Saw Jamie Snow at the Scene

At trial, the state made much of Danny Martinez's trial identification of Jamie Snow. It was compelling, dramatic testimony that Jamie Snow's eyes were unforgettable. [Vol. X,R. 174-76 179-82.) It made it seem as though Jamie Snow had bumed an indelible image into Martinez's brain, and bolstered Martinez's identification of Jamie that much more. The state made use of this in closing, and one juror said afterward that this was critical evidence in the jury's decisionmaking. (C. 731.)

What the new evidence Jamie Snow has now obtained makes clear, however, is that this is completely wrong. It is Jeffery Pelo and Paul Williams who should be believed when they say that after arriving at the scene, they did not see anyone leaving the gas station. Jeffery Pelo's affidavit establishes that Danny Martinez did not see Jamie Snow outside the gas station. (Ex. 1, Pelo Aff.) This is supported by Carlos Luna's new affidavit that he is not sure if Jamie Snow was the person he saw from 200 feet away, and that he only identified Jamie because "as a 14 year old, he believed that the police had caught the right person. (Ex. 30, Luna Aff.)

His affidavit completely backs away from his trial testimony. Gutierrez, the third eyewitness, never gave a description that really matched Jamie Snow - the circumstances and details were off, and he is the only person to say that the person he saw had any type of chin scar. (Vol. XIII, R. 15-19, 30, 112,115.) Gutierrez also never came close to identiffing Jamie Snow after looking at pictures and a lineup.(Vol. XIII, R.9-24,32,36-37.) Like Martinez, he actually identified someone else. (Group .Ex.7, April 1, 1991 Supplemental Case Report.)

Jeffery Pelo's affidavit contradicts Martinez's testimony in almost every respect. Martinez could not have come face to face with Jamie Snow outside in that parking lot. He was not asked to leave the parking lot by Jeffery Pelo. He was not asked to go home. He did not go immediately home - he drove west, away from his residence, down Empire. He was not on the scene when Jeffery Pelo asked the other car to move away from the gas station. (Ex. 1, pelo Aff.)

This discrediting of Martinez should be considered in light of the fact that Martinez had multiple opportunities in the months after this crime to identify Jamie Snow as the person he claimed he saw in the parking lot. He viewed mug books. He viewed suspect books. He viewed a lineup in which Jamie Snow was present. (Group Ex. 7.) And it shouldn't have been hard for him to identify Jamie Snow - they were childhood acquaintances and played sports together. (Ex. 3, W. Hendricks Aff. at 4-5; Ex.4,D. Hendricks Aff. at 10-11.) And yet, with all these opportunities, he claims that it didn't "click" for him that Jamie Snow was the person until he read the Pantagraph years later and saw Jamie Snow's picture in the paper and read about his arrest.

This is particularly unbelievable given that, in the months after this crime, Danny Mutiteztold two other childhood friends, William Hendricks and Dennis Hendricks, that Jamie did not do this crime.and that he was not the person that he saw. (Ex. 3, w. Hendricks Aff. at 6-10; Ex. 4, D. Hendricks Aff. at 10-11.)

Martinez's testimony is not backed up by much else, but Jeffery Pelo's account is backed up by other neutral, objective evidence - the newly-obtained police radio tapes (Ex.2), prior testimony of Paul Williams (Ex. 6), and prior statements of Danny Martinez to the police. (Group Ex. 7.)

In total, this new evidence establishes that Jamie Snow did not walk out of that gas station while Martinez, Williams and Pelo were outside. That the jury believed that he did was the primary reason for his conviction. This new evidence is therefore material, noncumulative, and would have changed the result on retrial.

• No Credible Witness Saw Jamie Snow at the Scene
  
  
• The Inculpatory Statements Presented Against Jamie Snow were Largely the Result of Pressure and Deals
  
  
• The Pattern of Misconduct by the Bloomington Police Department and McLean County State's Attorney's Office
  
  
• Reynard Himself Told a Witness that Jamie Snow was Innocent
  
  
• Jamie Snow's Attorney's Performance Violated His Constitutional Right to Counsel