Copyright 1994, The Commercial Appeal
The Commercial Appeal (Memphis)
February 28, 1994, Monday, Final Edition
SECTION: NEWS, Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 686 words
HEADLINE: Prosecutors in Ark. take aim at 2 more in triple slaying
BYLINE: Bartholomew Sullivan, The Commercial Appeal
DATELINE: JONESBORO, Ark.
BODY:
Beginning today, the state of Arkansas draws a bead on its next
two suspects in the murders of three West Memphis Cub Scouts almost 10
months ago.
One young man already has been sentenced to life in prison in the
deaths of the three 8-year-olds, who were hogtied and thrown into a
muddy ditch in a wooded area near their homes.
The second trial will involve much the same gruesome physical
evidence as was introduced at the Corning trial of Jessie Lloyd
Misskelley Jr., and mothers of the boys can be expected, perhaps
today, to describe for the jury the moments when they last saw their
sons alive.
But a defense lawyer said he expects ''a whole different
ballgame'' from Misskelley's trial, which ended in a conviction Feb.
4.
Damien Wayne Echols, 19, and Charles Jason Baldwin, 16, go on
trial for capital murder with no clear idea yet whether Misskelley
will be testifying for the state that he saw them kill the boys.
If Misskelley's trial in Corning was a preview of the state's
case, it appears that without his cooperation prosecutors have little
more than a few microscopically similar fibers from the defendants'
homes linking them to the crime scene, and a few eyewitnesses who saw
Echols and his girlfriend not Baldwin near the woods the night the
murders occurred.
West Memphis Police Insp. Gary Gitchell said earlier this month
that he felt the case against Baldwin and Echols was stronger than it
was against Misskelley, but he and prosecutors haven't elaborated on
what evidence they might have held back in Corning.
Ron Lax, a Memphis private investigator assisting Echols's lawyers
said Sunday that he learned last week that witnesses he had talked to
were being asked by law enforcement officials to sign affidavits
saying that he attempted to intimidate them. Second Judicial District
Prosecuting Atty. Brent Davis said Sunday he could not comment on
whether his office had sought an investigation of Lax.
If Misskelley doesn't testify, there is another potentially
dramatic witness waiting in the wings 8-year-old Aaron Hutcheson.
Hutcheson may have been an eyewitness to the terror in the woods. But
if he's called, prosecutors will have to work around a defense
bombshell lobbed Feb. 16 when Echols's lawyer Val P. Price said
Hutcheson made a statement in which he said ''a Mark Byers'' one of
the victims' fathers was there that night.
Circuit Judge David Burnett, prosecutors and lawyers for both
defendants spent four days last week picking a jury of eight women,
four men and two male alternates. Opening arguments to the panel begin
this morning at 9:30.
Misskelley's June 3 statement to the West Memphis police can't be
used unless he testifies because of the constitutional right of
defendants to confront and cross-examine their accusers.
Jonesboro attorney Phillip J. Wells, appointed by Burnett to
determine whether Misskelley understands the consequences of
testifying with an appeal pending, said Friday that he anticipated
negotiations for his testimony would go on all weekend. On Sunday
afternoon, he said no discussions had taken place.
Misskelley was convicted of first- and second-degree murder in the
deaths of 8-year-olds Michael Moore, Christopher Byers and Steve
Branch. He is serving a life term plus 40 years.
If prosecutors could persuade Burnett to drop the life sentence in
exchange for Misskelley's truthful testimony, he could be paroled some
day on the 40-year sentence.
Misskelley could testify to what he saw in the Robin Hood Hills
woods less than a mile from the victims' homes on the night of May 5.
Misskelley told police he watched as Baldwin and Echols brutalized the
youngsters with stout sticks and castrated the Byers boy with a knife.
Burnett allowed Davis to offer ''use immunity'' to Misskelley,
meaning that whatever he might say in court can't be used against him
in any future legal proceeding, including an appeal.
