Paid Witness Responsible for Man's Incarceration

The prosecutor in the 2002 murder trial of Ju’ane Kennell quipped to the jury that the state’s witnesses had no reason to lie, that they were testifying for the sole purpose of doing the right thing.

To convict Kennell, the jury would have to believe the word of two self-proclaimed drug dealers, JefferyShockley and Robert Stewart, who claimed to be selling drugs on the 5300 block of Arlington, and admitted to being high on marijuana for most of the night, when three suspects exited a car and asked for Jeffery Shockley. An encounter that ended with the murder of Freddie Chew.

Juane Kennell was convicted of first-degree murder, first degree assault, armed criminal action, and was sentenced to life without parole.

He has since filed several appeals claiming his trial was unfair, and his trial attorney, A focha I be, was ineffective. I be had also been working for the Attorney General’s office at the same time she was defending Kennell. But due to the city and state prosecutor laws, it was not deemed a conflict of interest.

Despite set back after set back, Kennell kept digging. In 2008, he received an internal document fromChristopher White (Kennell’s co-defendant). The document revealed a deal had been worked out onpending charges against the state’s witness Jeffery Shockley.

In the document, Shockley’s attorney Robert Taffee told Kennell’s then attorney Steven Reynolds he was in the process of negotiating a deal for Jeffery Shockley to testify against Juane Kennell and possibly other defendants.

The documents also revealed additional substantial differences from the prosecutor’s version of Jeffery Shockley’s motive for testifying.

Kansas City lawyer Kent Gipson, who has taken Kennell’s case says, “There’s no way Juane is supposed to be convicted of this case. He wasn’t given a fair trial. Given the undisclosed information now, no jury would have convicted him.”

Robert Stewart was later questioned while in a Florida jail by investigator David Haubrich, about the case. At which point, he informed the private investigator he had only repeated what his friend told him to say, disclosing that he was having problems identifying the right people, so he had been given a break to mingle with Jeffery Shockley who gave him enough information to then come back and identify Kennell as a suspect.

During an evidentiary hearing a circuit court Judge demanded the prosecutor turn over their secret slush fund reports. Reports that ultimately contradicted everything the state witnesses testified to, and exposed they were indeed paid to testify for the sum of thousands of dollars. Yet the Eastern District denied relief, stating the payments were for witness protection and therefore did not seem questionable. Yet the state witness and the prosecutor who tried the case had all previously testified no witness protection had been required. Still the Eighth Circuit court of appeals blindly confirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Under rule 25.03 the prosecutor’s office is required to disclose all pertinent information. Yet for the last15 years these documents have remained conveniently overlooked by the state.

According to 25.03, the prosecution’s failure to provide the discovery of the checks and plea deals violates Kennell’s right to due process.

“Under the circumstances, if the defense had knowledge of the deals or cash payments, would the prosecution have even gone forward?” asked Maurice Davis, President of the NAACP chapter4072. “The checks coupled with the states continued denial undermine the credibility of the witnesses.”

Davis believes the conviction should be overturned, and prosecutors given the option whether to retry Kennell. He further states,”I cannot say with confidence what the jury would have done had they heard the impeachment evidence. However, because of the lengths to which the State went to hide the deals they gave Shockley and Stewart, I am not confident that the conviction is correct. Moreover, I do not think such a conviction in which the government lies about the deals it makes for testimony is worthy of the public’s trust that justice has been done.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland has made it clear any evidence that can be used to impeach a witness’ credibility must be turned over to the defense.

During an investigation of Jeffery Shockley and Robert Stewart evidence later showed that Jeffery Shockley and Robert Stewart were arrested with the murder weapon.

The Missouri Supreme court can’t uphold confidence in the verdict when Jeffery Shockley was paid for his testimony, Robert Stewart had been coached by Jeffery Shockley on his identification and they both were given deals for their unrelated charges for their testimony.

The St. Louis police department and the circuit attorney’s office have both declined to comment.Kennell and White are preparing to file an ethics complaint against the prosecutor, Robert Craddick,who has handled thousands of cases over his career and prosecuted more than a 100 murder trails.

Kennell alleges Craddick skillfully withheld exculpatory evidence, allowed witnesses to provide false testimony on the stand, and, he himself, knowingly testified falsely.

In support of his complaint to the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Kennell plans to submit transcripts that clearly show Craddick’s unethical conduct.

THE COURT: I just have a couple questions for you, Mr. Craddick, with regard to a person who is a-who witnessed some events, a homicide, is there anyone other than the circuit attorney who might be involved in putting somebody up at a hotel if the witness was threatened?

CRADDICK: No.

THE COURT: So earlier in the case if this was like before the trial, do you know whether there is anyone else in the law enforcement process who’s ever involved in protecting a witness?

CRADDICK: There wasn’t money for that. There isn’t really any witness protection, there isn’t any witness relocation. The more magnitude the homicide is and the more essential it is to protect the witnesses, they’re always being protected but you know, there are cases where five, six, seven people are killed at one time. Most of the time if someone didn’t feel safe well before trial, we would inquire of them do you have any relatives, where do they live, can you go stay there, and if we need to bring you back for trial we’ll bring you back for trial, but you won’t be in town. Or somebody who feels like they were threatened, they’re in danger, they might have an aunt in Ohio or Indiana that they could go stay until trial came.