The headline of a front page story in the Memphis Commercial Appeal by reporter Beth Warren, reads: Jury foreman in West Memphis Three trial of Damien Echols accused of misconduct. The story reveals details of a dozen conversations Kent Arnold, the jury foreman in the 1994 trial of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin, had with an attorney in which he declared his intention to obtain a conviction in the trial.
According to the article: “Arnold manipulated his way onto the jury, improperly discussed the case with jurors and others before deliberations, and made up his mind to ‘get his guy’ with a conviction before defense attorneys had a chance to present Echols’ case, according to an affidavit by Little Rock attorney Lloyd Warford, who was an Arnold family attorney.
“The 10-page statement describes a foreman on a mission to send two defendants to prison regardless of the evidence at trial. Warford said: ‘Kent would go on and on about how in business he always wants as much information before he makes a decision and he was offended that judges could keep jurors from getting all the information.’ “
While Arnold manipulated his way onto the jury, according to the article and the affidavit, he also felt compelled to introduce Jessie Misskelley’s so-called confession, which experts believe was patently false and included statements that did not match the forensic evidence at the murder scene. Because Jessie recanted his statement and refused to testify against Damien and Jason, his confession was constitutionally barred from their trial.
As the article states, “The confession was not allowed at trial, but a West Memphis police detective improperly made a reference to something Misskelley said, prompting defense attorneys to request a mistrial. The trial judge ruled that the trial must continue, but he instructed jurors to disregard any mention of a confession — which angered Arnold.
“That didn’t stop Arnold from considering the confession key to a conviction. ‘Kent told me if the confession had not been mentioned in court, then he might not have been able to convince the swing jurors to convict.’ “
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, confessions are the most compelling piece of evidence that can be brought into a trial, and statistics support the fact that when a confession, whether true or false, is introduced in a trial for consideration by a jury, they almost always convict. That is why the Supreme Court ruled that suspects must be offered the opportunity to have a lawyer present when questioned in the course of an interrogation. As a result of Miranda v. Arizona, as well as other high court decisions that provide protections, Jessie Misskelley’s confession was not to be considered by jury foreman Kent Arnold, or the other men and women on the jury who wrongfully convicted Damien Echols that day.
The Arkansas Supreme Court will soon rule on whether or not to overturn Damien Echols’s conviction, send the case back to the lower court for an evidentiary hearing, or deny him any relief at all.
With all the new evidence of the innocence of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley including new DNA and forensic evidence, as well as what has been revealed of blatant jury bias and misconduct, we are confident that they will be freed. The only question is: When?
Lonnie Soury