A BLATANT INJUSTICE: A Summary of Shane Watson's Wrongful Conviction

SUMMARY OF SHANE WATSON'S CRIMINAL CONVICTION
by Dr. Jennifer DysartDepartment of Psychology
Southern Connecticut State University
Defendant: Shane Watson
Victim: Mark Johnson
Crime occurred in 1991, trial and conviction in 1993 in NY.
Main prosecution evidence presented at trial:

• Three eyewitness identifications
• No physical evidence
• No motive
• All witnesses state that the perp was wearing a hooded sweatshirt that was pulled tightly, making it difficult to see the face.

Defense evidence presented at trial:

• One eyewitness
• One witness who had a conversation about the crime with witness Holloway (see below).

Prosecution eyewitnesses:

• Christine Holloway
       - Prime witness
       - At trial she stated that she viewed the perp from her car as she was parking
       - On earlier occasions she stated that she was out of her car going into her apartment when she viewed him
       - She chose the defendant from a lineup
       - Questionable facts:
              - Holloway told a neighbor (Martin) that she did not see the perp’s face and that it would be impossible for anyone to see his face because he had a hooded sweatshirt on with the hood pulled tight around his face. Martin also testified that Holloway told her that she was being harassed by the police to make identification.
              - Defense council believed that she was a suspect in her husband’s murder at the time of the crime. He did not have any evidence to support his belief and it was never brought to the jury’s attention.
• Monique James
       - The detective notes state that she “can not ID”
       - Other detective notes state that she did not see or hear anything.
       - Made identification from the photo spread and from the lineup.
• Robin James (Monique James’ sister)
       - Told police that the man had a big gun.
       - Said she saw the perp running.
       - Made identification from the photo spread and from the lineup.

Defense witnesses:

• Jesus Jimenez
       - Viewed the crime and gave a description to the police
       - Was never shown a lineup
       - Testified at trial that the defendant was not the man he saw do the shooting.
• Martin (neighbor)
       - Did not witness the crime
       - Spoke with Holloway and was told by Holloway that she did not see the perp’s face.

Other questionable facts:

• The victim’s girlfriend, Diana Almonte, was approximately 3 car lengths away from the victim when the shooting began. She gave a description to the police of the perp and called him an unidentified man. She was acquainted with the defendant (she is his ex-girlfriend) and therefore when she stated that the perp was an unidentified male, is questions the likelihood that the perp was the defendant. She was never shown a lineup.
• The victim was the third boyfriend of Diana Almonte who had been killed.
• One of the sisters told her mother that the perp was a brown skinned Puertorican. This is also reflected in the detective’s notes. The defendant is African-American.
• It was never brought to light how Watson became a suspect in the case. The crime stoppers anonymous call implicating Watson came in after all three prosecution witnesses has made identification.
• The sisters were both shown a photo lineup followed by a live lineup, where only the defendant appeared in both lineups.
• The sisters lived together and one of the sisters was shown the same lineup as the other four days after the first sister chose #1. There is a substantial likelihood that the sisters discussed the case during these four days.
• One of the sisters testified at trial that the police suggested to her that the person who did the crime looked like the man in position 1 in the photo lineup. The defendant was in position 1. Because the identification from the photo lineup was biased, the following live lineup was also biased.
• No search warrant was executed for Watson’s home.
• The victim had been released from prison for murder. His victim’s family members were never questioned by police.
• There was another male witness, William Nin, who gave a description the night of the crime but was never shown a lineup and never testified at trial. He told police that the perp used a shotgun.
• Almonte also told police that the perp used a long gun. In total, 3 witnesses said that the perp used a long gun, but this did not match the ballistic evidence, which suggested the gun was a handgun.
• Watson walks and runs with a limp due to an accident that required a metal rod to be inserted in his leg. None of the witnesses said that the perp limped.
• When Watson heard that the police were looking for him, he went to the police station on his own.