The John Spirko Story
Justice: Denied
CONTINUED
By: John Spirko
July 1984 Trial
Gibson was at large after having escaped from a jail in Kentucky, so I went to trial alone in July 1984. The state's case tying me to the crime was my statements to Hartman, and two jailhouse snitches that were given sweetheart deals by the prosecution to testify that I confessed to them about Mottinger's murder. We found out later that one snitch had 85 years knocked off his sentence for testifying to those lies, while the other one had a deal with the prosecutor to be given an early release from prison for his perjurious testimony. Their favorable treatment was the quid pro quo for telling the lies the prosecutor wanted the jury to hear. Both of those snitches later directly or indirectly recanted their testimony.
The State's two eyewitnesses, Seibert and Lewis, testified about what I described earlier in this article, with two exceptions:
Seibert swore she was 100% certain the man she saw was Gibson, who she described as clean-shaven; Lewis testified he was "70% sure" he saw me! To substantiate Seibert's identification of Gibson, the prosecution put on evidence that he was in Elgin on the morning of August 9, 1982.
From their opening statement to their closing argument, the prosecution's case was that Gibson and I kidnapped and murdered Betty Jane Mottinger together. Yet there was no physical evidence that identified either Gibson or me as perpetrators of the crime. There was no physical evidence, at either the post office or the site where Mottinger was found, that even suggested Gibson or I were involved. Though the victim was stabbed multiple times, searches of my belongings turned up no blood or even trace evidence. Furthermore, none of the fingerprints found in the post office matched either Gibson's or mine.
Before the trial, my defense filed 26 motions for discovery. In spite of this, the prosecution and U.S. postal inspectors denied us access to many of the investigation records. Without the potentially exculpatory evidence in those files, I was forced to go to trial and make a defense for myself.
At my trial I tried to show that I could not possibly have committed the crime because on the morning of August 9, 1982, I was 120 miles away sitting in my parole officer's office in Swanton. Since it was impossible for me to be in two places at the same time that are several hours distant from each other by car, I was obviously innocent.
My parole officer testified that I was in his office on August 9, 1982, and that the interview took anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and a half. Although he said he could not remember what time of day it was, he did remember that my sister was with me. He recalled he had asked her a couple of questions, that he did not notice anything unusual about her, and she seemed coherent and alert. You'll see shortly why her alert state of mind when he saw her is important.
My sister testified that she was with me at my parole officers office, and we were there at 9:30 am. She also said there was a slip in the door from the Swanton Post Office when we returned home, informing her of packages at the post office. The packages were my personal belongings that were mailed from the prison in Eddyville, Kentucky. I went to the post office and picked up both packages myself, I signed a slip acknowledging receipt of the packages, and the post office clerk also signed the slip that indicated the date - August 9, 1982, and time - 2:17pm. I took the packages to my sister's house and discovered that my television set was not in either package, so I called the prison and spoke with a mailroom staff person. The phone bill shows that call was made from my sister's home to the prison the afternoon of August 9th.
I then took my sister to the doctor. She received a shot of a very powerful narcotic to counter severe migraines attributed to a car accident several years earlier. She had received the same treatment many times, and the doctor testified that he would not give the injection to her unless she had someone to drive her home. My sister testified that I drove her home after she was given the shot. She was not "alert" after this appointment, and would not have appeared "alert" to anyone, including my parole officer.
An old girlfriend of mine called me after we returned to my sister's house, and we spoke for around 20 minutes. The phone records again verify the call, and that it was on the afternoon of August 9th.
However, the jury chose to believe the prosecution story of what happened and the obvious lies I had told investigators to try and help LuAnn: I was convicted on Aug. 22, 1984, and sentenced to die.
Exculpatory Evidence Turned Over After My Trial
After years of fighting, my attorneys finally gained access to the U.S. Postal investigation documents related to Betty Jane Mottinger's disappearance and death. It was a "limited review" and done "under seal," which meant that we could not discuss anything in the records – and I was not allowed to see them. In those records we found the State and postal inspectors hid evidence from my defense and they knew Gibson was not involved in the crime. On the morning of August 9, 1982, Gibson was in Asheville, North Carolina working on a farm over 500 miles from Elgin, Ohio.
My prosecutors also knew that Gibson was not clean-shaven on August 9th, but that he had a full beard. The state concealed 58 photographs from my defense and the jury that Gibson's wife had turned over to investigators before my trial. Among them were photos taken of Gibson in North Carolina on August 8th, with a full beard. His presence in North Carolina on August 9th was confirmed by eyewitnesses, including his boss.
The withheld exculpatory evidence proves that my prosecutors presented a case to the jury they knew was false. The lynchpin of their case was that Gibson was the man seen outside the Elgin Post Office on the morning of August 9, 1982 – when they knew all the while he was over 500 miles away in a different state!
There was also a confession by another man who admitted to the crime. That was never turned over to us. Also withheld from me were witness interviews of other people who were in front of the post office at 8:20 to 8:25 am. One witness in fact had a brown and white Monte Carlo that was parked in front of the post office at 8:25 am that morning. She, and several other people, were at the post office that morning waiting to pick up their mail. They even leaned against the woman’s car waiting for the post office to open.
Another witness was driving his daughter to the doctor's office that morning and saw Mark Lewis park his truck. The witness claimed that Lewis got out of the truck and waved at him that morning, The witness also said that as he drove by the post office he saw Betty Jane Mottinger put her key in the door, and there were no cars in front of the post office.
Investigators made a sketch of the crime scene. However I did not see that sketch until after I had been on death row for 12 years. After comparing that sketch with the testimony of Seibert and Lewis, there is no way - in fact it is impossible - for either of those two alleged eyewitnesses to have seen anything. Their testimony was false. Based on the information provided my attorneys after my trial, there is reason to believe the prosecutors knew it was false at the time it was given in the courtroom.
The state has argued that I knew details of the crime that were not public knowledge, and that only a person involved in the crime could know those details. They argue that none of these details, the victim‘s purse, her clothing, the way in which the body had been wrapped, was ever made public. That is a bold-faced lie. The fact of the matter is that every so-called detail I told investigators was published in newspapers in the days after the crime. We included several newspaper clippings of those articles as exhibits to our briefs. We proved these details had been made public, yet the courts still choose to ignore the facts. I continue to be denied relief by every court and they have denied the truth for twenty years.
Delaney Gibson Was Never Prosecuted
In the 23 years since Betty Jane Mottinger disappeared and was found murdered, the State of Ohio has never made any effort to put Delaney Gibson on trial. Why? Because they know he is innocent, and they know he can prove his innocence! Although he had been indicted in the Mottinger case, Ohio never placed a detainer against him during the 17 years he spent in a Kentucky prison for two unrelated murders. Consequently, Gibson was paroled in 1998, returned to prison on a parole violation, and paroled again. He was repeatedly released from prison even though there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest and he was under indictment in Ohio for capital murder with death penalty specifications.
There is something very wrong when Delaney Gibson was freed from prison while under indictment for the same capital crime that I was convicted and sentenced to death for. However, as I’ve explained the reason is simple: the State knew Gibson was innocent of any involvement in Betty Jane Mottinger’s abduction and murder. Yet the prosecution argued to my jury that Gibson and I committed this crime together. My prosecutors did nothing less than present false evidence and a false case to my jury, knowing it was false at the time of my trial.
May 2004 Appeals Court Denial
On May 17, 2004, a three-judge panel in the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to deny my habeas petition. (Spirko v. Mitchell, 368 F.3d 603 (6th Cir.
05/17/2004))
On the same day, the Van Wert County prosecutor dropped all charges against Delaney Gibson. He is now a free man.
The Sixth Circuit’s majority decision ruling was based on consideration of only one of my appeal issues: my claim that my due process rights were violated by the prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory information, information that could have altered the jury’s decision to convict me – which is known as a Brady violation. The Court did not address my claim of actual innocence, or my claims that I was denied due process by the prosecution’s willful presentation of a false case that was based on false evidence.
The two appeals court judges who voted to deny my petition cited my knowledge of facts of the crime as a reason why I was guilty, and thus they didn’t even consider my other issues. They ignored that we proved those “facts” were published in newspapers and were available to anyone who read a newspaper in the days after the crime occurred. Concerned people all over Ohio, in cafes, taverns, courthouses, and other public places, undoubtedly discussed the same facts in the days after the crime that I knew. Our proof conclusively undermined the State’s unsupported claim that those facts were not publicly available.
Judge Ronald Lee Gilman was the dissenter to the Sixth Circuit’s decision. He wrote in part,
“John Spirko lied.” This incontestable conclusion is well-documented in the majority opinion’s recitation of the many inconsistent stories that Spirko told to Inspector Hartman. But lying is not a capital offense. And while the record leaves no doubt about Spirko’s falsifications, it leaves me with considerable doubt as to whether he has been lawfully subjected to the death penalty in light of the state's alleged Brady violation. Spirko v. Mitchell, 368 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 05/17/2004); 2004.C06.0000143 ¶67 http://www.versuslaw.com (emphasis added)
The case against Spirko is far from overwhelming. It is substantially based upon three evidentiary pillars: (1) an eyewitness who was “100% sure” that Spirko’s best friend, Delaney Gibson, was at the Elgin, Ohio post office when the postmistress was abducted, (2) another eyewitness who was “70% sure” that Spirko was also at the scene, and (3) Spirko’s knowledge of factual details concerning the murder that were not known to the general public. Each of these pillars, however, has a foundation of sand. The “certain” identification of a clean-shaven Gibson is cast in grave doubt both by photographs and receipts in the possession of the state, but not disclosed to the defense, indicating that Gibson had a full beard immediately before the date of the abduction, and by statements made to investigators by several people who said that Gibson had a full beard during the entire summer of 1982. As for Spirko’s presence at the scene, a confidence level of only 70% is far from “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Finally, Spirko’s knowledge could have come from second-hand repetition rather than first-hand participation. Spirko, Id. at ¶68 (emphasis added).
A striking fact about the record in this case is the complete absence of any forensic evidence linking Spirko to the crime. There are no fingerprints, footprints, fibers, blood, or stolen items to bolster the state’s case. Nor is there any written or recorded confession of guilt by Spirko or incriminating testimony by a witness who turned state’s evidence.
(Although two of Spirko’s former cellmates testified at trial that Spirko admitted to them that he murdered Mottinger, those cellmates have subsequently recanted their testimony, either directly or indirectly.) We are thus left with nothing other than the three shaky pillars described above. Spirko, Id. at ¶69 (emphasis added).
For all of the reasons set forth above, this court should remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on Spirko's Brady claim. Under pre-AEDPA law, which we must follow in this case, a habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if “for any reason it appears that the state trier of fact did not afford the habeas applicant a full and fair fact hearing.” (citation omitted) Spirko points out that, despite his requests, he has not received an evidentiary hearing on his Brady claim in any state or federal court. An evidentiary hearing would allow the district court to determine whether the state in fact violated Spirko's constitutional rights by not turning over to the defense the photos and receipts in its possession. Accordingly, this court should vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on Spirko’s Brady claim. Spirko, Id. at ¶96 (emphasis added).
Judge Gilman’s dissent was well reasoned. It indicated an understanding of the underlying issues in my case that support my innocence, and the State’s denial of due process and a fair trial to me.
As I write this, a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is my last hope to have a court review my case. Filed in January 2005, I am requesting that the Court grant a new trial, or alternatively, an evidentiary hearing in the U.S. District Court. The Court could make its decision about whether it will accept my case for review by late March 2005.
If the Supreme Court denies my petition, then Ohio Governor Bob Taft will have to grant clemency to avert my execution for a crime I did not commit, and a crime that my prosecutors know I did not commit.
The one or more people who murdered Betty Jane Mottinger have not been brought to justice. Yet as I write this I am on track to be killed by the State of Ohio for that crime. If that happens I will not be the only person to suffer an injustice, but so will Betty Jane Mottinger - because my execution will ensure that her killer or killers will never be held responsible for murdering her.
Information about my case is on my website:
http://www.johnspirko.com
I can be written at:
John Spirko A-171433
OSP
878 Coitsville Hubbard Rd
Youngstown, OH 44505-4635
My outside contact is Tracy Spirko.
Her email is: Tracy Spirko
Email: Tracy, John Spirko's Representative
Webmaster: Vikki Shaw
© John Spirko
All Rights Reserved
| 