0812994523.pdf

and I was starting to see Chapman as either naive or willfully indifferent—or worse. I tried
unsuccessfully not to let my disappointment show.
“I’m not the only person with questions about this case, Mr. Chapman. There’s a whole
community of people, some of whom claim to have been with Walter McMillian miles away
when the crime was committed, who believe in his innocence. There are people for whom
he’s worked who are absolutely convinced that he did not commit this crime.”
“I’ve talked to some of those people,” Chapman responded, “and they can only have
uninformed opinions. They don’t have facts. Look, I can tell you right now that nobody cares
who slept with Karen Kelly. There is evidence that implicates Walter McMillian for this
murder, and my job is to defend this conviction.” He was becoming more argumentative, and
his voice was rising. The calm and curious look he had initially given me was shifting into
anger and disgust.
“Well, you’ve indicted someone for perjury for contradicting the state’s case. Do you intend
to prosecute everyone who challenges the evidence in this case?”
My voice was now rising in exactly the way I wanted to avoid, but I was provoked by his
attitude. “Alabama case law is clear that a perjury charge can’t be filed in the absence of clear
and convincing evidence that a false statement has been made,” I went on. “A perjury
indictment seems like a tactic designed to intimidate and discourage people from coming
forward with evidence that contradicts the State’s case. The charge against Mr. Houston
seems really inappropriate, Mr. Chapman, and legally indefensible.”
I knew I was lecturing him and knew he didn’t like it, but I wanted him to know that we
were going to defend Walter in a serious way.
“Are you representing Darnell Houston now, too?”
“Yes, I am.”
“Well, I’m not sure you can do that, Mr. Stevenson. I think you might have a conflict
there,” he said, and then his voice shifted from argumentative to blandly matter-of-fact. “But
don’t worry, I may drop the perjury charges against Houston. Now that the judge has denied
your motion to reopen the case, I don’t have any interest in pursuing charges against Darnell
Houston. But I do want people to know that if they make false statements concerning this
case, they are going to be held accountable.”
I was confused and a little stunned.
“What are you talking about? The motion to reconsider has been denied?”
“Yes, the judge has already denied your motion. You must not have gotten your copy of his
order. He’s down in Mobile now, so sometimes there are mail issues.”
I tried to conceal my surprise about the court’s ruling on the motion without even
permitting a hearing. I asked, “So you have no interest in investigating what Darnell Houston
is saying about the possibility that the State’s main witness may be lying?”
“Ralph Myers is the State’s main witness.”
It was clear that Chapman had looked more deeply into the case than he had initially
claimed.
“Without Hooks’s testimony, the conviction wouldn’t be valid,” I said, leveling my voice.
“Under the State’s theory, Myers is an accomplice, and state law requires confirmation of
accomplice testimony, which can only come from Hooks. Mr. Houston says that Hooks is
lying, which makes his testimony a critical issue that should be heard in court.”