Charles Jason Baldwin

Case record: Charles Jason Baldwin

Background

Charles Jason Baldwin was born April 11, 1977. At the time of his arrests, Jason Baldwin was 16.

Baldwin was one of the three members of what had been called the West Memphis 3 (Baldwin, Damien Echols, and Jessie Misskelley). The men were convicted in the killing of eight-year-olds Steve Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore at Robin Hood Hills, West Memphis, Arkansas, on May 5, 1993.

Baldwin was tried jointly with Echols, while Misskelley was tried separately. Misskelley confessed and implicated Baldwin and Echols. The jury convicted both defendants of murder. Baldwin received a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Baldwin was in the Maximum Security Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) as of 2010, and he was received by the state prison system on March 21, 1994. ADC#103335 was associated with Baldwin.

Timeline

• May 5, 1993 — Three eight-year-old boys (Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore) were killed at Robin Hood Hills, West Memphis, Arkansas.
• May 6, 1993 — A more thorough police search for the children began around 8:00 am and the bodies were found after Juvenile Parole Officer Steve Jones spotted a boy’s black shoe floating in a muddy creek around 1:45 pm.
• June 3, 1993 — Baldwin was arrested.
• February 5, 1994 — Misskelley was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder; the court sentenced him to life plus 40 years in prison.
• March 19, 1994 — Echols and Baldwin were found guilty on three counts of murder.
• March 21, 1994 — Baldwin was received by the state prison system; he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on March 21, 1994.
• 1994 — Baldwin was tried jointly with Damien Echols while Misskelley was tried separately.
• May 1994 — The three appealed their convictions.
• 1996 — The Arkansas Supreme Court denied his direct appeal.
• 1997 — A jury forecast schedule for future hearings was described as tentatively scheduled for July, 2011, after the later remand; separately, Byers had his teeth removed in 1997.
• 2000 — Work began on developing evidence that would support an “actual innocence” claim.
• 2001 — Baldwin filed a motion to have evidence properly preserved and made available for DNA testing, and requested a hearing on the issue.
• 2003 — Burnett entered an Order for Preservation of Evidence, without holding a hearing.
• 2007 — DNA collected from the crime scene was tested; none of the DNA was found to match Echols, Baldwin, or Misskelley.
• 2008 — DNA from the crime scene was tested; the results “conclusively excluded Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley as the source of the DNA evidence tested.”
• October 29, 2007 — The defense filed a Second Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus outlining new evidence.
• November 4, 2010 — The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered a lower-court judge to examine whether the three inmates should be exonerated in light of new DNA evidence and required examination of juror-misconduct claims; it reversed and remanded all three cases for hearings on whether new trials should be ordered.
• Early December 2010 — Circuit Court Judge David Laser was selected to replace David Burnett as judge in the appeal hearings.

The offence

Three eight-year-old boys—Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore—were reported missing on May 5, 1993.

They were last seen together by a neighbor, who reported that they had been called by Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of Steve Branch, around 6:00.

The first report to the police was made by Byers’ adoptive father, John Mark Byers, around 7:00 pm.

Police searches began that night were limited. Friends and neighbors also conducted an impromptu and unsuccessful search that night, including a cursory visit to the location where the bodies were ultimately found. A more thorough police search for the children began around 8:00 am on May 6, 1993 with Crittenden County Search and Rescue personnel and several others, focused primarily on Robin Hood Hills where the boys were reported last seen. A human chain made a shoulder-to-shoulder search but found no sign of the missing boys.

Around 1:45 pm, Juvenile Parole Officer Steve Jones spotted a boy’s black shoe floating in a muddy creek that led to a major drainage canal in Robin Hood Hills. A subsequent search of the ditch found the bodies of three boys.

The bodies were stripped naked and had been hogtied with their own shoelaces:

• the right ankles tied to the right wrists behind their backs, and the same pattern with the left limbs. Their clothing was found in the creek, some twisted around sticks thrust into the muddy ditch bed. The clothing was mostly turned inside-out; two pairs of the boys’ underwear were never recovered.

Christopher Byers also had deep lacerations and injuries to his scrotum and penis, most likely caused by post-mortem animal predation. The original autopsies were inconclusive as to time of death, but the Arkansas medical examiner determined that Byers died of blood loss, and Moore and Branch drowned. A later review by a medical examiner for the defense determined the boys were killed between 1:00 am and 5:00 am on May 6, 1993.

The official interpretation of the crime scene forensics remained controversial. Prosecution experts claimed Byers’ wounds were the results of a knife attack and that he had been purposely castrated by the murderer. Defense experts claimed the injuries were more probably the result of post-mortem animal predation.

Police suspected the boys had been raped or sodomized; later expert testimony disputed this finding despite trace amounts of sperm DNA found on a pair of pants recovered from the scene. Police believed the boys were assaulted and killed at the location they were found; critics argued the assault was unlikely to have occurred at the creek.

Byers was the only victim with drugs in his system. He was prescribed Ritalin in January 1993 as part of an attention-deficit disorder treatment. The initial autopsy report described the drug as Carbamazepine. The dosage was found to be at a sub-therapeutic level, consistent with John Mark Byers’ statement that Christopher Byers may not have taken his prescription on May 5, 1993.

Investigation

Background of parties

Stevie Branch was the son of Steve and Pam Branch, who divorced when he was an infant. Pam was awarded custody and Steve was allowed visitation with the boy only when Pam was also present. Pam later married Terry Hobbs. When Stevie was murdered, his biological father owed over $13,000 in child support and was under investigation for state tax violations.

Christopher Byers was born to Melissa DeFir and Ricky Murray. After divorcing Murray, Melissa married John Mark Byers, who later adopted her two sons. John Mark Byers had a long criminal history, including charges for making “terroristic [death] threats” against his first wife and multiple drug and theft offenses.

John Mark Byers was a frequent paid informant for the West Memphis Police Department (WMPD) and, when the boys were murdered, was under Federal investigation for suspected grand theft from the U.S. Postal Service. The elder Byers admitted whipping Christopher with a belt only a few hours before the boys went missing because Christopher tried to break into his own home. Christopher was not allowed a house key, and the empty house was locked when he arrived home after school. According to Crittenden County Prosecutor John Fogelman, police and other officials suspected John Mark Byers of committing the murders the day the victims were discovered.

Michael Moore was the son of Todd and Dana Moore. Of the three murdered boys, Michael’s parents were the only ones still married and who never had any serious criminal charges or investigations made against them.

Suspects and investigative leads

Early in the investigation, the WMPD briefly regarded two West Memphis teenagers as suspects. Chris Morgan and Brian Holland, both with drug offense histories, abruptly departed for Oceanside, California four days after the bodies were discovered. Morgan was presumed to be at least casually familiar with all three murdered boys due to previously driving an ice cream truck route in their neighborhood.

Morgan and Holland were arrested in Oceanside on 17 May 1993 and took polygraph exams administered by California police. Examiners reported that both men’s charts indicated deception when they denied involvement in the murders. During subsequent questioning, Morgan claimed a long history of drug and alcohol use, along with blackouts and memory lapses. He claimed he “might have” killed the victims but quickly recanted that part of his statement. California police sent blood and urine samples from Morgan and Holland to the WMPD, but there was no indication WMPD investigated Morgan or Holland as suspects following their arrest in California. The relevance of Morgan’s recanted statement would later be debated in trial, but it was eventually barred from admission as evidence.

“Mr. Bojangles” and the restroom sighting

The sighting of a black male as a possible alternate suspect was implied during the beginning of the trial. On the evening of 5 May 1993 at 8:42 pm, workers in the Bojangles restaurant about a mile from the crime scene reported seeing a black male “dazed and covered with blood and mud” inside the ladies’ room of the restaurant.

The man was bleeding from his arm and brushed against the walls. He had defecated on himself and on the floor. Police were called, but the man left the scene.

Officer Regina Meeks responded (by inquiring at the drive through window) about 45 minutes later. By then, the man had left and police did not enter the restroom on that date.

The following day, when the victims were found, Bojangles manager Marty King called police twice to inform them of his suspicions, thinking there was a possible connection between the bloody, disoriented man and the killings.

According to Regina Meek’s testimony during the Echols/Baldwin trial, after the second telephone call police gathered evidence from the restroom. Investigators wore their same shoes and clothes from the Robin Hood Hills crime scene into the Bojangles restaurant bathroom, potentially contaminating that scene. Police detective Bryn Ridge later stated he lost the blood scrapings taken from the walls and tiles of the restroom. A hair identified as belonging to an African-American male was later recovered from a sheet used to wrap one of the victims.

Investigative criticism

There was criticism of how police handled the crime scene. Misskelley’s former attorney Dan Stidham characterized it as “literally trampled, especially the creek bed.” He said the bodies had been removed from the water before the coroner arrived, allowing the bodies to decay on the creek bank and to be exposed to sunlight and insects. Stidham said police did not telephone the coroner until almost two hours after the discovery of the floating shoe, resulting in a late appearance by the coroner.

Officials failed to drain the creek in a timely manner and secure possible evidence in the water; the creek was sandbagged after the bodies were pulled from the water. Stidham described the coroner’s investigation as “extremely substandard.” There was a small amount of blood found at the scene that was never tested.

According to HBO’s documentaries “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills” (1996) and “Paradise Lost 2: Revelations” (2000), no blood was found at the crime scene, indicating that the location where the bodies were found was not necessarily the location in which the murders happened.

After the initial investigation, police failed to control disclosure of information and speculation about the crime scene. Investigative journalist Mara Leveritt said: “Police records were a mess. To call them disorderly would be putting it mildly.” Leveritt speculated that the small local police force was overwhelmed by the crime.

Police refused an unsolicited offer of aid and consultation from the violent crimes experts of the Arkansas State Police. Critics suggested this refusal was due to WMPD being investigated by the Arkansas State Police for suspected theft from the Crittenden County drug task force. Leveritt further noted that some physical evidence was stored in paper sacks with the supermarket’s name pre-printed rather than in controlled containers. Leveritt also mistakenly presumed the crime scene video was shot minutes after Detectives Mike Allen and Bryn Ridge recovered two of the bodies, when the camera was not available for almost thirty minutes afterwards.

At the scene, when police speculated about the assailant, a juvenile probation officer speculated that Echols was “capable” of committing the murders, stating: “it looks like Damien Echols finally killed someone.” An expert stated that human bite marks could have been left on at least one victim; the possible bite marks were first noticed in photographs years after the trials and were not inspected by a board-certified medical examiner until four years after the murders. The defense’s expert testified the mark was not an adult bite mark, consistent with testimony from State experts who concluded there was no bite mark.

Police had interviewed Echols two days after the bodies were discovered. During a polygraph examination, he denied any involvement. The polygraph examiner claimed Echols’ chart indicated deception, but the examiner had no written record of the examination.

On 10 May 1993, Detective Bryn Ridge questioned Echols and asked him to speculate how the three victims died. The description of Echols’ answer was summarized as follows:

• “He stated that the boys probably died of mutilation, some guy had cut the bodies up, heard that they were in the water, they may have drowned.
• He said at least one was cut up more than the others.
• Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone.
• He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.”

At trial, Echols testified that Ridge’s description was inaccurate, and that the conversation was not recorded.

The narrative also described how police thought there was no public knowledge that one child had been mutilated more severely than the others, which contradicted John Mark Byers’ statement to reporters only minutes after the bodies were found that “two boys had been badly beaten and that the third had been even worse.” Det. Gitchell was said to have told John Mark Byers details before official release to the media.

The narrative also described allegations that police leaked information and that teenagers came forward with statements about being questioned and polygraphed. It said Echols replied when asked what he was afraid of: “The electric chair.” It stated that after a month passed with little progress, police focused on Echols and interrogated him more frequently than any other person, while asserting he was a source of information rather than a direct suspect.

Misskelley interrogation and confession-related points

On 3 June 1993, police interrogated Jessie Misskelley Jr. His IQ was reported to be 72. He was questioned alone; his parents were not present during the interrogation. Misskelley’s father gave permission for Misskelley to go with police, but did not explicitly give permission for his minor son to be questioned or interrogated.

Misskelley was questioned for roughly twelve hours, with only two segments totaling 46 minutes recorded. The narrative stated he quickly recanted his confession and cited intimidation, coercion, fatigue, and veiled threats from police. Dr. Richard Ofshe testified that the brief recording of the interrogation was a “classic example” of police coercion.

Critics stated the confession was inconsistent with the crime scene, including “an ‘admission’ that Misskelley ‘watched Damien rape one of the boys.’” Police initially suspected rape because of dilated anuses, but forensic evidence later proved conclusively the boys had not been raped and their dilated anuses were described as a normal post-mortem condition.

The narrative stated that Misskelley was a minor during questioning. It said he was informed of his Miranda rights but later claimed he did not fully understand them. The Arkansas Supreme Court determined Misskelley’s confession was voluntary and that he did understand the Miranda warning and consequences.

The narrative stated that Misskelley said he was “scared of the police” during his first confession. Portions of his statements were leaked to the press and reportedly appeared on the front page of the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper before trials began.

The narrative stated that shortly after Misskelley’s original confession, police arrested Echols and Baldwin.

Arrest and pretrial status

Baldwin was arrested on June 3, 1993.

At the time of arrests, Jessie Misskelley was 17 and Damien Echols was 18.

The narrative stated that Baldwin and Misskelley had previous records for minor juvenile offenses (for vandalism and shoplifting, respectively). It also stated that Misskelley had a reputation for being hot-tempered and engaging in frequent fistfights.

Trial

Misskelley was tried separately, with Echols and Baldwin tried together in 1994. Under the “Bruton rule,” Misskelley’s confession could not be admitted against co-defendants, so he was tried separately. All pled innocent.

Verdict and conviction findings

• February 5, 1994: Misskelley was convicted of one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder; he was sentenced to life plus 40 years.
• March 19, 1994: Echols and Baldwin were found guilty on three counts of murder.
• The court sentenced Echols to death and Baldwin to life in prison.

Sentencing

The case narrative included a specific date for the sentence and prison reception: March 21, 1994. It stated that the state prison system received Baldwin on that date.

Appeals

The convictions were upheld on direct appeal.

After the Arkansas Supreme Court denied Baldwin’s direct appeal in 1996, Baldwin filed a Petition for Relief under Rule 37 in the following year. Rule 37 addressed ineffective assistance of the original trial counsel.

A Joint Status Memorandum filed on June 2, 2004 showed that the original Petition was timely and therefore remained an avenue of appeal available to be pursued.

New evidence and postconviction developments

Evidence preservation

In 2000, work began on developing evidence supporting an “actual innocence” claim. In 2001, Baldwin filed a motion to have evidence properly preserved and made available for DNA testing and requested a hearing on the issue.

After a lengthy delay, in 2003, Burnett entered an Order for Preservation of Evidence without holding a hearing.

DNA testing and Arkansas Supreme Court ruling

On 4 November 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court ordered a lower-court judge to examine whether the three inmates should be exonerated in light of new DNA evidence.

DNA from the crime scene was tested in 2008, and the results of the test “conclusively excluded Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley as the source of the DNA evidence tested,” in the Supreme Court’s ruling. The justices said the lower court must examine claims of misconduct by the jurors.

The Supreme Court also ordered new evidentiary hearings for Miskelley and Echols.

On November 4, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court ordered a lower judge to consider whether newly-analyzed DNA evidence might exonerate three men convicted in the 1993 murders of three West Memphis Cub Scouts, and required examination of juror-misconduct claims. It reversed and remanded all three cases for hearings as to whether new trials should be ordered.

In early December 2010, Circuit Court Judge David Laser was selected to replace David Burnett, who had been elected to the state Senate, as judge in the appeal hearings. The hearings were described as tentatively scheduled for July 2011.

2007 DNA and other claimed evidence

In 2007, DNA collected from the crime scene was tested. None was found to match DNA from Echols, Baldwin, or Misskelley.

A hair “not inconsistent with” Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Stevie Branch, was reported to have been found tied into the knots used to bind one of the victims. Prosecutors were described as conceding no DNA tied the accused to the crime scene but as saying: “The State stands behind its convictions of Echols and his codefendants.”

On 29 October 2007, papers were filed in federal court by Damien Echols’ defense lawyers seeking a retrial or immediate release from prison. The filing cited DNA evidence linking Terry Hobbs to the crime scene and new statements from Hobbs’ now ex-wife. The filing also included new expert testimony that “the ‘knife’ marks on the victims were the result of animal predation after the bodies had been dumped.”

On 10 September 2008, Circuit Court Judge David Burnett denied Echols’ application for a hearing on new DNA evidence, citing the DNA tests as inconclusive. The Arkansas Supreme Court heard oral argument on Burnett’s decision on September 30, 2010.

Aftermath and other legal-related developments

As of 2010, Baldwin was described as residing in the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (though earlier the narrative stated he was received into the state prison system on March 21, 1994 and was in the Maximum Security Unit in 2010).

A narrative also included a description of alleged juror misconduct. It stated that in July 2008, Kent Arnold, jury foreman on the Echols/Baldwin trial, discussed the case with an attorney prior to deliberations and advocated for guilt due to inadmissible Jessie Misskelley statements. It stated legal experts agreed this issue had potential to result in reversal of the convictions of Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols and that, if reversed, the State was expected to retry them.

In October 2008, Attorney (now Judge) Daniel Stidham testified under oath at a postconviction relief hearing that Judge David Burnett approached the deliberating jury in the Misskelley matter at approximately 11:50 a.m. and advised they would be breaking for lunch, that the foreman answered “we may almost be done,” and Burnett responded “well, you’ll still have to return for sentencing,” and that when the foreman asked “what if we find him not guilty?” Burnett closed the door without answering. The narrative stated Stidham testified that failure to request a mistrial based on the exchange was ineffective assistance of counsel and that Misskelley’s conviction should be vacated.

Other details

Placement in the West Memphis Three case narrative

The narrative also included broad background elements about the West Memphis Three case and related controversies, including allegations about Satanic ritual theories presented in prosecution and criticism of investigative handling of the crime scene. It described continuing debate and multiple documentary and book publications.

Statements and quotations included in the case narrative

The narrative included statements attributed to various individuals, including:

• “dazed and covered with blood and mud”
• “literally trampled, especially the creek bed”
• “extremely substandard”
• “Police records were a mess. To call them disorderly would be putting it mildly.”
• “it looks like Damien Echols finally killed someone.”
• “The electric chair.”
• “classic example”
• “scared of the police”
• “The State stands behind its convictions of Echols and his codefendants.”
• “Mr. Bojangles” (used as the name referenced by defense attorneys for the restroom sighting man)
• “we may almost be done”
• “well, you’ll still have to return for sentencing.”
• “what if we find him not guilty?”

Character and background details about Baldwin

Baldwin earned above-average grades and demonstrated talent for drawing and sketching. Due to encouragement from a school counselor, he was considering studying graphic design in college.

Echols and Baldwin were close friends based on similar tastes in music and fiction, and because of a shared distaste for the prevailing cultural climate of West Memphis, described as politically conservative and strongly Evangelical Christian.

Echols’ family was described as poor, with frequent visits from social workers and rare school attendance. Echols’ relationship with an early girlfriend culminated when they ran off together. After breaking into a trailer during a rain storm, the pair were arrested, though only Echols was charged with burglary.

During Echols’ trial, Dr. George W. Woods testified (for the defense) that Echols suffered from: “... serious mental illness characterized by grandiose and persecutory delusions, auditory and visual hallucinations, disordered thought processes, substantial lack of insight, and chronic, incapacitating mood swings.”

At the time of his arrest, Echols was working part-time with a roofing company and expecting a child with his new girlfriend, Domini Teer.

Baldwin and Echols were acquainted with Misskelley from school, but were not close friends with him.