Ryan Matthews Case Was One

Ryan Matthews Case was one of the most controversial inks law. Ryan Matthews was arrested at the age of 17 for the 1997 murder of grocery store owner. He was convicted in 1999 of the murder and sentenced to death. He spent 5 years in prison before being exonerated. Ryan Matthews was sentenced to death by lethal injection.

He was accused of armed robbery and killing Tommy Vanhoose at his store. Despite being convicted Matthews' defense team refused to give up and challenged the district attorney case by asking for the evidence to be subjected to fresh DNA testing. The DNA testing proved that the killer was convicted murderer Rondell Love who was already serving 20 years in prison for slashing a woman's throat in 1998.

It wasn't easy for Matthews to get exonerated. Matters swung to a high gear in April 2003 when his lawyers proved that the DNA tests did not match Matthews DNA. The Louisiana Supreme Court then allowed for a new hearing based on the fresh evidence. Judge Henry Sullivan of the 24th judicial district court in Gretna formally released him. It is ironic that he was the same judge who sentenced Ryan to death in 1999.

Ryan was convicted despite not having any evidence against him. The only piece of evidence left behind at the scene of the crime was a ski mask. Ryan's DNA did not match the ski mask left by the murdered. Ryan finally got justice when it was found out that a convicted murdered Rondell Love bragged to his fellow inmates at a state prison that he had committed the murder. The mask was retested over and over again until it was decided that Matthews wasn't connected to the murder. If this evidence wasn't found on time Matthews would have been executed. Ryan was the 115th death row inmate to be exonerated in the past 25 years. It is also sad to know that Ryan was a minor while being tried in a court of law. The U.S. Supreme Court has still not revoking the death penalty for juveniles. It is really upsetting to know that an innocent person was put on trial and sentenced to death for the crimes of another person.

This case got a lot of attention from the electronic and print media. They raised a lot of hue and cry when the DNA test was done five times. "There's something terribly wrong with the justice system," Pauline Matthews, Ryan's mother, said in an interview with the New Abolitionist. "Four DNA tests came back, and now they're saying they have to do another." (Why is Ryan Matthews still in jail? By Alan Maass, June 11, 2004)

Matthews mother Monique implied that the county was full of racists. This statement was made after the prosecutors wanted to do another DNA test. "But now they want to send it to another DNA lab that's supposedly going to do a more extensive test," said Monique. "I think they're full of it. Jefferson Parish is an extremely racist county, and they feel like they can do whatever they want. They've been doing it for years, so what makes the Ryan Matthews case different?"

It can be said that the only reason why Ryan was convicted and sentenced to death was because of his color. Ryan Matthews is an African-American. He belongs to a poor family. One of the reasons why he couldn't fight his conviction was that he had to face a very biased jury. The fact that the DNA evidence proved that Matthews wasn't the murderer was conveniently ignored. Emily kunstler a film maker played a very important role in this case. This case showed exactly what was wrong with the death penalty in America. She also believed it for a fact that Ryan Matthews was convicted because he is African-American and comes from a poor family. It outraged a lot of people because Ryan Matthews was not only an innocent juvenile but he was also mentally challenged. It was Emily who brought a lot of attention towards this case as it would bring the topic of death penalty to a national level.

Ryan Matthews and his friend Travis Hayes were stopped by the police on the night of the murder. They were apprehended because the car they were traveling in matched the description of the getaway car. Hayes was pressurized into making a statement which placed him and Matthews at the scene of the crime. Hayes and Matthews were no where near the scene of the crime when it happened. Hayes had to make a forced statement where he claimed he drove Matthews to the store and only heard gunshots after Matthew entered the store. He did not bother to ask Matthews about the activity inside Hayes was also forced into making a false confession. The prosecutors relied on this false confession and the witnesses' confession to try Matthews.

The prosecutors used witness testimony to convict Matthews. They did not have any forensic or scientific evidence which could link Matthews to the murder. One of the witnesses alleged that he managed to catch a glimpse of Matthews in the rearview mirror at the scene of the crime. The district attorney believed that it was enough evidence to convict Matthews. Matthews's lawyers spent more than $30,000 dollars on DNA tests to prove that Matthews wasn't at the murder scene.

Matthews's lawyers took statements from inmates after finding out that the real killer Rondell Love had bragged to them about the Vanhoose Murder. After some legwork, they discovered that the DNA at the crime scene matched Rondell Love's DNA.

The Crime masked gunman shot Tommy Vanhoose on April 7, 1997to death in his grocery store in bridge city, Louisiana. According to witnesses a masked gunman walked in the store and demanded money at gunpoint. The gunman shot him to death after he refused to hand the cash over. He didn't stop shooting till he ran to his getaway car. While making his escape he discarded his ski mask. One of the witnesses retrieved the mask and handed it over to the police as evidence.

The Trial

The trial was marred by racial prejudice. The prosecutors were successful in getting a dominantly white jury. There were around 11 white jurors while there was only one African-American. That was very unfair as one third of the county's population consisted of minorities. In that order the jury was not officially representing all the people in the country. There was a lot of hue and cry raised when pressure was applied on the jury to reach a rushed verdict. The trial only lasted three days. The prosecution was allowed to present its evidence on the second day. The defense wanted a move to rest on the third day. However they were denied that chance by the judge who ordered both parties to make their closing statement. The defense made another move to rest again. The judge turned down their request again and asked the jurors to deliberate the decision. The judge ordered the jury to go back after they couldn't make a decision. They made a decision in 40 mins after spending 14 hours straight in the court room. This is when they returned with a guilty verdict.