Nearly three decades after Jessica Currin, an 18-year-old Black woman, was found murdered and burned behind Mayfield Middle School, the case is still playing out.
Attorneys representing Quincy Cross – the man convicted of killing Currin, among other charges – and prosecuting attorneys with the Commonwealth of Kentucky have now each submitted final briefs following the evidentiary trial that took place in the fall, with a potential new trial for Cross at stake.
The evidentiary hearing at the Graves County Temporary Court Facility in Mayfield began in late November and concluded on Dec. 18. During the three-day hearing, Cross’s defense brought forth new evidence and called on multiple principal witnesses in the 2008 trial who recanted their testimony, with some alleging that they were threatened by members of law enforcement who wanted them to implicate Cross in Currin’s murder.
Each of those witnesses only recanted their 2008 testimonies after being advised by provided legal counsel that they could face perjury charges and incarceration for confessing to lying on the stand.
Cross’s defense – Amy Robinson Staples of the Exoneration Project and Whitney Allen of the Kentucky Innocence Project – was allowed 60 days to file a brief. The Commonwealth was given 40 days to respond to that filing.
The defense team filed its post-hearing brief on Feb. 13, reiterating the argument that the new evidence presented – which included the introduction of a new witness in Darryl Montgomery – and recanted testimony from Vinisha Stubblefield, Shamicia Powell and Latoya “Patrice” Senter “demands a new trial.”
“Four separate key witnesses against Mr. Cross, including the two alleged eyewitnesses, have recanted their perjured trial testimony, and law enforcement officials have admitted to using techniques the witnesses say coerced them into giving the false statements,” the defense’s briefing reads. “The new evidence provides this Court with extensive reasons to doubt the genuineness of the witnesses’ false trial testimony and supports what Mr. Cross has always maintained: he did not commit the crimes for which he was charged and convicted.”
Later in the brief, the defense argues that legal precedent should entitle Cross to a new trial because the attorneys believe the newly discovered evidence presented in court last fall would have impacted the outcome of the original criminal case.
“Mr. Cross has presented a plethora of evidence casting doubt on the truthfulness of the testimony against him at trial,” the defense wrote. “If a jury were to hear all the new evidence Mr. Cross now presents to this Court – that four, separate key witnesses against Mr. Cross, including the two alleged eyewitnesses, have recanted their trial testimony and admitted they lied at trial and the credible reasons for doing so – there is a reasonable probability the result would be different.”
The state’s team of prosecutors – which was led by Kentucky Assistant Attorneys General Barbara Maines Whaley, Todd Ferguson and Richie Kemp – responded with its post-hearing brief last week, filing it on March 25.
In it, the Commonwealth argued that the evidence presented didn’t support a new trial, stating that the recanted testimonies should be “viewed with suspicion” – as state law dictates – and that Cross’s defense team had not proven the veracity of the recantations beyond that doubt
“Cross has failed to meet his burden. The recanting testimony of Vinisha Stubblefield, Shamicia Powell, and Latoya Senter, and the testimony of Darryl Montgomery do not have any credibility and do not ring true,” the state’s brief reads.
Though individuals are generally entitled to new trials if evidence “would have changed the result” of the original trial, the state’s attorneys argued that recanted testimony couldn’t be the basis for a new trial, unless the court was satisfied of their truth.
In its filing, the state attacks the basis of Cross’s defense by calling on the original case’s investigation and court transcript, which included an at-length questioning of Caldwell and Stubblefield about “inconsistent statements they had given regarding the murder of Jessica Currin.”
“Both witnesses admitted they gave false statements to police during the initial investigation of the case that resulted in the indictment of Jeremy Adams and Carlos Saxton,” the brief reads. “The jury heard this evidence and convicted Cross.”
In the concluding statement of the state’s brief, the attorneys argued that the verdict arrived at by a Hickman County jury in 2008 “should stand.”
“There comes a point when the weight of the conviction and the passage of time counsels for an end to the attacks,” it reads. “Cross has long ago passed that point.”
Special Judge Tyler Gill, who granted the evidentiary hearing last year, will rule on whether or not Cross will receive a new trial. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing in December, Gill stressed that “it won’t take [him] long” to arrive at a decision.
His decision could come at any time and, regardless of whether he awards a new trial to Cross or sides with the state, it could be appealed.
