Beth Shelburne
π€ SpeakerAppearances Over Time
Podcast Appearances
Prosecutor Jeff Wallace told two juries that Violet was a credible witness, someone who overheard Taforist Johnson admit to the crime, and she came forward because it was the right thing to do.
But there were other reasons Violet Ellison might have come forward.
It was mentioned in press releases and reported on TV news.
If Violet Ellison knew about the reward money before trial, or even if she had qualified for the reward, the jury should have been told this when they heard her testimony.
The legal issues here get complicated fast, but it's important to understand that the prosecution must turn over anything that would be helpful to the defense.
It can be a lead on another suspect or some forensic report that casts doubt on a piece of evidence or information that calls the credibility of a state's witness into question.
This is called Brady information after a famous U.S.
And if a court finds out later that prosecutors failed to turn over Brady information, that's a constitutional violation and the court will order a new trial.
So if prosecutors knew that Violet Ellison came forward looking for the reward, they should have told Tafor's trial lawyers about it, and then they could have brought it up at trial.
They could have told the jury, when you go back and deliberate about Violet Ellison's testimony, remember, there's a reward being offered, and she wants that reward.
Are you sure money isn't part of the equation here?
but the jury never heard anything about the reward.
Monique Hicks was on the jury in Taforist's second trial, and she voted to convict Taforist based on Violet Ellison's testimony.
Our system prioritizes finality, in part because a jury's verdict is considered a community statement and given great weight.
So for Taforist to get a new trial, his lawyers needed to prove two thingsβ
that Violet Ellison came forward with her story in the hopes of getting the reward and that police and prosecutors were aware of this true motivation.