So, just why didn’t the officials at the Department of Corrections transport Vincent Simmons to Marksville for Wednesday’s hearing?
Or better yet, what do prosecutors of the 12th Judicial District have to fear? Are they trying to cover for Eddie Knoll’s mistake? A mistake that has cost Vincent Simmons 40 years of his life?
Most probably, it’s just a matter of someone at Angola State Penitentiary dropping the ball, says New Orleans attorney Robert Hjortsberg.
A hearing was scheduled to be held on Wednesday on a motion by Hjortsberg to recuse Judge Kerry Spruill for a hearing on Simmons’s application for post-conviction relief. Hjortsberg wants Judge Spruill recused because of his association with Knoll, who originally prosecuted Simmons in 1977.
But officials at Angola inexplicably failed to transport Simmons to Marksville even though they “assured us he was going to be here,” Hjortsberg said on Wednesday after the Angola no-show. “In fact, my office also called to make sure he was going to be here because there is a lot of people, including myself, who have come from all over the place in order to be here to support him.”
Vincent was convicted for attempted aggravated rape of twin 14-year-old white girls in 1977 on the basis of what Hjortsberg says was “flawed and contradictory testimony” and in spite of there being no physical evidence of any description against Simmons.
Among the discrepancies that cast doubt on Simmons’s guilt:
- The girls waited two weeks to report the incident;
- There was never any physical evidence that the rapes occurred;
- No forensic tests were carried out on the clothing of the alleged victims, Simmons’s clothing, or the interior of the car in which they said the rapes occurred;
- The doctor who examined the girls reported that he found no signs of injury on either girl and that one of the girls was still a virgin two weeks after the supposed rapes;
- Simmons was convicted on July 24, 1977. Yet, on June 10, some six weeks earlier, Dr. F.P. Bordelon, Jr. wrote of his examination of one of the girls, “There was (sic) no bruises on her body. The vaginal examination showed that the hymen was intact.” Contents of Dr. Bordelon’s letter were never admitted into testimony during the trial. That’s exculpatory evidence and grounds for a new trial;
- The girls initially said they did not know their attacker’s name but testified in court that he had told them his name before assaulting them;
- The girls said they would not be able to pick out their assailant “because all black men looked the same” to them;
- Yet, they later picked Simmons out of a police lineup in which he was the only one handcuffed;
- The police investigation reports did not include a single lead pointing to Simmons, yet he was picked off the street and charged with the crime;
- Two reports by the same police officer written 24 hours apart gave two completely different locations of the place of arrest;
- There is no indication that police, at any point, had an official interview with Simmons or that he gave any statement. Yet, when he was arrested and taken into custody, a police officer who was related to Keith Laborde, the supposed victims’ cousin, shot Simmons in the chest, nearly killing him;
- Police claimed that Simmons disarmed one of the officers and attempted to shoot him but his gun misfired. Yet, this was not mentioned at trial, nor was he ever charged with resisting arrest any other crime related to that claim;
- The arresting police officers never testified at trial;
- No pre-trial or investigations by Simmons’s court-appointed legal counsel were ever made;
Simmons has been attempting to win an evidentiary hearing for several decades but the state has never afforded him one.
Simmons’s application for post-conviction relief has offered another piece of exculpatory evidence that was in the prosecution’s possession but never revealed to the jury.
“Recently, Vincent Simmons became aware of an affidavit signed by Pamela Jones, a witness present at the J&J Snack Bar the night of the alleged rapes,” Hjortsberg says in the application. “The withheld information given by Pamela Jones was known by the state because they and/or their agents are the ones that initially acquired the information.”
The rapes allegedly occurred when the girls said they were abducted at a 7-Eleven convenience store by Simmons who then forced Laborde, their 18-year-old cousin, to drive down a remote dirt road where they said they were raped near a lake.
Hjortsberg said that after Jones heard about Simmons’s arrest, she called the District Attorney’s office, gave her name and number, and explained that she knew that Simmons could not have committed the crime. “She was told that someone from the state would contact her, which never happened,” he wrote in his motion.
“After the phone call, Pamela followed up by going to the District Attorney’s office to tell them her side of the story,” he said. When she arrived, she was met by a white male who identified himself as an investigator. “He told Pamela that someone would get in touch with her in a few days to get her statement because there was no one present in the office to take it at the time. No one from the District Attorney’s office ever contacted her again.
“…At least one other individual that described himself as an investigator had knowledge of this information and never turned it over to defense counsel or notified them that the statement had been made.
“This favorable evidence related to Pamela Jones’s statement clearly shows that the Avoyelles Parish District Attorney’s office was aware of the evidence because they are the ones that heard the statements initially. Furthermore,” Hjortsberg says, “the prosecutor in this matter, Edward Knoll, was responsible for disclosing this favorable evidence even if he was unaware of it.”
The trial transcript and official court records shows “that the jury heard nothing about Pamela Jones and the fact that she saw Vincent at the J&J Snack Bar,” the motion says. “Pamela was never subpoenaed nor called as a witness. She also states in her signed affidavit that she never testified at trial nor did she speak to Vincent’s defense counsel. It would be inexplicable for the defense not to have used this evidence if they in fact had it in their possession at the time of the trial.”
Hjortsberg says, “A series of unorthodox and unexplained actions by the Avoyelles Parish District Attorney’s office prevented any reasonable possibility that Vincent Simmons’s trial attorney could have learned of the favorable evidence. Despite the fact that the office was called and physically approached by Pamela Jones—yet never documented her testimony nor made any mention of it to defense counsel—shows that they not only were aware of this favorable evidence but willfully withheld it from the defense.
“The state of Pamela Jones gives a detailed account of what time and day she arrived at the J&J Snack Bar, when Vincent arrived at the snack bar, what time Vincent arrived, what Vincent was doing when he arrived, and finally, what time Vincent left the bar, the motion says.
“The evidence withheld by the state would have been favorable to Vincent because it could have been used at trial to exculpate him—by demonstrating that Vincent could not have been in two places at once.”
Hjortsberg says that in Simmons’s case, the suppressed evidence “discredits the caliber and reliability of the state’s investigation and prosecution of Vincent, because it shows that the state zeroed in on one suspect with little to no investigation despite the weakness of the evidence against him. The suppressed evidence shows that investigators were aware that a credible alibi witness had come forward on Vincent’s behalf and (they) did nothing. It further shows that they had no interest in finding who actually committed these acts but rather focused solely on closing the case as quickly as possible.”
He said that while he is disappointed at the failure of prison officials to follow through on transporting Simmons to his hearing, “The hearing will be held and I’m confident that Vincent will be granted a new trial based on this new information and I don’t think he will be convicted again.”
Louisiana Voice 
Sickening. More incompetence and wrong doing at the department of corrections under Jimmy LeBlanc.
I sincerely hope the current DA, a good person, will do what he can to get this resolved. We see these kind of cases on 60 Minutes and other television news programs and they are always, as “LA Voice fan” says, sickening. How can anybody not be able to put themselves in the shoes of a person who has spent most of his/her life in prison based on no concrete evidence, or worse, having had exculpatory evidence ignored or suppressed? How can such a prosecutor sleep at night? In too many cases, even when exculpatory evidence is presented, the prosecutor refuses to admit s/he was wrong.
Perfectly put Stephen. Perhaps if criminal penalties were an option for prosecutors and investigators who knowingly suppressed or altered (a lineup with only one person in cuffs) evidence from defendants and their lawyers, they may rethink their actions.
Like Bob is saying “perfectly put, Stephen”. How can the prosecutor in Vincent’s case sleep at night? Let’s hope the current DA is indeed solving the wrongdoing in this case. But it happens all too often that the next DA in office has to uphold the “good name” of the DA’s office. What if they will admit that their predecessor made many errors??? They are afraid of being sued. All better than that even if it means you have to be unfaithful to your duty and task as DA.
Better yet why don’t they bring in some Hollywood trash like Johnny Depp, Susan Sarandon, the Dixie Chicks and a couple of others and I’m sure this case would be resolved in short order. and this convict would be released. Nothing like waiting 40 years to point out all of the weak evidence and such.
Bud, in case you haven’t noticed, the people working on Vincent’s behalf aren’t Hollywood “trash,” as you so eloquently put it; they’re Louisiana citizens who can see where he was singled out from the beginning, refused a fair trial, and convicted before he could begin to put his defense together. Simmons has been trying to point out the weak evidence for 40 years but people like you refuse to listen.
It’s not “Hollywood trash” that is the problem—it’s people with closed minds, pre-set attitudes and deep-seated prejudices—like you—who are the problem.
Are you afraid that a “convict” might actually be right? Why? Would that upset the delusional world in which you reside—where everything is as it should be and the courts never make mistakes?
On second thought, never mind. If you couldn’t see the weaknesses in the points made in the story, trying to reason with you is a huge waste of time.
@Bud, as a Hollywood actress explained:
I’m sorry to say that over the years I’ve already enlisted many friends and shopped the story to major news outlets.
As I think I’ve explained before, the challenge I’ve come up against is two-fold:
1) it’s a rape conviction. The topic of rape is one that news media are very cautious about—running “innocence stories.” As you can imagine, no journalist wants to be seen championing the case of a wrongly convicted rapist if there’s ANY chance that one day it may be proven that they were in fact guilty. Rape is a topic that is biased on the side of the law in public opinion. The feedback I’ve received over the years is that journalists are certainly outraged and see that the evidence we have points to an injustice being done. However, none will move forward without clear, concise and compelling new evidence or witnesses.
For example: if one of the sisters were to recant her story and be willing to do an interview.
The fact that the justice system in the south is corrupt is not a new story here (California MB). In fact it’s common knowledge. Unfortunately, when a southern black man is the victim of injustice, it’s very hard to get anyone to care. As a black woman it breaks my heart.
I suppose he decided to ignore all of the appeal courts and take his chances 40 years later with the “Louisiana citizens”!! And Tom, I specifically named the Hollywood trash without inferring anything to anyone in Louisiana. By the way with all of the sexual harassment scandals you keep up with, why haven’t you followed up on the medical director for DOC that was placed on suspension earlier this week for alledged sexual harassment?
Read my first response. I specifically said Simmons has been trying for 40 years to get his appeals heard. He certainly didn’t wait until now to start trying. You think the man would sit in Angola for 40 years before deciding to try to appeal his case? Seriously? I have a list of motions and appeals that go all the way back to the time of his conviction. What more do you want? I’m afraid your bigotry is showing through.
As for not reporting a sexual harassment case in DOC, I didn’t report it ONLY because I didn’t know about it—and still don’t know the details, names, dates, etc. But you can bet I will be looking into it. If you’ve been keeping up with my posts, you should know that I’m certainly not shy about taking on DOC (Fire Marshal, State Police are cases in point).
Don’t EVER make the mistake of accusing me of trying to cover some story up. Those who know me know that’s not my style and you’re starting to make yourself look a little foolish.
Bud, maybe you know some people of Hollywood or other VIPs to get rural attention. And if you have, how do you think you can pass the judicial system when they act like Angola does? They are all covering for each other.
Bud, for more than 19 years I am actively involved in this case and I am doing that from out Europe. I can assure you that I know a lot about this case and that Vincent simply never got a fair chance. It has become a political question because of the involvement of certain persons who have the power to influence others. I explained you before how things are working with the DA’s office and upholding their “GOOD” name.
The system is broken and many cases shows that. I hope you are willing to open your eyes for that. Unfortunately I learned during all the past years that there are many people with closed minds, pre-set attitudes and deep-seated prejudices who have their opinion ready based on very little information. It are these kind of people who are the problem that the system stays as it is.
Bud, did you ask yourself why the prison refused to transport Vincent to the court? They, including the people in the judicial system will frustrate the case, they will prevent it from hearing because they are afraid that, like Tom is saying, a “convict” might actually be right? And that would disturbed the picture that the police is right, that the courts are right, that the system is working well, etc. etc. I spoke too many people over the years who had a holy belief in the police, the justice system and everything involved but unfortunately for them they found out it was not that way. There are simply to many people who are not open for this. It is much more convenient to close your eyes for that then to fight this injustice and unfairness like every human being should do and especial doe who call themselves to be a Christian.
I can see where all you with your drawers in a knot about this case, from Europe, Hollywood and Tim-buck two would be all lathered up with all of this “new” that surfaced after 40 years. I’m still trying to figure out how all of it was missed by the appeals courts. But the courts require proof and that’s what would be missing in these theatrics!! And Tom it would not be that hard get what you need for the suspended medical director. I’ve read your post going with a lot less. He would be a state employee, so you could start with that!!
A little bit more respect will suit you Mr. Bud Daniels. Are you speaking Dutch, I don’t think so then please keep your mouth about that. It would suit you also if people like you, from the USA, are fighting the corrupt system instead of nagging about people from Europe who are trying to help others. The courts require proof you say but do you what the proof in Vincent’s case was? Do you know what the basis for his arrest was and the basis for his conviction was? In our country the state has to prove that someone is guilty and not the other way around.
And mr. Bud Daniels, are you speaking German? Are you speaking French? Are you able to write in these three languages?
Are you thick-headed, stubborn or just stupid, Bud? Tom said in both his stories and in his comments to you that these are not “new” efforts; Vincent Simmons has been trying to get someone to listen to him for 40 years. What does someone have to do to get you to comprehend simple English?
Tom has laid out the complete lack of evidence in his arrest and trial. No DNA tests on either girl, Vincent’s clothing or the car. He was the only one with handcuffs on in the lineup (hint girls, look carefully. You might be able to spot the perp.) Tom has laid a ton of evidence on the table to support Vincent Simmons. What have you offered in the way of evidence that he’s guilty—other than your foregone conclusion that because he’s black and some rednecks lawmen decided to arrest him, he must be the one.
Tom has provided evidence; you’ve given nothing but innuendo, prejudice, racism and bigotry.
Oh, and by the way, its Timbuktu. Where the hell did you come up with your spelling, KKK Elementary? Yeah, you surely put your superior intellect out there for everyone to see.
Mr. Bud, I said that it is in our country the way that the state has to proof that someone is guilty but that counts for the entire, civilized, western world.
Well Mr. Justice Fan, no I don’t speak those other languages, since it’s not a requirement in these United States. However I would guess you would and hats off to you! I see you can babble in nonsense as well! The courts obviously had the proof required 40 years ago and it apparently withstood the appeals test or he would have been released or given a new trial. There’s not a case that you can’t cast doubt on if you wait 40 years to test it. However I know how it is with you liberals, you can’t handle adversity! Just like ole Tom, anyone that don’t hold the same view or opinion as his, the attacks begin.
So, Bud, you think simply because he was convicted that he’s automatically guilty? Take a look around, do a little research and you’ll see hundreds of stories about people who spent years in prison only to be exonerated by DNA evidence or by someone else coming forward and admitting to the crime. Yet they were all convicted, and in your limited vision, that’s all you need to know. People make mistakes all the time and district attorneys, juries and judges are no exception. Orleans District Attorney Harry Connick, Sr. was notorious for concealing exculpatory evidence that would have proven accused persons innocent, yet he went forward with his prosecution and won convictions only to have several of those cases overturned when the concealed evidence finally was discovered by people who would rather see the truth than to wear blinders.
And as for you gloating because there’s a story out there that I haven’t reported….well, guess what? There are a ton of stories I don’t know about because I am one person and doing this for free. But that doesn’t stop me from trying and I will get this story. So you can wipe that smirk off your condescending face. Your knowing of a single story that I haven’t had called to my attention yet (because I’m not omnipresent) doesn’t make you some sort of intellectual giant. In fact, your continuous harping on that one incident actually makes you a bit obnoxious and small.
If you’re so smart and so all-knowing, I suggest you start your own investigative blog post.
Dear Bud, you are a well knowing man. Maybe you can imagine you are in prison. All alone.
Outside in the free world are the courts with all the involved judicial people who sentenced you to 100 years in jail.
So you, locked up, to whom should you go to to plea for you. And don’t say to fast, that justice has a willing ear. Maybe first you have to look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qerFurVN_A
This part of the documentary is out of 1997, 20 years ago. You can see Vincent didn’t wait 40 years to reach the courts. And this is not his only try to get back in court. All his attempts are just ignored just as the chair in this film. They just want to cover their colleagues and then you can do a lot but you are a calling man in a wide dessert.
Mr. Bud Daniels,
What a big nonsense are you writing here. First you assume I am a man which I am not. Is your life full of all kind of assumptions? Perhaps also in Vincent’s case?
I did ask you what the proof is in Vincent’s case? And I don’t ask you follow blindly what others are saying in this case.
Another stupid assumption from you is thinking I am a liberal, just because I am from Europe. You don’t have any idea what my political background is. And you probably don’t have a clue at all how it works with liberals otherwise you didn’t say something stupid like: “they can’t handle adversity” and that the attacks begin when others have not the same opinion as liberals. In our country are parties with several backgrounds (liberal, democrats, conservatives) working together and form a government something your all Trump and his Republicans can learn from.
I don’t spend any more time in replying to this useless discussion. All the best with all of your assumptions.
Would the kettle be calling the pot black on “assumption “? If he has been trying for 20 years to get back into court on this case, then my question continues to be why hasn’t the appellate courts recognized some of this new found evidence he has or the much bogus evidence that was used against him? Why hasn’t he gotten into federal court if the state appellate courts refuse him, because it would definitely be constitutional issues at that point? Again you show your liberal colors by making your assumptions of my opinions!!
Bud Daniels, maybe you can answer my question which I will ask again.
To whom should you appeal when each legal officer protects the others? And remember, you do not have access to the outside world.
Oh Bud, and did you watch the part of the documentary for what I provided you the link?
Tom, you, Merian, Justice Fan and Buck Turdiman are gonna get the drizzles if you don’t calm down some. With you scrambling to find out what you’ve missed at DOC, Merian trying to get me to watch some video on YouTube – relevant to nothing and Buck fixated on the KKK I’m afraid y’all may develop some irregular bowel problems. Tom maybe you should stay on things like the story you did about the prison labor at the local jails. The last story you did was interesting, you threw in little extra from the original story back earlier this with the private prisons and the construction of warehouses. I think that maybe your groove. A lot of supposition but an interesting read nonetheless!!!
Well, thank you for the roses, Bud. And I’m not scrambling to find what I missed at DOC. I’ve been doing this for nearly half a century and I learned long ago that I’m going to miss some stories and I’m going to get beaten on some stories by other media. But be assured I’ve got plenty on my plate, so to tell you the truth, if I get the story, fine. If I don’t, then I guess that’s fine, too. If I don’t do the story, it’ll give you something to dwell upon, I suppose, since you already seem more than a little obsessed with it.
But I really don’t have the time to waste trying to make you understand that huge mistakes are often made in our justice system. If you don’t already know that, nothing I can say will convince you so I’ll continue to do what I do and you can continue to take pot shot at me. I won’t block you from having your say because that’s your right as long as you don’t make racist or obscene remarks.
And at last, I asked you several questions and you didn’t reply not one of them. Do you think it makes sense to exchange our minds further?
Marien you’ve not answered any of mine either so get off your soapbox!!!!!
Bud, you are blind for the factual situation. Your statement is that if Vincent is innocent, he can go to the court and can proof it. As an answer on that,
HE CAN NOT !!!!!!!!!!! Better, he is not allowed to do that. He has to pass the people who have to commit they make mistakes in the lawsuit.
And because you are the only wise man in this discussion, I asked you several times if you have some suggestions how Vincent can act to proof his innocence. Maybe you can help him, you are for justice, aren’t you?