Supreme Court Denies Cert in Bill Kuenzel Death Penalty Case, But is He Innocent?
When I did a presentation at the Media Law School at the University of South Carolina School of Law back in September, a reporter asked me to look into the case of Bill Kuenzel, a death row inmate in Sylacauga, Alabama. I was intrigued for a few reasons, including the fact that my uncle lives in Sylacauga. Beyond that, though, there was the fact that some high profile people were protesting Kuenzel’s innocence, including Sam Waterston of “Law and Order” fame.
But I never got around to looking into Kuenzel’s case. Then, Friday, I was looking through the Supreme Court’s recent cert denials and came upon the Supreme Court’s rejection of cert in Kuenzel’s case. According to an article on the cert denial,
Kuenzel was convicted of murdering convenience store clerk Linda Jean Offord, a mother of three who was shot to death while working a night shift. Kuenzel’s roommate, who had blood on his pants after the murder, testified that Kuenzel committed the crime.
Kuenzel lawyer’s said they found out in 2010 that a teenage witness— who testified she saw Kuenzel at the convenience store — initially told a grand jury that she wasn’t certain it was Kuenzel she saw. Defense lawyers said they’ve also learned that the roommate had a shotgun of the same gauge used to kill Offord and also initially told police that he had been at the convenience store with another friend, not Kuenzel.
The Alabama attorney general’s office has argued that the teenage witness only had slight variations in her certainty that Kuenzel was at the store, and there was other testimony and evidence that backed up the guilty verdict. Prosecutors wrote in a brief that Kuenzel had tried to fabricate an alibi for the day of the murder, and that he and his roommate made notes in a notebook that suggested they were trying to coordinate their stories to police.
On the other hand,
Kuenzel’s case had gotten a boost from former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, who argued in court papers that Kuenzel is “very likely actually innocent.”
According to that brief,
Kuenzel has identified multiple Brady violations in the documents that were not turned over to him until 2010—none of which, as explained below,…he has ever been able to raise on the merits in the Alabama courts. Perhaps the most serious of these is the failure to disclose the grand jury testimony of April Harris. Harris, who claimed to have glimpsed Venn and Kuenzel inside the convenience store from a mov- ing car, was the only person other than Venn to testify that Kuenzel was at the scene. Thus, under Alabama’s corroboration rule, “the evidence was insufficient to convict Kuenzel” without her testimony.
The Supreme Court, however, apparently rejected this argument as it rejected cert without comment. Now, “[t]he state attorney general’s office could now ask the Alabama Supreme Court to set an execution date for Kuenzel, 54.”
The way, I see it, though, there are serious doubts about Kuenzel’s guilt. This looks to be a case that needs further investigation, and it appears that such an investigation is being done. Apparently, a team is working on a documentary, “Dead Time,” about the case.
-CM