Case Review

GORDON RANDY STEIDL

Introduction
In August 1987, following a trial at the Edgar County Courthouse in Paris, Illinois, Gordon R. (Randy) Steidl (Steidl), aged 35, was sentenced to death for the murder of a local couple, Dyke and Karen Rhoads (the Rhoads couple). Steidl spent 12 years on death row before the Center on Wrongful Convictions helped prove his innocence. Resentenced to life imprisonment in February 1999, on 28 May 2004, he finally walked from Illinois Correctional Center at Danville a free man. This is his story. On 6 July 1986, fire-fighters responded to a report of a fire at a house in Paris, Illinois. After extinguishing the fire and entering an upstairs bedroom, they discovered the bodies of the Rhoads couple. Dyke was lying on the floor near to the bedroom door, having been stabbed 28 times, whilst Karen was found on the floor near to the foot of the bed, having been stabbed 26 times. No physical evidence found at the scene linked Steidl or his codefendant, Herbert Whitlock (Whitlock), to the murders. On 17 February 1987, seven months and eleven days after the murders, the trials key witness, Debra Rienbolt (Rienbolt), a local drug addict and alcoholic, contacted Agent Jack Eckerty of the Illinois State Police and Detective Parrish of the Paris Police Department. She presented Agent Eckerty with a knife, claiming that it was the sole weapon used by Steidl and Whitlock to murder the Rhoads couple. Rienbolt explained that she knew Steidl and Whitlock from around town and through drug dealing, supposedly having visited the Rhoads house on a number of occasions with Whitlock to speak to Dyke about drugs. Rienbolts statement recounted that on 5 July 1986, she decided not to work her 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift at the Paris Health Care Center, asking a colleague to clock her in. Instead she attended a local bar, Jeannies Place, in which she stated she overheard Dyke Rhoads tell Whitlock that he wanted out, with Whitlock replying that someone doesnt get out of illegal drug activity that easily1. Leaving the bar with a friend to continue drinking, smoke marijuana and take codeine pills, Rienbolt stated she later attended another local bar, the Tap Room, where she saw Whitlock, Steidl, Darrell Herrington (Herrington) and another unidentified man. Rienbolt stated that she saw the murder weapon (the Rienbolt Knife) for the first time in the hands of Whitlock in the Tap Room, where Whitlock had told her that he had to take care of a few people who knew too much2. Later, attending a bar named the American Legion, she again saw Whitlock and Steidl. Rienbolt claimed that she had then asked an acquaintance, Barbara Furry, where the Rhoads lived because she had a weird feeling 3. In her initial statement, where she claimed that she was not involved in the murders, Rienbolt stated that she was merely driving by the Rhoads house earlier in the night. It wasnt until she was walking home later in the night that she heard the sirens. Rienbolt told police that Whitlock had given her the Rienbolt Knife two days after the murders, warning her that it had been around4. On the back of Rienbolts evidence, Steidl and Whitlock were arrested by the Paris police on 19 February 1987.

1 2 3 4

People v. Steidl 1996 WL 33657597 (Ill.), at 7 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., at 8

-1-

On 29 March 1987, Rienbolt changed her version of events after an associate of hers had come forward to the police and said that they had seen a knife in Rienbolts purse a month prior to the murders. In a new statement, Rienbolt said that the Rienbolt Knife belonged to her and that on 4 July 1986 Whitlock had asked to borrow it. She also told police that on the morning of 6 July 1986 she entered the Rhoads house and, on entry, had seen the dead bodies of the Rhoads couple. In further statements to the police on 11 and 13 April 1987, Rienbolt now maintained that she was present in the Rhoads bedroom when the murders took place. Rienbolt stated that she restrained Karen Rhoads and Dyke Rhoads as they were being stabbed and that a lamp or vase had been broken in the process. In a plea on 29 April 1987, Rienbolt asserted that both Steidl and Whitlock had used the Rienbolt Knife to commit the murders. At no point did she mention that Herrington had been present at the scene of the crime. Following Steidls arrest, the police ceased any investigation into other suspects and focused their attention on corroborating Rienbolts version of events. The owner and operator of Jeannies Tavern, Eva Jean Trover, told the police that Steidl, Rienbolt, Whitlock and the Rhoads couple were not present in her bar on 5 April 1986. However, the police did not report Trovers statement. Barbara Furry, also interviewed by police, stated that she had not been at the bar with Rienbolt, nor, therefore, did she find out where the Rhoads couple lived. Furrys statement was later confirmed at trial by another witness, Carol Wallace. The second key witness, Herrington, a local alcoholic, had first approached the police on 21 September 1986 and was interviewed a second time on 24 November 1986. Having recently had his driving licence suspended for drunk-driving, Herrington requested the sum of $240 and for the Paris police Chief Gene Rays help to restore his driving privileges in exchange for providi ng information about the Rhoads couples murders. Chief Ray agreed, but this was not disclosed to Steidls counsel, John Muller (Muller). Herringtons account of events was a complete contradiction to Rienbolts. According to Herrington, neither Steidl nor Whitlock had attended the Tap Room or the American Legion, but instead attended several different bars. He also stated that he did not see Rienbolt at the scene of the crime, nor in any of the bars that he visited during the course of the evening. It wasnt until Steidls trial that Herringtons testimony began to match Rienbolts.

The Trial
Steidls trial began on 4 June 1987 at the Edgar County Courthouse. The two key witnesses, Rienbolt and Herrington, both testified that they were present at the Rhoads house at the time of the murders. Rienbolt claimed that she entered the house through an unlocked door at the rear of the property and moved up the stairs to find Steidl and Whitlock in a bedroom with the Rhoads couple. In the bedroom, she testified that she saw a broken lamp. Rienbolt further testified to seeing Steidl and Whitlock stab Dyke Rhoads with the Rienbolt Knife, before Rienbolt, for a reason she could not explain, held Karen Rhoads down on the bed while the defendants slit her throat. Rienbolt testified that Whitlock returned the Rienbolt Knife to her the following day, after which she meticulously cleaned it, only then to present it to the police seven months after the incident. Forensic analysis of the Rienbolt Knife showed no traces of human blood or tissue; only animal hairs were found on the blade. Rienbolt testified that while scheduled to work at the Paris Health Care Center on the night of the murders, she had not. She stated that either someone else had clocked her in or that she had clocked herself in and then left. She further admitted that she was both an alcoholic and drug addict who suffered from blackouts and, consequently, it was difficult for her to remember some parts of the night of the murders.

-2-

Herrington testified that he was also an alcoholic and had been drinking since noon on the day of the murders. He stated that he had been given a lift home from the American Legion by Steidl and Whitlock when they stopped at the Rhoads house. Testifying that he dozed off whilst Steidl and Whitlock entered the Rhoads couples house, he was woken up by the sound of something breaking, following which he entered the Rhoads house. He claimed that Steidl took him upstairs to the bodies of the couple and said thats whats going to happen to you and your family if ever theres a word said5. Dr John Murphy (Dr Murphy), a pathologist who performed the autopsies on the Rhoads couple, testified for the prosecution at the trial. He stated that Dyke had been stabbed 28 times, the fatal wound being below his left armpit, measuring six inches deep and 2.5 centimetres wide at the point of entry. Karen had been stabbed 26 times with two possible fatal wounds. One was under her right armpit, again, six inches deep, while the other was in her chest. Dr Murphy stated that the wounds were consistent with the dimensions of the Rienbolt Knife. At the trial, Ferlin Wells (Wells), who was in police custody at the time that Steidl was arrested, stated Steidl had said to him that he supposed that the Rhoads couple were killed because they did not pay for drugs. He also maintained that Steidl had said to him that had he known Herrington was going to come forward to the police, he would have definitely taken care of him6. However, on cross-examination, Wells clarified that Steidl had never admitted to personally killing the Rhoads couple. Steve Dosch, a fireman responding at the scene, testified that, on entering the bedroom with body bags for the Rhoads couple, he had pushed a lamp onto the floor outside the bedroom door. This testimony contradicted Rienbolts version of events as she testified that she saw the broken lamp prior to the murders taking place. Steidl, in his defence, presented an alibi. He stated that while he knew Herrington, he had never met or seen Rienbolt before. Steidl testified that he had not seen Herrington on the night of the murders and, therefore, could not have given him a lift home. He confirmed that he had been to a few bars earlier on 5 July 1986 and between the hours of 12:30 a.m. and 3:15 a.m. he had been at a friends apartment with three others; this was corroborated by Christy Farris and Nanette Klein. In addition, two further witnesses, Carol and Beecher Lynch, testified that they had seen Steidl leave the Legion Hall bar, between 12:00 and 12:30 a.m. on 6 July 1986, alone in his car. Steidl also called three witnesses who worked with Rienbolt at the Paris Health Care Center; Beverly Johnson, Nancy Davis and Bonnie Tribbe. Through these witnesses it was established that the records showed that Rienbolt punched in at 3:45 p.m. on 5 July 1986 and punched out at midnight. None, however, testified that they had observed Rienbolt at work.

Sentencing
Following the completion of the evidence at the trial, the jury found Steidl guilty on two counts of first degree murder. At the sentencing hearing, held the following day before the same jury, Muller only presented a short statement regarding Steidls lack of serious criminal history as mitigating evidence. Muller did not present any witnesses on Steidls behalf. As a result, the jury found Steidl eligible for the death penalty and sentenced him to death.

5 6

Universal Case Opinion, Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, Case No. 01-CV-2249, at 4 Ibid., at 5

-3-

Post-Trial Proceedings
Steidl filed a post-trial motion in the trial court citing numerous grounds for a new trial. Following the courts denial of his motion, he appealed both his conviction and death sentence to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Post-Judgment Relief Petition

While Steidl waited for an answer from the Illinois Supreme Court to his appeal of his conviction and sentence, he filed a petition for post-judgment relief7 in the trial court on 8 February 1989. Subsequently, a four-day evidentiary hearing was held regarding the petition. Steidl claimed that he was entitled to relief from his conviction as the two main prosecution witnesses, Rienbolt and Herrington, had subsequently recanted their trial testimony. Herrington had made a statement to a court-reporter in which he admitted that he had never seen Steidl with the Rienbolt Knife, while Rienbolt had signed two affidavits which contradicted her trial testimony. Steidl also presented two affidavits from prisoners who stated that Wells had confessed that he had lied at trial. However, at the hearing, Rienbolt, Herrington and Wells all testified that their trial testimony had been truthful. Steidls petition for post-judgment relief was denied on 20 March 1990.

Appeal To The Illinois Supreme Court

The Illinois Supreme Court ordered that Steidls appeal of the post-judgment relief decision be consolidated with the pending direct appeal of his conviction and sentence. The consolidated appeals were heard on 24 January 1991 and raised the following issues.

The Trial
Steidl contended that the prosecution failed to prove that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the murders of the Rhoads couple. He asserted that he produced a strong alibi defence, which was corroborated, while the states key witnesses were unconvincing. He argued that both Herrington and Rienbolt lacked credibility as witnesses because of the inconsistencies between their testimonies at trial and their pre-trial statements. He argued that, as both Herrington and Rienbolt suffered from alcohol and drug addictions, both were likely to lie to the court to ensure that they were not deprived of access to drugs and alcohol. The court disagreed with Steidl. The court applied the principles of review set out in People v. Jimerson8 and concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Steidls conviction. The court stated that although the testimony of Rienbolt as an accomplice should be regarded with suspicion, it may be enough to sustain a conviction. Similarly, although the testimony of narcotics addicts must be viewed with caution, it may also be enough to sustain a conviction if considered credible in view of the surrounding circumstances. Steidl further alleged that the state had violated Supreme Court Rule 412(a)9 by submitting a statement from Debra Steidl , Steidls ex-wife, concerning conversations between herself and Steidl. It was argued that the statement should not have been introduced as evidence as it was made two days after the trial had begun and, therefore, was not disclosed to Muller during the discovery process. The court noted that the only circumstance that may excuse the failure to disclose such a statement is where the prosecution is unaware of its existence prior to the commencement of the trial and it could not have been discovered
7 8 9

Petition filed under Code of Civil Procedure 735 Comp. Stat. 5/2-1401 (West 2000) 166 Ill.2d 211, 652 N.E.2d 278 (1995) 107 Ill.2d R. 412(a)

-4-

through due diligence. In the circumstances, the court found that Supreme Court Rule 412(a) had not been breached where the prosecution had delivered the statement to Steidls counsel one business day after it had been transcribed. Steidl also argued that his right to be present at every stage of the trial, his right to a fair trial and his right to due process were denied when the trial judge told the jury, off the record and during jury deliberations, that transport and lodgings would be made available to them if they did not come to a decision by 11:00 p.m. that night. It was put to the court that the judges statements had the effect of prejudicing Steidl as they seemingly put pressure on the jury to produce a verdict. However, in this instance the court found that the judges comments had the effect of removing, and not creating, pressure and, therefore, could not be found to be prejudicial to Steidl. Further, Steidl argued that his right to effective assistance of counsel was denied when Muller failed to: (1) Object when the trial court refused to supply testimonial transcripts to the jury to use during their deliberations; (2) Object to the inclusion of Debra Steidl s statement as evidence; (3) Object to the prosecutors comments during closing argument s; and (4) Use prior statements made by Rienbolt for impeachment purposes. The court considered the two part test laid out in Strickland v. Washington10 in examining whether Muller had rendered ineffective assistance as counsel. The test states: (1) Defence counsels representation of a defendant must have fallen below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) The counsels shortcomings must be so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair and reliable trial. The court found Mullers decision whether or not to object to testimony was generally a matter of sound trial strategy. The court also determined that the judges failure to give the jury transcripts and trial counsel s decision not to object to the prosecutors closing argument did not prejudice Steidl. Additionally, the court held that Rienbolts prior statements did not exculpate Steidl and, therefore, the test laid out in Strickland v. Washington was not satisfied. Steidl also asserted that he was denied a fair sentencing hearing because a prospective juror was excluded due to the juror having reservations about the death penalty. The court mooted this point as Steidl had failed to object to the jurors exclusion at the trial, thereby waiving his right to object on appeal. Therefore, the court accepted the findings of the trial court. Further, the court rejected any claims that the death sentence was disproportionate in this case as the jury had found Steidl guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, while also having regard to his previous convictions and the violent nature of the murders.

Post-Judgment Petition
Steidl had submitted new evidence to the Edgar County trial court in support of his petition for post-judgment relief. His appellate counsel, Peter Rotskoff (Rotskoff), had spoken with Rienbolt over the phone and had met her in person. Rotskoff testified that in these conversations Rienbolt had repudiated her testimony, saying none of her prior statements were close to the truth11. She signed an affidavit on 13 January 1989, stating that she
10 11

466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984) People v. Steidl 142 Ill.2d, 240, 568 N.E.2d 837, 857, 154 Ill.Dec. 616 (1991), at 26

-5-

told the police prior to the trial that Steidl had not murdered the Rhoads couple. However, Rienbolt, giving evidence to the court, denied all of the statements that she had made to Rotskoff and explained that she had not looked at the affidavit prior to signing it. Steidl had also submitted a written statement made on 28 November 1988 by Herrington. In this statement Herrington had recanted some of his trial testimony. However, the statement was replete with off-the-record conversations and leading questions. The statement was also taken by a court reporter who refused to sign an affidavit saying that Steidls attorneys, Muller and Rotskoff, did not speak with Herrington during the off-therecord conversations. At the petition hearing, Herrington reaffirmed his trial testimony stating that during the conversations he had told Steidls attorneys what they wanted to hear12. Steidl also alleged that one of the states witnesses, Wells, had lied. Two other witnesses testified that when Wells had gone back to jail, he told them that he had lied at the trial. Steidls arguments concluded that, in light of the evidence presented, the trial court abused its discretion in not ordering a new trial. He argued that since Rienbolt, Herrington and Wells had clearly committed perjury at the original trial, his petition for post-judgment relief should have been granted. However, the Illinois Supreme Court noted that recantations had always been held as inherently unreliable. The court stated that the conditions in which the recantations were made in Steidls case were less than ideal, thus the trial court had discretion as to deciding how much weight to give to the recanted testimonies. Consequently, Steidl failed to prove that the testimonies upon which his conviction was based were clearly and convincingly false. Steidl went on to argue that should evidence of the recantations prove insufficient to entitle him to a new trial, the new evidence adduced should at least entitle him to a new sentencing hearing. The court followed the reasoning in People v. Hall 13which stated that the factors controlling the admissibility of evidence are relevance and reliability and the determination of admissibility rests in the discretion of the t rial court14. As the trial court had already found Rienbolt and Herringtons recantations unreliable, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Steidl a new sentencing hearing.

Constitutionality Of The Illinois Death Penalty

Steidls final arguments involved broad based attacks on the constitutionality of the Illinois Death Penalty Act, but the court found that he offered no new reasons to find the statute unconstitutional and only argued that the court should re-examine earlier precedents. The court, having only recently reviewed the precedents upholding the constitutionality of the Death Penalty Act, found no reason to re-examine them. As such, the court affirmed Steidls conviction and sentence and the trial courts denial of his petition for a new trial.

Petition For Post-Conviction Relief

On 3 April 1992, Steidl filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Illinois Post Conviction Hearing Act15. This petition was superseded by an amended petition filed on 22 June 1995. In the amended petition, Steidl argued that his trial counsel, Muller, had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because:

12 13 14 15

Ibid., at 27 114 Ill.2d 376, 416, 102 Ill.Dec. 322, 499 N.E.2d 1335 (1986) 114 Ill.2d at 416-7 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 1994)

-6-

(1) He failed to discredit Rienbolts testimony that she supplied the Rienbolt Knife to Steidl and Whitlock; (2) He failed to obtain expert examination of the broken lamp found at the scene of the murders, consequently failing to show that the lamp was broken after the fire had started, rather than before, as put forward by Rienbolt; (3) He failed to call Rienbolts supervisor as a witness to testify that she had been at work on the night of 5 July 1985, contrary to Rienbolts testimony; and (4) He failed to prepare and present sufficient mitigation evidence at Steidls sentencing hearing. On 25 October 1995, the trial court denied Steidls post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing.

Second Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court

Steidl appealed the denial of his post-conviction petition to the Illinois Supreme Court. With new legal representation from Michael Metnick (Metnick), Steidl asked the court to revisit his claims of unfairness and ineffective assistance of trial counsel in light of all the new evidence that had been uncovered.

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel At The Trial

Metnick presented the following claims in support of Steidls petition for post-conviction relief. (1) Failure to conduct an investigation of the crime scene Metnick submitted evidence that police officers at the Rhoads couples house had discovered a second knife in the kitchen sink (Kitchen Sink Knife). Muller and Dr Murphy had not examined this knife at the trial. Metnick had obtained an expert opinion from a pathologist, Dr Michael Baden (Dr Baden). In Dr Badens affidavit, he stated that the Kitchen Sink Knife was eight inches long and 2.4 centimetres wide. In comparison, the Rienbolt Knife was only five inches long and 1.3 centimetres wide. Dr Baden considered that, as autopsies of the Rhoads couple revealed the fatal stab wounds were six inches deep and 2.5 centimetres wide at their entry point, the Kitchen Sink Knife was the more likely murder weapon. In response to this, Dr Murphy filed an affidavit, but it did not contain any evidence to refute Dr Badens opinion. Additionally, attached to Steidls petition were notes taken by a police officer present at Karen Rhoads autopsy, stating that the knife used in the murders was longer than the Rienbolt Knife. As Muller had failed to examine the Kitchen Sink Knife in his preparation for the trial, failed to cross-examine Dr Murphy regarding the discrepancies between the length of the Rienbolt Knife and the stab wounds and failed to retain his own expert to examine the Rienbolt Knife, Metnick claimed that Steidls case was substantially prejudiced. The state countered this argument by stating it was a matter of Mullers trial strategy as to whether to adduce his own expert examination and that both knives could have been used in the murders. Rienbolt testified at Steidls trial that she had seen a broken lamp in the Rhoads house at the time the murders were committed. The broken lamp was recovered from the Rhoads couples house by police officers. The prosecution used this information to corroborate Rienbolts testimony. Metnick had a certified fire examiner examine the broken lamp. The examiner concluded, on the basis of smoke stains and soot residue found on the inside of
-7-

the lamp, that the lamp was most likely to have been broken by firemen on entering the property. It was claimed that Mullers failure to obtain any expert examination of the broken lamp at the trial prevented Steidl from casting doubt on Rienbolts testimony. The state, in response, argued that evidence surrounding the broken lamp was inconclusive and thus did not weaken Rienbolts testimony. At the trial, Herrington testified that he threw a pillow over Karen Rhoads face after she had been killed. Dr Baden contended that the pillow was likely to have been used to stop Karen Rhoads screams, as evidenced by bruises on her arms, which suggested a struggle had taken place. Muller did not retain an expert to elicit this testimony at the trial. Metnick stated that, as a result, Muller had missed an opportunity to discredit Herringtons testimony. The state in their reply did not dismiss Dr Badens theory, instead arguing that Herrington had placed the pillow on Karen Rhoads face after she was killed. (2) Failure to challenge the credibility of Rienbolts testimony It was argued that Mullers faulty investigation resulted in missed opportunities to meet with or call various witnesses to testify at the trial to challenge the credibility of Rienbolts testimony. Muller never met with Rienbolts alibi witness, Dennis Ouzleman, or called him to testify at the trial. Barbara Furry was also not subpoenaed to dispute Rienbolts testimony that they had been in the American Legion bar on 5 July 1986. Muller also failed to interview Rienbolts supervisor at work, whose log indicated Rienbolt was at work on 5 July 1986, despite Rienbolts stating under oath that she was at the Taps Room and American Legion with Steidl the same night.

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel At The Sentencing Hearing

At Steidls sentencing hearing, Muller only presented a short statement relating to Steidls lack of serious criminal history as mitigation evidence. Following the sentencing hearing, Muller testified in a post-hearing deposition that he did not prepare for the hearing as he was unaware it would take place immediately following the trial. He also claimed that Steidl requested that no mitigation evidence or witnesses be presented on his behalf. In his petition for post-conviction relief, Steidl refuted Mullers testimony by claiming he did not wish to testify on his own behalf, but Muller could have presented other witnesses (there were ten family members present at the sentencing hearing willing to testify). Attached to this petition were affidavits from 27 people who would have testified on Steidls behalf at the sentencing hearing had they been contacted by Muller.

Newly Discovered Evidence

Metnick presented two new developments in the petition, which he argued warranted a new evidentiary hearing. Since the trial, Rienbolt and Herrington had recanted their trial testimony and then subsequently reaffirmed it. Evidence had also come to light that both Rienbolt and Herrington had received money from the state after the trial had concluded. In the petition, Metnick argued that both witnesses had been paid by the state in return for providing testimony against Steidl.

Substitution Of The Trial Judge, Paul Komada

Metnick also petitioned the court regarding the trial judges associations and conduct with those involved in the case, in particular regarding his association with Muller, with whom he had been a law partner 15 years previously. On hearing Steidls petition , filed on 22 June 1995, Judge Komada relied upon personal knowledge of Mullers performance in previous cases in determining the competency of his legal representation of Steidl. Therefore,

-8-

Metnick argued that the judge showed bias towards Steidl and, therefore, should not preside over any evidentiary hearing granted by the court.

The Illinois Supreme Courts Ruling

The court held that Mullers failures in his investigation prevented the tri al jury from hearing evidence. It also regarded his failure to interview and call witnesses at the trial as an indication of incompetence. Given the balance of evidence in the case and the lack of physical evidence linking Steidl to the murders, the jurys judgment rested upon the credibility of the witnesses presented to them. Since Rienbolt had recanted her testimony, in these specific circumstances, the court warranted that a review would be justified at an evidentiary hearing. The court considered that Mullers complete lack of preparation for the sentencing hearing raised serious questions as to the effectiveness of his legal representation. As a result, the court concluded that there was a reasonable probability that Steidls sentence would have been different had Muller properly prepared for the hearing. However, the court did not find any evidence that Steidls constitutional rights were violated by both Rienbolt and Herrington receiving money from the state. Lastly, the court held the judge, in relying on his personal knowledge of Mullers previous performance, did show bias towards Steidl. Consequently, based upon the above, the Illinois Supreme Court decided that the petition demonstrated that Steidls constitutional rights were violated as a result of Mullers ineffective representation as counsel. The court, therefore, reversed the trial courts decision and awarded an evidentiary hearing before a new judge.

Evidentiary Hearing
On various days between the months of July and October 1998, a nine-day evidentiary hearing was held before Circuit Judge Tracy W. Resch. Eight witnesses and experts gave evidence.

Paula Brklach
Paula Brklach was a nurse who worked with Rienbolt at the Paris Health Care Center. She kept a nursing log for the evening shift on 5 July 1986, which showed Rienbolt had been at work. She testified that while she did not have any specific recollection of the activities on that day, she would only have written Rienbolts name down if she was there working that evening16. She also testified that Muller did not t alk to her prior to Steidls trial but she would have been able to testify at the trial.

Dr Murphy
Dr Murphy testified that he had handled about 20-25 autopsies involving death by stabbing; but most of these cases were handled by another physician in his office. He testified that the wounds found on the body of Dyke Rhoads measured as follows. The depth of the fatal stab wound was six inches; The width of the fatal stab wound (i.e. the linear mark on the surface of the skin caused by a stab wound) was 2.4 centimetres; and
16

Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, op. cit, at 11

-9-

 The wound in the sternum was two centimetres in width. Dr Murphy testified that the wounds found on the body of Karen Rhoads measured as follows. One of the fatal wounds was 6 inches deep and 2.5 centimetres in width; and The other fatal stab wound was almost six inches deep and 2.5 centimetres in width. He opined that a knife with a five inch blade could make a wound that is six inches deep, due to the compressibility of the human body, but some force would be needed. He also said that the Rienbolt Knife measured five inches in length and had a ricasso against the handle (a thicker, squared off, portion of the blade), which, if it had gone into the wound itself, would cause the wound to be square at each end. The wounds found on the bodies of the Rhoads couple were not square at each end. Dr Murphy testified that the Rienbolt Knife also had a hilt, which separated the handle from the blade. This hilt should have left marks or some type of bruise or abrasion on the Rhoads couple, none of which he saw around the wounds on either victim. However, he testified that it was his opinion that the Rienbolt Knife was compatible with the wounds suffered by the victims. Dr Murphy was shown the Kitchen Sink Knife. He testified that it was eight inches long and 2.4 centimetres wide. This was consistent with the wound found in Dyke Rhoadss sternum, which was six inches deep. Dr Murphy testified that the Kitchen Sink Knife could have caused the wounds on the Rhoads couple. Nevertheless, he also maintained that it is not possible to measure precisely the depth of a wound and that all stab wounds are a combination of cutting and stabbing, so the length of the wound would not necessarily be indicative of the blade that caused the injury.

Dr Baden
Dr Baden testified that he had been a physician since 1959 and was a certified forensic pathologist. He had performed over 20,000 autopsies, over a thousand of which involved stabbings, and had been employed by the New York State Police as a forensic pathologist since 1985. Dr Baden stated that he had reviewed the police reports, crime scene photographs, the autopsy records in this case and some of the trial testimony. He also examined the Rienbolt Knife and the Kitchen Sink Knife. In addition, he spoke to Dr Murphy and examined Dyke Rhoads sternum. Similarly to Dr Murphy, Dr Baden testified the blade of the Kitchen Sink Knife was eight inches long and 2.4 cm wide. He also agreed with Dr Murphys opinion that a five inch knife can cause a six inch wound. But, in his opinion, if the Rienbolt Knife had been used in the murders, the stab wounds found on the Rhoads couple would have to have been inflicted with sufficient force to go all the way down to the hilt and that would have caused some bruising or injury to the skin beneath it17. Furthermore, Dr Baden said that the Rienbolt Knife was too narrow to have caused the wounds and said that it would be extremely unlikely in my experience that a smaller blade would keep giving the same measurements of up to 2.5 cm18. Accordingly, it was his opinion that the Rienbolt Knife was not the knife that caused the fatal injuries. Moreover, his examination of the sternum supported this conclusion because the stab wound in the sternum did not match the Rienbolt Knife (the sternum, he said, is significant evidence because it tends to preserve its shape or will preserve the shape of t he
17 18

Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, op. cit, at 14 Ibid., at 15

-10-

weapon going through it in a more complete fashion19). He stated that the Kitchen Sink Knife, on the other hand, was entirely consistent with the wounds found on both victims.

Dr Blum
Dr Blum said that he had performed around 150-200 autopsies which involved stab wounds. He said that stab wounds can be elongated because of a cutting action which often occurs in homicidal cases. Consequently, in his opinion, one cannot determine the length of the blade by examining the length of the wound. He believed that either knife could have caused all of the wounds. He testified that the hilt marks can be visible depending on a number of factors such as: the amount of force used, whether the victim was wearing clothing, whether the individuals hand covered the hilt and the extent to which the fire in these circumstances had altered the skins appearance. On cross-examination, Dr Blum acknowledged that if a persons fingers covered the hilt, then bruises could still be left from the hand. Moreover, cutting or moving back and forth20 was much less likely in the sternum. He said that typically a knife with a ricasso would make one end of the wound squared off and the other pointed, but if the wound gaped open you would not necessarily see this.

John Muller
Muller testified that part of his trial strategy was to show that a knife with a five inch blade could not have made a six inch stab wound and that he strategically waited until closing to present information about the length and depth of the wounds. He admitted to not having read any books on stab wounds or consulting an expert. He did not remember whether he examined the Kitchen Sink Knife or whether he interviewed Brklach. He further admitted to neither having the Rienbolt Knife forensically tested by experts nor utilising a crime scene investigator or a fire examiner.

Donald Tankersley
Tankersley testified that he was a special agent in the arson division of the Illinois office of the State Fire Marshal and an expert in soot patterns. He investigated the fire at the Rhoads house and, in his view, the fact that there was no soot deposit on the interior of the lamp found outside the Rhoadss bedroom means that portion there had been broken after the time of the fire21.

Terry Lynn Brown

Brown was a certified fire and arson investigator and investigated fires for insurance companies. He reviewed photographs taken of the Rhoads bedroom after the fire and also examined the broken lamp. He said that the outline of a lamp could be seen from the soot patterns in the photographs and the lamp appears to have been intact at the time of the fire22. Furthermore, he said that the lack of soot on the inside of the lamp meant that the lamp was not broken at the time of the fire.

19 20 21 22

Ibid., at 13 Ibid., at 16 Ibid., at 17 Ibid.

-11-

Debra Rienbolt
Rienbolt testified that she lied during the videotaped witness statement which she gave on 17 and 18 February 1996. She said she just wasnt thinking23 when she recanted her trial testimony and that everything she said at the trial was true.

The Courts Verdict

On 11 December 1998, Judge Resch entered an opinion and order refusing Steidls request for a new trial. However, Judge Resch also found that Muller had provided ineffective assistance at sentencing and so a new sentencing hearing was granted.

New Sentencing Hearing

On 18 February 1999, Steidl was resentenced to a term of life imprisonment after the state declined to pursue the death penalty.

Appeal To The Illinois Appellate Court

As a result of Steidls resentencing, on 3 May 1999, the Illinois Supreme Court transferred Steidls appeal of Judge Reschs ruling to the Appellate Court for the fourth district. On 5 December 2000, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgement of the trial court. The court found that Steidl was not prejudiced by Mullers failure to submit the Kitchen Sink Knife for forensic testing, explaining that any arguable deficiencies in the defence trial counsels performance were not significant enough to indicate that the outcome would have been different24.

The End Of The State Process

Following the decision of the Appellate Court for the fourth district, on 5 December 2000, Steidl filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. He was denied leave to appeal on 4 April 2001, bringing an end to the state court process.

Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus

To this point, the Illinois state courts had ruled on issues of both state and federal law. However, as the federal courts have the last word on matters of federal law, Steidl was entitled to petition the federal court to review the state-court rulings on his federal constitutional claims. He did this by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on 5 October, 2001. His petition was heard on 2 August, 2002.

The Application
In addition to Metnick, Steidl was represented in federal court by Jane Raley, Karen Daniel and Professor Lawrence C. Marshall of the Bluhm Legal Clinic of the Northwestern University School of Law. The Illinois Appellate Court had ruled that Steidl failed to demonstrate that trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance, as defined by Strickland v. Washington. It would be his

23 24

Ibid., 18 Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, op. cit, at 19

-12-

burden to demonstrate to the federal court that this ruling was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. Steidl claimed that Mullers representation had been ineffective because he had: (1) Failed to present Brklach, Rienbolts nursing supervisor, as a witness; (2) Failed to present expert testimony that the Rienbolt Knife was not the murder weapon; and (3) Failed to investigate and present forensic evidence to contradict Rienbolts testimony that the lamp in the Rhoads couples bedroom was broken at the time of the murders.

Brklachs Testimony
Counsel argued that Muller could easily have located Brklach as he had her nursing log in his possession. Counsel stated that her testimony would have been extremely helpful as Brklach would have testified that Rienbolt was at work during the time that she claimed to have been in the Taps Room and American Legion with Steidl and Whitlock. The federal court found that, despite the previous decisions to the contrary, Mullers failure to contact and interview Brklach could not be considered trial strategy and, instead, was representation that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court went on to say that, as Muller had subpoenaed the wrong supervisor, the jury was denied the opportunity to hear testimony that Rienbolt was physically present at work on the evening of 5 July 1986, contrary to her trial testimony. Clearly, the court stated, Brklachs testimony could have led the jury to conclude that Rienbolt was lying about her activities on the night of the murders and that her claim to have been an eyewitness to the murders was not worthy of belief. No witness called by Muller at trial was able to present this kind of testimony. Therefore, the court held that the Appellate Courts conclusion that Mullers failure to investigate and call Brklach as a witness was not ineffective assistance of counsel was objectively unreasonable.

The Rienbolt Knife

Steidl also claimed that Muller had been ineffective for failing to present forensic evidence that the Rienbolt Knife was not the murder weapon. Counsel argued on his behalf that Muller had failed to take steps to either: (1) Establish that the Rienbolt Knife could not have been the murder weapon; or (2) At least create significant doubt regarding whether the Rienbolt Knife was the murder weapon. It was argued that Muller did nothing but reinforce Dr Murphys opinion that the Rienbolt Knife was compatible and consistent with the fatal wounds. Counsel argued that Muller winged it by failing to speak with experts, conduct meaningful cross examination and present evidence to challenge the prosecution s assertions that this forensic evidence constituted strong evidence of Steidls guilt. The Appellate Court did not decide the issue of whether Mullers performance in this regard fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Instead, the Appellate Court concluded that Steidl had failed to establish any prejudice resulting from Mullers allegedly deficient performance. The District Court also stated that the Appellate Courts statements evidenced a profoundly mistaken reading of the record. Dr Baden testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the Rienbolt Knife did not cause the fatal wounds of the Rhoads couple. Therefore, the testimony presented at the hearing showed that there were significant reasons to doubt whether the Rienbolt Knife was actually the murder weapon. The Appellate Courts statements that Dr Baden did not testify that the Rienbolt Knife could not have caused the

-13-

fatal wounds25 and that all of the pathologists agreedthe Rienbolt Knife could have caused each of the fatal wounds26 were simply incorrect and were unreasonable conclusions based upon the record. The District Court stated that it was clear that the prosecution, in this closely balanced case, relied heavily on Rienbolts claim that she had provided the police with the murder weapon in persuading the jury to accept her testimony. Having reviewed the evidence and the reasons supporting the Appellate Courts decision, the District Court decided that its decision was not even minimally consistent with the facts and circumstances of this case and was, therefore, unreasonable.

The Broken Lamp

Rienbolt testified that she saw a broken lamp in the bedroom where the Rhoads couple were murdered. The prosecution argued that Rienbolt says the broken lamp was in the bedroom27 and this was a fact that was known to virtually no-one because in fact the lamp was found outside the bedroom28. Counsel argued, however, that the evidence indicated that the lamp was not broken until after the fire, which was started after the murders had taken place. Muller had presented no evidence to refute Rienbolts testimony. The jury were only presented with Rienbolts version of events regarding the broken lamp; as such, this appeared to be compelling proof that Rienbolt was telling the truth. The Appellate Court argued that in any event, such a minor discrepancy in Rienbolts testimony would not significantly discredit her description of seeing Steidl and Whitlock stabbing the victims.29 However, the District Court concluded that to call this evidence a minor discrepancy was inaccurate and not supported by the record in this case. Because of the importance attributed to the broken lamp by the prosecution, it was unreasonable for the Appellate Court to retroactively find this testimony insignificant, especially where the testimony of Terry Lynn Brown and Donald Tankersley was irreconcilable with Rienbolts testimony. Had Muller presented expert testimony discrediting Rienbolts version of events, it would have gone a long way towards convincing the jury that Rienbolts trial testimony was not credible. The federal court, therefore, concluded that there was a reasonable probability that scientific refutation of one of the key aspects of Rienbolts testimony would have resulted in a different outcome at trial. The court stated that this probability was sufficient to undermine confidence in the trial outcome and was a further demonstration of the unreasonable application of the Strickland standard.

Cumulative Effect
The court further concluded that, based upon the record, even if the instances of deficient performance were not individually considered sufficient to warrant the grant of habeas corpus relief, considered together they clearly warranted relief. Therefore, the proper application of Strickland would have required the Appellate Court to hold that acquittal was reasonably probable if the jury had heard all of the evidence. For that reason, the District Court granted Steidls writ of habeas corpu s and vacated his conviction. On 25 March 2004, Attorney General Lisa Madigan declined to appeal the District Courts decision. Subsequently, on 28 May 2004, all charges were dropped against Steidl and he was released from prison.

25 26 27 28 29

Ibid., at 28 Ibid., at 29 Ibid., at 31 Ibid. Ibid.

-14-

Sources
1. People v. Steidl 142 Ill.2d, 204, 568 N.E.2d 837, 857, 154 Ill.Dec. 616 (1991) 2. People v. Steidl 1996 WL 33657597 (Ill.) 3. People v. Steidl 177 Ill.2d 239, 685 N.E.2d 1335, 226 Ill.Dec. 592 4. Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, Warden Case No. 01-CV-2249

Work completed by Reed Smith LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of any individual partner of Reed Smith LLP.

-15-

Chronology

GORDON RANDY STEIDL

6 July 1986 Bodies of Dyke and Karen Rhoads discovered by firemen extinguishing a fire at their house in Paris, Illinois. Both were found nude and had suffered multiple stab wounds. Darrell Herrington gives a statement to the police accusing Gordon R. (Randy) Steidl and Herbert R. Whitlock of murdering the Rhoads couple. Debra Rienbolt voluntarily comes forward to the police with a knife, which she claimed was used by Steidl to murder the Rhoads couple. Rienbolt claims that she was present when the murders were committed. Steidl (and Whitlock) are arrested by Paris police. Edgar County grand jury returns indictments charging Steidl (and Whitlock) with both murders. Trial held at the Edgar County Court. Steidl found guilty of two counts of first degree murder. Steidls sentencing hearing is heard at the Edgar County Court. The jury finds Steidl eligible for the death penalty. Steidl is sentenced to death. Harrington recants his trial testimony in a statement before a court reporter. He states that police fed him information and urged him to change parts of his story. Rienbolt recants her trial testimony in a signed affidavit. Steidl files a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence to the Illinois Supreme Court. 8 February 1989 While Steidls Illinois Supreme Court appeal is pending, Steidl files a petition for post-judgment relief. Four day evidentiary hearing is held in the trial court regarding Steidls petition. At the hearing, Rienbolt and Herrington testify that their trial testimony had been truthful. Edgar County Court denies the petition for post-judgment relief. Illinois Supreme Court affirms Steidls conviction, sentence and the denial of Steidls petition for post-judgment relief.

21 September 1986

16 February 1987

19 February 1987 10 March 1987

July 1987

12 August 1987

21 November 1988

13 January 1989

March 1990

20 March 1990 24 January 1991

3 April 1992 22 June 1995

Steidl files a petition for post-conviction relief. Steidl files a superseding amended petition for post-conviction relief. Trial court denies Steidls post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. Rienbolt recants her trial testimony for the second time in a fourhour, videotaped statement. Rienbolt retracts her second recantation in an audio-taped statement to the Edgar County States Attorney. Steidl appeals the trial courts decision to deny him a post conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing to the Illinois Supreme Court. Illinois Supreme Court reverses the trial courts decision and remands the case for an evidentiary hearing before a newly substituted judge. A nine day evidentiary hearing is held during this period. Evidentiary hearing Judge denies Steidls request for a new trial, but grants Steidl a new sentencing hearing on the grounds that his attorney provided ineffective assistance at the sentencing phase of the trial by failing to present evidence in mitigation. Steidl appeals the decision not to grant him a new trial.

25 October 1995

17-18 February 1996

23 February 1996

17 July 1996

18 September 1997

July October 1998 11 December 1998

18 February 1999

Steidl is resentenced to a term of life imprisonment after the state declines to pursue the death penalty. As Steidl is no longer sentenced to death, the Illinois Supreme Court transfers Steidls petition appealing the evidentiary hearing judges decision to the Appellate Court . The Appellate Court of the Fourth District affirms the judgment of the Edgar County Court. Steidl files a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

3 May 1999

5 December 2000

4 April 2001 5 October 2001

Illinois Supreme Court denies Steidls petition for leave to appeal. Steidl files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Steidls petition for a writ of habeas corpus is heard.

2 August 2002

17 June 2003

Steidls petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted by Judge Michael McCuskey of the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois. After an intensive review of the case, Attorney General Lisa Madigan declines to appeal McCuskeys decision. All charges against Steidl are dropped. Steidl is exonerated and released from prison. Steidl files a lawsuit against the Illinois State Police and settles for $2.5 million.

25 March 2004

28 May 2004

25 October 2011

Work completed by Reed Smith LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of any individual partner of Reed Smith LLP.

Case Summary

GORDON RANDY STEIDL

In August 1987, following a conviction in the Edgar County Court in Paris, Illinois, of the murders of a local newlywed couple, Dyke and Karen Rhoads, Gordon Randy Steidl was sentenced to death. After spending 17 years in prison, 12 of which were on death row, Steidl was finally exonerated after the Center on Wrongful Convictions helped to prove his innocence. The Rhoads couple had been discovered by local fire-fighters responding to a fire at their house in the early hours of 6 July 1986. Both had been stabbed more than 25 times. As there was no physical evidence suggesting that either Steidl, or co-defendant Herbert Whitlock, were responsible for the murders, their convictions rested on the testimony of two key witnesses Debra Rienbolt and Darrell Herrington, who claimed to have been present while the murders took place. The evidence against Steidl also included the testimony of a jailhouse snitch, Ferlin Wells, who claimed that Steidl confided that, if he had thought Herrington would come forward, he would have taken care of him. Throughout the trial, Steidl maintained that he had never met Rienbolt before, while he only knew of Herrington. He also presented an alibi in his defence which was corroborated by two witnesses who confirmed that he was not at the Rhoads house on the night of the murders. Over the 15 years following his conviction, Steidls extensive appeal process involved the trial court, the Illinois Supreme Court, the Appellate Court of the fourth district and culminated in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus being filed and heard at the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Initially arguing that Rienbolts and Herringtons testimonies lacked credibility after numerous recantations of their statements, Steidls prevailing argument in his habeas corpus hearing was that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, in relation to challenging the credibility of both Rienbolt s and Herringtons testimony. Steidl argued that John Muller, Steidls trial counsel, had: (1) missed the opportunity to discredit Rienbolt over her statement that the knife she had supplied to the police was used by Steidl and Whitlock in the murders; (2) failed to obtain an expert examination of a broken lamp that was found in the house, a key piece of evidence that that state had used to add credibility to Rienbolts testimony; (3) failed to call Rienbolts supervisor at the Paris Health Care Center as a witness to verify that Rienbolt was in fact present at work on the night of the murders; and (4) failed to prepare and present sufficient mitigation evidence or witnesses at Steidls sentencing hearing. Counsel for Steidl during his habeas corpus hearing stated that the cumulative effect of the above arguments resulted in a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different if Muller had provided effective assistance as counsel. On 17 June 2003, US District Court judge Michael McCuskey agreed with this argument and granted Steidls writ of habeas corpus. On 26 March 2004, having reviewed the case, Attorney General Lisa Madigan declined to appeal the District Courts decision. As a result all charges were dropped against Steidl and he was released from prison. Steidl was the 18th man to be exonerated and released from Illinois death row. He is now an active campaigner for the abolition of the death penalty across the United States. The death penalty was abolished in the state of Illinois on 9 March 2011.

Work completed by Reed Smith LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of any individual partner of Reed Smith LLP.