ILNews

After exoneration

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Justice in Question

Larry Mayes spent decades behind bars for a rape he claimed from the start he didn’t commit. It took more than 20 years, but the Gary man proved his innocence. He was the 100th person in the U.S. and one of six from Indiana who’ve been exonerated, a trend that’s becoming more common as science evolves and cold-case reviews expose flaws in the criminal justice system.

Mayes was exonerated four days before Christmas 2001, after DNA evidence finally freed him by proving he hadn’t raped the female service station clerk in Hammond. He knows that part of his story is long since finished, but a second chapter post-exoneration has recently culminated for Mayes, who is now 58 and working to rebuild his life.

MayesThough Indiana is a state that doesn’t currently have any statutes that allow for compensating those wrongfully convicted, Mayes has gotten some compensation for what he went through. It took seven years, but in early September he settled a federal civil rights suit against the city of Hammond for $4.5 million. While it’s less than a quarter of what his attorneys originally requested and half of the $9 million federal jury verdict returned in his favor in August 2006, Mayes is relieved his case and that chapter of his life is now finished.

“I just couldn’t believe they’d put someone innocent away like they did,” Mayes said, reflecting on his wrongful conviction. “I’d heard people talk about this, but I never would have believed it until I experienced it for my own self. But it does happen, and it’s been a long, hard road.”

In 1982, a jury sent Mayes and another man to prison for abducting and raping a gas station clerk during an armed robbery in October 1980. The woman told police that two black men entered the station, demanded money at gunpoint, and then forced her to leave with them. They hit her with the butt of the gun and raped her before dropping her off where she contacted police, according to case records. At trial, the prosecution relied on the clerk’s description and identification of Mayes from a photo array. She also said her assailant had a gold tooth similar to the one Mayes had.

When modern DNA analysis became available and Mayes petitioned for that testing, the victim revealed for the first time that she had been hypnotized in order to sharpen her memory of the attack. His attorneys argued, and Mayes still believes to this day, that police were squeezing him for information on an unsolved murder of a Hammond police officer and were not satisfied by his claim of ignorance.

Mayes refused to plead guilty, maintaining his innocence and expecting that at some point a court or attorney would give him the chance to prove they had the wrong man.


I just couldn't believe

“I knew deep down inside that if they ever gave me the chance to say it, I could get out because I wasn’t there,” he said.

However, he said no one listened, and as a result he went into the Department of Correction for what would end up being 20 years, 10 months, and 20 days for a crime he didn’t commit.
 

Proving his innocence

Few words can describe the time behind bars, Mayes said.

“It’s a man-made hell, a day-to-day struggle to survive,” he said. “They took all of my freedom, but I never gave up hope that I could get out. I had to keep the faith that I’d get out. You drink water, pull yourself up each morning, and do what you have to. If I go crazy, then it defeats the purpose of everything I’ve done and all the times I’d said I was innocent.”

His thoughts often turned to the Hammond police investigator who he said years earlier taunted him, telling Mayes he wouldn’t see the outside as a free man until after age 70. That memory nagged at him, but he didn’t lose hope.

The problems wereA way to solidify that hope came one day when he saw an episode of “The Montel Williams Show.” Someone mentioned a group called the Innocence Project that was helping clear the wrongfully convicted. He wrote a letter and kept writing. He eventually got a response - albeit three or four years later.

The Innocence Project, which accepted his case in 1996, works with students at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law in New York City, where the organization was founded in 1992. Law faculty and students there eventually referred the Mayes case to the criminal defense clinic at Indiana University School of Law Indianapolis, where professor and attorney Fran Watson studied wrongful-conviction cases. She and her clinic students are part of a national collaboration of law schools known as the Innocence Network, which works with the Innocence Project and is dedicated to raising awareness about the failings of the criminal justice system and those wrongfully convicted. Four students - Todd Ess, Edward Queen, Alicia Corder and Darlene Seymour - worked with Watson, who was appointed by state public defender Susan Carpenter as pro bono counsel for Mayes. They filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on Indiana’s newly passed Indiana Code 35-38-7, which had taken effect July 1, 2001, and allowed DNA testing for postconviction proceedings in murder cases.

The two met two or three times a month, and Mayes remembered her telling him she believed that he was innocent. Watson and her clinic students have filed appearances in 10 to 15 wrongful-conviction cases over the years, but Mayes is the only exoneration so far that they’ve helped achieve.

Aside from Watson and the law students, Mayes also had attorneys John Stainthorp with the People’s Law Office in Chicago and Nick Brustin with Cochran Neufeld & Scheckin in New York. Mayes describes them all as his “dream team.”

He remembers the phone call from Watson, telling him the news of the DNA testing results.

“When I heard her hollering on the phone, saying ‘Larry, Larry, Larry.’ I knew that I was finally going home,” he said. “They’re more than lawyers.  They’re good lawyers, but they are family to me.”
 

After exoneration

Within two years of his release, Mayes filed a federal suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging civil rights violations and a pattern of misconduct by police. Following a 12-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in Mayes’ favor in the amount of $9 million. While the verdict was out on appeal, Hammond officials and Mayes’ attorneys agreed in March to settle the case out of court for $4.5 million - that meant the court needed to vacate the jury award.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago refused to do that, even though U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry in Hammond was inclined to set aside the verdict and many appellate courts across the country automatically vacate lower judgments in order to promote settlements. The 7th Circuit’s three-judge panel cited concerns about wasting judicial resources, but eventually in late August the appellate court agreed to remand the case and allow Magistrate Cherry to abandon the verdict. That happened Sept. 2. 
 
Despite the verdict and settlement in his favor, Mayes makes it clear he has no faith in the legal system. Brustin echoed similar feelings but said he is doing what he can to address these types of problems.

“Larry is a good example. He’s someone who wasn’t a choirboy; he’d had run-ins with the law before, and these detectives decided his basic constitutional civil rights don’t matter,” Brustin said. “The problems were so systemic and so fundamental that it’s so egregious to think about it, but hopefully Larry’s case opens up people’s eyes to the dangers of the system.”

Mayes said he never thought it would take this long for the federal suit to play out, and he admits being nervous about the 7th Circuit’s hesitation to vacate the jury award. He has a heart condition that has made it difficult to work steadily, and he’s had to rely on odd jobs and help from family and friends. His life insurer determined that Mayes has the life expectancy of someone almost 20 years older. Though he believes he could have eventually gotten the $9 million award, he said it wasn’t worth the continued legal battle.

“I wanted to come out of this with something and not take a chance to not get anything,” he said. “I felt that it would be best for me to try and get a settlement, because it could be many more years.”

Now, he is working to put his life back together. Mayes and his fiancée are planning for a possible June 2009 wedding, and they are working with a Realtor to move from their apartment in Portage to a house in the region.

“You can’t ever make up for that time,” he said, “but you can enjoy what time you have left.”

Read "System delivers in justice" , from the Sept. 17-30, 2008, issue of Indiana Lawyer to learn more about exonerated individuals and the attorneys who assist them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT