A Douglas County judge has asked attorneys representing Albert Wilson in a wrongful conviction case against the state to address a recent Kansas Supreme Court decision that could affect Wilson’s case.

The judge’s decision in the case — whether Wilson will be compensated for the time he spent incarcerated before his conviction was overturned and his case was dismissed — has been pending since a bench trial in late January.

Wilson, now 28, was 23 years old when he was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison after a Douglas County jury found him guilty of rape in January 2019. The case drew attention across the country because many people believed that Wilson, a young Black man, was wrongly convicted by a jury of mostly white women, symptomatic of larger issues of systemic racism. 

Douglas County District Judge Sally Pokorny ruled in March 2021 that jurors could have come to a different decision in Wilson’s case if they had known about certain evidence that Wilson’s attorney did not use, and if the state’s expert forensic psychologist had not bolstered the accuser’s credibility. Pokorny ruled that a retrial was necessary. 

However, after a few months of attempting to negotiate a plea ahead of a second trial, Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez in December 2021 dismissed Wilson’s criminal case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. 

Wilson in April 2022 filed a wrongful conviction civil case against the state, seeking compensation and a certificate of innocence.

Through a bench trial before Judge Carl Folsom III in January, Wilson and his counsel had the burden to prove that he more than likely did not commit the crime for which he was convicted, which was rape of a victim who was overcome by force or fear. The bench trial was in essence a chance for him to prove his innocence. 

Here’s a detailed article about the wrongful conviction bench trial and the backstory of the case:

The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday released a decision In the Matter of the Wrongful Conviction of Robert William Doelz. Doelz had been convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, but the conviction was overturned in 2019 because it had been the result of a warrantless search, according to the court opinion. (Click here to read the decision.)

Doelz later filed a civil case seeking compensation for the more than four years he spent in prison.

The court upheld Shawnee District Judge Teresa Watson’s decision that the state’s wrongful conviction statute “requires a claimant to establish that the fact the claimant did not commit the crime resulted in one of three outcomes — either the reversal or vacation of the conviction, the dismissal of the charges, or a finding of not guilty on retrial.”

Doelz’s conviction was reversed on appeal because of a Fourth Amendment violation, according to the court opinion — not because Doelz had not committed the alleged crime. When the case was remanded, prosecutors dropped the charges and did not pursue a retrial.

In the Doelz opinion, Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall wrote that the Legislature anticipated the possibility that a defendant could be both actually innocent and the victim of an unconstitutional search “by providing that a claimant can also prevail by demonstrating that a charge was dismissed after remand because of actual innocence.”

“Doelz — and similarly situated claimants in the future — would have been free to use the evidentiary tools of this civil proceeding to investigate and present to a fact-finder the motivating reason and underlying facts that sit behind a prosecutor’s decision not to continue to pursue charges after a reversal by the appellate courts. But he did not,” Stegall wrote.

The Doelz opinion was designated for publication, meaning it is setting a precedent for judges to consider in the future.

Valdez, in dismissing Wilson’s case in 2021, said in a statement from her office that “In keeping with this Office’s trauma-informed approach to criminal prosecution, we sought the survivor’s input and gauged her expectations and objectives. She wanted to address Mr. Wilson directly and to convey to him the impact this entire experience has had on her.”

“… Retired Judge (Kevin) Moriarty facilitated a restorative justice session between the survivor and Mr. Wilson. To protect the sanctity of the process and the privacy and dignity of the parties, all involved agreed that what occurred during that session shall remain confidential.

“Justice comes in different forms, and there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach when it comes to resolving delicate, difficult matters,” the statement continued. “By and large, justice is dictated by the unique intricacies of each individual case and the objectives and expectations of the parties. The unique intricacies of this case led the parties to a resolution by way of restorative justice.”

Shon Quolseth, first assistant attorney general, is representing the state in the lawsuit — essentially defending Wilson’s initial conviction. He wrote in a notice to the court that “In this case – as in Doelz – Claimant presented no evidence of why the underlying criminal case was dismissed.”

“Claimant did not present to this Court the motivating reason and underlying facts that sat behind the prosecutor’s decision not to continue to pursue charges,” Quolseth wrote. “In short, Claimant presented no evidence that the State dismissed the charge against him because he did not commit the crime. Claimant’s Petition must be denied as a matter of law.”

Wilson’s attorneys, Salina-based Laurel Driskell along with Alex Driskell, at the bench trial presented evidence at the bench trial aiming to show the judge that Wilson had not committed the rape, but there was no testimony about why the case was dismissed.

Wilson’s attorneys have not yet filed a response. Folsom gave both sides 21 days to respond, so their answers will be due around the end of this month.

Wilson is seeking $65,000 per year of incarceration, attorney fees, and a certificate of innocence. Wilson was incarcerated for about two years, three and a half months, according to the civil case. 

The Kansas Legislature passed the wrongful conviction statute in 2018, but its language is somewhat vague, and a number of cases have ended up before the state’s highest court to seek clarity.

For example, the Kansas Supreme Court in an opinion in October ruled that a Sumner County man could seek wrongful-conviction compensation despite a district court ruling he wasn’t eligible because the period of incarceration was in a county jail rather than a state prison.

Mackenzie Clark (she/her), reporter/founder of The Lawrence Times, can be reached at mclark@lawrencekstimes.com. Read more of her work for the Times here. Check out her staff bio here.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• LinkedIn

MORE …

Latest Lawrence news:

MORE …