Framed

Unknown Male #1

JOHN GRISHAM

Chester is the oldest town in Pennsylvania. It was founded in 1682 when William Penn landed on the banks of the Delaware River and claimed the territory for the British crown. He named the new colony after himself and founded the city of Brotherly Love.

By the early 1900s, Chester was a busy industrial city producing ships, textiles, automobiles, and other consumer goods, but by the middle of that century it had lost most of its factories and half its population. Like many post-industrial cities in the Rust Belt, it has struggled with unemployment, pollution, poverty, corruption, and crime.

Today, many of the downtown buildings are boarded up. In 2022, Chester declared bankruptcy.

Most of its neighborhoods are to be avoided after dark. One of the rougher areas is the western end of town, and in the heart of it, at the corner of West 10th and Clover Lane, a black woman named Henrietta Nickens once lived alone in a small three-room apartment on the ground floor of an old building. She was seventy, single, with a daughter, a son, and two granddaughters nearby. She existed month-to-month on a small Social Security check but always had a few extra dollars if someone needed a meal or groceries. Ms. Nickens was incredibly generous to those around her and was even known to feed strangers. Her health was declining; she suffered severe coronary atherosclerosis and pulmonary emphysema.

On the night of October 9, 1997, Ms. Nickens cooked dinner for her daughter, Carlotta, and granddaughter, Niena. Carlotta’s boyfriend, Rufus McKinney, joined them. They ate around 6:30, then moved to the den where they played cards, watched television, and spent an hour laughing and joking. A typical night for them. Around 8:30, her three guests left and Henrietta locked up for the night. Like clockwork, Carlotta called her mother just before 11:00 to say good night. Carlotta knew that her mother would be sitting in the den waiting for Action News at 11:00 on Channel 6, her favorite news program.

That phone call was their last conversation.

—

At some time during the night, an assailant, still known only as , broke into Henrietta’s apartment and attacked, raped, and beat her in her bedroom. She suffered several blunt-force blows to the head, which, because of her existing medical conditions, was enough to kill her.

When she failed to answer the phone the following morning, Carlotta began to worry. Around 2:00 p.m. , she and Rufus, along with Niena, entered the apartment and found Henrietta dead, lying in the small hallway that connected the living room, bathroom, and bedroom. She was not wearing underwear; it was found on the floor beside her bed. There was blood on her arms and face. A telephone cord was stretched across her body, and a broomstick was lying next to her. A lower denture was partially dislodged from her mouth. The bedroom had been ransacked.

Shocked, Carlotta backed away in horror and called the police.

—

The crime scene was a mess. Blood was splattered on Henrietta’s bed, sheets, and bedroom walls. A towel lodged between the bed and a wall was covered with blood. Objects were scattered about. A plastic stool with a broken leg was near the bed. It was apparent that had entered through the back door, which was open and shattered. The police photographed a partial footprint on the kitchen floor. Henrietta’s purse was found, apparently unopened. The television was turned off and had been moved into the hallway.

was apparently one of the less sophisticated criminals loose on the streets of Chester. At some point during his attack, he removed a green jacket, size XXXL, and draped it over the small television. When he was finished with his crimes, he fled the apartment, forgetting in his haste to retrieve the green jacket. The investigators, of course, confiscated it for testing.

The following day, October 11, an autopsy was performed. There were numerous cuts and wounds to the eyes, cheeks, lips, and chin. There was a slight degree of bruising to the outer part of the vagina, and there was “semen in the rectum” although there was no visible trauma to the anus. The medical examiner was of the opinion that, absent her preexisting conditions and poor health, her injuries would not have been fatal.

The semen from the victim was sent to the state crime lab where it was placed in a long waiting line. Nine months passed before the results were sent back to Chester.

—

There was no possible innocent explanation for the semen in her rectum. She was elderly, single, in poor health, and had no male companions. Her daughter, Carlotta, who talked to her daily and knew every aspect of her life, was adamant in her denial that her mother had any boyfriends.

Niena was eighteen at the time and dating a young man named Sam Grasty, who was nineteen. Sam lived nearby and knew her mother and grandmother, and had been a guest in Henrietta’s apartment several times. Niena and Sam were in the middle of a lovers’ spat because she was pregnant and thought he was the father. Sam wasn’t so sure. Things deteriorated when Sam declared he was not the father and didn’t want his name on the birth certificate.

The day Henrietta’s body was found, Niena told the police that Sam “might have done it.”

From that moment forward, the investigation focused on Samuel Grasty. Other than Niena’s bizarre suggestion that he killed her grandmother, there was no credible proof or motive. Why would a nineteen-year-old man who was involved in an intimate relationship with an eighteen-year-old woman suddenly decide to attack, anally rape, and beat to death her seventy-year-old grandmother?

If the police had a clue, it was never known. There is nothing in their reports, records, or testimonies to even suggest a motive, other than revenge against Niena for claiming he was the father of her child.

Nonetheless, Sam Grasty became the prime suspect. Twenty-five years later he’s still in prison serving a life sentence for a murder committed by .

—

The investigation was led by a detective who had recently transferred from Narcotics to Homicide and was working his first murder. He knew the territory, though, and had the usual assortment of informants and snitches.

In a place like Chester, there was no shortage of small-time criminals, street felons, drug dealers, and addicts. Most had been exposed to the criminal justice system and knew its ins and outs. A big crime, like a murder, rape, or drug bust, touched enough street people to generate some interest and create opportunity. A woman named Lisa Foley was one of the first to seep through the cracks and tell the investigators that she had some inside information. Her story was difficult to believe, but the police were eager to believe it anyway. Lisa explained that she was in an abandoned building performing a sex act, perhaps for money, when she overheard some valuable information. A description of the sex act was never given but evidently it was one that did not require a great deal of concentration, because Lisa, while engaged, heard some guys talking on the sidewalk outside the abandoned building.

The boy doing most of the talking was one Rick McElwee, fifteen years old and one of the few white kids who lived in the neighborhood. He had a drug problem and had been smoking marijuana every day since he was thirteen years old. He also peddled cocaine and was being watched by the police. According to Lisa, McElwee was talking about the murder of Henrietta. He was with Sam Grasty; Derrick Chappell, age fifteen; and Morton Johnson, age eighteen. They were allegedly chiding McElwee because he had not entered the apartment with them when they attacked and robbed Ms. Nickens.

There was no police report detailing the conversation with Lisa.

The detectives leaned on their buddies in Narcotics and learned that McElwee had been selling drugs to undercover officers but had not been charged. The detectives arrested him for those charges and took him to the police station. Once there, they began to interrogate him about the Nickens murder. They later claimed they did not question the boy about the murder until his mother arrived. For two hours, McElwee maintained his innocence as the police threatened him with murder charges. He and his mother finally left the police station, terrified.

For the next month, the police continued to pressure McElwee and eventually coerced him into confessing to a fictional story about being sort of involved in the murder.

Rick McElwee became the star witness. His story, or at least the first version of it, was that on the night of October 9, at 10:00 p.m. , he was standing on West 10th Street, outside Ms. Nickens’s apartment, serving as the lookout as Sam Grasty, Derrick Chappell, and Morton Johnson broke into the apartment through the rear door. Robbery was their motive. They were in the apartment between five and twenty minutes and stole thirty dollars, which they split three ways, giving nothing to McElwee. Sam Grasty hit the old woman. There was no mention of a sexual assault.

After making his recorded statement, McElwee was charged with murder, burglary, assault, and deviate sexual intercourse. It was never clear why he was hit with a sex charge, since he never entered the apartment, according to his bogus narrative. Once again, there were scant police records to rely on.

In exchange for his cooperation and pointing the finger at Grasty, Chappell, and Johnson, he took a plea bargain deal with a reduced sentence of between six and twelve years. He also pled guilty to some drug charges, with the prison term to run concurrent with the murder and burglary.

—

Aside from getting stoned every day, Rick McElwee’s IQ was 69, which is considered mildly intellectually disabled. During his sentencing hearing in 1998, his attorney referenced a report by a Dr. Rowkos who found that McElwee demonstrated cognitive skills between the borderline and mild range of mental retardation, which significantly impaired his ability to learn and function independently. He was easily influenced by others and had a strong need for attention, acceptance, and nurturance.

The police investigation, and later the prosecutions of Grasty, Chappell, and Johnson, would be based almost exclusively on the concocted testimony of Richard McElwee.

—

On November 13, Carlotta Nickens informed the police that someone had tried to cash her mother’s Social Security check at a neighborhood store. If this incident was investigated by the police, there is no record of it.

—

For weeks the investigators talked to the three suspects, all of whom vehemently denied any involvement in the crime. They had alibis for their whereabouts on the night of October 9. They had no serious criminal records, though Niena told the police that Sam Grasty, her boyfriend, was a small-time drug dealer. The three suspects cooperated fully with the police, met with them at the station whenever they were summoned, and provided hair and blood samples.

On December 2, 1997, the police searched, with proper warrants, the homes of the three suspects. They were looking for shoes that might match the print found on the kitchen floor, and any evidence that the green jacket left behind by was in fact owned by Sam Grasty. They were hoping to find some photos of Sam wearing it. As soon as they tagged Grasty as their prime suspect, they convinced themselves the jacket was his, then showed photos of it to every possible witness and referred to it as “Sam’s jacket.”

From Grasty’s home, the police seized five pairs of sneakers/shoes and some other items. The search of Morton Johnson’s home yielded one pair of Reebok sneakers. Nothing of interest was found in Chappell’s home.

If the mysterious shoe print matched one of Grasty’s or Johnson’s shoes, the police said nothing about it. Logic would dictate that if there had been a match, the police would have been thrilled with the additional evidence. But there was no match, nor did the authorities bother to inform the suspects or their lawyers of this fact.

The searches produced no photos or other evidence that would aid the police in their desperate attempt to prove the green jacket belonged to Grasty.

—

On July 9, 1998, nine months after the murder, the Pennsylvania State Police crime lab reported its DNA findings on the semen found in the victim’s rectum. The three suspects—Grasty, Johnson, and Chappell—were all conclusively excluded as contributors, as was McElwee. The semen had been left behind by , a man who has never been identified.

At that point, most professional law enforcement officers would call time-out and reassess their case. It was obvious the Chester police were chasing the wrong suspects. Clear biological proof had just destroyed their theories of guilt and stood in the way of further prosecution and, ultimately, convictions. The bogus confession of Richard McElwee had just been exposed as lies.

But the police in Chester had too much invested in their shabby work. Incredibly, they changed their strategy to one that said, in effect: The victim was not robbed, raped, beaten, and murdered; she was only robbed, beaten, and murdered. There was no rape.

No rape? Therefore the sex was consensual? A seventy-year-old widow with pulmonary emphysema and severe coronary atherosclerosis, and no known boyfriends or close male friends, consented to unprotected anal sex either before she had dinner with her family or sometime thereafter?

The theory was so beyond absurd that it was preposterous, but it allowed the police to continue their investigation of Grasty, Johnson, and Chappell. They needed witnesses and found plenty. The favorite method was to concentrate on kids who were already in trouble and therefore vulnerable. They intimidated the kids, lied to them, threatened them with serious criminal charges, and even showed them photographs from the crime scene, all in an effort to frighten them into providing false testimony against Grasty, Chappell, and Johnson.

Will Morgan was twelve years old at the time of the murder. Eighteen months later, when he was fourteen, he was in a juvenile facility on a larceny charge when the police arrived without notice and got him.

They took him to the station where he was interrogated about the murder. The police showed him photographs from the crime scene, including one in which the victim was lying on the floor with a telephone cord near her body. The police accused Will of being in the apartment at the time of the murder with Sam Grasty, Derrick Chappell, and Morton Johnson. As was their habit, the detectives showed Will a photo of the green jacket and referred to it as “Sam’s jacket.” Will said he wasn’t sure if he had ever seen it.

The police then met with Will’s mother, outside his presence, and told her that the kid had information about the murder and had better cooperate or “things could get very bad.”

Will knew nothing about the murder. He was terrified he was about to be charged if he didn’t tell the police what they wanted to hear, so he told them what they wanted to hear. In another false statement, he said he had overheard Grasty talking about someone who was about to get robbed and that since he, Grasty, knew the person, he would not be suspected.

Will Morgan later recanted fully and signed an affidavit admitting his story was false.

Boyd Burke, another juvenile, was in custody because of a shooting. He was interrogated and threatened by the police, and suddenly realized he had information. His incredible story was that he’d bumped into Sam Grasty as they were standing in line in a crowded deli. It seemed like the appropriate time for Grasty to admit to a murder, and so he confessed to Boyd. However, when Boyd was called to testify in Grasty’s trial, he denied all of this and said he didn’t remember talking to the detectives or giving them a statement. The prosecution, though, was allowed to get the false statement admitted into evidence anyway, through the testimony of a detective.

Boyd was shown a photo of “Sam’s jacket,” but did not recognize it. So the detectives interrogated another juvenile, Lanier Moore, age fifteen.

They showed Lanier the file and photographs, and said they had talked to people who claimed he knew a lot about the crime. A detective told Lanier that the case was going before a grand jury, that he would be called as a witness, and that if he lied he would be charged with perjury. The detectives accused him of withholding information and threatened to charge him as an accessory after Grasty, Chappell, and Johnson were arrested. They showed him a photo of the victim with a phone cord nearby, and badgered the kid to tell them what Sam Grasty and the other two had told him about the murder. Lanier held his ground and said he had not talked to anyone about the murder. When they showed him a photo of “Sam’s jacket,” he said he did not recognize it.

—

Months dragged by, then another year. Rick McElwee was away in prison serving his six-to-twelve-year sentence. In September 1999, almost two years after the murder, criminal complaints against Grasty, Chappell, and Johnson were finally issued and they were arrested. Each was charged with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, third-degree murder, burglary, criminal trespass, and conspiracy to commit all of the above.

In Pennsylvania, a murder that is premeditated and planned is first-degree. Killing someone in the commission of another crime is second-degree. Third-degree covers all other types of murder.

—

Armed with no physical or biological proof against Grasty, Chappell, and Johnson, the prosecution faced an uphill battle. It was forced to rely almost entirely on the testimony of Rick McElwee.

The monumental question glaring at the prosecution was obvious: Who contributed the semen? Clearly, it was not the three men who had been charged with murder and were about to face their juries.

To protect its fraudulent investigation, the prosecution had no qualms slandering the memory of Henrietta Nickens, a generous lady who lived alone and modestly, took care of her friends and family, and died a horrible death.

The prosecutors concocted a series of stunning, fantastical scenarios that belong somewhere in the record books. To explain away the biological evidence, and to convince the judges and jurors that had some form of sex with the victim but did not kill her, the prosecutors actually presented, in open court and in written filings, throughout the trials and appeals, the following:

Outrageous Scenario Number One

On October 9, 1997, at some time before the daughter, granddaughter, and Rufus McKinney arrived at her apartment for dinner at 6:30, Henrietta Nickens engaged in consensual, unprotected anal sex with . After her guests left, she went to bed and was later attacked, robbed, and beaten to death by Grasty, Chappell, and Johnson.

This scenario was impossible. The semen would drain from the rectum, especially from a woman who was busy cooking dinner and entertaining guests. There was no semen on her underwear found beside her bed.

Years later, during an evidentiary hearing on newly discovered evidence, Mr. Alan Keel, an expert in forensic biology, DNA analysis, and crime scene analysis, testified that the semen in the victim’s rectum was deposited at or near the time of her death. There was no drainage onto her underwear or house dress. If the victim had been walking around and moving about after having sex, the semen would have drained onto her underwear or clothing.

Mr. Keel said, “The fact that there is such a large amount of semen still present within her rectum when the swab was collected, and the absence of any semen that would have drained from her rectum…in my opinion, demonstrates the semen was deposited in her rectum at or near the time of her death. There was not a lot of activity happening after the semen was deposited.”

Additionally, Ms. Nickens had no close male friends and had not dated or “seen” anyone for many years.

Outrageous Scenario Number Two

Carlotta testified at least four times that her mother watched the eleven o’clock news every night, then went to bed. Carlotta called her every night a few minutes before 11:00 to say good night, as she did on October 9. However, in McElwee’s version of events he watched as the gang of three entered the apartment at 10:00 p.m. Regardless of the time, this scenario maintained that at some point after her guests left at 8:30, and before the gang broke in at 10:00, the victim allowed into her apartment for anal sex. Afterward, he left, and then she was attacked at 10:00 by the gang of three.

This scenario was also virtually impossible, for the reasons stated for the first outrageous scenario.

Shirletta Moore was a close friend of Henrietta’s who lived nearby. They visited often and confided in each other. Shirletta helped Henrietta with her paperwork, took her to the doctor, and cooked meals for her. When asked by the police if the victim had any boyfriends, she said, “Definitely not.” She was too old and too sick for any activity remotely romantic. Shirletta would know if anyone came around Henrietta’s apartment, and the only people who visited other than family were Shirletta, Rufus McKinney, and Sam Grasty.

Outrageous Scenario Number Three

After beating the victim to death, the gang of three suddenly became worried about the police tracking them down, so they left the apartment and went somewhere in Chester, late at night, and found a freshly used condom that they took back to the crime scene where they managed to unload its contents into the victim’s rectum. Such a shrewd maneuver would certainly throw off the police.

This one defies analysis.

Where does one go in Chester, or anywhere else for that matter, to find a freshly used condom, one with its payload intact?

Here the prosecution’s bogus narratives collide and contradict themselves. According to Rick McElwee, the star witness, his job during the crime was to serve as a lookout and whistle a warning if he saw the police. He testified in all four trials and struggled mightily to keep his false details straight. But he did cling to his testimony that he watched the gang of three come and go through the rear door of the victim’s apartment. He saw them kick in the door, enter, stay between five and twenty minutes, then exit the same rear door.

At no time during any of the trials or hearings did McElwee say anything about the three leaving, then returning, then leaving again.

Outrageous Scenario Number Four

After beating Ms. Nickens, and finding thirty dollars to steal, the three left the apartment, but only for a moment. On the street they bumped into , who was apparently some sort of rapist-for-hire, and convinced him to go with them to an apartment he’d never seen before and anally rape Ms. Nickens while she was either dead or dying, and, of course, while they waited and perhaps watched.

Where do you even begin poking holes in such an absurd story?

Again, McElwee, the ace lookout, never mentioned the three leaving and returning; and he certainly never mentioned a fourth male, the unknown one, returning with them.

How could the three, who had just severely beaten a woman and perhaps killed her, convince to go with them to commit a rape while three witnesses looked on?

And what about the green jacket? In the prosecution’s fictional world, Sam Grasty wore it into the apartment, took it off, draped it over the television set, then left it behind. But numerous times? Coming and going under these wacky scenarios, did Sam keep forgetting his green jacket? Did any of his codefendants realize the green jacket was being left behind?

Outrageous Scenario Number Five

After beating the woman to death, the three left the apartment, for good. Of course they left the rear door open, the one they had just kicked in. After they were gone, happened upon the scene, entered the apartment, and assaulted the victim, who was either dead or dying.

These are not the rantings of an unhinged author. During Sam Grasty’s trial, the prosecutor argued to the jury:

It is frustrating, we don’t know if Mrs. Nickens had some type of relationship with someone that day before her daughter arrived for dinner. We don’t know if she was raped that night. We don’t know if perhaps somebody in that neighborhood, or perhaps one of these guys [Grasty, Chappell, Johnson] that went in there, picked up a used condom somewhere to throw the police off track. We don’t know how it got there. We don’t know that she was raped. And because we don’t know that she was raped, the fact that this Defendant’s [Grasty’s] DNA does not match that semen does not in any way exclude him from the crime of burglary, theft, and murder. It simply means that he did not rape Mrs. Nickens, if she was raped at all.

—

The three cases were severed and set for trials a few months apart. In January 2000, Derrick Chappell went first. But, before his trial he was offered a plea bargain: In exchange for a plea of guilty to the murder, and for his cooperation in the trials against his two co-defendants, he would be sentenced to six to twelve years in prison. Because he was already in jail, he would serve about four more years and walk out. Derrick maintained his innocence, refused to rat on his pals, who were also innocent, and said no to the offer. He was convicted of second-degree murder, burglary, theft, trespass, and conspiracy and sentenced to life without parole. Samuel Grasty went next, and his trial on first-degree murder charges ended with a hung jury. The prosecutor scrambled and three months later tried him again for second-degree murder. He was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.

By the time Morton Johnson’s trial began in December 2001, he had been waiting in jail for fifteen months, and he knew all about the convictions of Sam Grasty and Derrick Chappell. He had not participated in their trials because he refused to cooperate with the prosecutors. The three defendants had steadfastly held their ground and would not rat out the others. There was nothing to snitch about. They knew nothing because they had not been involved in the crime.

The prosecutors offered the same deal to Morton, but, like Derrick, he said no. If Morton had taken the deal and pled guilty, he would have served a few more years and, like McElwee, walked out of prison twenty years ago.

However, since he wasn’t guilty he refused to say he was, refused to cooperate, and today he’s still in prison with no possibility of parole.

The Grasty and Chappell trials were a whitewash. The judges, prosecutors, police, witnesses, and defense lawyers were all white, as were a majority of the jurors. As fact-finders, the jurors chose to believe the prosecution’s star witness, Rick McElwee, who was also white.

Morton didn’t trust the system, and didn’t like his chances. But when he learned that his judge was African American, he thought his luck might change. R. C. Wright was the only black judge out of twelve. Morton’s lawyer was Guy Smith, a criminal defense attorney with the reputation of being savvy and tough. He and Morton discussed trial strategies and decided they would have a better chance with a black judge than a white jury.

And there was another reason. Morton had appeared before Judge Wright on two prior occasions for minor crimes, to which he pled guilty. Judge Wright believed him then, so he assumed Judge Wright would believe him when he pled not guilty.

He and Guy Smith opted for a bench trial; forget the jury.

Morton testified in his own defense and had a solid alibi. On the night of October 9, he had worked until 8:30, took the bus home, where he lived with his mother and her boyfriend. He did not leave that night. His mother vouched for his story. But it was in total conflict with the fiction Rick McElwee had already told Judge Wright. At one point the judge, who was obviously struggling to understand two completely different stories, asked Morton, “Do you know any reason why [McElwee] would make these statements about you, or accuse you in this matter?” Morton said he had no idea why.

Why? How about the obvious fact that McElwee did not want to be charged with murder and chose a much more lenient plea bargain?

It’s impossible to know if Judge Wright was simply inexperienced, or naive, or both. Odds are that after a few years on the bench and numerous run-ins with lying witnesses, he was far more suspicious of their motives and testimonies. Perhaps Judge Wright fell into the same trap that snares virtually all jurors. They find it impossible to believe that a witness will walk into the courtroom, put his hand on the Bible, swear to tell the truth, and immediately start spinning fictional stories, many of them created by the police and prosecutors.

Whatever the reason, Judge Wright sided with the prosecution, fell for McElwee’s lies, found Morton guilty of second-degree murder, and sentenced him to life with no parole.

—

The convictions rested almost entirely on the testimony of Rick McElwee. There were no fingerprints that matched the defendants’ taken from inside the victim’s apartment. No shoe print. No physical evidence whatsoever, but for the green jacket that was allegedly worn and left behind by Sam Grasty. He denied owning it, and Chappell and Johnson said they’d never seen it before.

McElwee’s testimony varied from trial to trial, but the gist of it was that he teamed up with the three suspects in a scheme to break into the victim’s apartment and rob her. Why they would rob a sick, old woman with no money was never clear. Why Sam Grasty would rob his girlfriend’s grandmother was never clear. Why he would risk being identified by a woman he knew well was never clear.

Most of McElwee’s testimony was never clear. He admitted to being a heavy marijuana user and had been smoking pot every day since he was thirteen. On the day of the murder, he said he smoked only one blunt. (A blunt is a cheap cigar with the tobacco hollowed out and packed with marijuana.) That was his testimony during Derrick Chappell’s trial. But during Sam Grasty’s second trial a few months later, he said he smoked three blunts on October 9. In his confession to the police and at a preliminary hearing, he testified that on the night of the murder he left home at 9:00 and met up with the three other suspects. Grasty was talking about doing a robbery. Chappell left, went home, and came back an hour later. While he was gone, the other three wasted time by sitting on some steps. Grasty then told McElwee to stay behind, stand at the corner, and whistle if he saw the police. They left and broke into Ms. Nickens’s apartment. At trial, though, he had a different story. The gang met at 9:00 at an abandoned building, then dispersed. Grasty and Johnson left and went home. McElwee went home, too. Chappell lived in the projects and went there. An hour later they regathered at the abandoned building and walked down the street to the victim’s apartment. At the preliminary hearing he testified he stood watch at the corner of 10th and Booth Street, but at the trials he changed his location and said he was at the corner of 10th and Clover, one block closer to the victim’s apartment.

Abraham Lincoln famously said that no man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar. Few liars were ever laden with as many disabilities as Rick McElwee. With his limited cognitive abilities and history of drug use, he could never quite keep the details of his fiction straight during the multiple hearings and trials. At the preliminary hearing, he testified that from his lookout position he could see the back door of Ms. Nickens’s apartment, which was off a small porch. He clearly saw the three suspects walk onto the porch, where Grasty then kicked the door “once or twice.” He saw all three go through the door and enter the apartment. A few minutes later he saw the three exit the apartment through the same back door.

However, during Chappell’s trial, the first of the three, McElwee testified that he could see the back porch but could not see any of the three suspects once they were on it, and he could not see where they went.

In Grasty’s first trial, McElwee added a few extra blows and said Grasty kicked the door four or five times. At Johnson’s trial, he was back down to “two or three times.” Finally, at Grasty’s second trial, he became thoroughly confused and said he never saw Grasty kick the door. When confronted with his earlier testimony, he admitted that from where he was standing he could not see Grasty kick the door. In fact, he couldn’t even see him on the porch.

Through his many versions of the events, it was never clear why the fictitious gang needed a lookout to begin with.

According to McElwee, the three assailants were in the Nickens apartment between five and twenty minutes. He saw them exit the apartment, but then maybe he didn’t. He rejoined the gang as they walked down 10th Street and Grasty supposedly said, “We only got thirty dollars.” Later, McElwee testified there was no conversation about money. Initially, in his confession, he said he saw the thirty dollars and watched as the other three split it. In the preliminary hearing, he testified he didn’t see it, as in Grasty’s second trial. But in Johnson’s trial he testified that he didn’t see any money and didn’t know if the other three had split it. However, when confronted with his initial confession, he changed his mind and remembered seeing the thirty dollars and watching as they split it. When asked to explain his change in testimony, he said, on the record, “Well, it was probably my mind. I smoke weed.”

—

When the police examined the green jacket and emptied its pockets, they found (1) a red straw that had been chewed on one end, (2) a clear plastic bag of white powder that was later determined to be cocaine, and (3) a white glassine packet of white powder that was not a controlled substance.

The prosecution did not DNA test the chewed straw or the jacket, nor did the defense lawyers.

Years passed before the testing took place.

—

In 2004, lawyers for Grasty learned for the first time that the jacket had been DNA tested after he had been convicted and sentenced to life. They demanded more DNA testing. The prosecution opposed it. The judge refused to allow it.

In 2021, more lawyers representing Johnson, Grasty, and Chappell were successful in obtaining more DNA testing on the green jacket and its contents. A sufficient sample was lifted from the chewed red straw, and it had the same DNA profile as the contributor of the semen taken from the victim. In other words, the straw had been chewed on by . It was his jacket after all.

The new testing also found a semen stain on the sleeve of the jacket.

Only knew how the semen stain came to exist on his jacket, but the DNA profile was his as well.

The new testing also found a semen stain on the sheet of the victim’s bed. It was mixed with her blood, and, according to an expert, proved that the victim was beaten and raped in her bed by .

DNA from Samuel Grasty, Derrick Chappell, and Morton Johnson was excluded from the red straw and the semen stains.

To reiterate, at least four samples of body fluids were collected from the crime scene: (1) a large sample of semen taken from the rectum, (2) a semen stain mixed with blood on a bed sheet, (3) a semen stain from the green jacket, and (4) a saliva sample lifted from the chewed red straw in the pocket of the jacket.

All four were contributed by , the man who murdered Henrietta Nickens.

Samuel Grasty, Derrick Chappell, and Morton Johnson were excluded by DNA testing, yet they have served twenty-five years in prison and still have no hope of parole.

—

In the face of overwhelming evidence, the prosecutors fought on to avoid the truth. They have consistently opposed additional DNA testing, with one exception, in 2021, and since that testing was completed, they have continually opposed the granting of relief for the three inmates.

Under Pennsylvania law, there is a four-step test that must be met by a defendant seeking a new trial because of new evidence. In post-conviction litigation, a defendant is not allowed to return to the old courtroom and argue about what the jury should or should not have done. The jury has evaluated the evidence and pronounced the defendant guilty. But if there is new evidence that (1) could not have been obtained prior to the end of the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, and (2) the new evidence is not merely corroborative or cumulative, and (3) is not merely impeachment evidence, and (4) is of such a nature that its use will likely result in a different outcome on retrial, then, and only then, will a new trial be granted. Each of the four requirements must be met.

The semen found in the victim was old DNA evidence. It was known at the trials and considered by the jurors, all of whom found the three defendants guilty in spite of it. It cannot be re-litigated.

The new DNA evidence is the (1) semen stain on the bed, (2) the semen stain on the jacket, and (3) the saliva from the red straw.

Today, the prosecution concedes that the new DNA evidence is timely and could not have been discovered at the time of the trials. Step One is met by the defendants.

Step Two: The prosecution argues that the new DNA evidence is merely cumulative to what was known during the trials; to wit, the semen in the rectum did not belong to the three defendants. It was left behind by . Thus, the new stains and the saliva, all from the same man, are really nothing new because the jurors basically ignored the testimony during the trials. The prosecution claims the defendants have failed Step Two.

Attorneys for the defendants argue that with today’s enhanced DNA testing methods, the evidence is even clearer that acted alone when he broke into the victim’s apartment, beat and raped her, left her for dead, and left behind his green jacket with even more DNA proof. Thus, the new evidence is not merely corroborative or cumulative, and Step Two is satisfied.

Step Three: The defendants argue the new evidence is not merely for impeachment, and the prosecution does not contest this.

Step Four: Would there be a different outcome on retrial? With the new evidence, the defendants would like nothing better than another chance in court. The prosecution continues to claim there was and is sufficient evidence to prove their guilt. They are not entitled to a new trial. Justice has been served.

As recently as November 2023, the prosecutors argued strenuously, in a fifty-page brief, that the DNA doesn’t matter; that there may not have been a rape; that they, the prosecutors, are not sure how the semen landed where it did—but the three defendants are still guilty.

—

Among innocence advocates and lawyers, it is often said that it is much easier to convict an innocent person than to get one out of prison. To convict, all that’s needed is an arrest, with the ever-present presumption of guilt, then a trial in which the authorities rely on lying witnesses who will say anything to avoid more time behind bars. Undoing such a mess takes years of pro bono labor by dedicated innocence lawyers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars for testing, experts, and investigators. It also takes some luck.

For Sam Grasty, Derrick Chappell, and Morton Johnson, luck with the criminal justice system has been elusive. They were wrongfully convicted in the state courts of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Their wrongful convictions were upheld by the Commonwealth’s appellate courts. Their habeas corpus efforts in the federal courts were just as fruitless.

—

The numbers have been reported so many times that most Americans are weary of them. Hardly a day goes by that a major newspaper or news magazine does not remind us of our pathetic reliance on punishment to cure problems that we cannot otherwise solve. There are approximately 2.3 million Americans behind bars, the highest rate ever known. We lock up more of our own people than any country in the history of the world. This inflicts enormous social and economic harm on our most vulnerable citizens—poor people of color.

The causes of mass incarceration are well known and much studied.

—

Since we started the “war on drugs” in the 1970s, the number of prisoners has skyrocketed, while drug use has hardly declined. Tough politicians have passed tough-on-crime laws with longer sentences for minor crimes and burdensome restrictions after release. These laws and policies have failed miserably. We’ve lost the war on drugs and our casualties are either dead or in prison.

Poor, uneducated black men have borne the brunt of mass incarceration. They are 13 percent of the U.S. population but 35 percent of the incarcerated population. More than 80 percent of their arrests are for low-level, nonviolent offenses.

Racism is a major cause of mass incarceration. It is a simple yet complicated fact that black suspects are treated harsher than white ones. From suspicion, investigation, arrest, bail, indictment, jury selection, blacks are handled differently.

The Chester case is a perfect example. The police and prosecutors were white. A majority of the judges and jurors were white. They, the authorities, chose to believe the lies of a fifteen-year-old, cognitively challenged, drug-using white boy over the evidence presented by Sam Grasty, Derrick Chappell, and Morton Johnson, all of whom had solid alibis and no motive.

Rick McElwee told the lies the police prepared for him. He served six years in jail and was released almost twenty years ago.

Sam and Morton told the truth and have been locked away for twenty-five years. Barring a miracle, they will die in prison. Derrick was a juvenile when he was sentenced, and will be eligible for parole in four years.

—

But miracles do happen. Luck can appear when least expected.

On March 28, 2024, Judge Mary Ann Brennan of the Court of Common Pleas surprised the three defendants, their lawyers, and the prosecutors with an astonishing ruling. She vacated the guilty verdicts and ordered new trials for Sam, Derrick, and Morton. The district attorney had thirty days to appeal her ruling or accept it.

The district attorney, Jack Stollsteimer, waited until the thirtieth day and appealed Judge Brennan’s ruling. In Pennsylvania, such appeals take at least a year to be decided by the appellate court.