Extension for time: Appeal 12 17 2013
Following is the “BRIEF AND ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT” — Original PDF: j mccullough brief
Oral arguments:
Following is the decision made by the appeals court: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/appellatecourt/2015/2nddistrict/2121364.pdf
Ann O’Neill’s story on the appeal: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/21/justice/oldest-cold-case-appeal/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
A few highlights from the BRIEF AND ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANT, emphasis in red is mine:
“The evidence against Jack McCullough –personal memories of what occurred 55 years ago; a photo identification made 53 years after the incident; testimony from jailhouse informants; innocuous statements from the defendant; and an improperly admitted and inconclusive statement from the defendant’s mother while on morphine and Haldol just before her death– was so unreasonable, so improbable, and so unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt that he was responsible for a 1957 murder, kidnapping, and abduction of infant.”
“Especially given the 55 years which passed between the offenses and the trial, the judge’s decisions to prohibit Jack McCullough from introducing FBI records prepared at the time of the offense, despite their status as ancient documents and public records and their probative value in establishing Mr. McCullough’s alibi, and to prohibit Mr. McCullough from presenting testimony showing another man committed the offense, amounted to gross abuses of discretion denying Mr. McCullough his fundamental right to present a defense.”
“The admission of a statement allegedly made by the defendant’s mother 37 years after the offenses, under the erroneous guise of it being against her penal interest, while she was terminally ill and being administered morphine and Haldol, together with testimony from a witness that, years prior to the offenses, she was given a piggyback ride by some man, and testimony that firearm ammunition was found in the defendant’s home safe 54 years after the offenses, constituted gross abuses of discretion by the trial judge resulting in irreparable prejudice to Mr. McCullough’s right to a fair trial.”
“Mary (Sigman) Chapman, (who went by the name Kathy), 63, recounted playing with Maria Ridulph on the night in question. (R. 792, 793, 798)Chapman was eight years old at the time, and Maria was seven. (R. 796, 797) The two played at Maria’s house after school, and then again after dinner. (R. 798) It was starting to snow, so they went to the corner of Archie and Center Cross to play under a street light. (R. 798-800) While they played, a man, walking alone from the south, approached them and asked if they liked dolls and wanted a piggyback ride. (R. 800) She described the man as “an older person,” having a slender face, with his hair in a flip, and “large teeth.” (R. 801, 824) He introduced himself as “Johnny.” Chapman had never seen him before. (R. 802) He wore a sweater “with lots of colors on it” and jeans. (R. 801, 831) It was very dark outside. (R. 801)”
“Dennis Twadell, 72, associated with the defendant back in their high school days in Sycamore. (R. 921-923) He recalled the defendant would not let anyone else drive his car due to insurance reasons. (R. 925-926) He said the defendant wore flannel shirts and sweaters –sometimes solid, sometimes multicolored– during the winter. (R. 926-927) The Ridulphs belonged to the same church as Twadell’s family, but he did not know any of them personally. (R. 927) On the night Maria went missing, Twadell called the defendant, who was not home. He did not see the defendant that night. (R. 928) On cross, Twadell admitted that when he was first asked by police, in March 2010, whether he remembered anything significant happening on December 3, 1957, he could not. (R. 929) After his memory was refreshed –by being reminded about his prior contacts with the police– he said he remembered the night. (R. 930-931)”
“Among the medications Eileen was given were a continuous morphine drip and Haldol. Side effects of the medications included nausea, constipation, sleepiness, confusion, stiffening of muscles, and disorientation. (R. 1315, 1317) He described her as being “pleasantly confused,” (R. 1315), and disoriented. (R. 1316) She was also diagnosed with unspecified psychosis. (R. 1319) As a consulting physician, Dr. Prabhakar spent about a half-hour with her. (R. 1322)”
“The evidence against Jack McCullough –personal memories of what occurred 55 years ago; a photo identification made 53 years after the incident; testimony from jailhouse informants; innocuous statements from the defendant; and an improperly admitted and inconclusive statement from the defendant’s mother while on morphine and Haldol just before her death– was so unreasonable, so improbable, and so unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt that he was responsible for a 1957 murder, kidnapping, and abduction of infant. It may well be a romantic notion to believe that when a truly traumatic event occurs, the details of the event will be forever seared into one’s memory. For example, one might forever remember he was when he heard about President Kennedy’s assassination. But how likely is it that one would be able to recount, after 50-some years, the identities of who he was with at the time, or what those people wore? In a court, with murder charges at issue, the law demands more than nostalgia. It demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutors below took great effort to describe the gentle, small-town nature of Sycamore, Illinois, in 1957. Especially in that world, the abduction and murder of a seven-year-old girl who spent the night of the first snow playing on a street corner just a few doors from her home was a shocking, defining, and tragic event. But like any other criminal charges, responsibility for her kidnapping, abduction, and murder needed to be proven by competent evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and not by appeals to sympathy or the romance of the 1950s. The evidence presented against Jack McCullough woefully failed to rise to the level of proof necessary to sustain his convictions, and this Honorable Court must reverse the judgment below.”
“Fifty-three years later, in September 2010, she was contacted by Brion Hanley, with the Illinois State Police, (R. 809), who showed her a photo array (primarily based on photos from a Sycamore High School yearbook). (Pl.Ex. 1(d); R. 810, 981-986, 991) She picked one of them (the defendant) as Johnny, (R. 813), based on her “best recollection.” (R. 841) But the photo of the defendant did not match the description she offered on the stand. Johnny, she said, was “an older person,”(R. 824), “probably 150” … Exactly what Chapman meant by calling her Johnny an “older person,” (R. 824), went unexplained; the defendant would have been 17 in December 1957. (R. 380) To an eight-year-old, a teenage boy would be “older,” but to call a teen an “older person” stretches the meaning of the term.
“Even taking all the prosecution’s assumptions and innuendos for all they are worth, at most they only show the defendant may have had an opportunity to commit the offenses. But there clearly were others who had the same opportunity.”
“The three jailhouse informants who testified against Jack McCullough make the Rivera witnesses look like choir boys.” — I just liked that phrase….
“While a judge’s finding on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight, it is not conclusive. … No rational trier of fact could find her statement, even if it was in fact made, sufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“Sergeant Cook’s testimony about finding ammunition in the defendant’s safe in the latter’s Seattle home, (R. 1230), was almost laughable in its relevance, since the discovery occurred almost 54 years after Maria’s abduction and there was no evidence that any firearm was involved in her death.”
“As will be discussed in the following two Arguments, Mr. McCullough was denied a fair trial when the judge refused to allow him to present evidence to establish a defense, yet permitted the prosecution to introduce irrelevant, but highly prejudicial evidence that resulted in the verdicts below. But putting the evidentiary errors aside, reviewing the case that was presented below, even in a light most favorable to the prosecution, there is no rational trier of fact that would have found the defendant guilty. Mr. McCullough therefore respectfully prays that this Honorable Court will reverse the judgment below.”
“… the judge’s decisions to prohibit Jack McCullough from introducing FBI records prepared at the time of the offense, despite their status as ancient documents and public records and their probative value in establishing Mr. McCullough’s alibi, and to prohibit Mr. McCullough from presenting testimony showing another man committed the offense, amounted to gross abuses of discretion denying Mr. McCullough his fundamental right to present a defense.”
“As will be discussed below, Judge Hallock’s evidentiary decisions against the defense were entirely unreasonable.”
“Judge Hallock’s refusal to recognize the applicability of a recognized exception to the rule against hearsay was arbitrary and unreasonable and amounted to reversible”
“By failing to respect fundamental fairness and due process, and by failing to recognize applicable evidentiary exceptions to the rule against hearsay, Judge Hallock abused his discretion and denied the defendant a fair trial. In the event this Court declines to reverse his conviction due to insufficient proof, Jack McCullough respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reverse the judgment below and remand the cause for a new trial.”
“The admission of a statement allegedly made by the defendant’s mother 37 years after the offenses, under the erroneous guise of it being against her penal interest, while she was terminally ill and being administered morphine and Haldol, together with testimony from a witness that, years prior to the offenses, she was given a piggyback ride by some man, and testimony that firearm ammunition was found in the defendant’s home safe 54 years after the offenses, constituted gross abuses of discretion by the trial judge resulting in irreparable prejudice to Mr. McCullough’s right to a fair trial.”
Jack McCullough 
I am still uncertain who was this Johnny who kidnapped and killed Maria, but reading through that PDF report which mentions another suspect in her murder ‘William Redmond’ was mentioned by a Police Investigator back in 1983 that William Redmond might have killed that little girl, this suspect does have more connection of committed crimes against younger children little girls, he kidnapped and murdered a 8 year old girl in 1951 and dumped her body in a isolated location in a bush, seems similar to Maria’s murder.
I am not on Jack Mccullough side as i don’t know if he killed her or not but hopefully we find out who really killed her one day.
I am confused here.
Why was Jack’s appeal heard by the same judge (Hallock) as the trial judge?
I thought the purpose of an appeal was to go to the Appeals Court where the case is reexamined and any judicial mistakes would be brought to light possibly leading to a new trial or the conviction possibly overturned. If mistakes were made a trial, how could there be certainty that the same judge not make them again?
“Why was Jack’s appeal heard by the same judge (Hallock) as the trial judge?” – No, it was heard by the appeals court, three judge panel.
Looking at another aspect of the case…
Elaine Tessier’s deathbed statement should not have been allowed as testimony.
The reason being that two people sitting within the same proximity to their mother, heard two different things. One, obviously implicates Jack, while the other is obscure and brief “he did it” without explanation.
So is it possible to apply “he did it” to some other family related event?
Yes, the sexual assaults by their father. At the time when the girls were being assaulted, Jeannie had told her mother, appearing before her in a dirty torn and bloodied dress.
Elaine at the time became enraged and IIRC hit Jeannie accusing her lying. The sexual assaults were ongoing for years and the mother never came to the defense of her daughters.
It could very well be that on her deathbed, the “he did it” was her way of finally admitting what she likely knew all along. That her husband had been sexually assaulting his children. The very fact that this alternative explanation could have applied, should have prevented her statement to be allowed.
The fact that Jack had just been found not guilty in this very same rape case brought by one of the sisters, should have disallowed her as a witness as well, as her testimony may have been tainted by bias over losing the rape case.