USA - Alabama. U.S. Supreme Court Returns Anthony Hinton's Case to Alabama Because Attorney Was Ignorant of the Law.

U.S. Supreme Court Returns Case to Alabama Because Attorney Was Ignorant of the Law. On February 24, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ordered an Alabama court to reconsider the case of Anthony Hinton, 58, Black, who has maintained his innocence since he was sentenced to death 28 years ago. Mr. Hinton's lawyer wrongly believed that he could spend only $1,000 on a firearms expert during the trial, and as a result, hired a witness whom he knew was unqualified, and who the Court said was "badly discredited" by the prosecution. Hinton's appellate lawyers later claimed that his trial lawyer's mistake constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. During Hinton's appeals, three experts testified that they could not conclude Hinton's gun had fired the bullets used in the crime, essentially rebutting the prosecutor's primary evidence. The Court returned the case to Alabama's courts to determine whether the trial's lawyer error prejudiced the outcome of the case. Anthony Ray Hinton was sentenced to death for the murders of two restaurant managers. The victims were John Davidson, an assistant manager at a Mrs. Winner's Chicken & Biscuits restaurant in Southside Birmingham and Thomas Vason, an assistant manager at a Captain D's restaurant on First Avenue North in Woodlawn. The managers were shot during robberies in February and July 1985. In a third robbery at Quincy's steakhouse in Bessemer, the manager, Sidney Smotherman, was shot, but survived. Smotherman subsequently identified Hinton as his assailant. Hinton had an alibi for the third robbery and was never charged for this robbery, but he was convicted of the murders in the first two robberies because the gun used in the third robbery, a .38-caliber revolver found at his house, was purportedly the same weapon as that used in the first two robberies. Similar restaurant robberies occurred in the area after Hinton's arrest. Hinton’s defense lawyer, and even the trial judge, mistakenly believed the state would pay just $1,000 for an expert witness. The trial witness testified the tool marks of the revolver had been corroded away so that it was impossible to say whether a particular bullet had been fired from that gun. However, the witness, a civil engineer who admitted he needed help operating the lab microscope, was discredited during the trial by prosecutors because of his lack of credentials. During his appeal, Hinton's legal team produced three new experts, including one who had worked at the Federal Bureau of Investigation's forensics laboratory, who determined there was no evidence to support the state's claim that bullets matched Hinton's weapon.