EDGAR CO.—The travesty of justice that was the murder trial of Terry Payton in late February has once again come to the fore as a motion has been submitted by his defense attorney, asking for a new trial or, in the alternative, an acquittal.
Terry Payton
Regular readers will recall that Payton was charged as an adult when he was but 16 years old in June 2011 with the murder of his mother, Kathie Payton. The boy admitted to stabbing him mother about six times in short succession, but as an act of self-defense, as he saw her going for a large butcher knife after she told him repeatedly that she was “gonna kill” him, this following a physical fight over Terry having poured his mother’s alcohol down the sink. Her alcoholism, the defense asserted (and to which numerous witnesses also attested), made her increasingly more violent and Terry’s home life neglectful and at times, dangerous, including an incident shortly before her death during which Kathie Payton was attempting to hit her son with a Jim Beam bottle, but instead struck one of his friends, Jake Shumaker.
Robert McIntire of Danville, the attorney who handled the defense for the now-17-year-old Payton, filed the motion last week in Edgar County court (Paris, Illinois.) The March 29 motion fell within the 30-day window of appeal of the verdict….and while it isn’t an outright “appeal,” it certainly calls into question certain issues that arose during trial, covered extensively by Disclosure, including the displaying of autopsy photos that had been ruled during a sidebar as more prejudicial than probative, as well as a host of other issues even WE didn’t catch…although we caught quite a few of them.
Many of these issues are known as “reversable errors.” The easiest way we can explain a reversable error as it pertains to court action is to reference the Julie Rea Kirkpatrick trial in 2002. At that time, the woman was found guilty of killing her 10-year-old son Joel in Lawrenceville in October of 1997. However, her defense attorney found a “reversible error” in the fact that he’d discovered the state’s request for the appointment of an appellate prosecutor to lead the state’s case (interestingly enough, Ed Parkinson, who assisted Edgar County prosecutor Mark Isaf in his case against Payton) had been made IMPROPERLY. There was a procedure by which the Lawrence County prosecutor (at the time, Todd Rietz) had to follow to the letter. He did not, and the result was a reversible error. The defense for Rea filed for a new trial and got one. This was held in the summer of 2006. Prior to that trial, the defense learned what had worked and what hadn’t in the first trial–and they scrubbed the presentation of certain of the state’s evidence, resulting in a “sanitized” Julie Rea. The new jury didn’t get to hear all of the reality of that woman…and as a result, she was acquitted of the murder. So a “reversible error” can and often does get a person a new trial. And if that doesn’t happen, ongoing appeals might. Anyone who doubts that that can be the case has no further to look than at the Steidl and Whitlock issue….which occurred right there in uber-corrupt Edgar County, too, and in which there have been recent developments.
McIntire’s motion encompasses two pages and will be examined thoroughly—with our input as regards each claim, since we were right there when all of them happened—in the next issue of Disclosure. You can obtain the print version at these locations in the readership area, or, for your convenience, get yourself an online membership and read the e-Edition right here at the comfort of your computer or handheld. The e-Edition of the April-May issue will be available the evening of April 15; print version on stands beginning April 16 and continuing through the 17th until all copies are delivered!