Kevin Herrick Wrongful Conviction, Kevin is Next

Compromised Testimony: A Case of Flawed Identification

This case highlights the critical importance of accurate evidence and the profound impact of misleading information on eyewitness testimony. With no physical evidence able to place Kevin at the crime scene, the case hinged entirely on victim eyewitness testimony.

However, the reliability of this testimony was significantly undermined by several factors:

• Inconsistent Victim Accounts: There were numerous inconsistencies in the victim accounts themselves. These discrepancies were observed between their initial statements to the police, official written police statements, deposition testimony, and their trial testimony.
• Misleading Information from Largo Police: The Largo Police informed the victims that they had recovered a bloody knife and blood-stained clothing from Kevin’s room. They also erroneously told the victims that fingerprint evidence recovered matched Kevin.
• Forensic Disproof and Delayed Disclosure: Forensic testing later disproved these police claims regarding the blood and fingerprint evidence. Despite this, the victims were not informed of these crucial test results until days before the trial, some 15 months later.
• Impact on Trial Testimony: When both victims testified at trial, they still believed the police had recovered the bloody evidence linking Kevin to the crime scene. Crucially, they claimed this information was an essential part of their identification.

In 1998, John Brigham, an expert, reviewed the witness statements and testimony in this case. His report concluded that "the victims’ ability to accurately trust their identification decision had been fatally compromised".

Questioning the Accuser: Significant Contradictions in Victim Testimony

Jane Doe's testimony at trial regarding the assault contained several notable inconsistencies, raising questions about the reliability of her identification of Kevin as her assailant. These contradictions appear across her trial testimony, depositions, and written statements, often conflicting with other evidence or Scott’s account.

Key Discrepancies Include:

Assailant's Clothing:

• Jane Doe stated the assailant wore a dark blue or black sleeveless shirt.
• Contradiction: Police recovered a red t-shirt from Kevin’s room, which doesn't match Jane Doe's description.
• Further Contradiction: John Doe claimed the assailant was completely naked (possibly wearing socks) and left the house carrying his shirt and shoes.

The Crucial Belt Buckle:

• Jane Doe testified that when the assailant put his pants on, she observed a large belt buckle that was "just like the one Kevin always wore". This was a primary basis for her identification.
• Major Contradiction: Kevin never owned a large belt buckle. The belt police obtained was standard, and this critical evidence was never introduced at trial.
• Her written statement also mentioned "jeans with a belt, just like the one I always see on Kevin”.

Visibility in the Room:

• Jane stated the room was "pitch dark" when she was awoken by the assailant1. Kevin’s attorney focused on her ability to see in such conditions during cross-examination.
• Logical Question: Jane Doe described seeing the color of the assailant's shirt and distinguishing it from his skin in a "pitch dark" room.

John Doe's Actions Immediately After the Assailant Left the Room:

• Jane stated John tried to open the door the assailant was holding shut, and then John Doe went down the hallway while she went to her baby.
• Contradiction: John Doe claims he first went to the baby’s room with Jane Doe and then followed the assailant.

Kevin's Entry/Exit Habits:

• Jane Doe testified that a reason she believed it was Kevin was her claim that he "always used the sliding glass door" to enter and exit their home.
• Contradiction: In her deposition, Jane Doe stated Kevin entered their home only three times, using the front door on two of those occasions. At trial, she increased the number of visits to at least five and maintained he "always" used the sliding glass door.

External Influence on Identification:

• Jane Doe admitted under cross-examination that a key reason she believed the attacker was Kevin was because Largo police told her that a bloody knife and bloody clothes were found in Kevin’s room, and his fingerprints were on her door.
• Critical Fact: "THIS EVIDENCE DOES NOT EXIST!" Yet, Jane Doe testified she believed this information to be true.
• Jane Doe also testified that she believed it was Kevin "because [John Doe] said it was and [John] wouldn't lie to her". Her initial statement to John was "it looked like the guy next door" to which John replied, "it was".

Significantly, Jane Doe never identified Kevin as her assailant while police were present at the scene.

• Her written statement (three days post-incident) reflected uncertainty: "I remember trying to see who it was, but it was so dark, it looked like Kevin but I didn’t think it could have been". She also noted, "I kept telling the police it looked like him, but I didn’t want to accuse him because I wasn’t sure. I was in shock, but [John Doe] saw him”.

Ultimately, Jane Doe's "absolute positive assurance" about Kevin's identity appears to stem from what John and the Largo Police told her, rather than her own certain observation. Jane was "not sure, but she is eventually convinced by Largo Police and [John Doe]". Essentially, Jane is not sure, but she is eventually convinced by Largo Police and John. 

Examining John Doe's Inconsistent Testimony in the Triplex Assault

John's testimony regarding the triplex assault presents numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and unanswered questions that challenge the reliability of his account. The details surrounding the incident, the assailant's description, and John's actions before, during, and after the event often conflict with other statements or logical expectations.

Conflicting Descriptions of the Assailant

• John Doe's description of the assailant directly contradicts Jane Doe's testimony and raises further questions:
• Clothing: John Doe stated the man was "totally naked, maybe socks". This directly contradicts Jane's statement that the man had a dark blue or black sleeveless shirt on. Later, John claimed the assailant was only wearing socks and pants when he fled, yet no wet socks were recovered from Kevin's room by police.
• Hair: John testified the assailant's hair was "slicked down close to the scalp with oil or mouse" and pulled up to look short, admitting he had never seen Kevin look like this before. This is inconsistent with Jane's testimony, which described the man's hair as long, rough, and hanging down in her face. The source also questions how a slicked-back hair silhouette could look like Kevin, who had "poufy curly hair".
• Identification: Despite these discrepancies, John claimed he could only see a silhouette but believed the man looked "just like Kevin".

The Assailant's Escape and John's Guidance

• John testified that the man told him to back up, then backed out of the room, pulled the door shut, and held it closed. It is questioned how the assailant managed to hold the door closed while also holding a knife, his shirt, and his shoes.
• After John eventually opened the door and checked on the baby, he observed the man struggling to open the sliding glass door in the dining room. John then stated he told the man to go out the front door.
• This sequence of events is puzzling: Since there was no forced entry and the sliding glass door was locked, why would the assailant need directions from John Doe to find the front door, especially if he had entered through it? Furthermore, Kevin had been in their apartment multiple times; why would he require John's guidance to find the front door?

Shifting Stories: Identification and Lighting Conditions

• John's account of when and how he identified Kevin, as well as the lighting conditions, changed significantly over time:
• Initial Police Report: According to Officer LaVigne's report, John Doe initially stated the house was too dark to make an identification inside. Jane Doe also testified it was too dark for her to make a clear identification.
• Written Statement: In his written statement, John Doe claimed he recognized Kevin at the sliding door in the living room because he could see the "rolls of fat on his stomach". This contradicts Jane Doe's testimony that the assailant was wearing a blue or black shirt.
• Deposition (Five Months Later): Five months later, in his deposition, John stated that the venetian blinds were open and "very, very sufficient light" was coming in through the kitchen window. He then claimed he confirmed it was Kevin outside with his "excellent night vision".
• The source highlights that John consistently improved the details surrounding the lighting conditions inside the apartment with each retelling, yet the location and timing of his "positive identification" changed every time he explained it.

The Fabricated Chase and Delayed Actions

• John originally told police he followed the assailant to a vehicle. He later claimed this was a deliberate fabrication to mislead the police so he could "take matters into his own hands and kill Kevin himself".
• This explanation is questioned: John returned to the triplex yelling a license number before the police arrived. If Kevin was "standing right there with everyone," why would John fabricate a car and tag number to throw police off Kevin's trail?
• John Doe's actions after returning are also perplexing: If John wanted to handle things himself and kill Kevin, who was "standing right there" with Jane and the baby, why did he not immediately confront him? What was he waiting for? The source questions why John would simply stand around discussing events with Kevin and others while waiting for the police to arrive to present his fabricated story.
• Furthermore, if John knew it was Kevin and wanted to kill him, why did he give chase instead of staying with Jane and his baby, especially since Kevin lived next door? Why not get a bigger knife and "do the deed before the police arrived?"

Post-Assault Conduct and Unanswered Questions

• John Doe claimed he gave Kevin "the evil eye" as he was being loaded into the ambulance because Kevin was standing next to Jane Doe and his baby. One must question why, if John Doe was concerned for Jane and the baby's welfare, he would leave them at the scene with Kevin while he was taken to the hospital.
• Hospital records show John was discharged at 1:45 am, only 30 minutes after his arrival, Yet, he waited another two (2) hours before calling police to identify Kevin. 
• John Doe testified that when he lost sight of the man behind the triplexes, he believed Kevin could have had as much as ten minutes to return, get the oil out of his hair, and clean up before Scott found him in front of the triplex. This contradicts testimony that Kevin came out with his landlady Theresa shortly after Jane Doe came outside screaming for help.
• A police K-9 unit only tracked the path John Doe followed and did not find a trail leading back to Kevin's room. The question remains: What was John doing during the alleged 10 minutes it took him to travel from the back to the front of the triplex?

The Myth of Physical Evidence

• John Doe testified at trial that he understood police had found the bloody knife, bloody clothes in Kevin’s room, and Kevin’s fingerprints on his door.
• However, the fact is that: "THIS EVIDENCE DOES NOT EXIST!"
• When confronted with the possibility that this information was not true, John reportedly became agitated, suggesting that the police might not have found the "right stuff," or sent the "wrong stuff to the lab," or that the lab might have made a mistake. John Doe "simply refused to accept that police fed him false information regarding physical evidence which absolutely does not exist". 

John Doe's History 

• John Doe had a significant criminal history that was never disclosed to the defense. In fact, he was held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with court orders in between the crime and the trial. 
• Jane Doe said that she believed John Doe because he was the most honest person she knew, but that does not square with his history of criminal activity, lying in court, and ignoring subpoenas. 
• John Doe was known to be a drug and alcohol user, having been arrested for a DUI and for dealing both cocaine and marijuana. His perception of the evening may have been affected by intoxication. According to Kevin, he rushed inside to hide his drugs and paraphernalia before the police arrived that evening. His story about a "saltwater fish" may have been a fake story to cover up a drug deal or other unsavory activity.