In 1998, someone shot and killed police officer Allen Gibson in the woods behind an apartment complex in the small town of Waverly, Virginia. Police arrested Terence Richardson and Ferrone Claiborne for Gibson’s murder days later—despite a lack of physical evidence linking them to the crime and the presence of another possible suspect.
In 2001, a jury found them not guilty of murder. A judge sentenced them to life in prison anyway.
Richardson and Claiborne have been fighting to prove their innocence ever since.
In February, the Virginia Supreme Court gave Richardson a chance to make his case by ordering a new hearing to examine potentially exculpatory evidence. Richardson’s legal team says this material was never shared with his original defense attorneys—a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Brady v. Maryland. (Richardson’s case is following a separate procedure than Claiborne’s.)
The innocence claim centers around three pieces of evidence: an anonymous call to a police tip line identifying someone other than Richardson as a suspect, a photo lineup administered to a 9-year-old witness, in which she identified a suspect other than Richardson, and a statement made by her on the day of Gibson’s death in 1998 describing someone whose hairstyle did not match Richardson’s.
At the hearing in Sussex County Circuit Court this May, Richardson’s legal team set out to prove that this evidence could have changed the outcome of the case. But they were derailed by what Richardson’s attorneys have characterized as a deliberate effort by state prosecutors and federal law enforcement officials to undermine Richardson’s innocence claim.
“Terence and Ferrone are innocent,” Jarrett Adams, an attorney for both Richardson and Claiborne, told The Appeal. “They are not innocent by accident.”
For Richardson and Claiborne, the hearing was perhaps their best chance to bolster their innocence claims with recently unearthed evidence. But ultimately, the judge allowed only one item to be admitted as evidence before the Virginia Court of Appeals—the same court that had previously dismissed his case. With Richardson’s case now once again set to go before the potentially unfriendly Appeals court, his legal team fears he faces an uphill battle to prove his innocence.
“We’re up against the impossible,” Adams said.
Hellbound and Down 