June 6, 2024 • 37 mins
On March 6, 2001, two masked men attempted to rob a small restaurant in McHenry, IL. The owner, wielding a butcher knife, and his employee chased the men out of the restaurant, and in the ensuing chase, the owner was shot and killed. Police began to focus on 19-year-old Jennifer McMullan and some of her friends after finding out that they were in the area at the time of the shooting. A couple of months later, police – believing Jennifer was the getaway driver in the shooting – questioned her for 15 hours resulting in Jennifer falsely confessing to the murder. Despite the only eyewitness not identifying Jennifer’s friend group as the perpetrators, she was sentenced to 27 years in prison for first-degree murder.
Click here to see the entire interview on our YouTube channel.
TO GET INVOLVED, PLEASE CALL ILLINOIS GOVERNOR JB PRITZKER AT 217-782-0244 AND SAY:
"Governor Pritzker -
Jennifer McMullan was wrongfully convicted as a party to a 2001 robbery homicide. It appears the prosecution withheld evidence of more compelling suspects who had confessed to multiple witnesses. Further, DNA test results have made the state’s theory in her case completely implausible. Her clemency petition is currently under review, and she rightfully deserves a pardon.
I hope you do what is just.
Thank you."
YOU CAN ALSO WRITE GOVERNOR JB PRITZKER AT:
Office of the Governor
555 W. Monroe St., 16th Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
To learn more, visit:
https://www.uis.edu/illinoisinnocenceproject
https://lavaforgood.com/podcast/443-jason-flom-with-mario-casciaro/
We started the Wrongful Conviction podcast to provide a voice to innocent people in prison.
We want to hear your voices, too.
So call us at 833-207-4666 and leave us a message.
Tell us how these powerful, often tragic and sometimes triumphant, stories make you feel.
Shocked?
Inspired?
Motivated?
We want to know!
We may even include your story in a future episode.
And hey, the more of you that join in, the more power our collective voices will have.
So tell a friend to listen and to call us too at 833-207-4666
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The following interview was recorded in person at the twenty
twenty four Innocent Network Conference in New Orleans. On March sixth,
two thousand and one, in McHenry, Illinois, two masked men,
one armed with a twenty two, attempted to rob a
Mexican takeout joy, but the owner grabbed a butcher knife
(00:22):
and his employee followed. As they chased the men out,
they caught one of the assailants and removed his mask.
The other assailant turned around, ripped off his mask and
opened fire, fatally shooting the owner and the surviving employee
ran back inside to call the police. The police canvass
(00:43):
the area and discovered four young people in a house
up the street, including a young woman named Jennifer McMullen. Eventually,
she and two of her friends confessed to a role
in the robbery homicide. But this is wrongful conviction. Wrongful
(01:06):
conviction has always given voice to innocent people in prison,
and now we're expanding that voice to you. Call us
at eight three three, two oh seven four six sixty
six and tell us how these stories make you feel
and what you've done to help the cause, even if
it's something as simple as telling a friend or sharing
on social media, and you might just hear yourself in
(01:28):
a future episode. Call us eight three three, two oh
seven four six sixty six. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction.
Today's story is it's like something out of a Quentin
(01:48):
Tarantino movie, and the investigation, if you can call it, that,
is like something out of The Three Stooges or Keystone
Cops or something much more sinister. First of all, we
have I don't know why this is first time, but
for the first time, we have the co director of
the Illinois Innocence Project, Stephanie Cammell. She's been hiding out
from us while some of her colleagues have been on
(02:08):
the show multiple times. But it's overdue. But I'm really
honored to have you here.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Thank you so much for having us and for profiling
Jennifer's case. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
You go, don't embarrass you, but you're kind of a
legend in this space, so you know, it's really great
to have you here. And I'm very lucky and honored
to have the person here who lived through this ordeal,
Jennifer McMullin. Thanks for being here. Welcome to Ronful Conviction.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
And I always say I'm so happy you're here, but
I'm sorry you're here because you should have never been
on this show in the first place. This is this
case came with instructions. You were only nineteen when this
happened and the top of what your life was like
because you were a law abiding, sort of normal person.
You were born where.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
Oh, Libertyville, Illinois.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Libertyville ALLNOI it sounds very all American.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
It is.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Is it like one traffic light like that kind of place.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
I mean, it's it's a busy small town. But yeah,
it's an amazing place. I was born there and grew
up around Lake Beach with my stepfather and mother, only child,
three older siblings. The eldest is my brother, and then
the other two are sisters. There's ten years difference between
me and the next daughter. So they were all out
and getting married and having families, and I was the oops.
(03:21):
I came ten years later, so growing up in my teens,
I was the only one in the house. But yeah,
it was a great childhood. Never in trouble, was always
in sports, softball, soccer, competitive cheer, and dance. Sports was
definitely a passion for me got it.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Okay, So it sounds like a nice childhood. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Absolutely, I had an amazing childhood, amazing parents, siblings, family.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
It was great and quite an athletic resume you have
there as well as someone who didn't make the sports
teams in high school. I'm a little jealous, but you know,
I'm going to let that slide. That's why I played
the guitar and smoked pot instead. But that's a different podcast.
We're not going to talk about that now. But anyway, okay,
So then let's go to this crime. Okay. This was
(04:04):
on March six of two thousand and one. Two masked
men attempted to rob a small restaurant in McHenry, Illinois,
right a burrito express. The owner, welding a butcher knife
and his employee chased the two men out of the restaurant,
and an ensuing chase, the owner was shot and killed. Jennifer,
you stumbled onto this scene right, so to speak. I
mean you were talk about wrong place, wrong time. Absolutely
(04:27):
tell us how you came upon this chaotic and terrifying
scene and then how you eventually got implicated.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Definitely. So that day, I remember I had got a
call from one of my friends who needed to find
somebody to borrow a laptop, so I called another friend
who I knew had one. So I went and grabbed
my three code defendants. We headed out to Twin Lakes, Wisconsin.
You know, just young listening to music and join a
car ride. Get to Twin Lakes. We end up finding
(04:55):
out that my friend wasn't allowed to loan out her laptop.
I think, we say they're about fifty minutes, you know,
just chit chatting, and then we were on our way,
the four of us again, and headed it out to mckenry, Illinois,
where one of my co defendants had a very close
family friend who lived out there.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Our listeners may remember mckenry, Illinois from the story of
Mario Kasharo, whose lead detective was a former failed hardware
store stock boy. Yeah. I know it sounds crazy, but
it's true. And it's the same prosecutorial team Combs and
Kanneely who prosecuted Mario three separate times while having more
(05:32):
evidence supporting an alternative narrative. And we're going to have
that incredible episode linked in the episode description because Jennifer's
case bears such a strong resemblance as.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
We're going into mckenry, we heard like a lot of commotion,
ambulance squad cars. We ended up going to a smoke
shop dispensary type place. Only one code defendant went in
and the rest of us stayed in the car. From
there we went to another co defendant's friend's house, which
ended up being right in the vicinity of the Brito Express.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Jennifer's friends and later co defendants Kenneth Smith, Justin Hoftling,
and David Collette. Their sole connection to the situation was
that they arrived at their friend's house near the Burrito
Express in the aftermath of this robbery turned homicide that
occurred around seven to twenty pm the same evening.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Two masked men came into the Brito Express. No one
was in there except the owner of all Presento and
his employee at Wardo Pardo, and they were in the
back and the first mask man had a twenty two
caliber gun and they were attempting to rob the Brito Express.
Mister Briseno took the butcher knife and started chasing them,
(06:41):
with mister Pardo following right behind him. They chased them out. Now,
this is March in northern Illinois. There's ice, it's cold,
and one of the perpetrators slips on the ice and falls,
and so mister Pardo grabs him, takes off his mask
so he gets a good look at him and starts
dragging him back to the restaurant. Mister Briseno, the owner,
(07:06):
has yelled at a passing car to call the police,
and the perpetrator starts yelling to his friend because he's
now been caught. The friend turns around and removes his
mask and starts shooting. He's trying to get him to
let his friend go, and mister Preseno and Pardo are
dragging him back to the Brito Express. At one point,
(07:26):
mister Presento gets hit, and so mister Pardo drops the
perpetrator and runs in and calls the police. By the
time he comes back out, the two men are gone
and mister Burzeno is on the ground and has been shot.
He died a little bit later. Within ten minutes of
everything starting. The police were there, and mister Pardo spent
(07:48):
a couple of hours that night with law enforcement, and
they got composite sketches of each of the suspects that night.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Pardo also said that the assailant heat caught was wearing
green leather jacket and police began to canvass the area
looking for suspects. Meanwhile, Jennifer and her friends were just
up the hill from the Burrito Express.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Throughout the evening, we were watching out the back window
of that house. We saw detectives putting you know, the
yellow markers on the ground for the different things that
they were finding. I ended up not driving home that
night because I was scared. I called my mother and
told her, you know, something was going on in this area.
I'm gonna go ahead and stay here for the night.
It was the four of us. The mother came home
from work, she worked at a gas station nearby the house.
(08:31):
There was a couple of younger kids there, you know,
and we were just in the house actually watching the
news of the scene of the crime in what was
going on. Of course you're interested, and it's you know,
happening right behind you. And then we all eventually went
to sleep. While we were sleeping, mc henry police were
doing canvassing of the neighborhood and when they had came
to the house, they asked for the people's IDs who
(08:52):
were in the house. I was sleeping and they were
given to my id out of my purse.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
As she said, they canvassed the neighborhood and had all
the different identification and so Jennifer I think, was questioned
a couple of different times and obviously told them they
knew nothing about this. And what we've learned later is
they seemed to zero in on her friend, her co defendant,
(09:18):
Ken Smith, and I've heard that they thought he may
have gotten away with something else, another crime. He hadn't
really been in trouble before, and so I think it
just seemed like all of a sudden, they thought he's
right here behind the Burrito Express, must have done this.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
It was later discovered that mister Pardo had viewed a
photo array that contained photos of Jennifer's co defendants, but
did not identify them. It's believed that he was deported
and Jennifer and her friends remained the focus of the investigation.
The police theory was that Jennifer and perhaps David Collette,
(09:56):
drove Ken Smith and Justin Hoftling to the Burrito Express
before the crime, and may or may not have known
what the assailants had planned, and they brought Jennifer in
on May eleventh, two thousand and one to take a polygraph.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
I went in willingly. It was to mckenry County detectives,
a round the beach police officer who was actually a
friend of the family and family yes, and was accompanying
me in this situation, assuring my mother they just want
to talk to her. You know, you don't need a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Don't worry. Her mother specifically asked if she needed to
get her a lawyer. Yes, you're told that if you
have nothing to hide, why would you need a lawyer,
And that is so incorrect. Make sure that you have
representation as you're trying to be helpful to the police.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
But there was another factor at play here.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
I was diagnosed with bipolar and manic depression, so I
was on medication. Before I went into the light detective test,
I was given a dose of one of my medications,
which was clanipin, so clonopin is a sleep aid.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
After that or she had the light detector test, there
were only four questions asked. After that, they come out
and say a couple answers were highly suspicious, and so
then they start trying to what really happened? What really happened?
They didn't believe her. They didn't believe her.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
By two thousand and one, polygraphs were no longer admissible
in court. And when law enforcement tells the subject that
they failed or their answers were suspicious, this serves to
arm interrogators with a pseudo scientific reason why their subjects
denials just cannot be believed.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
We get back to mckenry County Police Department. They take
me into almost like a boardroom with long tables, big
screen TV. They pop in a VHS and it was
footage of the smoke shop, which was called Cloud nine.
And the footage did show one of my co defendants
in their shopping around, which did happen that night We
(11:57):
did go to the smoke shop. So they asked me
to identify who was on the tape. I did so.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
It was David Collette on video at seven thirty eight pm. Importantly,
they were all still together at Jennifer's ordeal continued.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Another detective comes in that that I hadn't met that
day yet, So it becomes three detectives in myself in.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
The room, multiple mail, law enforcement officers, no parent, no attorney, nothing, and.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
He basically just started saying, this is what we want
you to say, tell us what we want to hear,
and you can go home. We know you didn't have
anything to do with it. Just give us this name
and all this can be done and over with. And
as I keep saying, we didn't commit this crime, I
don't know you know what you want me to say.
I don't know what you're talking about, Like this isn't right,
you know. Sorry.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
At any time, you know, an attorney could have said
this is not going to go on anymore. She kept
asking to go home and thought she was going to
go home, and they kept saying, oh, we will take
you home, you know, until it gets longer and longer again.
Social science study shows people's defenses start to break down
after about an hour and a half.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
This went on for over fourteen hours, as they kept drilling,
starting and stopping recording. Just tell us what we want
to hear and you can go. I just remember being
in a daze from the medication, not understanding, just wanting
it to be over with.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Oftentimes people they'll say anything just to get out of
the situation, thinking well, we'll get out of the situation,
and then they'll find out the evidence and it'll show
that I didn't do it. You know, they'll go get
the actual perpetrators, right.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
So eventually one of them sat with like a yellow
legal pad and he would write down descriptions of things
that happened in the crime. Even drew a picture of
like the gun that was used and kind of like
a description of it. And he said, if there's anything
at you mess up on, you can glance over here
at this legal tablet. And every time I didn't get
(13:57):
something great, you would shut off the camera recording and
just start screaming. And then I just couldn't take any more,
and I told them what they wanted to hear, just
that we can be over with. I just wanted to
go home.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
You're listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen to this
and all the Lava for Good podcasts one week early
and ad free by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus
on Apple Podcasts. In a videotape statement that ended around
ten ten pm, Jennifer said that she saw police activity
(14:49):
in the area, then lent her card to her three friends.
Then they returned and admitted to the shooting. But why
would there be police activity before the alleged assailants even
left to commit the crime that makes absolutely no sense.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
There are two different videotape interrogations. In the first one,
she starts breaking down and giving them information, but again
highly unreliable. They take a break and while they said
they did not give her medication until after the second interrogation,
the video stops recording, but on the audio you hear
a man say, do you want coffee with your medication?
(15:27):
And then the false confession from that first videotape wasn't
really accurate, So then they do another videotape and they
get the confession that ends up being used at her trial,
which is more accurate. But again none of the withheld
facts from the crime. Did she know? Did her code
defendants know? Had no idea.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Often police will withhold information from the public in order
to better assess the credibility of witnesses. In this case,
there were two details well, that mister Persseno had a
head injury that was consistent with being histol whipped, and
two that mister Persseno had yelled to a passing car
to call nine one one. Jennifer mentioned neither. Instead, she
(16:08):
placed herself in the car, alleging that all three of
her co defendants had participated, and that only one wore
a mask, directly contradicting the known facts of the crime.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
I remember falling asleep in the corner of the interrogation room.
I remember a blanket being thrown on me. The next morning,
I woke up in a holding cell. I woke up
to a detective throwing a bag of McDonald's breakfast at
me and saying, you need to get up. We're charging
you with first degree murder.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
They shackled me, put me in a squad car, and
took me to mckenry County Jail.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
The following day, they arrested fifteen year old Justin Hoftling,
who informed the police that he was on hallucinogenic drugs,
but they interrogated him anyway. The buck I'm sorry. He
maintained his innocence, but changed his story when he was
told a lie that all three of his friends, not
(17:04):
just Jennifer, had made incriminating statements and that if he
did too, he could make a deal. He said that
Jennifer drove him and Smith to the Burrito Express and
they committed the robbery homicide.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Her co defendant, who was fifteen, gave a very unreliable confession,
didn't have any of the facts correct. When they gave
him choices of the gun, he chose an automatic, not
a twenty deal. Yes, yeah, he was under the influence
of drugs too during his false confession.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Justin Hoftling was facing potentially sixty seven years in prison,
and so he accepted a twenty year sentence. David Colette
accepted five years to testify that Jennifer drove all three
of them to the Burrito Express where he split from
Ken and Justin and did not participate. But before anyone
appeared in court, the mother of an alternate suspect came
(17:55):
forward and pointed the finger at her own daughter.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Was never disclosed to Jennifer's trial council was there was
an alternate suspect group that had repeatedly confessed to family
and friends of committing this crime. In November of two
thousand and one, the mom called in to the police
and she says, my daughter told me you have the
wrong people. That her daughter was driving in the car
(18:22):
and saw her friends run into the Brito Express and
then saw them run out, and the owner yelled at
her to call the police.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
She also said that her daughter saw the person that
was doing the shooting come back and hit mister Bresento
in the head with the butt of the gun to
knock him over to let go of his friend. That's
two pieces of information about the crime that they withheld
from the public to corroborate confessions.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
The daughter's name is Suzanne de Chico and her friend's
names are Russell Levon and Adam Hyland.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
The alternate suspect was at her mom and stepdad's home,
which was also close to the Brito Express And because
it was a bloody struggle, the alternate suspect got cut
up on his shins from the ice, but also his
hand got a cut from the knife, and they end
up burning their clothes because there's so much blood. And
eight weeks to ten weeks later, they took her card
over the board in Wisconsin and torched the car because
(19:21):
they couldn't get the blood out from the back seat
of the car. Jennifer's car. In twenty twenty still, when
we were going in for DNA testing, it was still
impounded by the police. They had it in their custody,
you know. Nineteen years later, they never found anything in
the car because it wasn't nothing was in there, right,
So you have this mother calling in. She identifies the
(19:43):
two friends of her daughter's and her daughter her daughter
has confessed to other.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
People, and the police didn't just ignore this tip.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
When this mother called in, she also said they stole
my husband's gun. Then they tested that gun and found
that the bullet that was taken from mister Zunno's body
matched five of the six grooves, but they couldn't say
it definitively matched, but it had a crack in the handle,
which her daughter talked about him hitting mister Bresento in
(20:11):
the forehead with the butt of the gun to get
him to let go of his front.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
When it comes to ballistics testing, guns can only be
definitively ruled out not matched, to the exclusion of all
of the guns on the planet. But with the cracked
handle and matching mother daughter confessions, it appears that this
crime basically solved itself. Even still, police and prosecutors hid
(20:35):
this information from the defense and put Justin Hoffling and
David Collette on the stand of Jennifer's trial in March
two thousand and two. But theirs and Jennifer's stories were
inconsistent with each other. As well as inconsistent with reality,
which naturally raised doubts.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
So it was last day of the trial, the jury
was arguing they couldn't come to a decision. The judge
I had Arnold stated to the jury that they had
to hurry up and come up with the decision, and
the jury was brought in and I was found guilty.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
You see on the sentencing documents stating that she did
not participate in the planning or carrying out of this,
that she wasn't a threat to society, that she'd never
been in trouble with the law, but because she drove them,
he sentenced her harshly to twenty seven years in prison.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
And the crazy irony is that the people that she
drove also had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Yes, exactly, although of course law enforcement said her friends
committed this crime.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Even if that were true, that would mean that if
you at home speaking to everybody who's listening for me,
or you were just sitting in our car and a
couple of friends come up and go, hey, can I
get a ride down the block, and you give them
a ride, not knowing that they may have done anything,
you can now be convicted. A sense to twenty seven
(21:57):
years in prison.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
Twenty seven years straight through, no good days, no credit
for school, no contracts for good time, straight through.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
I hope it's making everybody else's angry as it makes me,
because it's absurd. It's actually absurd. But the other thing
about this that I got to go back to is
the fact that they had to have known because of
this conscientious mom. There should be so much credibility in
that phone call. Yes, and she had the accurate information, yes,
(22:28):
but Jennifer didn't right and her code events confession was
wrong in different ways exactly. So the jury comes back
and finds you guilty.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yes, as he read the verdict, I remember watching the
judge like everything was in slow motion, and I turned
around and looked at my mom, and I just saw
fum and disbelief. And then they took people away, being
(23:10):
in prison and being innocent of the crime that you're
convicted of. One time I told somebody, I've never felt
so alone around so many people. When you go through
something like this, it's like you go through stages like, Okay,
I know I'm wrongfully convicted, but at nineteen, they're sending
me to an adult max women's facility. I have to
(23:32):
prepare myself for this. You finally get there and you're like, Okay,
I'm here. I don't know what's going on. I know
that I'm innocent. Now I have to take this next step,
this next stage, and the stages you went through before that.
You never heal from any of it because you're just
facing the next one, facing the next one, trying to
get through every day, trying to get you know, and
(23:53):
it's all on you to figure out what you're going
to do every day to help yourself get through it.
Cooling programs, different things that you can do to stay sane.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
While Jennifer was Brave in prison, the evidence about the
alternate suspect was coming out during Ken Smith's first trial,
and her appellate council used that evidence, albeit unsuccessfully.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
So Jennifer had been represented up to a point and
then her case was basically dormant. But all along, her
co defendant, Ken Smith, who they alleged was the actual shooter,
was tried by McHenry County three different times. As we
go in and litigate cases, defense attorneys and prosecutors are
making motions to bring stuff in, keep stuff out. His
(24:38):
convictions kept getting overturned by the appellate court immediately because
evidence kept being left out.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Importantly, the ballistics testing for Suzanne to Chico's step father's
twenty two caliber rifle came to light, as well as
even more confessions from Suzanne to Chico.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
She was in trouble often with the law. They knew her.
They were talking to her about something else, and she
told two different police officers about this and they didn't
take her seriously. They said she was bragging and trying
to get street cred.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
And it appears that Justin Hoftling also had a guilty conscience.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Yes, he wrote Jennifer four months later apologizing for lying
he wouldn't testify against her co defendant Ken Smith in
his first trial. That trial got overturned. They go to
retry him again in the second trial. He gets on
the stand and gives his false confession. On cross examination,
he admits that he just lied, that Ken didn't do this.
(25:37):
They didn't do this, but he had to stick with
his false confession or they were going to revoke his
plea deal. They then prosecute him for perjury and he
gets five and a half more years.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
The judge also blocked any evidence implicating the alternate suspects,
even though Adam Hyland had allegedly confessed to his roommate
and to others.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
And the roommate said, you need to talk to an
attorney and took him to see a defense attorney, and
he told the defense attorney, with his roommate sitting there,
me and my friend did this. We were trying to
rob the Brito Express. And the defense attorney told him
to be quiet, don't say anything. They already have other
people for this crime.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
How do we know all that?
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Well, in her co defendant's third trial, the roommate got
on the stand and under oath testified to that.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
However, at Smith's third trial in twenty twelve, once again
amount of evidence corroborating the alternate suspects was not admitted.
But even with that, it's still surprising that the jury
once again convicted and sent Ken away for sixty seven years.
When law enforcement just too kind to say they botch
it when they really cover it up for the actual perpetrators.
(26:46):
That means our tax dollars are paying these people to
work in service of the actual people who committed these crimes.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Yes, well, and we know in this case that these
alternate suspects have gone on to commit multiple crimes. McHenry
has prosecuted them over and over and in something out
of a movie that you couldn't script. When we went
into ru the DNA motion, the alternate suspect, who were
pretty certain was the shooter, was being arraigned on drug
induced homicide charges same day in the same court, and.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
That homicide happened after that.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Oh, this was twenty twenty. We're in there, but they've
prosecuted him over and over for multiple crimes. He's been
in and out of prison, as has the other alternate suspect.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Right, had they done even a fraction of their jobs,
these other people who were harmed or killed by these
two guys would have never met those fates. Right, And
the PRESENTO family, the part of family, is deprived of
justice as well.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
Unfortunately, they do not know all of the new evidence
that we have, and so they only know what they're told.
And the state's attorney and the prosecutors are certain that
they still got the right people despite her co defendants exoneration,
and so you know, they think that we're trying to
just pin it on someone else. I mean, you know,
(28:06):
they which is too bad. You know, the DNA testing
that we did in twenty twenty one of the crime
scene evidence, the knife, the clothing. Of course we all
know Jennifer's going to be excluded, but all three co
defendants all excluded, and you know there was that close
tussle and they're dragging him the knife. But there's one
unknown male DNA that is in there that has not
(28:27):
been compared to the alternate suspect standards. They won't always see.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
That time and again. Yeah, so then how did you
end up connecting with the Illinois ANISIS project.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
I found a paralegal out of Lincoln, Illinois by the
name of Fonda Robbins, So I contacted her. I sent
her paperwork copies of everything I had, which I had
done multiple times, you know, to different pro bono lawyers,
different states. I went through years and years of doing that,
and finally Fonda Robbins contacted me and I got blessed
(29:00):
with the contact information to mister John Hanlin.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
He was our executive director. He's still working with us
on cases, but he retired from the executive director role.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Some months had went by, and all of a sudden
I got a call to go up to the visiting room,
which was a surprise to me. My visits with family
were always planned because they live so far away. So
I get up there, go through the whole strip search situation,
get in there, and this man comes around the corner
and he says, Jennifer, my name is John Hanlin, and
(29:30):
I worked with the Illinois Innocence Project. We then went
into a private room and as I turned the corner,
I want to say, there was about six or seven
people there, including students, supporters, and other attorneys there just
to listen and to help.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Finally, John started on her case and I joined the
project about a year and a half later, and he
brought me on to Jennifer's case and turn it over
to me. So I started in twenty nineteen on her case.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
I mean, you got busy.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
We did, and you know, interestingly, we filed that DNA
motion and actually were in court same day with the
alternate suspect argued it right the day before the courts
shut down with COVID to get evidence shipped out for
DNA testing. So we get the DNA results April twenty
twenty one, and that's the point where the state comes
(30:20):
and offers Jennifer a plea deal.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
What did that look like.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
We expected that she would be exonerated, that they would say, look,
we got it wrong, she needs to be released, and
they said, no, we got it right. With Ken three
juries convicted him. It didn't matter that they kept not
hearing all the evidence, and so they said, but she's
already spent way too long in prison. Even if she's
guilty for what you know she was convicted of, it's
been way too long. It was a harsh sentence. So
(30:47):
if she will plead guilty to armed violence, which again
she never participated in the crime, we'll let her out
for time served. But if she resumes her post conviction
litigation to prove her innocence, we will revoke her plea
deal and she will be returned to prison, even though
they've said she's already spent way too long in prison.
(31:08):
And so she had this hard decision. So we told her,
you can either take this deal and get out immediately,
but you're going to have this Class X felony of
armed violence on your record, or we're going to keep
representing you and will file your successive post conviction petition
and litigate your innocence. But you're going to be sitting
in prison for at least another few years.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
It's like a Sophie's choice. Yeah, right.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
So I lost my mom eight years into my incarceration.
I was actually released on her birthday. A big part
of me taking the plea was being home to help
my family. I had already saw my mother in a
casket shackled from head to toe. About six years ago,
my father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia, and I wanted
to make it home and for him to see me
(31:54):
home before he didn't know who I was, so I
was so thankful for that. Going to court that day
was it was a hard decision.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
You know.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
At first, when I gave my false confession, people would say, well,
why would you do that if you really didn't commit
this crime. You don't know what it feels like until
you're going through it. And even now they said, well,
why would you plead guilty to that charge if you're innocent,
if you didn't commit this crime. Again, you don't know
what it feels like. But going to court that day
(32:26):
was it was hard at having to be guilty to
something I didn't do. Yeah, you know, as they're reading,
you know the description of the crime and what went on,
and my soul called role. I just stood there and cried,
you know, standing next to my lawyers.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
You accept this play. It's a bittersweet, obviously, but you're
calling home.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
When I left from mckenry County, I was nineteen years old,
going to prison, coming back to mckenry to get released,
I was almost forty, and as I walked into the
bullpins and entering you know, the county jail, I had
officers who became sergeants and lieutenants throughout the years that
I was, you know, incarcerated, and they said, finally the
(33:09):
truth is coming out and you guys are going home.
Everybody all these years has known the truth, and you know,
has known that you guys, you didn't come at this crime.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
I mean, we obviously wanted to see the day when
the full exoneration comes to pass.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
Our only option now is clemency, which we filed and
presented a clemency petition to the Prisoner Review Board in
January on her behalf. Because that's not a legal proceeding.
That is Jennifer's only way to be exonerated.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
A pardon, yes, and you ritually deserve one, so can
people write somewhere.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Write to Governor Pritzker, because we have, as I said,
presented her clemency petition to the Prisoner Review Board and
they will be making a recommendation, but he's the one
who ultimately will make that decision.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
So we'll have like a sample letter in the episode description.
Will make it easy for you. I know it sounds
like what do I write? What do I write? Too,
We're going to make it easy. Go to the episode
description and we'll have everything you need to write a letter.
And with that, now we turn to my favorite part
of the show, which is called closing arguments, and it
works like this. First of all, I thank you both
(34:17):
once again, and I now have the privilege of just
listening to anything else you want to say.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
First of all, just I want to thank you so
much Jason for asking us here and highlighting Jennifer's story.
You know, it's a privilege for us to get to
share her story. You know, one thing I'd like to
say is when these wrongful convictions happen. You know, as
we take on these cases, we're very cognizant of the
fact that you have someone who is a victim of
(34:43):
a crime. Before we take on a case. We do
so much investigation and testing to make sure because what
happens when someone's wrongfully convicted, You now have another victim
of a crime, and the original victim never got true
justice because the real perpetrators are still out there and
often committing other crimes. And so it's really important that
we represent these people that are wrongfully convicted, and I
(35:07):
want victims of crimes to understand that's what we're doing.
We are not trying to get perpetrators out of jail.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
She was a.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Victim herself and we want justice, and real justice is
getting the true perpetrators in crime and getting innocent people
out of prison.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
Jennifer, it's an honor to be here. I want to
thank everybody tremendously for the work that you do, all
the innocence projects around the world, because if it wasn't
for you guys, we wouldn't be here, and all the
hard work that you do. Been a long journey, good days,
bad days, but I'm here taking it one day at
a time, and I just appreciate life so much more.
(35:46):
And if there was one thing that I could tell
everybody's it can happen to anybody, and it happens more
than people know. I met people every day, you know,
where different things went on in their case, and they
just didn't have the strength to fight, you know. But
I knew that I had to keep on fighting. Another
big thing is know your rights when it comes to interrogations. Lawyers,
(36:08):
Miranda Wrights, you.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Know, get the knowledge behind it.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
I know that if I knew and I understood at
a young age, I don't think that they would have
went that far.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
week early by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus on
Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our production team, Connor
Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well as my fellow executive
producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and Jeff Cliburn. The music
in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
(36:45):
composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us across all
social media platforms at Lava for Good and at Wrongful Conviction.
You can also follow me on Instagram at It's Jason Flamm.
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts.
And association with signal Company number one
The following interview was recorded in person at the twenty
twenty four Innocent Network Conference in New Orleans. On March sixth,
two thousand and one, in McHenry, Illinois, two masked men,
one armed with a twenty two, attempted to rob a
Mexican takeout joy, but the owner grabbed a butcher knife
(00:22):
and his employee followed. As they chased the men out,
they caught one of the assailants and removed his mask.
The other assailant turned around, ripped off his mask and
opened fire, fatally shooting the owner and the surviving employee
ran back inside to call the police. The police canvass
(00:43):
the area and discovered four young people in a house
up the street, including a young woman named Jennifer McMullen. Eventually,
she and two of her friends confessed to a role
in the robbery homicide. But this is wrongful conviction. Wrongful
(01:06):
conviction has always given voice to innocent people in prison,
and now we're expanding that voice to you. Call us
at eight three three, two oh seven four six sixty
six and tell us how these stories make you feel
and what you've done to help the cause, even if
it's something as simple as telling a friend or sharing
on social media, and you might just hear yourself in
(01:28):
a future episode. Call us eight three three, two oh
seven four six sixty six. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction.
Today's story is it's like something out of a Quentin
(01:48):
Tarantino movie, and the investigation, if you can call it, that,
is like something out of The Three Stooges or Keystone
Cops or something much more sinister. First of all, we
have I don't know why this is first time, but
for the first time, we have the co director of
the Illinois Innocence Project, Stephanie Cammell. She's been hiding out
from us while some of her colleagues have been on
(02:08):
the show multiple times. But it's overdue. But I'm really
honored to have you here.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Thank you so much for having us and for profiling
Jennifer's case. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
You go, don't embarrass you, but you're kind of a
legend in this space, so you know, it's really great
to have you here. And I'm very lucky and honored
to have the person here who lived through this ordeal,
Jennifer McMullin. Thanks for being here. Welcome to Ronful Conviction.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
And I always say I'm so happy you're here, but
I'm sorry you're here because you should have never been
on this show in the first place. This is this
case came with instructions. You were only nineteen when this
happened and the top of what your life was like
because you were a law abiding, sort of normal person.
You were born where.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
Oh, Libertyville, Illinois.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Libertyville ALLNOI it sounds very all American.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
It is.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Is it like one traffic light like that kind of place.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
I mean, it's it's a busy small town. But yeah,
it's an amazing place. I was born there and grew
up around Lake Beach with my stepfather and mother, only child,
three older siblings. The eldest is my brother, and then
the other two are sisters. There's ten years difference between
me and the next daughter. So they were all out
and getting married and having families, and I was the oops.
(03:21):
I came ten years later, so growing up in my teens,
I was the only one in the house. But yeah,
it was a great childhood. Never in trouble, was always
in sports, softball, soccer, competitive cheer, and dance. Sports was
definitely a passion for me got it.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Okay, So it sounds like a nice childhood. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Absolutely, I had an amazing childhood, amazing parents, siblings, family.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
It was great and quite an athletic resume you have
there as well as someone who didn't make the sports
teams in high school. I'm a little jealous, but you know,
I'm going to let that slide. That's why I played
the guitar and smoked pot instead. But that's a different podcast.
We're not going to talk about that now. But anyway, okay,
So then let's go to this crime. Okay. This was
(04:04):
on March six of two thousand and one. Two masked
men attempted to rob a small restaurant in McHenry, Illinois,
right a burrito express. The owner, welding a butcher knife
and his employee chased the two men out of the restaurant,
and an ensuing chase, the owner was shot and killed. Jennifer,
you stumbled onto this scene right, so to speak. I
mean you were talk about wrong place, wrong time. Absolutely
(04:27):
tell us how you came upon this chaotic and terrifying
scene and then how you eventually got implicated.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Definitely. So that day, I remember I had got a
call from one of my friends who needed to find
somebody to borrow a laptop, so I called another friend
who I knew had one. So I went and grabbed
my three code defendants. We headed out to Twin Lakes, Wisconsin.
You know, just young listening to music and join a
car ride. Get to Twin Lakes. We end up finding
(04:55):
out that my friend wasn't allowed to loan out her laptop.
I think, we say they're about fifty minutes, you know,
just chit chatting, and then we were on our way,
the four of us again, and headed it out to mckenry, Illinois,
where one of my co defendants had a very close
family friend who lived out there.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Our listeners may remember mckenry, Illinois from the story of
Mario Kasharo, whose lead detective was a former failed hardware
store stock boy. Yeah. I know it sounds crazy, but
it's true. And it's the same prosecutorial team Combs and
Kanneely who prosecuted Mario three separate times while having more
(05:32):
evidence supporting an alternative narrative. And we're going to have
that incredible episode linked in the episode description because Jennifer's
case bears such a strong resemblance as.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
We're going into mckenry, we heard like a lot of commotion,
ambulance squad cars. We ended up going to a smoke
shop dispensary type place. Only one code defendant went in
and the rest of us stayed in the car. From
there we went to another co defendant's friend's house, which
ended up being right in the vicinity of the Brito Express.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Jennifer's friends and later co defendants Kenneth Smith, Justin Hoftling,
and David Collette. Their sole connection to the situation was
that they arrived at their friend's house near the Burrito
Express in the aftermath of this robbery turned homicide that
occurred around seven to twenty pm the same evening.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Two masked men came into the Brito Express. No one
was in there except the owner of all Presento and
his employee at Wardo Pardo, and they were in the
back and the first mask man had a twenty two
caliber gun and they were attempting to rob the Brito Express.
Mister Briseno took the butcher knife and started chasing them,
(06:41):
with mister Pardo following right behind him. They chased them out. Now,
this is March in northern Illinois. There's ice, it's cold,
and one of the perpetrators slips on the ice and falls,
and so mister Pardo grabs him, takes off his mask
so he gets a good look at him and starts
dragging him back to the restaurant. Mister Briseno, the owner,
(07:06):
has yelled at a passing car to call the police,
and the perpetrator starts yelling to his friend because he's
now been caught. The friend turns around and removes his
mask and starts shooting. He's trying to get him to
let his friend go, and mister Preseno and Pardo are
dragging him back to the Brito Express. At one point,
(07:26):
mister Presento gets hit, and so mister Pardo drops the
perpetrator and runs in and calls the police. By the
time he comes back out, the two men are gone
and mister Burzeno is on the ground and has been shot.
He died a little bit later. Within ten minutes of
everything starting. The police were there, and mister Pardo spent
(07:48):
a couple of hours that night with law enforcement, and
they got composite sketches of each of the suspects that night.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Pardo also said that the assailant heat caught was wearing
green leather jacket and police began to canvass the area
looking for suspects. Meanwhile, Jennifer and her friends were just
up the hill from the Burrito Express.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Throughout the evening, we were watching out the back window
of that house. We saw detectives putting you know, the
yellow markers on the ground for the different things that
they were finding. I ended up not driving home that
night because I was scared. I called my mother and
told her, you know, something was going on in this area.
I'm gonna go ahead and stay here for the night.
It was the four of us. The mother came home
from work, she worked at a gas station nearby the house.
(08:31):
There was a couple of younger kids there, you know,
and we were just in the house actually watching the
news of the scene of the crime in what was
going on. Of course you're interested, and it's you know,
happening right behind you. And then we all eventually went
to sleep. While we were sleeping, mc henry police were
doing canvassing of the neighborhood and when they had came
to the house, they asked for the people's IDs who
(08:52):
were in the house. I was sleeping and they were
given to my id out of my purse.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
As she said, they canvassed the neighborhood and had all
the different identification and so Jennifer I think, was questioned
a couple of different times and obviously told them they
knew nothing about this. And what we've learned later is
they seemed to zero in on her friend, her co defendant,
(09:18):
Ken Smith, and I've heard that they thought he may
have gotten away with something else, another crime. He hadn't
really been in trouble before, and so I think it
just seemed like all of a sudden, they thought he's
right here behind the Burrito Express, must have done this.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
It was later discovered that mister Pardo had viewed a
photo array that contained photos of Jennifer's co defendants, but
did not identify them. It's believed that he was deported
and Jennifer and her friends remained the focus of the investigation.
The police theory was that Jennifer and perhaps David Collette,
(09:56):
drove Ken Smith and Justin Hoftling to the Burrito Express
before the crime, and may or may not have known
what the assailants had planned, and they brought Jennifer in
on May eleventh, two thousand and one to take a polygraph.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
I went in willingly. It was to mckenry County detectives,
a round the beach police officer who was actually a
friend of the family and family yes, and was accompanying
me in this situation, assuring my mother they just want
to talk to her. You know, you don't need a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Don't worry. Her mother specifically asked if she needed to
get her a lawyer. Yes, you're told that if you
have nothing to hide, why would you need a lawyer,
And that is so incorrect. Make sure that you have
representation as you're trying to be helpful to the police.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
But there was another factor at play here.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
I was diagnosed with bipolar and manic depression, so I
was on medication. Before I went into the light detective test,
I was given a dose of one of my medications,
which was clanipin, so clonopin is a sleep aid.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
After that or she had the light detector test, there
were only four questions asked. After that, they come out
and say a couple answers were highly suspicious, and so
then they start trying to what really happened? What really happened?
They didn't believe her. They didn't believe her.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
By two thousand and one, polygraphs were no longer admissible
in court. And when law enforcement tells the subject that
they failed or their answers were suspicious, this serves to
arm interrogators with a pseudo scientific reason why their subjects
denials just cannot be believed.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
We get back to mckenry County Police Department. They take
me into almost like a boardroom with long tables, big
screen TV. They pop in a VHS and it was
footage of the smoke shop, which was called Cloud nine.
And the footage did show one of my co defendants
in their shopping around, which did happen that night We
(11:57):
did go to the smoke shop. So they asked me
to identify who was on the tape. I did so.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
It was David Collette on video at seven thirty eight pm. Importantly,
they were all still together at Jennifer's ordeal continued.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Another detective comes in that that I hadn't met that
day yet, So it becomes three detectives in myself in.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
The room, multiple mail, law enforcement officers, no parent, no attorney, nothing, and.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
He basically just started saying, this is what we want
you to say, tell us what we want to hear,
and you can go home. We know you didn't have
anything to do with it. Just give us this name
and all this can be done and over with. And
as I keep saying, we didn't commit this crime, I
don't know you know what you want me to say.
I don't know what you're talking about, Like this isn't right,
you know. Sorry.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
At any time, you know, an attorney could have said
this is not going to go on anymore. She kept
asking to go home and thought she was going to
go home, and they kept saying, oh, we will take
you home, you know, until it gets longer and longer again.
Social science study shows people's defenses start to break down
after about an hour and a half.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
This went on for over fourteen hours, as they kept drilling,
starting and stopping recording. Just tell us what we want
to hear and you can go. I just remember being
in a daze from the medication, not understanding, just wanting
it to be over with.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Oftentimes people they'll say anything just to get out of
the situation, thinking well, we'll get out of the situation,
and then they'll find out the evidence and it'll show
that I didn't do it. You know, they'll go get
the actual perpetrators, right.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
So eventually one of them sat with like a yellow
legal pad and he would write down descriptions of things
that happened in the crime. Even drew a picture of
like the gun that was used and kind of like
a description of it. And he said, if there's anything
at you mess up on, you can glance over here
at this legal tablet. And every time I didn't get
(13:57):
something great, you would shut off the camera recording and
just start screaming. And then I just couldn't take any more,
and I told them what they wanted to hear, just
that we can be over with. I just wanted to
go home.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
You're listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen to this
and all the Lava for Good podcasts one week early
and ad free by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus
on Apple Podcasts. In a videotape statement that ended around
ten ten pm, Jennifer said that she saw police activity
(14:49):
in the area, then lent her card to her three friends.
Then they returned and admitted to the shooting. But why
would there be police activity before the alleged assailants even
left to commit the crime that makes absolutely no sense.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
There are two different videotape interrogations. In the first one,
she starts breaking down and giving them information, but again
highly unreliable. They take a break and while they said
they did not give her medication until after the second interrogation,
the video stops recording, but on the audio you hear
a man say, do you want coffee with your medication?
(15:27):
And then the false confession from that first videotape wasn't
really accurate, So then they do another videotape and they
get the confession that ends up being used at her trial,
which is more accurate. But again none of the withheld
facts from the crime. Did she know? Did her code
defendants know? Had no idea.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Often police will withhold information from the public in order
to better assess the credibility of witnesses. In this case,
there were two details well, that mister Persseno had a
head injury that was consistent with being histol whipped, and
two that mister Persseno had yelled to a passing car
to call nine one one. Jennifer mentioned neither. Instead, she
(16:08):
placed herself in the car, alleging that all three of
her co defendants had participated, and that only one wore
a mask, directly contradicting the known facts of the crime.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
I remember falling asleep in the corner of the interrogation room.
I remember a blanket being thrown on me. The next morning,
I woke up in a holding cell. I woke up
to a detective throwing a bag of McDonald's breakfast at
me and saying, you need to get up. We're charging
you with first degree murder.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
They shackled me, put me in a squad car, and
took me to mckenry County Jail.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
The following day, they arrested fifteen year old Justin Hoftling,
who informed the police that he was on hallucinogenic drugs,
but they interrogated him anyway. The buck I'm sorry. He
maintained his innocence, but changed his story when he was
told a lie that all three of his friends, not
(17:04):
just Jennifer, had made incriminating statements and that if he
did too, he could make a deal. He said that
Jennifer drove him and Smith to the Burrito Express and
they committed the robbery homicide.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Her co defendant, who was fifteen, gave a very unreliable confession,
didn't have any of the facts correct. When they gave
him choices of the gun, he chose an automatic, not
a twenty deal. Yes, yeah, he was under the influence
of drugs too during his false confession.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Justin Hoftling was facing potentially sixty seven years in prison,
and so he accepted a twenty year sentence. David Colette
accepted five years to testify that Jennifer drove all three
of them to the Burrito Express where he split from
Ken and Justin and did not participate. But before anyone
appeared in court, the mother of an alternate suspect came
(17:55):
forward and pointed the finger at her own daughter.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Was never disclosed to Jennifer's trial council was there was
an alternate suspect group that had repeatedly confessed to family
and friends of committing this crime. In November of two
thousand and one, the mom called in to the police
and she says, my daughter told me you have the
wrong people. That her daughter was driving in the car
(18:22):
and saw her friends run into the Brito Express and
then saw them run out, and the owner yelled at
her to call the police.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
She also said that her daughter saw the person that
was doing the shooting come back and hit mister Bresento
in the head with the butt of the gun to
knock him over to let go of his friend. That's
two pieces of information about the crime that they withheld
from the public to corroborate confessions.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
The daughter's name is Suzanne de Chico and her friend's
names are Russell Levon and Adam Hyland.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
The alternate suspect was at her mom and stepdad's home,
which was also close to the Brito Express And because
it was a bloody struggle, the alternate suspect got cut
up on his shins from the ice, but also his
hand got a cut from the knife, and they end
up burning their clothes because there's so much blood. And
eight weeks to ten weeks later, they took her card
over the board in Wisconsin and torched the car because
(19:21):
they couldn't get the blood out from the back seat
of the car. Jennifer's car. In twenty twenty still, when
we were going in for DNA testing, it was still
impounded by the police. They had it in their custody,
you know. Nineteen years later, they never found anything in
the car because it wasn't nothing was in there, right,
So you have this mother calling in. She identifies the
(19:43):
two friends of her daughter's and her daughter her daughter
has confessed to other.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
People, and the police didn't just ignore this tip.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
When this mother called in, she also said they stole
my husband's gun. Then they tested that gun and found
that the bullet that was taken from mister Zunno's body
matched five of the six grooves, but they couldn't say
it definitively matched, but it had a crack in the handle,
which her daughter talked about him hitting mister Bresento in
(20:11):
the forehead with the butt of the gun to get
him to let go of his front.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
When it comes to ballistics testing, guns can only be
definitively ruled out not matched, to the exclusion of all
of the guns on the planet. But with the cracked
handle and matching mother daughter confessions, it appears that this
crime basically solved itself. Even still, police and prosecutors hid
(20:35):
this information from the defense and put Justin Hoffling and
David Collette on the stand of Jennifer's trial in March
two thousand and two. But theirs and Jennifer's stories were
inconsistent with each other. As well as inconsistent with reality,
which naturally raised doubts.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
So it was last day of the trial, the jury
was arguing they couldn't come to a decision. The judge
I had Arnold stated to the jury that they had
to hurry up and come up with the decision, and
the jury was brought in and I was found guilty.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
You see on the sentencing documents stating that she did
not participate in the planning or carrying out of this,
that she wasn't a threat to society, that she'd never
been in trouble with the law, but because she drove them,
he sentenced her harshly to twenty seven years in prison.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
And the crazy irony is that the people that she
drove also had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Yes, exactly, although of course law enforcement said her friends
committed this crime.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Even if that were true, that would mean that if
you at home speaking to everybody who's listening for me,
or you were just sitting in our car and a
couple of friends come up and go, hey, can I
get a ride down the block, and you give them
a ride, not knowing that they may have done anything,
you can now be convicted. A sense to twenty seven
(21:57):
years in prison.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
Twenty seven years straight through, no good days, no credit
for school, no contracts for good time, straight through.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
I hope it's making everybody else's angry as it makes me,
because it's absurd. It's actually absurd. But the other thing
about this that I got to go back to is
the fact that they had to have known because of
this conscientious mom. There should be so much credibility in
that phone call. Yes, and she had the accurate information, yes,
(22:28):
but Jennifer didn't right and her code events confession was
wrong in different ways exactly. So the jury comes back
and finds you guilty.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yes, as he read the verdict, I remember watching the
judge like everything was in slow motion, and I turned
around and looked at my mom, and I just saw
fum and disbelief. And then they took people away, being
(23:10):
in prison and being innocent of the crime that you're
convicted of. One time I told somebody, I've never felt
so alone around so many people. When you go through
something like this, it's like you go through stages like, Okay,
I know I'm wrongfully convicted, but at nineteen, they're sending
me to an adult max women's facility. I have to
(23:32):
prepare myself for this. You finally get there and you're like, Okay,
I'm here. I don't know what's going on. I know
that I'm innocent. Now I have to take this next step,
this next stage, and the stages you went through before that.
You never heal from any of it because you're just
facing the next one, facing the next one, trying to
get through every day, trying to get you know, and
(23:53):
it's all on you to figure out what you're going
to do every day to help yourself get through it.
Cooling programs, different things that you can do to stay sane.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
While Jennifer was Brave in prison, the evidence about the
alternate suspect was coming out during Ken Smith's first trial,
and her appellate council used that evidence, albeit unsuccessfully.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
So Jennifer had been represented up to a point and
then her case was basically dormant. But all along, her
co defendant, Ken Smith, who they alleged was the actual shooter,
was tried by McHenry County three different times. As we
go in and litigate cases, defense attorneys and prosecutors are
making motions to bring stuff in, keep stuff out. His
(24:38):
convictions kept getting overturned by the appellate court immediately because
evidence kept being left out.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Importantly, the ballistics testing for Suzanne to Chico's step father's
twenty two caliber rifle came to light, as well as
even more confessions from Suzanne to Chico.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
She was in trouble often with the law. They knew her.
They were talking to her about something else, and she
told two different police officers about this and they didn't
take her seriously. They said she was bragging and trying
to get street cred.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
And it appears that Justin Hoftling also had a guilty conscience.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Yes, he wrote Jennifer four months later apologizing for lying
he wouldn't testify against her co defendant Ken Smith in
his first trial. That trial got overturned. They go to
retry him again in the second trial. He gets on
the stand and gives his false confession. On cross examination,
he admits that he just lied, that Ken didn't do this.
(25:37):
They didn't do this, but he had to stick with
his false confession or they were going to revoke his
plea deal. They then prosecute him for perjury and he
gets five and a half more years.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
The judge also blocked any evidence implicating the alternate suspects,
even though Adam Hyland had allegedly confessed to his roommate
and to others.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
And the roommate said, you need to talk to an
attorney and took him to see a defense attorney, and
he told the defense attorney, with his roommate sitting there,
me and my friend did this. We were trying to
rob the Brito Express. And the defense attorney told him
to be quiet, don't say anything. They already have other
people for this crime.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
How do we know all that?
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Well, in her co defendant's third trial, the roommate got
on the stand and under oath testified to that.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
However, at Smith's third trial in twenty twelve, once again
amount of evidence corroborating the alternate suspects was not admitted.
But even with that, it's still surprising that the jury
once again convicted and sent Ken away for sixty seven years.
When law enforcement just too kind to say they botch
it when they really cover it up for the actual perpetrators.
(26:46):
That means our tax dollars are paying these people to
work in service of the actual people who committed these crimes.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Yes, well, and we know in this case that these
alternate suspects have gone on to commit multiple crimes. McHenry
has prosecuted them over and over and in something out
of a movie that you couldn't script. When we went
into ru the DNA motion, the alternate suspect, who were
pretty certain was the shooter, was being arraigned on drug
induced homicide charges same day in the same court, and.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
That homicide happened after that.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Oh, this was twenty twenty. We're in there, but they've
prosecuted him over and over for multiple crimes. He's been
in and out of prison, as has the other alternate suspect.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Right, had they done even a fraction of their jobs,
these other people who were harmed or killed by these
two guys would have never met those fates. Right, And
the PRESENTO family, the part of family, is deprived of
justice as well.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
Unfortunately, they do not know all of the new evidence
that we have, and so they only know what they're told.
And the state's attorney and the prosecutors are certain that
they still got the right people despite her co defendants exoneration,
and so you know, they think that we're trying to
just pin it on someone else. I mean, you know,
(28:06):
they which is too bad. You know, the DNA testing
that we did in twenty twenty one of the crime
scene evidence, the knife, the clothing. Of course we all
know Jennifer's going to be excluded, but all three co
defendants all excluded, and you know there was that close
tussle and they're dragging him the knife. But there's one
unknown male DNA that is in there that has not
(28:27):
been compared to the alternate suspect standards. They won't always see.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
That time and again. Yeah, so then how did you
end up connecting with the Illinois ANISIS project.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
I found a paralegal out of Lincoln, Illinois by the
name of Fonda Robbins, So I contacted her. I sent
her paperwork copies of everything I had, which I had
done multiple times, you know, to different pro bono lawyers,
different states. I went through years and years of doing that,
and finally Fonda Robbins contacted me and I got blessed
(29:00):
with the contact information to mister John Hanlin.
Speaker 2 (29:03):
He was our executive director. He's still working with us
on cases, but he retired from the executive director role.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Some months had went by, and all of a sudden
I got a call to go up to the visiting room,
which was a surprise to me. My visits with family
were always planned because they live so far away. So
I get up there, go through the whole strip search situation,
get in there, and this man comes around the corner
and he says, Jennifer, my name is John Hanlin, and
(29:30):
I worked with the Illinois Innocence Project. We then went
into a private room and as I turned the corner,
I want to say, there was about six or seven
people there, including students, supporters, and other attorneys there just
to listen and to help.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Finally, John started on her case and I joined the
project about a year and a half later, and he
brought me on to Jennifer's case and turn it over
to me. So I started in twenty nineteen on her case.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
I mean, you got busy.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
We did, and you know, interestingly, we filed that DNA
motion and actually were in court same day with the
alternate suspect argued it right the day before the courts
shut down with COVID to get evidence shipped out for
DNA testing. So we get the DNA results April twenty
twenty one, and that's the point where the state comes
(30:20):
and offers Jennifer a plea deal.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
What did that look like.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
We expected that she would be exonerated, that they would say, look,
we got it wrong, she needs to be released, and
they said, no, we got it right. With Ken three
juries convicted him. It didn't matter that they kept not
hearing all the evidence, and so they said, but she's
already spent way too long in prison. Even if she's
guilty for what you know she was convicted of, it's
been way too long. It was a harsh sentence. So
(30:47):
if she will plead guilty to armed violence, which again
she never participated in the crime, we'll let her out
for time served. But if she resumes her post conviction
litigation to prove her innocence, we will revoke her plea
deal and she will be returned to prison, even though
they've said she's already spent way too long in prison.
(31:08):
And so she had this hard decision. So we told her,
you can either take this deal and get out immediately,
but you're going to have this Class X felony of
armed violence on your record, or we're going to keep
representing you and will file your successive post conviction petition
and litigate your innocence. But you're going to be sitting
in prison for at least another few years.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
It's like a Sophie's choice. Yeah, right.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
So I lost my mom eight years into my incarceration.
I was actually released on her birthday. A big part
of me taking the plea was being home to help
my family. I had already saw my mother in a
casket shackled from head to toe. About six years ago,
my father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia, and I wanted
to make it home and for him to see me
(31:54):
home before he didn't know who I was, so I
was so thankful for that. Going to court that day
was it was a hard decision.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
You know.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
At first, when I gave my false confession, people would say, well,
why would you do that if you really didn't commit
this crime. You don't know what it feels like until
you're going through it. And even now they said, well,
why would you plead guilty to that charge if you're innocent,
if you didn't commit this crime. Again, you don't know
what it feels like. But going to court that day
(32:26):
was it was hard at having to be guilty to
something I didn't do. Yeah, you know, as they're reading,
you know the description of the crime and what went on,
and my soul called role. I just stood there and cried,
you know, standing next to my lawyers.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
You accept this play. It's a bittersweet, obviously, but you're
calling home.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
When I left from mckenry County, I was nineteen years old,
going to prison, coming back to mckenry to get released,
I was almost forty, and as I walked into the
bullpins and entering you know, the county jail, I had
officers who became sergeants and lieutenants throughout the years that
I was, you know, incarcerated, and they said, finally the
(33:09):
truth is coming out and you guys are going home.
Everybody all these years has known the truth, and you know,
has known that you guys, you didn't come at this crime.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
I mean, we obviously wanted to see the day when
the full exoneration comes to pass.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
Our only option now is clemency, which we filed and
presented a clemency petition to the Prisoner Review Board in
January on her behalf. Because that's not a legal proceeding.
That is Jennifer's only way to be exonerated.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
A pardon, yes, and you ritually deserve one, so can
people write somewhere.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Write to Governor Pritzker, because we have, as I said,
presented her clemency petition to the Prisoner Review Board and
they will be making a recommendation, but he's the one
who ultimately will make that decision.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
So we'll have like a sample letter in the episode description.
Will make it easy for you. I know it sounds
like what do I write? What do I write? Too,
We're going to make it easy. Go to the episode
description and we'll have everything you need to write a letter.
And with that, now we turn to my favorite part
of the show, which is called closing arguments, and it
works like this. First of all, I thank you both
(34:17):
once again, and I now have the privilege of just
listening to anything else you want to say.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
First of all, just I want to thank you so
much Jason for asking us here and highlighting Jennifer's story.
You know, it's a privilege for us to get to
share her story. You know, one thing I'd like to
say is when these wrongful convictions happen. You know, as
we take on these cases, we're very cognizant of the
fact that you have someone who is a victim of
(34:43):
a crime. Before we take on a case. We do
so much investigation and testing to make sure because what
happens when someone's wrongfully convicted, You now have another victim
of a crime, and the original victim never got true
justice because the real perpetrators are still out there and
often committing other crimes. And so it's really important that
we represent these people that are wrongfully convicted, and I
(35:07):
want victims of crimes to understand that's what we're doing.
We are not trying to get perpetrators out of jail.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
She was a.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Victim herself and we want justice, and real justice is
getting the true perpetrators in crime and getting innocent people
out of prison.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
Jennifer, it's an honor to be here. I want to
thank everybody tremendously for the work that you do, all
the innocence projects around the world, because if it wasn't
for you guys, we wouldn't be here, and all the
hard work that you do. Been a long journey, good days,
bad days, but I'm here taking it one day at
a time, and I just appreciate life so much more.
(35:46):
And if there was one thing that I could tell
everybody's it can happen to anybody, and it happens more
than people know. I met people every day, you know,
where different things went on in their case, and they
just didn't have the strength to fight, you know. But
I knew that I had to keep on fighting. Another
big thing is know your rights when it comes to interrogations. Lawyers,
(36:08):
Miranda Wrights, you.
Speaker 2 (36:10):
Know, get the knowledge behind it.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
I know that if I knew and I understood at
a young age, I don't think that they would have
went that far.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen
to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts one
week early by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus on
Apple Podcasts. I want to thank our production team, Connor
Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well as my fellow executive
producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and Jeff Cliburn. The music
in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
(36:45):
composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us across all
social media platforms at Lava for Good and at Wrongful Conviction.
You can also follow me on Instagram at It's Jason Flamm.
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts.
And association with signal Company number one
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.