 Tyrone Jones (right) with his attorneys, Michele Nethercott (left) and Michael Fricker
Wright’s 14-year-old brother, Emmanuel, said he saw two males come out of the alley and one started firing a gun. He said he saw the clothing of the second male. Not long after midnight and about a half-mile from the shooting, police spotted 21-year-old Tyrone Jones, a college student home for the summer. Because they believed his clothing resembled that of the gunman, Emmanuel Wright was driven to the scene. Police said that when they shined a spotlight on Jones, Emmanuel identified Jones.
Jones was charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and weapons charges. He had an airline ticket to return to Central Texas College in Copperas Cove, Texas, the following day.
In July 1999, Jones went to trial in Baltimore City Circuit Court.
Wright’s uncle, David Brown, had described the gunman in a way that did not fit Jones at all. Brown testified that on the night of the shooting, he had not seen the face of the gunman, but saw that he had dreadlocks. Jones never had dreadlocks.
Brown said he recognized Jones as one of the men who came out of the alley prior to the shooting. He had picked Jones out of a photo lineup after the shooting.
Emmanuel, who had initially identified Jones on the street based on his clothing, testified and identified Jones.
Daniel Van Gelder, a forensic analyst for the Baltimore police department, testified that gunshot residue tests had been performed on Jones and that 17 particles of residue had been identified. In fact, that was a mistake – only one particle had been found. Jones’s defense attorney did not catch the error. The prosecution had disclosed to the defense only Van Gelder’s final report, which merely said: “Gunshot primer residues were found on the hand(s) of the suspect.”
The bench notes of Van Gelder’s analysis said that the lab analysis had found one unique gunshot residue particle – a particle that contained barium, antimony and lead. The particle had been found on Jones’s non-dominant hand. The notes said one particle of barium and antimony, which lacked the lead component, had been found. And the report said there were 15 particles of just lead, which are not considered as gunshot residue when found alone. As was the standard practice at the time, the bench notes had not been turned over to the prosecution, and consequently also had not been disclosed to the defense.
Van Gelder testified, “There are no other sources of particles containing barium and antimony or barium, antimony and lead except gunshot residue, perhaps hand grenade residue and a couple of other very unusual places.”
Asked about possible sources of gunshot residue, Van Gelder testified, “Most probably, it’s from either firing a gun or having your hand near a gun when it went off.” When the prosecutor began to ask another question, Van Gelder interrupted.
“There are other possibilities,” he said. “And that is if somebody fires a gun and then hands the gun to you, that would contain some particles on it that would get onto your hand.”
Jones testified and denied that he was involved in the shooting. He said he had gone out that evening to play basketball, then went to a carryout restaurant for food near the intersection of McDonogh and Eager Streets. He said he was there when the shooting occurred.
Two women testified for the defense that they were at the carryout restaurant when they heard the gunshots and they saw Jones there at the time.
The jury acquitted Jones of all but the conspiracy to commit murder charge. He was sentenced to life in prison, although the trial judge, John Prevas, expressed concern. “This is an extremely vexatious case,” he declared. “This is only one of about four in my career that I have said to the defendant, ‘You know a jury of your peers has convicted you, and I have to sentence you as though you did it. But if you can come forward with any evidence that demonstrates that you did not do it, I will be more than happy to set you free.”
In 2001, the Baltimore police department acknowledged that there had been active firing ranges inside some precinct buildings where suspects were tested for gunshot residue. Testing of these facilities revealed gunshot residue in interview rooms, on tables, on chairs, and in the air.
A “clean” room was established outside of police headquarters for gunshot residue testing. However, in 2003, the “clean” room was tested and residue was found on the handcuffs, gun belt and holster of the officer assigned to the examination area. In addition residue was found on door handles, chairs, walls and the floor. Consequently, in May 2004, the police department said that officers assigned to the mobile unit which went to crime scenes would not perform gunshot residue testing.
In January 2005, Baltimore City prosecutors began reviewing cases with gunshot residue evidence as questions began being raised in the forensic community about contamination. Jones subsequently filed a motion for a new trial challenging the gunshot residue evidence in his case. The motion was denied and the denial was upheld on appeal.
Several years after his conviction, the Maryland Innocence Project took Jones’s case. They discovered that police failed to turn over an initial interview with the eyewitness who had identified Jones by his clothing. In a report of an initial interview, the youth said that he had not seen the shooter.
Defense attorney Michele Nethercott filed a motion for a new trial. “The withheld impeachment information on this witness would have had a devastating impact on the State’s case had it been made available for use by [Jones’s] trial counsel,” the motion said.
Assistant State’s Attorney Don Giblin joined in support of the defense motion. “I believe it’s the right thing to do,” Giblin said.
On January 29, 2010, the Baltimore City Circuit Court reversed Jones’s conviction based on the fact that the initial witness interview was concealed from the defense. Jones was released on bond the following day, January 30, 2010.
On May 25, 2010, the prosecution announced that it was not going to pursue the case and Judge Prevas dismissed the charge.
In 2023, Jones filed a claim for compensation from the state of Maryland. However, his claim was denied by an administrative law judge because the charge of conspiracy to commit murder was considered a misdemeanor at the time, rendering him ineligible for relief. The offense had been upgraded to a felony in 2019. The compensation statute only allowed for compensation in felony cases, the judge concluded.
In July 2024, a law went into effect that would allow Jones to obtain compensation for a wrongful conviction for conspiracy to commit murder.
– Maurice Possley
|