After serving more than 18 years in prison for a murder he did not commit, D.C. native Edward Bell has been released from prison after MAIP and co-counsel at Venable LLP uncovered evidence of his innocence and negotiated a deal with prosecutors to set him free.

Mr. Bell was convicted of being one of four assailants in a 1991 murder and armed robbery. By all accounts, four men got out of a red Jeep Cherokee in Northeast D.C. Two entered a building where the crimes were committed. The other two men served as look-out and getaway driver.  The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) quickly arrested the two shooters and one of the accomplices after each was identified by multiple eyewitnesses at the scene.  However, no one could identify the second accomplice.

Several months after the murder was committed, one of the eyewitnesses changed his initial version of the story, naming Mr. Bell as the fourth assailant.  This man, the government’s star witness against Mr. Bell, was facing 30 years behind bars for a pair of drug distribution charges.  In exchange for his testimony against Mr. Bell, one of those charges was dropped, and the other charge was reduced to seven months. This single eyewitness testimony was the only evidence against Mr. Bell.  There was no physical evidence and nothing else linking Mr. Bell to the crime.  Nevertheless, Mr. Bell was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years to life.

Mr. Bell adamantly maintained his innocence and continued fighting for his freedom since the time of his arrest.  A few years after his conviction, the government eyewitness recanted his testimony and maintained that he was pressured into naming Mr. Bell.  Unfortunately, that recantation was not enough to gain Mr. Bell a new trial.

A new witness ultimately came forward and named the fourth assailant in the crime.  This new witness’s testimony closely matched the testimony provided by the government’s other eyewitnesses in the case (those who did not name Mr. Bell).  Based on this new witness, Mr. Bell filed a pro se petition (i.e. on his own) under the D.C. Innocence Protection Act. Judge A. Franklin Burgess granted Mr. Bell a hearing and appointed both an attorney, Patricia Newton, and an investigator, Ronetta Johnson.  Ms. Johnson, who knew of MAIP because of her work on the Aaron Michael Howard case, contacted MAIP Executive Director Shawn Armbrust and asked MAIP to get involved in the case.  MAIP became persuaded of Mr. Bell’s innocence and, with the help of MAIP Board member Seth Rosenthal, recruited Paul Kemp and Sig Libowitz from his firm, Venable LLP, to serve as co-counsel.

Libowitz jumped at the opportunity to work with Kemp, and became even more convinced of their efforts when they began delving deeper into Mr. Bell’s case.  Reading the trial transcript, Libowitz thought that one could “drive a train through all the reasonable doubt” that surrounded the case.  After meeting Mr. Bell, Kemp and Libowitz were sure that “something did not match up,” and they were committed to representing him to the best of their abilities.

Additional evidence came to light, which added even greater depth to the team’s efforts. For many years, Mr. Bell had attempted to attain a copy of the police file relating to his case through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. His persistence eventually paid off when, 15 years after his incarceration, he was finally granted the records and obtained information about yet another witness at the scene whose testimony also contradicted that of the government’s star witness.  The legal team followed this lead and recognized that this newly discovered witness statement severely damaged the government’s case, as it sharply contradicted the testimony of the government’s star eyewitness (who had, as mentioned, later recanted).  Equally important, this newly discovered witness statement matched far more closely with both the other witnesses accounts from the evening and the crime scene findings.

Digging further, Mr. Bell and his new legal team petitioned the judge for permission to review the grand jury transcripts. Following an evidentiary hearing, came the discovery that the government had brought this newly discovered witness before the grand jury where he again provided exculpatory evidence of Mr. Bell’s involvement in the crime. Sadly, this information was never shared with Mr. Bell or any of his original or appellate counsel.

 “This new witness statement contradicted the prosecution’s star witness’ statements almost point-by-point,” Libowitz said.  “The two men stood in almost exactly the same place again and again throughout the crime, yet these same two men reported seeing a different number of assailants, a different number of guns, different getaway cars and they differed over other significant details. Additionally, it was striking that this new eyewitness’ testimony remained consistent over seven months (from the date of the crime when the newly discovered  eyewitness was first questioned by police until the time he was brought before the grand jury) because the  government’s star witness had already changed his story multiple times.”

Shortly before the D.C. Innocence Protect Act hearing was scheduled, the United States Attorney’s Office initiated conversation with the legal team about a plea deal.  They offered to release Mr. Bell and drop all the charges with no parole or probation. In exchange, Mr. Bell would plead to a lesser sentence of voluntary manslaughter while armed (while still being allowed to maintain his innocence of all charges on the record) and a sentence of time served.

“It was a really difficult decision to make obviously, and we told Mr. Bell that it was ultimately his choice,” Libowitz said. While the legal team was confident they could prevail at trial, the prosecution had presented Bell with “an offer he couldn’t refuse; after 19-years in prison, it’s hard to bet against a sure thing,” Libowitz said.

Presented with the opportunity to win his freedom and return to his family after nearly two decades behind bars, Mr. Bell agreed to accept the deal.  

“It was a difficult decision to make because I felt I was accepting a level of guilt that wasn’t rightfully mine,” Bell said. “As much as I wanted to prove my innocence, I had to think about who I had the chance to come back home to, and in the bigger picture it was the right decision.”

On February 2, 2010, Judge Burgess accepted the plea agreement and Mr. Bell was released from jail in March 2010.

Bell describes his relief as “a huge weight being lifted. I can’t explain how it feels having the pressure of fighting my case disappear.”

Since leaving prison, Bell has reunited with friends and family members, including his daughter and 4-year-old grandson, who he recently met for the first time. Mr. Bell is currently devotedly looking for work and plans to enroll in college next year.

MAIP wishes Mr. Bell the best and is grateful for the hard work that Kemp, Libowitz and Johnson put in to working with us to help Mr. Bell win his much deserved freedom.