Bloomington police detectives investigating the 1991 shooting death of William Little doubted statements of key witnesses who implicated Jamie Snow in the crime and later provided damaging testimony to a jury that convicted Snow of murder, according to a motion filed by Snow’s lawyers.
Snow was convicted in 2001 of killing Little, an attendant at a gas station in the 800 block of East Empire Street in Bloomington. The state’s case against Snow relied heavily on statements from more than a dozen witnesses who either identified him as a suspect, or said he confessed to the killing.
Many of the witnesses have since recanted.
In the most recent court filing, lawyers with The Exoneration Project argue that Snow, now 57, is entitled to forensic testing on evidence from the crime scene based on previously undisclosed information in 8,000 pages of police reports turned over by the state last year. The materials were provided in response to a motion pending since 2013 seeking DNA testing.
The materials identify “dozens of alternate suspects” never disclosed to Snow’s lawyers at his trial, according to Snow’s legal team. Investigators also had information that another person was “bragging that he killed Little,” said the court filing.
McLean County State’s Attorney Erika Reynolds declined to comment on the defense motion.
The police records include a memo from an as-yet unidentified officer who expressed doubts about the identification of Snow as a suspect by a boy who lived across the street from the service station. Carlos Luna was 14 years old when he looked out the window of his home, about 200 feet from the entrance to the service station, near the time of the incident.
Several months later, he selected Snow from a police lineup, but stated he was uncertain about his choice of a suspect.
In the police memo, the officer said, “the reason that Carlos Luna did not positively pick someone out of the lineup is he couldn’t if he wanted to. I interviewed him and his friend the night of the murder. I talked to them that night, and a few days later, individually. Neither of the boys could see the person clearly. I stood at the window they looked out and it was difficult to identify the people running around on the lot and I knew most of them. There was no way they could make an I.D.”
The distance between Luna and the gas station allowed him to provide a limited, general description of a suspect, said the memo. “That is why detective Crowe questioned any ID by the boy,” the officer wrote, in a reference to former BPD detective Charlie Crowe.
The officer had similar doubts about Ed Palumbo, a witness with “a hidden agenda” and reasons to mislead police, according to the memo.
Palumbo and Snow were both suspects in another armed robbery, the officer noted, but charges in that case were dropped against Snow, leaving Palumbo sitting in jail. The charges were later dismissed against Palumbo, who claimed after Snow’s conviction that authorities threatened him if he did not cooperate with the murder investigation.
The officer details the reasons for his skepticism of Palumbo beyond the armed robbery charges:
“Add to this the fact he was doing a policeman’s wife, and ask yourself, did he have a reason to mislead the police, and did he have reason to be mad at Snow?”
The memo notes the likelihood of a grievance by the witness against Snow led the officer and his colleagues to dismiss Palumbo’s testimony. “I am very, very cautious of this lead,” the officer wrote.
In another comment, the unnamed officer wrote, “I do not want to railroad anyone, even though Snow is a low life. I want the real killer.”
The Chicago defense team is looking for documents beyond the thousands of pages provided under a court order.
The results of fingerprint testing, including a list of several potential matches to relevant fingerprints, were not part of the disclosures, the defense claims. The list of missing records includes reports from multiple witness interviews and forensic testing on a pair of shoes.
Forensic testing on items related to Little’s death could produce new evidence crucial to Snow’s defense, his lawyers argued in the motion.
The Exoneration Project argues that “Not only does the DNA evidence in this case have the potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence that would raise a reasonable probability that Mr. Snow would have been acquitted, it could also point to the true perpetrator of this crime.”
An Oct. 30 hearing is set to review the status of the case. After a response to the motion is filed by the state, a hearing date is expected to be set for arguments.
