Commutation for Patty Prewitt

Patty with 4 of her 10 grandchildren

Sample letter to Governor Nixon requesting clemency

Below is a long letter sent to Gov. Nixon in Fall 2011 by a supporter. Feel free to use any of the thoughts in it as you compose your own letter. For your reference, the letter sent to Gov. Nixon by the Missouri Catholic Conference is pasted below. Your letter can be a very short appeal for Gov. Nixon to exercise his executive authority to grant clemency to Patty Prewitt. If you prefer email, Gov. Nixon may be reached at http://governor.mo.gov/contact/

Gov. Jay Nixon

PO Box 720

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Dear Governor Nixon:

I would like to add my voice to the long list of others who have asked you to grant clemency to Patricia Prewitt, including the Missouri Catholic Conference. Since you know the case well, there is no need to recount details of her trial except to repeat what the Catholic Conference said in its letter to you. “She has always maintained her innocence and there is much that is disturbing about her trial.” However, I ask you to consider the fact that Mrs. Prewitt was offered a plea bargain at trial that would have likely allowed her to return home after 6 years or so. That is a definitive statement by the state that it considered 6 years of incarceration to satisfy the state’s need for retribution and deterrence. When she chose to go to trial, the charges were escalated and, after being found guilty, she was sentenced to “Life without Hope of Parole for 50 Years”. She has now been incarcerated for more than 25 years. Nineteen additional years is a very steep price to pay for asking for a trial.

If, before trial, the state was willing for Mrs. Prewitt to return home in 6 years, there is no need to have an opinion about the correctness of the jury verdict to agree that there is no societal value in her continued incarceration.

All who have known her during her incarceration, including your Director of Corrections, Mr. George Lombardi, can confirm her extraordinary achievements and record during her long incarceration. There is virtually no possibility that Mrs. Prewitt would violate her parole. She has written job offers at good pay and a strong home plan.

Clearly, there is no public purpose served by Mrs. Prewitt’s continued incarceration. There is only unnecessary expense, an expense that is certain to increase if she grows beyond her 60 years while incarcerated. The community is much better served by returning Mrs. Prewitt to her aging parents, children and grandchildren, all of whom desperately want her home, where she will be a contributing, tax-paying citizen rather than a drain on Missouri’s limited resources.

Sincerely,

Statement of the Missouri Catholic Conference

A statewide campaign is seeking clemency from Gov. Nixon for Patty Prewitt, who has been incarcerated for 25 years for the murder of her husband Bill in 1984. Patty is serving a sentence of “life without hope of parole for 50-years”. Thus, she is not eligible for parole until 2036. The only hope of her returning home to her children before then requires executive grant of clemency by the Governor. She has always maintained her innocence and there is much that is disturbing about her trial.

All who have known Patty during her long incarceration agree that she is an extraordinary person who has touched many lives. All attest to her superb prison record and outstanding personal qualities. You can read comments from ex-Department of Corrections officials and ex-fellow inmates, as well as much other information, at http://www.commutepatty.blogspot.com/

Law students with the Community Justice Project of Georgetown Law filed a clemency petition last December with Gov. Nixon on the basis of Patty's prison's work, her extremely low likelihood of recidivism and the high cost of keeping her behind bars. That same month the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an Op/Ed by former Reps. Bill Deeken (R-Jefferson City) and John Burnett (D-Kansas City) in support of Patty.

To mark her 25^th year in prison in May, more than 500 people wrote to Gov. Nixon asking him to grant her clemency.

If you would like to help Patty, you can send a letter to Gov. Jay Nixon at P.O. Box 720, Jefferson City, MO 65102, call and leave a message at 573-751-3222 or email him here.

For more information about Patty, you can visit her website.

[+/-] show/hide this post

Read regular updates at "Justice for Patty" blog

Justice for Patty

Labels: Petition

[+/-] show/hide this post

Patty's Poetry

Read some of Patty's poetry at http://pattyspoetry.blogspot.com/.

[+/-] show/hide this post

1. The case for commutation of Patty Prewitt’s sentence

Patty Prewitt is a devoted mother to four living children and grandmother to ten. She grew up on a farm with a loving immediate and extended family. She remains in close contact with her parents and all her children. The views of crime victims are often considered in deciding on clemency. Patty's children are the most important crime victims. And they desperately want their Mother home.
She was a volunteer with the PTA and president of the Holden Chamber of Commerce.
She is currently imprisoned in Vandalia, MO. She has already served more than 26 years, having been convicted of murdering her husband on February 18, 1984.
On the night of the murder, she was awakened by what sounded like a clap of thunder. She was thrown from her bed to the floor by a man who held a knife to her throat with one hand and raped her. When the man left the room, she got up to find her husband shot. She woke the children and raced to a neighbor’s house to get help.
Two days after the murder, the police questioned Patty for more than seventeen hours. She was charged on February 24, 1984 with capital murder.
She entered a not guilty plea. The prosecutor offered increasingly lighter sentences, finally offering a plea bargain that would have resulted in her release after of 6-7 years, contingent on good behavior. The offer is verified by affidavits from two lawyers. Patty maintained her innocence and refused them all.
On April 19, 1985, after a four day trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Her attorney filed a Motion for New Trial on May 6, 1985, after the discovery of new evidence pointing to another person who could be the killer and prosecution withholding this evidence from defense. The motion was denied.
She was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole until 50 years time served. It seems obvious that charging her so that she received this sentence was an attempt to pressure her to accept the much lighter plea bargain offer. The offer, by itself, is proof that the prosecution was prepared for her to return to the community after being incarcerated for 6 - 7 years. She has served more than 3-times that amount!

Patty has exhausted all legal appeals and deserves to have her sentence commuted for a number of reasons:

Patty consented to a nitrate test to determine whether she had fired the murder weapon. The test confirmed that she had not fired the gun.
Crucial evidence pointing to another suspect was never brought to trial. Patty’s neighbor, Juanita Stephens, observed an unfamiliar white sedan parked on the country road near her home just hours before the murder. There was a lone occupant. The headlights were turned off. There was a clear view of the Prewitt house from that spot. Mrs. Stephens informed the police a day after the murder, but was never called to testify for the trial. At the evidentiary hearing, the Sheriff testified that he did not “recollect” Mrs. Stephens coming forth with this information.
Theory pointing to another suspect was never argued during trial. Before they left the home on the night of the murder, her two daughters noticed a flickering light under and behind the closed basement door. This closed basement door was ajar when the police returned to the house. A neighbor who accompanied the police testified that the door was open.
Jury tampering: The jurors for Patty’s trial were not sequestered and returned home each night during the trial. When the jury adjourned to deliberate, the bailiff informed the judge that the jurors could not come to a unanimous decision and wished to speak to the judge. After speaking with the judge, the bailiff told the jurors that the “judge said try harder” and “if you don’t reach a verdict, you will have to stay here all night.” After six hours of deliberation, the verdict was turned in. One of the jurors then stopped by Patty’s family and declared that she did not believe Patty was guilty but she had to go home to prepare dinner for her invalided husband.

Without regard to guilt or innocence, Patty Prewitt deserves to have her sentence commuted because she has more than fulfilled society’s perceived need for deterrence and retribution:

Affidavits establish that she was offered and turned down a plea bargain that, under the usual practice at the time, would have resulted in her release after five to seven years. Offering such a plea bargain is a clear statement by the prosecution that society’s perceived need to incarcerate her would have been satisfied after five to seven years.
According to parole guidelines (14 CSR 80-2.010 (4)(H)(2005)), the board considers the deterrent and retributive portion of the sentence to have been served when the inmate has completed fifteen years of the maximum sentence.
There is a huge disparity in time served between men and women who have murdered their intimate partners. On average, men have served eight years while women have served fifteen (See Stout, K., and Brown, P., "Legal and Social Differences between Men and Women who Kill Intimate Partners." 1994 (UMSL)). Patty has already served more than 23 years, well above the average.
Patty has been an important positive influence on younger female inmates, even across the racial divide. Many prison workers and volunteers would be happy to testify to this fact. (See items 6A & 6B below.)
Patty has taken advantage of every available opportunity to further her education and training. During her incarceration, Patty graduated from NMCC’s business college, earned an Associates degree from Lincoln University, and took paralegal courses as well as classes in computer programming. At age 60, she works as a computer programmer for the state and teaches aerobics and yoga in her confinement. She trained six women to become aerobics instructors. These women are all out of prison and employed in that capacity. She participated in founding Residents Encounter Christ in 1990 and has been an enthusiastic participant in PATCH, a program that facilitates inmates visiting with their children in a pleasant atmosphere. She has been a key participant in Prison Performing Arts.
It is as certain as prediction can be, Patty would not offend if released.
The average cost of incarceration of a healthy prisoner is $12,968. (See Rosenfeld, R., “The Cost of and Alternatives to Imprisonment in Missouri.” UMSL Issue Brief). This is a waste of taxpayers’ money in the case of Patty Prewitt.
At the age of 61, she has already been incarcerated for 26 years. Under the terms of her sentence, she will not be eligible for parole until 2036, when she is age 88. It is unreasonable to continue punishing her for refusing a plea bargain.

[+/-] show/hide this post

2. Very brief highlights in support of commutation for Patty Prewitt

We firmly believe that Patty Prewitt is innocent of the crime for which she was convicted (the murder of her husband, Bill). But without regard to guilt or innocence, a few of the reasons that Patty Prewitt deserves and has earned commutation of her sentence to the 26 years served are listed below.

Patty was offered a plea bargain (documented with affidavits) that would have resulted in her release in 6 – 7 years, pending good behavior. This means that the State deemed its interest in deterrence and retribution would have been satisfied in 6-7 years and that the prosecution was willing for her to return to society after that time. She has now served 23 years.
There is little to no likelihood that Patty would re-offend. She has a supportive family and superior job skills and letters of support from her work supervisor and prison chaplain.
According to parole guidelines (14 CSR 80-2.010 (4)(H)(2005)), the board considers the deterrent and retributive portion of the sentence to have been served when an inmate has completed fifteen years of the maximum sentence.
There is no advantage to society in keeping her incarcerated. Among other things, the cost of incarceration is substantial. Released, she would be a tax-paying contributor rather than a drain on the state.

Much more information is available on request. Send email to commutepatty@gmail.com.

[+/-] show/hide this post

3A. Patty Prewitt's Story as Told by Patty

UNSOLVED MYSTERY

Since you have stumbled upon this website, you may ask yourself, “How did a nice gal from a great family get in such a horrid fix?” And that is a very good question.

What has happened to my husband, me, and our children is the stuff Lifetime cable movies are made of – except that in a couple of hours in a movie, all the loose ends are secured and no mysteries remain by the time the credits role. Not so in real life.

THE PRE-MURDER

In February of 1984, after a late Friday night out with friends, my husband and I returned home and went straight to sleep with the sound of hard rain pounding the bedroom window. As usual, we had a busy Saturday planned – of work at our Mom and Pop lumberyard and a trip to a neighboring college for our flute-playing 12-year-old to compete in a band concert.

THE MURDER

I was awakened by a gunshot that I thought was a clap of thunder, and before I could react, I was yanked out of bed by my hair, thrown on the floor, and raped at knife point. As soon as the perpetrator left, I climbed across the bed to find my husband dying. In a panic I woke our 4 young children, ages 12 through 6 (our 14-year-old was away at a sleep-oven) and drove a couple of miles to the neighbor for help.

INTERROGATION

Within hours, the local county cops decided I had to be the murderer, even though I passed a gunpowder residue test that proved that I had not fired a gun. The lead investigator told me it was always the spouse. I was interrogated for hours and hours with no lawyer thinking it was important to help the police find my husband’s killer. Of the over 17 hours of interrogation, only 15 minutes were taped by the police. I was charged with Capital Murder a week later and returned to my home on my own recognizance to await my day in court that came about 14 months later, April of 1985.

LUST

When the police asked if Bill and I were involved in extra-marital affairs, I said no. And I meant it. We had gone through a separation over five years prior and I didn’t see how ancient history had any bearing on today. In this small backwoods community rumors run abound, so it didn’t take long for the cops to come back to me about rumored affairs. I admitted that, years ago, when Bill and I were living apart and considering divorce, we were unfaithful. The investigator’s opinion was that an unfaithful wife possesses killer tendencies, but conversely, it’s a man’s nature to roam. The investigator didn’t care that Bill and I had mended our relationship and our marriage had been solid for years. I was labeled a lying slut from then on.

GREED

As soon as the police arrived at our house the morning of Bill’s murder, they removed the insurance file from the cabinet. We had 2 active life insurance polices on Bill worth $93,472.09 total. But our business and farm debt totaled around $170,000. This was all brought up at trial, but was presented in such a long boring laborious way that I swear the jury didn’t catch the point that we owed much more than the worth of Bill’s insurance. If I were my defense attorney now, I would simply make a poster with the figures plain as day. Then everyone can see that greed was not a factor and could not have been a motive.

LUST AND GREED!!!

But I was a passive dummy at trial, and the prosecutor kept hollering, “ Lust and Greed—even though He had no current or even recent lovers to present and absolutely no facts or figures to sustain their money theory. There was no evidence of lust or greed. But I learned that in trials, evidence and facts are not that important. Inference is. And a sullied reputation can never recover.

NO PROOF OF GUILT

There was no proof of my guilt. But there was no proof of my innocence unless you take into consideration the gunpowder residue test. Experts agree that it proves that I did not discharge a gun. There is plenty of proof of police incompetence and mishandling of the crime scene.

PROSECUTIONS SUICIDE THEORY

Just prior to trial, the prosecutor has serious doubts of my guilt, and as he was combing over the coroner’s report, he realized that my husband’s front tooth was missing. This caused him to theorize that Bill had shot himself in the mouth and that I had invented the story of the strange murderer, cut my own throat, and bruised myself to cover the suicide. Why would I do this? Because I would have wanted the life insurance to pay and suicides weren’t covered.

I should have allowed them to maintain this theory and remained free. But again I was too stupid to do anything but tell the truth. And the truth was that Bill had a cop on his front tooth from a basketball game injury in high school. This cap fell off now and then. Also, one of our neighbors had recently and tragically committed suicide to make sure his family was financially taken care of. Suicide is an insurance payable death. The prosecutor’s whole premise was wrong. But do you see how easily the prosecution changed versions of their stories?

PLEA BARGAIN OFFERS

Trials are fueled by plea agreements. It’s the horse-trading part of the law. Most defendants are indeed guilty for the crime and are most happy to bargain for less prison time. Those of us who are not guilty are not so eager to make deals, and that is what gets us in big trouble. I stubbornly stupidly refused to take a plea. The prosecution was running scared with no murderous motive, and if I had accepted their final desperate offer, I would have returned home in 1991—in time to prevent my older son’s apparent suicide. That monumental decision haunts me every single minute of every single day.

WITHHELD EVIDENCE

Right after the three-day capital murder trial, I bonded out, returned home and found out that on the very night of Bill’s murder a neighbor lady and her teenage son had seen a strange man in a white sedan parked near their home and in such a place that he could watch our house. That very morning she found the Sheriff and told him what she’d seen. While reading the account of my trial in the local newspaper, she wondered aloud why that stranger wasn’t mentioned at the trial. Her daughter told me, and I called my attorney who sent his investigator to her home to get her statement.

APPEAL DENIED

A month after my trial, we went back to court asking for another trial because of this new evidence that was withheld by the prosecution. It was also brought up that when the jury sent word to the judge that they were deadlocked, the bailiff told them to try harder, thus instructing them that the judge would not allow indecision. The neighbor lady sat uneasily on the stand and told what she’d seen. The Sheriff hemmed and hawed that she might have told him. He just didn’t know – to the best of his recollection. The judge pounded his gavel and judged that new evidence of a strange man lurking and stalking our house on the night of Bill’s murder would not have swayed the jury from their strong decision that I was the murderer—even though they were deadlocked during the hours of their deliberations. And this is justice?

WHY WAS BILL PREWITT MURDERED?

Why was Bill murdered? I do not have the definitive answer to that, but I do know that when our oldest daughter moved up to high school, we were appalled to find out that illegal drugs were available all over town. We had moved to this community a couple of hours from Kansas City to be away from that element. Bill and I could have found great jobs in the KC area, but we wanted to raise our kids in a safe place. That’s when Bill began his own investigation of the drug trafficking in Johnson County. Neither one of us had the slightest idea how dangerous these people really are. And honestly until I’d served prison time with women who live this drug life did I learn of how evil it is. I believe Bill was too close to uncovering dangerous ties and facts, I believe that some of the police in the area were part of the problem. Drug money lures people who are normally paid modest wages. There is no mystery in that.

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS LATER

My four children have grown up beautifully and produced ten spectacular grandchildren for me to love and adore. But I remain in prison serving Life With No Parole for 50 years, which means that I will not be eligible to leave prison until my interview with the Board of Probation and Parole in April of 2036. I will be 86 then. I have no possibility of paroling until the full 50 years is served. And the years I served on bond working and living with my family in our community does not count toward the required mandatory minimum of 50 years.

TRUE VICTIMS OF THIS MURDER

My dear husband is the first and foremost victim, but our grown children are living, grieving victims of his murder. Since they know I am innocent, they pray every day that I come home to them. My younger grandchildren mail me drawings of “Granny” in their houses wishing I could visit their homes. My elderly parents pray that I return home before they die. We are all victims of this senseless murder.

SUGGESTIONS

Dear reader, if you have any idea of a method to free me, please let us know. We have petitioned every court and every governor. We are preparing an appeal for clemency to Governor Jay Nixon that we hope to present before Christmas, 2009. We welcome your support and your help. The wrongly-convicted exist on a diet of hope – which during some years is one of starvation rations, at best.

If you feel moved to do so, you can write a letter to Gov. Jay Nixon, P.O. Box 720
Jefferson City, MO 65102 or use the email form at http://governor.mo.gov/contact/. If you do so, it would be useful for us to receive a copy at commutepatty@gmail.com.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Patty Prewitt

[+/-] show/hide this post

3B. Meet Patty Prewitt: Here she reads her poetry (4 mins)

Patty Prewitt reads two of her short poems: "Keep it Real" and "Visitation." (4 min)

[+/-] show/hide this post

4. Read what a principal opponent of commutation has said. Judge whether it is unbiased. The next entry provides facts conveniently omitted here.

See below for a rebuttal to this letter.
It contains facts that Mr. Hughes has left out.

May 28th, 2001
Kevin C Hughes
2182 Pima Drive
Sheridan, WY 82801
(307) 674-5477

Mr. Glenn Norton
Office of the Governor
State Capitol, second floor
Jefferson City, MO 65101

Dear Mr. Norton,

I am writing to express my opinion about any clemency that the Governor of the State of Missouri may consider for Ms. Patty Prewitt, convicted of capital murder, at any time in the future. I was the lead investigator of the murder that Ms. Prewitt committed upon her husband, Bill Prewitt, in Johnson County Missouri on February 18th, 1984. Twenty-five investigators from the Missouri Rural Crime Squad answered my call for help in this investigation and worked around the clock gathering evidence and interviewing hundreds of people. The following is a synopsis of the results of that investigation and the evidence presented at Ms. Prewitt's trial which can all be verified by reading the trial transcript:

Bill and Patty Prewitt had five children, lived outside of Holden, and owned and operated a lumber and hardware business. Bill's motivation in life was to love his family and be an honest, decent, good, and honorable man. Patty was motivated by greed and lust. While Bill only wanted health and happiness for his wife and children, Patty lusted after money and sex. Their youngest child was not Bill's and he knew it. Yet he raised and loved the child the same as he did all the others. He was known throughout the area as an honest man, sometimes to his financial detriment. He extended credit to people that he should not have but his good nature often won out over business sense. He truly did not have an enemy in the world expect for one he did not know that he had. The one he was married to and lived with, Patty Prewitt.

Over nine years prior to killing Bill, Ms. Prewitt began plotting his murder. She talked him into adding on life insurance until it was $170,000. She used her “charm” to engage numerous men, several concurrently, in sexual liaisons and then, when she felt that the time was right, she asked them to kill her husband so that they could be together. She told them that Bill beat her and that killing him was the only way out. She told them of her various schemes of how Bill could be killed without them being suspected. Three of those men testified at trial.

Bill was allowing his largest life insurance policy to lapse on 02-19-84. He could not afford the premium due to Ms. Prewitt's spending habits. Ms. Prewitt, being unsuccessful in engaging her multitude of paramours to kill for her and with the life insurance clock running out, took matters into her own hands. During the early morning hours of 02-18-84, she loaded a .22 semi-automatic rifle and shot Bill in the head as he lay sleeping. He continued to breathe so she shot him again. She then put on her boots and walked to a pond about 100 yards from the house and threw the gun in the pond. The barrel stuck in the mud of the bottom of the pond with the stock above the water line so she wadded out and pushed it below the water level. She returned to the house where she used a razor blade to make superficial cuts to her throat and then cut the telephone line to the house. She then woke the children telling them that the house was on fire, loaded them in the car and drove some distance to a neighbor's house where she reported that an “intruder” had broken into the house, killed Bill, and attempted to rape her at knife point

The investigation that followed revealed the most amazing evidence that I encountered in 327 murder investigations over a twenty year law enforcement career. Ms. Prewitt worked hard for over nine years to have Bill killed. She engaged in hundreds of sexual liaisons, sometimes three or four per day, in pursuit of her efforts to have Bill killed. She was motivated strictly by lust and greed. We kicked over every possible rock to find out if Bill had ever abused her. We found no evidence of that at all. Even Ms. Prewitt, in the twenty plus hours I spent with her over the course of the week following the murder and during her testimony at the trial, always maintained that Bill had never abused her or the children in any way.

Ms. Prewitt was found guilty by a jury after a change of venue to Pettis County in April of 1985. She was represented by a superb trial lawyer named Bob Beaird. I spoke to three jurors after their verdict. One of them was an elderly lady who told me that Ms. Prewitt was evil but that she did not think she would stay in prison for her entire term as she would be able to charm others, especially men, into helping her get out early. This lady's prophetic statement came back to me on a Saturday in January of this year when I received a call from Ms. Mary Ann Young, Prosecuting Attorney of Johnson County. She told me that she had received a call that day from Joe Bednar of the Governor's Office and that clemency was to be awarded to Ms. Prewitt on Monday. This was the first Ms. Young had heard of this and Bill's family had never been contacted. I tracked down Mr. Bednar that day and spoke to him on the phone. He was down right incensed that I had called him on a Saturday to voice my objection, yet he had first called Ms. Young on that same Saturday which was truely suspicious. During the course of our hour long conversation, it became apparent to me that the juror was right. Ms. Prewitt still had her charm. Mr. Bednar told me that Ms. Prewitt has continued to deny that she killed Bill but did tell him that her children were convinced of her innocence and she would not tell them anything different. (So apparently, she has continued to lie to her children so that her children will continue to aid her in seeking “justice” in an unjust cause.) Mr. Bednar told me that several Missouri State Representatives were supporting Ms. Prewitt and that she would receive clemency on Monday. I later talked to Mr. Bednar again. He told me that there had been a flood of complaints by Bill's family and others that had caused a change and Ms. Prewitt was not going to receive clemency at that time.

I have little doubt that Ms. Prewitt will eventually receive clemency as clemency is based upon politics and not the decision of jury. We ask juries to do a difficult job and they do it. Then, if enough politicians support overturning the jury's decision, clemency does just that. So much for being a government of laws and not men. Bill's family and others beat it back once but as we again saw recently at the national level, clemency is alive, well, and for sale in this country. Ms. Prewitt has not shown any contrition or remorse for her cold, calculated, and premeditated murder of Bill. She has continued to lie to her children so that they will support her, and has continued to punish Bill's family as they are the ones who have to continually fight for the justice the jury imposed. Patty Prewitt took the life of a good and decent man due to her lust and greed. She has attempted to destroy the children through her continued lies instead of telling them the truth. With the help of politicians who do not know one whit of the real facts, she came within a whisker of clemency in January. She'll receive it some day because she has too much charm that fools cannot resist. It speaks volumes about the state of our society when we have devalued human life to the point that Ms. Prewitt is even considered for clemency. I hope I am wrong. I hope that there is someone who can resist her charm and stand up for what is right. I hope that someone will will stand against the sleazy politicians who give no thought to the true meaning of justice. I hope that some day I have to apologize for these words but I'll bet that I don't.

I will be glad to answer any questions that anyone may have about this murder and can be reached at the above address and telephone number.

Sincerely,
/signed/
Kevin C. Hughes
This was re-typed from a photocopy of Mr. Hughes' letter, which contained his signature.

[+/-] show/hide this post

5A. An analysis of the trial proceedings and the opponent's case, including distorted information and left out facts.

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Memorandum

DATE: AUGUST 30, 2008
TO: GOVERNOR BLUNT
FROM: JANE AIKEN, PROF. OF LAW
RE: PATTY PREWITT

I have reviewed the trial transcript and the witness statements to assess Patty Prewitt’s case for commutation of sentence. I note that the trial transcript reveals a poorly prepared case both by the prosecution in presenting evidence that could convict beyond a reasonable doubt and by the defense in cogently presenting information that could have caused this case to result in an acquittal. Even assuming Mrs. Prewitt’s guilt, a review of the police investigation, the trial transcript and evidence that has since been revealed suggests that had this information been before the court, a sentence of life without parole would have been considered excessive. Because there are no remedies at law for Mrs. Prewitt, this case is ripe for commutation.

I deal here with an apparently influential letter sent by Kevin Hughes, the chief police investigator in the case, to Glenn Norton who was at that time (2001) Chief Legal Counsel for Governor Holden. In this letter, Hughes argues vigorously that Patty Prewitt was guilty of the murder of her husband and should not be granted clemency. Kevin Hughes letter is striking due to its vituperative tone and multiple, unproven assertions. It was sent 17 years after his investigation of Bill Prewitt’s homicide. Hughes must have investigated hundreds of cases since 1984. Why is this case so personal to him? He mentions that twenty-five investigators helped him examine the case and that they interviewed hundreds of people. He then purports to report the result of that investigation. In his recounting, he does not mention several irregularities in his investigation that raise questions about the murder investigation and suggest that this “thorough” investigation may not have been so thorough.

From the very outset of Kevin Hughes’ investigation, he appeared intent on charging Mrs. Prewitt with the murder, even ignoring evidence to the contrary. In his letter, he fails to mention that when he did a gun powder residue test on Mrs. Prewitt’s hands that none was found. This would point toward someone else as the shooter. Shortly after the jury convicted Patty Prewitt for the murder of her husband, Mrs. Ethel Juanita Stephens emerged and told the story of seeing an unknown man in a white car stopped on the highway near the Prewitt’s house at or around the time of the murder and behaving very suspiciously. She had told Sheriff Charles Norman (for whom Hughes worked as an investigator) a day or two after the shooting about seeing the car and her suspicions that the man might have been involved in the murder. This report was consistent with the statements of two of the Prewitt daughters who testified that they heard an intruder and had seen what looked like a flashlight flickering under the bottom of the basement door. That door was open when the police arrived at the house. Despite this clear lead, neither Hughes nor his team followed up. Further, they did not inform the defense team of this exculpatory evidence so that they could do their own investigation.

The irregularities that raise questions about this investigation do not stop there. Hughes also fails to mention that the crime scene was not secured, that the investigators destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence by trying to pry the door where the intruder apparently entered, thus making it impossible to determine which pry marks were caused by the intruder and which by the police. The investigators dusted for fingerprints in only four places throughout the whole house and failed to dust the chest of drawers where the murderer got the rifle used in the killing. Nor did the team dust the metal breaker box for fingerprints where the power had been cut off before the killing. Further this investigative team did not attempt to collect hair samples to determine if there might be a clue to the identity of the intruder. Hughes reports his conclusion that Mrs. Prewitt is an unrepentant killer. These facts, had they been included in his letter, might have dampened its intensity, much as they might have dampened the intensity of the jury.

Hughes’ letter is also rife with his version of facts without any proof. He asserts as fact that “[s]he engaged in hundreds of sexual liaisons, sometimes three or four per day.” How could Hughes know that? Indeed, how could that be even close to true? Mrs. Prewitt worked full-time in a business, cared for five children who were active in extra curricular activities, owned and operated a small farm with livestock and garden and was an active participant in community work. His letter suggests that she led a lavish lifestyle, yet the description of her living circumstances at the time of Mr. Prewitt’s death, belie this characterization. Such willingness to pepper his letter with wild and untrue character assassinations suggests that one should not rely on anything Hughes says. He discusses the many witnesses who he said had had sexual relations with Mrs. Prewitt while she was married but fails to mention that any alleged liaisons occurred many years before the murder of Bill Prewitt and while the couple was separated. He also fails to mention that each of these men had independent reasons to testify falsely against Patty Prewitt. It appears two of them received deals that made them inclined toward the prosecution; another had a personal vendetta against Mrs. Prewitt. Unfortunately, we have no documentation of this. What we do have is more evidence of the imprint of Kevin Hughes’ zealousness. According to an investigation done by The Riverfront Times in April of 2004, one of the witnesses who testified at trial that Mrs. Prewitt had offered him money to kill her husband reported in a signed statement eight months after the conviction that Deputy Hughes had “threatened to throw him in jail if he did not cooperate with the police.” Another witness gave one statement during the investigation but by the time of trial, the witness signed a much more detailed statement, prepared by Hughes, in which the witness stated that Mrs. Prewitt wanted to kill her husband for the insurance money, a fact completely lacking in his initial interview.

Hughes fails to mention that one of the key interrogations of Mrs. Prewitt used to paint her as a lascivious woman out to get her husband, was conducted by Hughes and recalled by him on the witness stand. He taped fifteen minutes of this twelve plus hour interrogation but did not record any more of the interrogation; he did not procure from Mrs. Prewitt a signed statement confirming the substance of the conversation. This key trial testimony was drawn completely from Hughes memory.

Hughes suggests that one of the motives for the crime was to collect on Mrs. Prewitt’s husband’s life insurance, leaving the impression that there would be a windfall for her upon his death. He does not mention that the family owed debt, accumulated in the course of running their lumber yard business, far in excess of the value of Mr. Prewitt’s life insurance. More importantly, he fails to mention that the Prewitts had recently changed their insurance policies, substantially reducing the insurance for Bill and increasing the insurance on Patty. At the time of his murder, Bill had two policies, each for about $50,000, that were about to lapse. As established in a “Sheriff Departments Investigative Report”(02-20-84), the whole life accumulator policy would have stayed in effect by premiums paid from the policy for 7-10 years. The premium on the term life policy was $12/month. Yet Hughes asserts: “He (Bill Prewitt) could not afford the premium due to Mrs. Prewitt’s spending habits.” He concludes that Mrs. Prewitt killed her husband because “the life insurance clock running out.” Hughes is asserting that she had to kill her husband then, because otherwise she would have had to come up with $12. The financial motive is also belied by the facts. If Patty Prewitt wanted to gain financially from the murder of her husband, why would she allegedly kill him after the insurance on his life was substantially reduced?

Kevin Hughes’ letter suggests that this case was open and shut. If so, why did the prosecutor offer Mrs. Prewitt a plea bargain that could have resulted in Mrs. Prewitt’s release after 6-7 years? Such an offer is inconsistent with Hughes’ picture of indisputable evidence that Patty Prewitt was a cold-blooded killer. The offer of the plea bargain means that the state believed its interest in deterrence and retribution would have been served by incarcerating Mrs. Prewitt for 6–7 years. She has now served 22. Fifteen years would seem to be an unreasonable additional punishment for having a 4-day trial. Mrs. Prewitt declined the offer because she was innocent and trusted the justice system. Unfortunately her faith in the system was misplaced.

The trial transcript shows that there were numerous flaws in the trial process: during jury selection, excusing for cause all those on the jury who would have trouble sentencing a woman with five children to life without possibility of parole; a defense counsel who failed to counter inaccurate expert testimony which many jurors said was the key to their determination of guilt; a bailiff who misspoke and told a divided jury that they had to try harder and decide and jurors who believed that otherwise they would be forced to stay overnight; and other such irregularities,

Hughes uses Mrs. Prewitt’s insistence on her innocence as a reason to deny her clemency. He suggests that she is a manipulative woman who has used her children. How is an innocent woman expected to act? Failure to have remorse about a murder she did not commit is appropriate for an innocent woman. Mrs. Prewitt has maintained her innocence for 24 years. Perhaps she is innocent. The irregularities detailed here certainly make that a serious question. Nevertheless, a commutation of Mrs. Prewitt’s sentence does not require a finding of innocence. These same irregularities, the flawed investigation, the failure to pursue leads or collect evidence that could have exonerated Mrs. Prewitt, the prosecutor’s pleas offer and the problems at trial, suggest that her sentence should have been significantly less, thus justifying a commutation to time served. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in Herrera v. Collins: “Executive clemency has provided the “fail safe” in our criminal justice system. K. Moore, Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and the Public Interest 131 (1989). It is an unalterable fact that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible.” 506 U.S. 390, 415 (1993).

The Hughes letter apparently has been influential previously to stop what might have been clemency for Patty Prewitt. One man’s demonstrably faulty and biased account should not bar commutation of the sentence of a woman who has already served 22 years in prison, far beyond the time that she would have served had she accepted the proffered plea bargain. On the basis of her conduct while incarcerated, the virtual certainty that she will not re-offend, of having acquired skills while incarcerated that will allow her to earn a living and the 22 years she has served, Patty Prewitt has earned and deserves commutation of sentence. As this is written (August, 2008), Mrs. Prewitt has recently celebrated her 59th birthday. I urge you to act so that Patty Prewitt’s 60th birthday will be spent with her family.

If you have questions about this memorandum, please feel free to contact me at Georgetown Law School 202-662-9580 or by cell 301-300-0285.

[+/-] show/hide this post

5B. Does the trial record reveal gender bias?

Patty Prewitt
GENDER-BASED NARRATIVE AND ANALYSIS

WHY
did the young dark-haired mother
in the soft blue cotton skirt
and starched white summer blouse
sitting at the dark oak defense
table near the juror's box
reject the generous
plea bargain offer,
because white nodding blossoms
watching from branches outside
the courthouse window
winked at her,
because proclaiming guilt
for a horrendous crime that

she didn't commit was
incomprehensible to her,
because she still believed
blind Lady Justice was not
also deaf and dumb,
because white men in suits exuded
confidence that the
jurors would judge
liars for what they were,
but mostly because those
winking white blossoms
lied to her?

– Patty Prewitt, 2008

* * *

On December 14, 1986, 37-year-old inmate Patricia Ann Prewitt was called to the visiting room of the Chillicothe Correctional Center in Chillicothe, Missouri, where her parents and five children were waiting to see her. A large, beefy prison guard stopped Patty at the door to the visiting room. “Over here,” he said, and gestured for Patty to step toward him for a pat-down.

Patty knew that ever since Missouri had lifted its ban on cross-gender pat searches in August of that year, this particular guard had developed a penchant for conducting invasive, humiliating pat-downs. She had seen the man fondle women’s breasts and buttocks and run his hands between their legs, supposedly searching for contraband – which he never found. The guard’s behavior was so unbearable that inmates had taken to skipping meals when they knew he was on duty in the cafeteria, preferring to go hungry rather than be subjected to his groping hands.

Facing the prospect of such a violation, and with her parents and young children watching expectantly from inside the visiting room, Patty could not bring herself to approach the guard. She requested that a nearby female guard conduct the search instead. Unused to having his authority questioned by a female inmate, the beefy guard became angry and ordered Patty to come to him.

Describing the incident in a letter to her friend Nancy the next day, Patty wrote, “The veins were sticking out on his meaty thick red neck. My legs would not move. The rational part of me knew that I was in big trouble. The hurt little girl in me couldn’t allow him to touch her.”

Embarrassed and vulnerable, Patty whispered to the guard, “Please, sir, I’m a rape victim. I beg you to allow the female guard to search me.”

Unmoved, the guard simply became more enraged. Patty looked through the door of the visiting room, from which her family could see but not hear the exchange. The look on her father’s face gave her courage, and she addressed the guard again.

“If you’re not going to allow me to visit, give my family the big box of Christmas gifts that I made for them. The box is in the Property room in the basement. Do you understand?” Patty said, loudly enough for all the occupants of the visiting room to hear.

Patty’s audacity led to palpable hostility toward the male guard as the husbands in the visiting room realized he had probably sexually assaulted their wives, and it won Patty the small victory of being searched by the female guard and preserving her Christmas visit with her family. But after visiting hours were over, Patty received her punishment. She spent her first Christmas Day as an inmate locked in solitary confinement for disobeying a direct order.

* * *

Patty Prewitt made a second trip to solitary confinement in March of 1987, after another defiant encounter with the beefy guard. Although the other inmates were too afraid of retaliation to challenge the guard, Patty stood her ground. She helped initiate a lawsuit to address the problem of male guards molesting female inmates, and a hearing was conducted in federal court on September 30, 1987. Patty and six other women testified before Judge Joseph Stephens – in handcuffs and leg shackles – about the sexual abuse they endured at the hands of male prison guards. Many of them told the judge about their pre-prison histories of physical and sexual violence, which made the guards’ unwanted fondling even more psychologically painful.

The lawsuit resulted in a consent decree, stipulating that male prison guards had to search the breast area of female prisoners with the backs of their hands and that female prisoners could choose to be frisked by female guards when they were available. In the years after the consent decree was in place, the female prisoners no longer had to suffer in silence. If there was a violation of the consent decree, they called the attorney who had been appointed to them by Judge Stephens, and the problem was addressed.

Patty’s audacity is not the only thing that makes her different from her fellow prisoners. Statistically, a majority of female inmates in the United States have histories of domestic violence or child sexual abuse. Patty does not. Most of them have drug addictions or mental illnesses – often the former is a coping mechanism for the latter. Patty has neither. Many female prisoners had absent parents growing up and lack a high school diploma. Patty had two loving parents and some college education. Most of the women in prison with Patty are there because of their relationship with a man – often they took the fall for drug dealer boyfriends, or they killed abusive husbands.

Most of them are guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. Patty is innocent.

* * *

On April 19, 1985, at 4:40 p.m., the twelve-member jury returned to the Pettis County courtroom after six hours of deliberation to announce its verdict. In the matter of State of Missouri v. Patricia Ann Prewitt, the jury found the defendant guilty of capital murder and sentenced her to fifty years in prison without parole.

Stoic throughout most of the four-day proceedings, Patty broke down into sobs when the foreman read the verdict. Her five children, aged seven to fifteen, went into hysterics, screaming and running out of the courthouse and into the street. Even the jurors, who had just sealed Patty’s fate, could not hold back tears.

The nightmare had begun fourteen months earlier. In the early morning hours of February 18, 1984, Patty and her husband Bill returned to their Holden, Missouri home through the rain from a Friday night outing with friends. The couple checked on their sleeping children before going to bed themselves. Patty woke up to the sound of a gunshot among claps of thunder and the feeling of being dragged out of bed by her hair. In the darkness, a man forced her to the floor, held what felt like a knife to her throat, and raped her.

Patty knew something must have been horribly wrong with Bill because he did not come to her aid. As soon as her attacker left, she crawled over to Bill to check on him. He would not wake up, and his breathing had taken on a rattling sound. The lights and the phone did not work. Scared and confused, Patty checked on her children, who were still sleeping soundly. Patty raced down the stairs, almost falling down them, and retrieved a flashlight from the truck outside. She ran back up to Bill, and the light from her flashlight revealed blood all over his pillow.

Needing to get help for Bill but afraid to leave the children behind, Patty woke up her daughters and then her sons. She told them there was a fire so that they would follow the fire drills the family had practiced. Patty helped the kids get dressed and took them outside to the truck.

Panicked, Patty locked the children in the car and ran back through the rain and inside one more time, thinking there must be something she could do for Bill. Once upstairs, she realized the futility of this attempt, as she could not carry her unconscious, bleeding husband out to the car alone. She raced back to her children, still with no idea what to do. Patty started the ignition and drove down the road in search of help. She stopped at the home of Cliff and Patricia Gustin, pounded on the door, and begged for assistance, somehow communicating to them what had happened. Cliff quickly drove off to find the Holden police chief.

Sometime later, an ambulance stopped at the Gustin home. Patty stepped outside to receive the news that her husband was dead. Patty does not remember how she broke the news to the kids. All she remembers is huddling on the couch with her children, all six of them clinging to each other for dear life and crying together, no one speaking a word. Bill was gone. There was nothing to say, only shock and grief.

* * *

Within a matter of hours, news spread around the small town that Patty Prewitt had killed her husband. The morning of the murder, Deputy Sheriff Kevin Hughes went straight for the life insurance papers and collected the Alfred Hitchcock novels from the Prewitts’ home, expecting to find similarities between the stories and the circumstances of Bill’s death.

Patty was not informed that she was a suspect until two days after the murder – when she was interrogated for seventeen hours straight – but Hughes and the other law enforcement officers had made up their minds from the very first moment. Satisfied that they had apprehended the murderer, they ceased their half-hearted efforts to find the intruder who had shot Bill and raped Patty, believing him to be a myth.

As Hughes and others put together a case against Patty over the next fourteen months, the prosecution began to offer Patty plea bargains. Because she was innocent, Patty rejected every plea presented to her. Even when she was offered a deal that would have released her from prison on parole after five years, Patty refused. She refused to consent to being imprisoned for a crime she did not commit, much less a crime of which she and her children were victims.

“I’m not leaving my kids for five years,” Patty said. But on April 29, 1986, after learning that her appeal had been denied, Patty was forced to leave them for fifty years.

* * *

Patty Prewitt was – and still is – a devoted mother. Before going to prison, she had never been separated from her children for more than a weekend. She was affectionate and supportive. At Halloween, Patty made costumes for her children, and at Easter, she hid eggs for them. She volunteered with the PTA; she coached softball; she helped start a task force to keep drugs out of the high school. Her family was her life.

But Patty’s status as a mother was used against her at trial.

During jury selection, the prosecutor asked potential jurors, “Would anyone, regardless of the evidence, would anyone solely because the defendant is the mother of five children be unable to vote for conviction of capital murder and send her to the Department of Corrections for life without parole for fifty years?”

Seven members of the jury panel raised their hands. Over Patty’s attorney’s objections, Judge Donald Barnes granted the state’s motion to strike all seven potential jurors for cause – leaving only the jurors who, without hearing any of the evidence, had no qualms about locking a mother with young children away for the rest of her life. It is hard to imagine this personalized jury screening tool being used for a male defendant with children. Sometimes juries are screened for their ability to administer a particular punishment more generally; for example, in death penalty cases, jurors who absolutely refuse to sentence any defendant to death are excused. But rarely, if ever, has a court allowed a jury to be so carefully selected for its lack of sympathy toward a particular characteristic of a defendant – in this case, Patty’s motherhood.

Through letters, phone calls, frequent visits, and sheer determination, Patty has continued to be a good mother to her children during her twenty-three years in prison. When they were still young, she did everything she could to protect her children from knowing about the horrors of prison life she experienced every day. She gave them handmade Christmas gifts, wrote to them about her funny prison stories, kept up a positive attitude during visits, listened to their problems, and alleviated their fears.

Patty’s children have always known that their mother would never have killed their father. Now adults, they have created petitions, websites, Facebook and MySpace pages, and tried everything they can think of to get their beloved mother out of prison. It is hard not to wonder how their lives might have been different if those seven jurors had been allowed to remain.

* * *

Patty Prewitt may not have much in common with her prison mates, but she did not exactly fit the norms of the women in her pre-prison community, either. Patty was raised on a ranch in rural Missouri, where she rode horses, played sports, and developed into quite the tomboy. Manual labor was familiar to her from an early age. Patty was always outgoing, even boisterous.

After Bill and Patty got married in 1968, Patty spent several years tending the house and raising the children while Bill worked. But in 1976, the couple borrowed some money and bought their own lumber yard. After that, the two worked side by side, partners in their endeavor. Patty’s role in the business was unusual for a woman of her time and place. She had one friend who operated a hot asphalt roller for a living, but all the other women she knew were housewives. Patty was the only female driver when she made trips to pick up lumber for the business. As the more assertive spouse, Patty was the one who worked to collect from customers with outstanding balances.

Patty Prewitt did not conform to her community’s expectations of femininity – and her lack of conformity ultimately condemned her.

* * *

Bill Prewitt was murdered with his own gun, a 22-caliber repeating rifle. At Patty’s trial, the prosecution placed significant emphasis on the fact that Patty knew how to operate the gun. Deputy Hughes testified that Patty told him she had used the rifle to shoot the rats that got into the chicken house at the Prewitts’ old home.

“She said she used to sit out there and plug those suckers,” Hughes testified during his direct examination.

During her cross-examination, Patty and the prosecutor had the following exchange:

Prosecutor: “You told the officers, I believe, you wanted the gun the week or so before your husband was murdered in order to shoot a stray dog; is that right?”

Patty: “Not shoot a stray dog, to scare a stray dog off.”

Prosecutor: “Scare it off. You had used the semi-automatic a lot of times, hadn’t you?”

Patty: “I used it before.”

Prosecutor: “Did you tell the officers at the old house you had rats in the chicken house and you used to sit on the deck and plug those suckers?”

Patty: “The way it sounds is not exactly the way it was, but I have shot rats with that gun.”

The prosecutor went on to ask Patty about the 22-caliber rounds found in her jewelry box by Bill’s and her bed. Patty explained that the ammunition was there from fifteen years of putting away the contents of Bill’s pockets at the end of each day – the change and the shells were all mixed in together.

Had Patty been a man, no prosecutor, juror, or judge would have thought twice about her experience with guns or at the presence of ammunition at her bedside. A man’s knowledge of guns would not have incriminated him; in fact, it would have been expected of him.

Yet the prosecutor, in his closing argument, cited as supporting evidence for the government’s theory of the case, “Mrs. Prewitt’s knowledge of that gun. She used to set and plug those suckers. She knew how to use it. Had one, she knew how to use it, kept her shells for fifteen years handy.”

The prosecutor knew that every juror would find it unusual for a woman to be familiar with guns and experienced in using them. He was also counting on the jurors to be appalled at the image of a woman shooting and killing rats or stray dogs. The juxtaposition of the femininity of Patty’s jewelry box with the masculinity of the deadly ammunition sent the message to the jury that this was not their kind of woman. The assumption the prosecutor hoped to transmit was that if Patty knew how to use the gun that killed Bill, she must have been the one to do it. It probably helped that nine of the twelve jurors were themselves women – women tend to be harsher on their own sex.

Ironically, although Patty’s failure to conform to gender norms contributed to her demise, the traditional feminine attributes she did possess may have been just as damaging. By her own admission, Patty approached the investigation of her husband’s murder with complete naiveté. Wanting to help find Bill’s murderer, Patty spoke freely to the officers of the Holden Police Department and the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office. Two days after the murder, she was interrogated for seventeen hours without asking for an attorney – it did not occur to Patty that an innocent person would need one. Patty rejected plea bargain after plea bargain, convinced that the truth would prevail. But in the end, being peaceful, cooperative, and trusting – all characteristics considered appropriate for a woman – may have harmed Patty just as much as her outgoing, self-sufficient, tomboyish nature did.

* * *

In May of 1974, Bill and Patty Prewitt drove to Sedalia, Missouri, to run some errands. They split up and arranged to meet back up at a park at a certain time. Patty took care of her shopping and then meandered back toward the park, enjoying the beautiful weather.

Patty heard footsteps behind her and slowed down to let them pass. The footsteps slowed down as well. Patty started to get nervous. She told herself she was being paranoid, so she kept walking but began to speed up. The footsteps sped up too.

Three men grabbed Patty from behind, dragged her behind some nearby bushes, and raped her.

Patty and Bill decided not to tell anyone what had happened. Patty felt embarrassed and ashamed, and they thought it would be best to just move on and forget about it. At first Bill was sympathetic and understanding about the rape, but after a while, it became clear that Bill was having an even harder time coping with it than Patty was. Their relationship became strained and distant. They ceased to be intimate.

While they were buying the lumber yard and transitioning to Holden in 1976 and 1977, Bill and Patty lived apart – Patty at the old house with the kids and Bill at the new place in Holden. They were essentially separated. They worked together during the day, but they slept apart at night. Patty felt lonely and lost.

In 1976, confused and with nowhere to turn, Patty began an affair with a man named Ricky Mitts. Over the course of the next couple of years, she and Bill were both unfaithful to each other with several different people. None of the affairs lasted longer than a few months at a time, and none of them involved love. Ashamed of her reasons for cheating on Bill and unable to talk about the rape, Patty told her lovers that Bill was abusive or that she wanted a divorce. She thought the lies would be easier for the men to accept than the truth.

Finally, in the fall of 1978, the carefully buried problems in Bill and Patty’s marriage exploded to the surface. During an argument in their kitchen, Patty started throwing the china at Bill. They yelled at each other until they were both crying. After that, they worked hard to mend their relationship, and by 1980, their marriage was solid again.

At her trial, Patty testified, “We kind of lost each other for a while, but we had so much. We had so much. We worked hard. We went back like it was, only sometimes I thought it was even better. We were stronger. We were happy. We were really happy.”

* * *

When Deputy Hughes first questioned Patty about her husband’s murder, he asked her if she or Bill had ever had affairs. Patty said no. She was ashamed, and she considered the intimate details of her relationship with Bill to be private – and completely unrelated to finding the man who murdered Bill.

Deputy Hughes’s investigation uncovered Patty’s affairs, though, and three of her former lovers were brought in to testify against her at the trial. Patty’s attorneys objected to the testimony, but the prosecution insisted it was relevant to Patty’s motive, and the judge allowed the men to take the stand.

All three of them said on direct examination that Patty had told them she wished her husband were dead or even that she wanted them to help her kill Bill. On cross-examination, though, two of them admitted that they had been intimidated or coerced by the sheriff’s office.

Jonathan Hancock testified that the police told him he was a “prime suspect” and that if he did not cooperate, they would lock him up. He was also under investigation for arson, a charge that disappeared.

Richard Hays testified that after he gave his original statement to the police, they presented him with a pre-typed statement to sign. The second document included assertions Hays had never made – including that Patty had told Hays that if he killed her husband, the life insurance would make Patty a wealthy woman. Hays said the sheriff told him that if he signed the new document, he would not have to testify in court. Hays also had a pending charge for assault. His troubles with the law disappeared after he testified against Patty.

Ricky Mitts voluntarily went to the sheriff and confessed about the affair. He also told the police that Patty had asked him to kill her husband. On cross-examination, though, Mitts admitted that after he gave his statement, he went straight to Patty’s house. He told Patty that he had given incriminating information to the police but that if she married him, he would not have to testify against her, and she would be free.

* * *

This parade of paramours formed the core of the government’s case against Patty. Over and over, the prosecutor told the jury that Patty had killed Bill for “lust and greed.” Deputy Hughes, who developed a personal vendetta against Patty because she was the one suspect he could not get to confess, claimed in court that Patty told him she had affairs because her “fire burns hotter than others” and because she had “a different set of values.” Patty insisted that she never said anything remotely like that.

Deputy Hughes and the three former lovers all were allowed to testify about the gory details of the affairs, many of which were exaggerated, according to Patty. The judge allowed testimony about the duration of the affairs, how many times Patty had sex with each man, and where they had sex each time – with no objection from Patty’s attorneys.

The prosecutor repeatedly used Patty’s affairs not only to suggest a motive for killing her husband but also to infer that she was a bad mother, which would presumably make her more willing to kill her children’s father.

During Patty’s cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned her as follows:

Prosecutor: “As I understand your explanation of that, the extramarital affairs were just for the sexual gratification they offered?”

Patty: “No.”

Prosecutor: “Well, what did they afford, ma’am?”

Patty: “I don’t know, some comforts. I don’t know.”

Prosecutor: “Did they have an effect on your relationship with your children?”

Patty: “No, sir.”

Prosecutor: “Well, wasn’t it necessary for you to abandon the children’s interests when you were with these men?”

Patty: “No, sir.”

Prosecutor: “Is it your testimony that you could continue being a good and proper mother and be at a motel with Jon Hancock?”

Patty: “I was always a good mother.”

The prosecutor even used Patty’s explanation for her affairs against her, twisting it to sound as though Patty were trying to blame Bill for her unfaithfulness.

In closing, the prosecutor said, “Her rape over here in Sedalia occurred before the first known illicit affair, and it was Bill Prewitt’s fault, he withdrew from her, he couldn’t take it, forced her, forced her to be an adulteress, had to have others for sexual delight or for comfort, not clear which.”

This statement not only encouraged the jury not to believe Patty’s story about her 1974 rape but also completely minimized the complexity and emotional trauma of recovering from such an experience, for both Patty and for Bill. It made Patty’s explanation of her affairs sound weak, implausible, and selfish.

The prosecutor’s skepticism of the 1974 rape, combined with the testimony about Patty’s affairs, cast doubt on Patty’s assertion that she was also raped by Bill’s murderer. The prosecutor played upon society’s tendency to be suspicious when a woman cries rape, especially if she does it more than once – and upon the idea that “promiscuous” women cannot be victims of rape.

In his closing argument, the prosecutor characterized Patty’s defense as insisting that “a rapist intent on murdering Mrs. Prewitt” came into the Prewitt home, disabled the lights and the phone, killed Bill, and “advanced with his murderous manner to enjoy Mrs. Prewitt’s oft-enjoyed sexual favors.”

The undertones of the government’s closing argument are, first, that no one would go through all of that trouble just to rape Patty Prewitt – ignoring the fact that Patty’s defense claimed that the intruder’s primary goal was to kill Bill, not to rape Patty – and second, that no one would need to rape Patty because Patty would have given in willingly.

The prosecutor also used Patty’s dishonesty toward her former lovers about her relationship with Bill and her dishonesty toward Deputy Hughes when first asked about affairs to suggest that Patty was lying about what happened on the night of Bill’s murder. The prosecutor’s message to the jury was, if you believe Patty committed adultery, then she has no credibility, and you must also believe she committed murder.

“The defendant was motivated by sheer greed and sexual lust and had been for years. She had planned for years to kill her husband. She disregarded her marital vows and the noticeable obligations of motherhood. She pursued one sleazy affair after another, once, two at a time,” the prosecutor said, conflating the sin of adultery with the crime of murder.

The prosecutor continued in his rebuttal, “The Defense acknowledges Bill Prewitt is a fine, decent, man, devoted. The evidence is that she defiled his home with those lovers when the children were there, she defamed him as a wife beater, she abandoned her duties as mother of her children. She deprived him of a future with his family, and she deprived the children of their father by murdering him, and ladies and gentlemen, there is in evidence conclusive proof that Patricia Prewitt murdered Bill Prewitt.”

The “evidence” listed by the prosecutor is simply that Patty cheated on Bill, and he explicitly urges the jury to make a leap of faith from that fact to the conclusion that Patty was guilty.

As a result, Patty Prewitt was essentially convicted of adultery and sentenced to fifty years in prison without parole.

* * *

Five months after Patty went to prison, her parents and children came to visit her, as they did almost every Sunday. Each of her five children took turns sharing a private one-on-one moment with their mother.

When it was nine-year-old Morgan’s turn, he climbed into Patty’s lap, took her face between his small hands, and asked, “Mommy, do you have fifty years?”

Wanting to protect her youngest child from the harsh truth but understanding that he already knew the answer to his question, Patty hugged her son and replied, “Yes, Morgan, but we’re working on it. We’re working hard to change that so I’ll be able to come back home to you.”

* * *

Twenty-three years later, Patty remains in prison. She turns sixty this year. She has not yet served half of her fifty-year sentence. Morgan is now thirty-one years old, and he and Patty’s three daughters all have children of their own.

Through it all, Patty has refused to give in. She enjoys regular visits with her children and grandchildren, provides advice and emotional support to her fellow prisoners, and is a AFAA-certified group exercise instructor and is studying to take the Personal Trainer certification test very soon. She writes poetry and piles of letters, takes advantage of every educational opportunity available to her in prison, drafts letters to government and prison officials and local newspapers when she encounters mistreatment of inmates, and acts in plays through the Prison Performing Arts program. She won an award for an essay about prison life. She has worked as the shop lead in the prison’s Information Systems Unit for fourteen years, writing software and teaching programming skills, and she has become an aerobics and yoga instructor.

Patty has exhausted every legal remedy available to her – she has submitted a motion for a new trial, appealed her conviction, and petitioned for habeas corpus – but all of her efforts have been denied. She has begged for clemency from five governors and is working on her sixth.

Patty Prewitt learned the hard way that sometimes innocent people do go to prison. But Patty will never stop believing that they can find their way back home again.

Jessica Heaven,
Georgetown University Law Center

Jane H. Aiken, Professor of Law,
Georgetown University Law Center
jha33@law.georgetown.edu

[+/-] show/hide this post

5C. Affidavits establishing that a plea bargain was offered to Patty

[+/-] show/hide this post

6A. My Sister Inmate, Patty Prewitt (more coming)

From sister ex-inmate R. W.

Dear Governor Blunt,

I am writing in regards to Patricia Prewitt. It is my hope that you will know Patty as I do after you read my letter. I was incarcerated for 15 years; five of those years, I spent with Patty as her cellmate or in a stall next to hers. In those 15 years, I met a lot of woman and I truly believe in Patty’s innocence!

Aside from the fact that Patty is innocent, there are many other reasons to allow her to return to society. She has a huge support system waiting for her release. Patty has four wonderful children, 9 grandchildren, her parents and two siblings who are part of that support group.

Patty is as close to her children today as she was when she walked into prison. She continued to be a mother even behind prison walls I have watched her write a letter every night to each of her children as well as her mama. She guided her kids with a loving hand. Patty was very involved with PATCH (Parent and Their Children) and had PATCH visits whenever she could. Those visits helped keep Patty and her children close. During the visits, the children would each take turns sitting on their mothers lap while the others huddled as close as possible. It was in the PATCH trailer that Patty’s parents informed her one of her children was dead. Governor Blunt, I am sure you can imagine the devastation of such news and the emptiness Patty felt when she was denied the opportunity to console the rest of her children or attend the funeral.

As she was with her children, Patty adopted many young women who came through the prison. She was patient and kind; she encouraged everyone to better themselves and make the most of their situation. Patty is the most upbeat individual I have ever met and she tried to help people see the more positive side to their lives. She talked to women about the importance of a good education; Patty also volunteered to tutor anyone who was preparing for their GED, specializing in women who were non-readers. Patty was not just a talker; she led by example and enrolled in college classes as well. She has an Associate of Arts Degree, Introduction to Business Diploma, and is currently enrolled in Fontbonne University for Prison Performing Arts. Governor Blunt, she took Computer Programming Certification of Training IBM AS/400 Computer Programmer and is currently the lead programmer at Vandalia prison. Patty is also a certified Group Fitness Instructor as well as Step Aerobics Instructor.

Patty is also involved in extracurricular activities as well. She co-directs, acts, dances, and helps with the set designs. She has been in Grease, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Wizard of Oz, Macbeth and Crowns. Patty won first place for Non-Fiction/Essay in the PEN American Center, NY. She is the founder of Moma and the Kids Special Visit. She also designs and crochets specialty teddy bears for abused children. Patty has been involved in the REC, Residents Encounter Christ program, for 18 years.

Now I would like to share with you my personal friendship with Patty. She is extremely intelligent, energetic, and vibrant. By setting the example for her life as she does, she makes it easy for those around her to believe dreams do come true. Life is always half full for her Governor Blunt and it was not difficult for me to change my attitude. When I was growing up the only subject in school I excelled in was math when Patty talked me into going back to school, I took English 101 and with her guidance, I received an A. Whenever I had difficulties, I could always talk with Patty and she could explain it so I would understand. My GPA was 3.50; with out her guidance I would not have done so well. Patty also took me back to church. In the beginning of my incarceration, I tried to attend the Catholic Mass and thought the Priest was very abrupt. When I returned with Patty, Mass took on a completely new meaning for me.

Governor Blunt, I remember when her oldest son died. I was one of three inmates who found out the night before her parents called the Superintendent. I cannot remember anything harder than pretending there was nothing wrong until Patty could be told of his death. I was waiting for her on the steps of our dorm when she returned from the PATCH trailer. We walked the yard that night; sometimes Patty would speak about Matt, but she was mainly quiet. I was not sure she would pull through that horrible time in her life.

Patty made quite an impression on me and my whole attitude changed, not only towards life in general but my life in prison in particular. Whenever I was depressed, Patty helped me bring myself out of it. I wanted to be like Patty! She was warm and kind hearted, never having anything bad to say about anyone. Staff and inmates alike trusted her. She has an infectious laugh that would brighten everyone’s day. Patty is the most courageous person I have ever met.

Patty is like a sister to me; we are closer than my own sister and I. We have shared stories of our lives; shared the sadness of incarceration, but through it all, she remained constant. My friendship with this wonderful woman has enriched my life. I use to love to do the crossword puzzles in the back of the TV Guide, but I was not very good with them. I would drive Patty crazy asking her questions on that puzzle; she would fling herself back on the bed, telling me she hated crossword puzzles. I would always tell her I just needed the answer to this one question, but I would be back with another questions within a few minutes. After her nightly ritual of watching a movie and writing her family she would go brush her teeth and come back to find that I had sabotaged her bed and she would have to remake it.

Governor Blunt, Patty has the skills to be a productive citizen when released and you would never have to worry if you give her clemency that she would do anything to return to prison. Prior to her incarceration, she was involved with the community; she and her husband coached a co-ed volleyball team and she was President of the Chamber of Commerce. I could see Patty volunteering at a fitness club as an Instructor or being co-director at a community theater. No matter what Patty decides to do, she will do a great job and enrich the lives of people around her.

I hope this letter gives you insight into the type of person Patty Prewitt is as well as the confidence to commute her sentence and rid her and her family of the nightmare they have endured for 22 years. Patty and her family have been punished long enough; please reunite them.

From sister ex-inmate D.W.

I met Patty in December 1990, shortly after moving into population. Patty encouraged me to attend college as soon as I was classified and would remain at Renz Correctional center. I started attending college, Lincoln University the summer of 1991. I entered prison with 18 college credits and when I paroled in 2002 I had a total of 54 college credits. I became involoved in PATCH (PArents and Their Children) because of Patty, which gave me the opportunity to have a home like setting environment when my mom and daughters would visit.
Patty encouraged me each opportunity she had to become all that I could while incarcerated. She encouraged me to attend my first Residents Encounter Christ. It was Patty who introduced me to the Catholic Community.
Patty was known to my daughters as the Bunny Rabbit lady at Easter. We still laugh at the pictures. Patty would wear the sweltering outfit, no matter how warm/hot it would be in order to bring happiness to the children.
My grandson, Montrell, saw the picture and asked about the Bunny Rabbit Lady. Patty called and had a chance to speak to him. When Easter arrived he was wondering why the Bunny Ladty did not bring him candy. My daughter tried to explain to him that the Bunny Lady could not visit yet, but someday she might. I pray that some day is soon.
Patty encouraged me during my bouts of depression, not to allow it to take me under. She would insist that I get out of bed, take vitamins and continue to exercise.
When ISU started up, we had to be tested in order to meet the criteria for becoming programmers. Patty was the first to recruit ladies and tell each one of that we could be the best programmers that DOC could have. She was right, not only did I pass the test, I was the first Team Leader.
Patty has encouraged a number of offenders to be all that we can be regardless of where we are, and it is time for Patty to be released and go home.
When my parents passed away, while I was incarcerated, she was the first to spring into action and rally the ladies to see what could be done to help ease my pain. It is time for Patty to go home and be with her parents, who have traveled for 22.5 years to see their daughter.
This is the short version of what Patty means to me, I will speak with anyone on her behalf to help her gain her freedom. I still call her friend, but she has always been my Mentor.
I love and may God bless your decision in setting Patricia Ann Prewitt Free.

From sister ex-inmate LOB

Please allow me to share my personal experiences with “Patty”.

I spent two years in W.E.R.D.C.C. In that time I came to know and admire “Patty”. We both belonged to several programs: Restorative Justice, Writer’s Club and Prison Performing Arts.

Restorative Justice allowed us to give back. We made quilts; but for the most part, crocheted afghans, lap covers, and, most poignantly – burial clothes for abandoned babies. “Patty” was a patient teacher and took time with all of us to make sure we got each assignment done. We shared tears with every burial outfit completed.

Writer’s club was a place to explore our talents with pen and ink. “Patty” was the first to encourage and help others envelope language skills.

Prison Performing Arts was, and still is, close to our hearts. “Patty’ and I are among the original members. She is still helping others that struggle with Shakespeare- kindly critiquing and working with women unfamiliar with his work. She inspired me to “go for it”! May I add that I was in a wheelchair, but she never let me skip a beat in whatever I chose to participate in. I should also mention that in order to belong, you must be violation free.

One poignant moment in time cane when a well-loved offender passed away suddenly. “Patty” comforted those who needed it and went out of her way to offer compassion and sympathy in a place that does not necessarily encourage either one.

I have seen the most jaded corretions officers and toughest offenders respond to her genuine concern and down to earth personality.

My admiration comes from seeing her hold her family together from behind bars. They are a close-knit and suppportive unit. They have never waivered in their love and belief that one day they will be reunited. Her daughter, who is currently fighting cancer, is a major concern at this time for ‘Patty”. However, with all of this going on, she still manages to be upbeat, positive and hopeful. She would be a welcome addition to my community.

Please consider Patricia Prewit’s plea for commutation

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

FROM SISTER EX-INMATE MB

In 2001 I had the honor of sharing a room with Patty for a short 2 months. Needless to say, Patty is an extraordinarily amazing woman. Had it been me in her situation, incarcerated for so many years under a questionable conviction, I am sure I would have given up. Patty has never given up. Never let the dark depressing attitude of prison life daunt her spirit or thirst for life's experiences. She seldom complained about anything, except maybe the food in the cafeteria. Patty has always been involved in any activity that would benefit her fellow inmates. Patty and I still correspond with one another after all these years. Patty inspired me to always do the next right thing upon my release and was a great moral support when I made the decision to go back to school. I am proud and honored to call Patricia Prewitt my friend. Even if we never meet again she will always be in my heart and my prayers.

FROM SISTER, LONG TERM EX-INMATE

Dear Governor Blunt;
I am very happy to write this letter in support of Patty Prewitt. I did 21 years and but by the grace of God ,a kind Governor who decided that the justice system had been far too harsh on me , and a support system who stood by me I would still be in prison . Instead I am a productive member of society and have achieved many things since my freedom in 2007.
I have known Patty for 21 years and she is a very kind, compassionate and caring person. She has been a mentor to others in many aspects and has always been willing to help others and often putting them ahead of her own self. Many times, when things were in turmoil she remained the calming factor to those around her and in prison things often occurred in that realm. She is well liked and respected by both staff and inmates and often people would look to her for advice or recommendation.
She has been active in the system and for her age does a great job in teaching aerobics and sharing her knowledge of other things as well with those who want to learn, and giving good advice as well. She always took the new offenders under her wing and tried to assist them as she could. She donated her skill in crocheting as well in teaching those who wanted to learn and in giving her time to patch and other programs within the system. I believe she is an excellent candidate for consideration of a second chance in society.
She is a good listener and a good friend and she has been there many times for me. Patty is a very intelligent person and it is a waste to let her remain in prison when there is so much she can accomplish out here.
Please consider her request and look to the things she has done and consider her for release to let her spend her remaining time with her family and to do more for society from outside the prison setting.

Sincerely,

From a sister ex-inmate who was granted clemency after 27 years
from a "life without hope of parole for 50 years"

Dear Governor Blunt:

I am writing to share with you my experiences with Patty Prewitt and to ask you to please find it in your heart to commute her sentence of life with a fifty year stipulation to time served.

Your signature, as Secretary of State, is on my commutation papers. In 2004 The Honorable Governor Bob Holden commuted my sentence of life with a 50 year stipulation to a paroleable sentence. I was released from prison in October of 2007. I have been residing in St. Charles and doing very well. I successfully graduated from the program offered by Project Cope, which assists prisoners being released from prison. My sponsors say that I have excelled in the program and in getting a new start in life after 27 years in prison. I have been working as a sales representative for an alternative energy company and I have my own home based business selling nutritional supplements. I am a member of EWomensNetwork, an organization of successful business women. Life has been wonderful for me since I have been released from prison and I will be eternally grateful to Governor Holden and all of the many supporters who worked so hard to give me a new start in life.

Governor Blunt I am asking you to please give Patty Prewitt a new start in life. Patty is one of the most caring, giving and loving women I have ever met in my life. She never meets a stranger and she extends herself to help anyone in need, whether it be to lend a listening ear, give motherly advise, teach someone how to exercise to maintain their health, teach them a craft, or tell them a joke or story to make them laugh.

I have spent numerous hours and days and years with Patty. She is like a sister to me. We were liaisons together in the Catholic Church and the Residents Encounter Christ program. We have laughed together and cried together and shared our dreams and hopes and stories of our families. We have worked diligently on the clemency process together, always having hope and faith that one day the gate would open and we would be returned to society again.

Governor Blunt you are a man of great character and wisdom and respected by many for your judgment. As a spiritual man, you know that God gives us the gift of discernment. I am asking you to please draw upon that discernment in regard to Patty Prewitt.

When you live with a person 24 hours a day 7 days a week you get to know everything about them and can read them like a book, and I am telling you Governor Blunt that it is my firm spiritual conviction that Patty Prewitt is not guilty of the crime she was convicted of.

The past can not be changed, Patty has lost her husband, her family and her freedom and she has served more time on this conviction than many men who were serial killers. This woman is not a danger to society. She is intelligent, creative and a true giving person. Patty will be an attribute to society and her community if giving the chance to prove herself. I implore you Governor Blunt to give that chance to Patty Prewitt.

Sincerely,
BC

[+/-] show/hide this post

Commutation for Patty Prewitt

Sample letter to Governor Nixon requesting clemency

Read regular updates at "Justice for Patty" blog

Patty's Poetry

1. The case for commutation of Patty Prewitt’s sentence

2. Very brief highlights in support of commutation for Patty Prewitt

3A. Patty Prewitt's Story as Told by Patty

3B. Meet Patty Prewitt: Here she reads her poetry (4 mins)

4. Read what a principal opponent of commutation has said. Judge whether it is unbiased. The next entry provides facts conveniently omitted here.

5A. An analysis of the trial proceedings and the opponent's case, including distorted information and left out facts.

5B. Does the trial record reveal gender bias?

5C. Affidavits establishing that a plea bargain was offered to Patty

6A. My Sister Inmate, Patty Prewitt (more coming)

Links