PEORIA — The end is near, said Cleve Heidelberg's lead attorney less than an hour after a judge threw out a 47-year-old murder conviction and ordered a new trial for Heidelberg.
"The conviction was vacated today and I believethat Cleve Heidelberg now stands as the longest-serving prisoner to have his conviction vacated," said an emotional Andy Hale. He stood next to Heidelberg's sister who, like Hale, had hoped the 74-year-old man could walk out of the courthouse on bond. But that didn't happen. Still, Hale said it was coming.
"It's close. It's coming. That day is coming," he said as Mae Winston, Heidelberg's sister, bobbed her head with excitement. "The hard work is over. The conviction was vacated."
Equally emotional was Phyllis Espinoza, who was a little girl when Heidelberg was convicted of the murder of her father, Peoria County Sheriff's Sgt. Raymond Espinoza.
"I am very disappointed with the judge's decision and I have also concerns and worries that if Mr. Heidelberg, if he should be freed, I do worry about who his next victim will be based upon his past violence and experience before when he was arrested for armed robbery and all his violence that is detailed and documented from the parole records," she said.
After nine months of hearings, motions and hours of arguments, Peoria County Judge Albert Purham Jr., said he found statements made by Matthew Clark credible and new evidence that could tip the scales at a new trial. Clark gave a videotaped deposition recently where he said his now-deceased brother, James Clark, shot and killed Espinoza during a botched attempted robbery at the old Bellevue Drive-In Theater on May 26, 1970.
At Heidelberg's originaltrial, Matthew Clark chose not to testify. And that's one of the reason why the judge felt it was new. He also gave credenceto statementsmade by another man, Lester Mason, who was friends with the Clarks and Heidelberg. Both men said James Clark had told them it was he, not Heidelberg, who fired the fatal shots.
What happens now, however, remains to be seen, as many of the witnesses are dead. State's Attorney Jerry Brady said his office "was reviewing the evidence to decide what our next course will be."
The next big fight looming on the horizon is bond. Hale and Heidelberg's team want him out of prison now. They said his health is poor, and that they completely tore apart the state's case, and he deserves to be free.One of Heidelberg's attorneys, Amy Hijjawi, went as far as to say prosecutors were stalling because "they want him to stay in prison until he's dead."
ButMatt Jones of the State Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, which was handled the case instead of Brady's office, said he wouldn't agree to setting a time table for a trial or even to allow him to remain free on bond.
"Mr. Heidelberg, separate and apart from this case, has a lengthy criminal record and a lengthy disciplinary record in the Department of the Corrections, all of which is relevant for a judge setting a bond. A PR (personal recognizance) bond is wholly inappropriate," he told Purham.
Purham set an April 28 bond hearing for Heidelberg.
In making his ruling, Purham spent 20 minutes reading his decision regarding Heidelberg's post-conviction petition, which is a form of an appeal that is decided in the trial, not the appellate court. The soft-spoken judge held the attention of everyone in the packed second-floor courtroom which has seen such famous trials as the Richard Speck multiple homicide case.
The judge denied Heidelberg's claim that his civil rights were violated when a jailer admitted he heard a jailhouse conversation between Heidelberg and his attorney at the time. Purham said it had been brought up before and was untimely as well as dealt with properly by another judge.
Heidelberg has long maintained he didn’t pull the trigger. In the following decades, he's repeatedly appealed and even filed a federal civil suit to challenge his trial and conviction. All proved unsuccessful at getting him out of prison. He's serving a 99- to 175-year prison term.
The new legal tussle started last summer, when his team of attorneys convinced Purham to allow an outside party — the Attorney General’s Office — to review the entire case. That office will examine whether police or prosecution errors — if any — might combine with any new evidence to merit a new trial or even an outright acquittal. That special prosecutor matter is separate from the post-conviction matter, which was filed a short time later as another way to attack the conviction.
Purham didn't weigh in on the special prosecutor matter. That will be dealt with at a hearing in four to six weeks, when the two sides can weigh their options and see where to go on that case as well as whether an appeal was necessary for the post-conviction case.
Andy Kravetz is the Journal Star public safety reporter. He can be reached at 686-3283 and akravetz@pjstar.com. Follow him on Twitter @andykravetz.
