Justin Anderson was sentenced to death by the State of Arkansas for the murder of an elderly woman. According to court documents Justin Anderson fatally shot the victim, eighty-seven-year-old Clara Creech, who was found dead in the front yard of her home. After the murder Justin Anderson attempted to rob her home. Justin Anderson was convicted and sentenced to death.
Race BLACK Sex MALE Hair Color BLACK Eye Color BROWN
Height 72 inches Weight 202 lbs.
Birth Date 03/24/1981
Initial Receipt Date 12/05/2000
Facility Varner Supermax
Justin Anderson More News
On the morning of October 12, 2000, eighty-seven-year-old Clara Creech was found shot to death in the front yard of her home. During the investigation into her death, police investigators obtained Anderson’s name as a suspect in Ms. Creech’s murder. After talking with Anderson’s brother, Maurice, who implicated Anderson in the Creech murder, state police officers went to Anderson’s home in Lewisville. Anderson was nineteen years old at the time. At about 2:30 p.m. that same day, Anderson, according to Sergeant Jeff Jester of the Arkansas State Police, was advised that he was free to leave, that he was not under arrest, and that the police wanted him to accompany them downtown to answer some questions. He was handcuffed and went with the state police officers to the Lafayette County Sheriff’s Office. At some point during this time frame, Anderson was advised of his Miranda rights.
At 5:50 p.m. that afternoon, Anderson completed and signed a Miranda rights form, after being read his rights. State police officers then questioned him regarding Ms. Creech’s death. The entire police interrogation lasted approximately six hours, with two to three breaks. At no time during the initial interrogation did Anderson admit to any involvement in Ms. Creech’s murder.
Following the initial interview, Maurice Anderson asked to see his brother. After Justin Anderson returned from visiting his brother, Sergeant Jester observed that he was visibly upset. He asked Justin Anderson if he or his brother had killed Ms. Creech. Justin Anderson responded that he had killed Ms. Creech and agreed to give a statement. Upon the arrival of Jerry Digman, a criminal investigator with the Arkansas State Police, Anderson was advised of his right to silence and right to an attorney. The interview, conducted at 1:48 a.m. on October 13, 2000, was tape recorded. At that time, Anderson said he understood his Miranda rights and that he understood he had the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. He stated that he was ready to talk and told the investigators that he “shot the old lady in the back.” He then stated that he hid the gun he had used in a vacuum cleaner. He also provided additional details about the murder, such as what he was wearing at the time.
Specifically, Anderson told police that he shot Ms. Creech at 9:00 a.m. “outside ․ by the road” while she was bending down, after he approached her from the back. He further told the investigators that he tried to get into her house by kicking the front door. At that time, Anderson told the investigators that he had found the gun used in the killing behind the trash barrel. He added that he had never shot anybody before, although it had crossed his mind about shooting somebody. He further stated that there was “just something” in him, that life seemed unimportant, and that there was no reason he picked Ms. Creech.
At the conclusion of that interview, Anderson was arrested. He took the investigators to a gun which was located near the Masonic Lodge. On their return to the Lafayette County jail, Investigator Digman mentioned the recent shooting of a truck driver, but Anderson said he did not want to talk about it until they returned to the sheriff’s office. On reaching the sheriff’s office, Anderson gave a second statement to the investigators at 2:26 a.m. After confirming that he still understood his rights, Anderson admitted to shooting a truck driver whose vehicle was parked at the In and Out (hereinafter, the “Solvey” case).1 He further admitted that he had broken into a home a few weeks before the truck incident to steal the two guns which he had used in shooting the truck driver and Ms. Creech.
Anderson was charged with premeditated and deliberate capital murder.
Kenneth Isom was sentenced to death by the State of Arkansas for the murder of an elderly man. According to court documents Kenneth Isom would force his way into a home where he would sexually assault and elderly woman then attempted to kill her. Kenneth Isom would murder an elderly man inside of the home. Kenneth Isom was convicted and sentenced to death.
Race BLACK Sex MALE Hair Color BLACK Eye Color BROWN
Height 71 inches Weight 211 lbs.
Birth Date 06/03/1967
Initial Receipt Date 12/20/2001
Facility Varner Supermax
Kenneth Isom More News
Kenneth Isom, a Drew County man sentenced to death in December 2001 for the stabbing and bludgeoning death of a 79-year-old Monticello man and the rape and attempted murder of the man’s elderly caretaker, has lost another appeal.
The 51-year-old death row inmate contended that the Drew County Circuit Court abused its discretion in dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis because the State suppressed evidence (a Brady violation), limiting discovery for an evidentiary hearing, and denying his motion that Circuit Judge Sam Pope recuse.
The Arkansas Supreme Court found that the Drew County Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his Isom’s petition, did not abuse its discretion in limiting discovery, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for recusal.
“I am pleased with the ruling but very unhappy that the jury’s verdict has not yet been implemented,” said 10th Judicial District Prosecutor Thomas Deen.
Shortly before 8 p.m. on April 2, 2001, a man knocked on the door of 79-year-old William “Bill” Burton’s mobile home in Monticello where he was being cared for by a 71-year-old woman. The woman answered the door, and the man pushed his way inside and demanded money.
Wielding a pair of broken scissors, the man ordered Burton and the woman to lie on the floor of the mobile home where Burton was stabbed and beaten with a lamp. The woman was raped, choked, and beaten. They were discovered the following morning by a neighbor who called police.
Burton died, but the woman survived the attack and subsequently picked Kenneth Isom, then 34, from a photo lineup. At trial, she pointed to Isom in the courtroom, identifying him as her assailant.
In addition to the woman’s eyewitness account of the crimes, DNA evidence indicated there is a one in 57 million chance that another male of the black race is the man who raped the woman.
A Drew County jury in 2001 convicted Isom of capital murder, attempted capital murder, aggravated robbery, residential burglary, and two counts of rape. He was sentenced to death for the capital-murder and received two life sentences for the rapes, a life sentence for aggravated robbery, 60 years for attempted capital murder and 40 years for residential burglary. All of his sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.
His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Subsequently, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the denial of Isom’s Rule 37 petition (ineffective assistance of counsel) and a petition for additional DNA testing. Isom later filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The federal district court ordered Isom to return to state court to exhaust his state remedies.
In a 4-3 decision in May 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Isom was entitled to new hearing in Drew County Circuit Court to consider eight claims. In June 2015, Isom filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in Drew County Circuit Court. A writ of error coram nobis is a remedy that is available in compelling circumstances to address fundamental errors. The hearing for the petition was set for December 2015.
Before the hearing, Isom moved for discovery and for the recusal of Circuit Court Judge Sam Pope. Both motions were denied. In its order denying discovery, the Drew County Circuit Court said any witnesses or evidence that Isom’s attorneys needed could be subpoenaed to the hearing. Following the hearing and the submission of post-hearing briefs, the circuit court dismissed Isom’s petition. Isom appealed that decision.
In reinvesting the Drew County Circuit Court with jurisdiction to consider Isom’s claims, the Arkansas Supreme Court tasked the circuit court with resolving factual disputes raised in Isom’s application. When acting as a fact-finder, the circuit court determines the credibility of witnesses, resolves conflicts and inconsistencies in testimony, and assesses the weight to be given the evidence.
Isom asserted in his petition that the surviving victim was shown two photo-lineups that included his picture: a lineup of stock photographs on April 4, and a poster-sized lineup of enlarged photographs on April 5. He claimed that when the woman was shown the stock photographs, she failed to identify him as her attacker. The Drew County Circuit Court disagreed.
On appeal, Isom contends that the circuit court erred in finding that there was no failed identification on April 4.
To provide context for Isom’s arguments, the Arkansas Supreme Court quoted extensively from the Drew County Circuit Court’s order which stated that it is Isom’s burden to convince the court that a photo line-up was shown to the woman on April 4, 2001 and he failed to do so.
According to the Drew County Circuit Court’s order, the photo lineup was in fact shown to the woman April 5, 2001, at about 12:54 p.m. when she was a patient in the Intensive Care Unit of Drew Memorial Hospital in Monticello. The photo lineup was admitted at Isom’s trial.
Isom, however, argued that a photo lineup was shown by the police investigators to the woman on April 4, 2001, based on a nurse’s note, which stated: “Police here asking for (the surviving victim) to ID suspect from photos. Attempts ID. Police officers to enlarge photos and bring them back tomorrow. (The surviving victim) agrees to view enlarged photos tomorrow.”
The nurse who wrote the note testified at the hearing. She said she had no independent memory of what occurred and offered no testimony about what she meant by “attempt.”
The Court considered additional evidence on that particular issue as well. At Isom’s trial, the surviving victim was questioned on cross-examination by defense counsel about her identification, specifically the photo lineup she viewed on April 5, 2001. The text of that cross-examination follows:
Q: And you looked at the picture?
A: (Nodding affirmatively)
Q: Did you have your glasses on when you looked at the pictures?
A: I’m not sure about the day. They brought me some, a smaller sheet of pictures, and they told me to be sure that, to take time to look at them real good and everything. And I told them it might be better to wait till I got my, some glasses, you know, well, my glasses were all broke up at Bill’s (murder victim’s) house. And so (the eye doctor) fixed a pair of glasses for me. And so that’s when I looked at the pictures again and I picked out, I picked out the man.
The initial emergency room report of (the surviving victim’s) admission to Drew Memorial Hospital shows she was admitted to the emergency room on April 3, 2001 at 9:36 a.m. Other evidence reflects she was transported there by ambulance. The chief complaint being “assaulted.” Other portions of the exhibit show she complained of sexual assault the night before. She had numerous injuries described in the exhibit, including multiple bruises and lacerations in her facial area, and facial fractures. A doctor’s note, dated April 4, 2001, indicated that the woman’s “orbits are particularly swollen and known fractures are present. Her eyes are bloodshot and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis.” The doctor further noted that an ophthalmic consultation would be obtained. The records further note such a consultation took place the same day at 11:45 a.m. The Court was unable to read all of the note but could read enough to find that eye injuries were confirmed by the examination.
Prior to trial, a motion was filed to suppress a photo line-up that was admitted into trial evidence. At a hearing on that motion, a police investigator and eye doctor both testified. The police investigator testified that he was unaware of any other lineup being shown, but there was some discussion in several places of a prior photo line-up. The proof showed that the woman had been assaulted on the evening of April 2. On April 5, two police investigators went to Drew Memorial Hospital to see her. A police investigator testified that the woman had been given some medications to “calm her.” They spoke with her, but she could not see them because her eyes were swollen shut and she needed her glasses, so they decided to wait to show her the photo line-up.
During the delay, the eye doctor’s lab prepared another set of glasses for the woman, to replace the glasses broken in her attack. The eye doctor testified that he took the new glasses to the hospital and fitted them on the woman because of the swelling on her facial area. He further testified that she stated after they were fitted she could see the clock on the wall across the hospital room, actually telling them the time from the clock.
Later, after that fitting at 12:54 p.m., three police investigators went back to the hospital and showed the woman the photo line-up at issue which was admitted at trial and from which Isom was identified.
“From all this evidence, both direct and circumstantial, the Court is of the firm conclusion that no second array, which is the basis of this argument, was shown to (the victim) on April 4 or April 5,” the Arkansas Supreme Court said. “Since the Court finds that this prepared photo array was not in fact shown to (the woman), it follows that this was not in fact evidence favorable to defendant within the meaning of Brady. This argument is thus rejected.
Having set out the relevant findings, the Arkansas Supreme Court turned its attention to Isom’s contention that the Drew County Circuit Court erred in finding that there was no failed identification on April 4. Isom argued that the Drew County Circuit Court erred in (1) discounting the nurse’s note, (2) relying on the woman’s misquoted testimony, and (3) crediting a police investigator’s suppression-hearing testimony.
Karl Roberts was sentenced to death by the State of Arkansas for the kidnapping and sexual assault of a twelve year old girl. According to court documents in 2000 Karl Roberts would kidnap his twelve year old niece who was brutally sexually assaulted before being murdered. Karl Roberts would leave the child’s body in a forest in Western Arkansas. Karl Roberts was convicted and sentenced to death.
Race CAUCASIAN Sex MALE Hair Color BROWN Eye Color BLUE
Height 68 inches Weight 159 lbs.Birth Date 03/06/1968
Initial Receipt Date 05/24/2000
Facility Varner Supermax
Karl Roberts More News
Rebecca Petty’s daughter Andi Brewer would have been 32 this year had she not been snatched away by her own uncle who lured her away from her Arkansas rural home, raped her and strangled her till she bit her tongue in half before her death.
At the age of 12, Andi Brewer was kidnapped by Karl Roberts, who was then 32. On May 24, 2000, Roberts was sentenced to death for kidnapping, raping and strangling Andi to death. But 20 years later, he still remains of death row.
Andi was killed in a forest near Mena in western Arkansas. In December 2014, Petty’s former husband Gregory Brewer (at the time of her daughter’s murder, Petty was already divorced from Brewer) of Mena physically attacked Roberts in one of the courtroom proceedings.
Roberts had sought to waive his constitutional rights and accept the death penalty—this prompted his attorneys to contend that he is not mentally competent to waive his post-conviction rights.
In a chilling account, he had confessed in detail to the police the atrocities he committed on the young girl and how he killed his 12-year-old niece.
He described how he told Andi “I’m gonna f*** you” before he stripped and raped her. Then he “started choking her and mashing my thumbs on her throat” until she turned blue. Later, he hid her naked body in woodland, got rid of her clothes and fled the scene.
Now, Petty has had enough. Slamming the “disgusting” system that continues to keep Roberts alive two decades since his horrendous crime, she revealed the horrific details of Andi’s murder to Sun Online. “Roberts confessed he did it, but he’s been on death row for 20 years.”
“It was a heinous thing Roberts did,” she recalls. “Andi was a little kid and she was scared and wanted to go home. When she was assaulted and brutally raped, she bit her tongue in half. That’s pretty wrong… But that’s the truth.”
Despite the despair and anguish, Petty remembers her daughter with love.
She was just 16 when she gave birth to Andi, calling her ‘Andit Bandit’ fondly. Born in April 1987, Petty recalls how “she had the prettiest hands I’d ever seen, they were so dainty”. Andi was funny, strong-willed and a mischevious child, her mother recalls.
But, at the age of ten, she decided she wanted to live with her father Greg, who had just had a new baby with his wife, as she wanted to spend more time with her baby brother. “I just want to move to Arkansas so I can spend time with my new baby brother,” she had told her mother.
Her mother eventually relented and let her go. A year and a half later, she received a phone call on May 15, 1999, giving her the shocking news that Andi had vanished while babysitting her stepsiblings.
When Rebecca got there, the police, neighbours and relatives were already present. But one presence that Petty found off was of Roberts.
“I’ll never ever forget seeing him. When he saw me, he just started talking. I thought it was strange how he was explaining why he was there, but I was so caught up in being concerned about Andi, it didn’t register.” Roberts even pretended to help in the search for Andi.
Soon after, he was identified as a suspect and confessed to killing Andi.
Petty recalls it being “another punch to the stomach” when the local sheriff broke the news that Andi was raped.
Petty is now writing an online book about Andi’s painful story titled ‘Stolen’. Andi’s sisters Melanie and Kristin are now aged 30 and 24. Petty is married to her third husband William and has two grandchildren. “My life certainly isn’t hanging on the moment Roberts takes his last breath. I’m living my life and, despite it all, I have a beautiful life.”
Alvin Jackson was sentenced to death by the State of Arkansas for the murder of a correctional guard. According to court documents Alvin Jackson was serving a life sentence for one count of capital murder and two counts of attempted murder. Alvin Jackson who is now known as Rahman X was involved in an argument with the correctional guard before he stabbed him with a metal shank. Alvin Jackson was convicted and sentenced to death
Race BLACK Sex MALE Hair Color BLACK Eye Color BROWN Height69 inches Weight 190 lbs.
Birth Date 06/30/1970
Initial Receipt Date 04/29/1988
Facility Varner Supermax
Alvin Jackson More News
A Little Rock man on death row for the slaying of a prison guard in Pine Bluff is entitled to a new hearing on his claim that he is mentally retarded, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
An attorney for condemned killer Alvin Bernal Jackson said the hearing may be delayed because of a pending appeal in a similar case.
Jackson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1996 in the November 1995 stabbing death of Sgt. Scott Grimes, 41, at the Department of Correction’s Tucker Unit. At the time, Jackson was serving life in prison without parole in the 1990 slaying of Little Rock businessman Charles R. Colclasure, 47.
During the federal appeals process, Jackson, 37, asked for a hearing to present evidence to show that he is mentally retarded. He cited a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that executing mentally retarded people violated the Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
A federal judge refused to grant Jackson’s request, finding that he did not argue mental retardation as a defense at his trial and therefore could not make the argument on appeal.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed the lower court ruling Tuesday and sent the case back U.S. District Court in Little Rock for an evidentiary hearing.
The appeals court cited its recent ruling in a another death penalty case to explain its ruling in Jackson’s case. The court ruled in June that convicted murderer Sedrice Maurice Simpson, also known as Sedric Simpson, 35, of Dallas County, was entitled to a new hearing on his claim of mental retardation, even though he did not present a defense of mental retardation at trial.
The court found that Simpson was raising a “previously unavailable federal claim” based on the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision, which did not exist at the time of Simpson’s trial. That Simpson could have argued mental retardation as a defense under Arkansas law but did not do so at his trial was irrelevant, the court said.
The state is appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jackson’s attorney, Jeff Rosenzweig of Little Rock, said Tuesday he anticipates the state will move for a delay of Jackson’s evidentiary hearing, pending the outcome of state’s appeal in the Simpson case.
Roderick Rankin was sentenced to death by the State of Arkansas for three murders. According to court documents Roderick Rankin would murder his ex girlfriend sister, her mother and stepfather for ending their relationship. Roderick Rankin would be convicted and sentenced to death.
Race BLACK Sex MALE Hair Color BLACK Eye Color BROWN Height73 inches Weight 329 lbs.
Birth Date 11/18/1975 Initial Receipt Date 02/13/1996
Facility Varner Supermax
Roderick Rankin More News
The facts surrounding this case are laid out in detail in Rankin I. The murders occurred in the early morning hours of December 27, 1994. Based on the statement of Mr. Rankin’s girlfriend, Sonyae Reynolds 1 , who was hiding in a closet at the victims’ home during the attack, Mr. Rankin became the prime suspect in the murders. According to Ms. Reynolds, Mr. Rankin had repeatedly threatened to kill her and her family if she left him. Moreover, she believed the assailant was Mr. Rankin because the assailant was wearing clothing similar to clothing worn by Mr. Rankin. During the police interrogation, the investigating officers asked Mr. Rankin if he had kicked in the door of the victims’ house and shot the victims. They also asked him if he had experienced problems with Sonyae Reynolds; whether such problems led him to commit the murders; whether he was wearing blue shoes on the morning of the murders; and whether he had seen blood on the shoes. Finally, they asked him whether the gun that they had shown him was the murder weapon and whether he placed it at the location where it was discovered. Mr. Rankin’s response to each of these questions was a simple, “Yes, sir.” He told the officers that he saw Zena Reynolds and her children on the couch when he first entered the house. It was at this point that he started shooting. According to Mr. Rankin, he shot Zena Reynolds first and then shot Ernestine Halford and Nathaniel Halford. Although Mr. Rankin knew Sonyae Reynolds was also in the house, he got scared and left.
The jury convicted Mr. Rankin of three counts of capital murder.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
