THE PRICE OF PROCEDURE:
Nebraska’s Refusal to Free Earnest Jackson
by Jason N. Witmer, Community Advocate
In 1999, Earnest Jackson’s life took a harrowing turn that would trap him in a system less interested in his innocence than its rigid rules. At just 17 years old, Earnest was charged with first-degree murder alongside Shalamar Cooperrider and another young man, Dante Chillous, in connection with the tragic death of Larry Perry. In what would turn out to be a callous twist of fate, Earnest was the first to stand trial, not because of evidence, but because of a procedural whim.
Alone in that courtroom, Earnest faced a jury who did not hear the testimony of his codefendants, who both invoked their Fifth Amendment rights. Earnest’s only defense was that he was with his family the night of the death. It should have been enough—Earnest’s family verified his alibi. It should have been enough. It was not. Earnest was convicted of first-degree murder but acquitted of the weapons charge. The verdict signaled that the jury did not believe Earnest was the shooter. But the jury’s mere belief that Earnest might have been present or aware of this murder handcuffed him to a punishment as severe as if he had taken Larry Perry’s life himself.
Shalamar’s trial ended the same day that Earnest was set to be sentenced to a mandatory life sentence by the same judge. Shalamar took the stand and confessed to shooting Perry, stating he acted in self-defense and clarifying unequivocally that Earnest was not present during the altercation. The jury heard the full story: the tension, the split-second decisions, the absence of criminal intent. This revelation shifted the entire narrative from a murder to a tragic but justified act. They acquitted Shalamar.
Seeing this dramatic turn, Earnest’s attorney petitioned the judge who presided over Earnest’s condemning trial and now Shalamar’s exonerating trial to reconsider the guilty verdict. A verdict based on that criminal act of murder had occurred now determined not to be a crime. But the judge did not budge, and Earnest was stripped of hope and freedom.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals coldly labeled Shalamar’s confession “newly available” rather than “newly discovered” evidence, a procedural distinction that denied Earnest a new trial. Nowhere did the court consider that this testimony exonerated Earnest and confirmed his alibi. Nowhere did the court validate that this testimony led to the later acquittal of the third codefendant. Nowhere did the court weigh the fact that Shalamar’s acquittal, based on the absence of criminal intent, nullified the very crime for which Earnest was being punished.
Today, Earnest Jackson remains imprisoned, shackled to a sentence for an act deemed justified by the courts. Despite Earnest’s innocence, state senators have rejected bills allowing exculpatory evidence--such as the confession of the person responsible for the act--to be considered by a judge. At the same time, the Nebraska Board of Pardons has denied Earnest’s appeals for justice. Each denial adds to the growing weight of Earnest’s unjust confinement, leaving his family and the community wondering if the justice system is no more than a system…absent justice.
Earnest Jackson’s story is a haunting reminder of how unyielding procedure can overshadow the truth. It is a testament to a system more loyal to its rules than the people it is meant to protect. What more resounding call can there be to those who claim to uphold the rule of law and order than to overturn a case where the crime was determined not to be a crime? Rectifying what is being done to Earnest Jackson each and every day will restore some of the public’s faith that our system values fairness, truth, and people over procedures and politics.
In 1999, Earnest Jackson’s life took a harrowing turn that would trap him in a system less interested in his innocence than its rigid rules. At just 17 years old, Earnest was charged with first-degree murder alongside Shalamar Cooperrider and another young man, Dante Chillous, in connection with the tragic death of Larry Perry. In what would turn out to be a callous twist of fate, Earnest was the first to stand trial, not because of evidence, but because of a procedural whim.
Alone in that courtroom, Earnest faced a jury who did not hear the testimony of his codefendants, who both invoked their Fifth Amendment rights. Earnest’s only defense was that he was with his family the night of the death. It should have been enough—Earnest’s family verified his alibi. It should have been enough. It was not. Earnest was convicted of first-degree murder but acquitted of the weapons charge. The verdict signaled that the jury did not believe Earnest was the shooter. But the jury’s mere belief that Earnest might have been present or aware of this murder handcuffed him to a punishment as severe as if he had taken Larry Perry’s life himself.
Shalamar’s trial ended the same day that Earnest was set to be sentenced to a mandatory life sentence by the same judge. Shalamar took the stand and confessed to shooting Perry, stating he acted in self-defense and clarifying unequivocally that Earnest was not present during the altercation. The jury heard the full story: the tension, the split-second decisions, the absence of criminal intent. This revelation shifted the entire narrative from a murder to a tragic but justified act. They acquitted Shalamar.
Seeing this dramatic turn, Earnest’s attorney petitioned the judge who presided over Earnest’s condemning trial and now Shalamar’s exonerating trial to reconsider the guilty verdict. A verdict based on that criminal act of murder had occurred now determined not to be a crime. But the judge did not budge, and Earnest was stripped of hope and freedom.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals coldly labeled Shalamar’s confession “newly available” rather than “newly discovered” evidence, a procedural distinction that denied Earnest a new trial. Nowhere did the court consider that this testimony exonerated Earnest and confirmed his alibi. Nowhere did the court validate that this testimony led to the later acquittal of the third codefendant. Nowhere did the court weigh the fact that Shalamar’s acquittal, based on the absence of criminal intent, nullified the very crime for which Earnest was being punished.
Today, Earnest Jackson remains imprisoned, shackled to a sentence for an act deemed justified by the courts. Despite Earnest’s innocence, state senators have rejected bills allowing exculpatory evidence--such as the confession of the person responsible for the act--to be considered by a judge. At the same time, the Nebraska Board of Pardons has denied Earnest’s appeals for justice. Each denial adds to the growing weight of Earnest’s unjust confinement, leaving his family and the community wondering if the justice system is no more than a system…absent justice.
Earnest Jackson’s story is a haunting reminder of how unyielding procedure can overshadow the truth. It is a testament to a system more loyal to its rules than the people it is meant to protect. What more resounding call can there be to those who claim to uphold the rule of law and order than to overturn a case where the crime was determined not to be a crime? Rectifying what is being done to Earnest Jackson each and every day will restore some of the public’s faith that our system values fairness, truth, and people over procedures and politics.
