The End of a Failed Technique -- but Not of a Prison Sentence

Lee Wayne Hunt has been in prison for two decades.
Lee Wayne Hunt has been in prison for two decades. (CBS News)
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 18, 2007

SMITHFIELD, N.C. -- Lee Wayne Hunt readily admits that he once was a major marijuana dealer who so antagonized police that they used to call his fortified home "Fort Apache," mocking his Native American heritage. But Hunt is adamant about one thing: He never committed the two execution-style killings that sent him to prison for life.

He vividly remembers the day 21 years ago when an FBI scientist walked into a North Carolina courthouse and told jurors that he was able to match the lead content of bullets found at the crime scene to that of bullets in a box connected to Hunt's co-defendant. The testimony provided the sole forensic evidence to corroborate the prosecution's circumstantial case.

"It was like him bringin' a gun in and say that this is the murder weapon that was used to kill these people," Hunt said of the FBI testimony. "It's the same thing. He said that these are the bullets that come out of this box that killed these people."

In 2005, the bureau ended its bullet-lead-matching technique after experts concluded that the very type of testimony given in Hunt's case -- matching a crime-scene bullet to those in a suspect's box -- was scientifically invalid.

Hunt, 48, said in a prison interview with The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" that he was never informed by the FBI, and that his attorney discovered the flawed science while attending a conference.

"We wouldn't know about it today if we were waiting to hear from anybody else," said Richard Rosen, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has taken up Hunt's bid to win freedom. "I think anybody involved in a case involving fraudulent scientific evidence ought to know."

State prosecutors now concede in court filings that the FBI's testimony was unreliable, but they argue that the conviction should stand because two witnesses implicated Hunt after receiving plea deals.

Now those accounts have been questioned.

In 1986, Hunt and a co-defendant, Jerry Cashwell, were convicted in separate trials of killing Roland and Lisa Matthews, who were shot execution-style, their throats slit, in their home on a dirt road near Fayetteville two years earlier. Jurors spared Hunt the death penalty.

Prosecutors argued that the murders were punishment for Roland Matthews's theft of marijuana from Hunt's drug ring. Gene Williford, an associate of Hunt's who received immunity, testified that Hunt had told him that he intended to teach Matthews "a lesson" for allegedly stealing drugs.

Williford, who is now dead, also testified that he dropped Hunt off at the murder scene and that he later picked up Hunt and Cashwell, who both appeared to be wearing bloody clothing. A few days later, Williford told jurors, he and Hunt were present when another member of the drug ring referred to the killings, allegedly stating that Lisa Matthews had "begged us not to kill her."

Williford, however, did not witness the killings and never claimed that Hunt had admitted to them. Hunt's mother and aunt said that he was at home with them that night.

CONTINUED     1        >

© 2007 The Washington Post Company