Justice For Rickie

Rickie's Story of His Wrongful Conviction

Rickie Lamont Slaughter is an innocent man who is serving a prison sentence for a crime he did not commit.

In 2004, a man along with some of his friends and family was robbed at, gunpoint, and unfortunately, that man was shot in the face. The victim said two men black men, with Jamaican accents, one 5 foot 6 inches, and one 5, foot 10 perpetrated the crime and took \$1500 in cash, various credit cards, and items of clothing.

Based on an unfair and faulty photo line-up, Rickie (who does not have a Jamaican accent and is 5'8") was misidentified. Additionally, witnesses described the perpetrators' vehicle as being a Pontiac Grand Am, a different kind of car than the one Rickie possessed, a Ford Taurus. Furthermore, there was no physical evidence of the cash, credit cards, or clothing, to link him to the crime. Despite obvious flaws in the case, Rickie was still eventually wrongfully convicted at trial due to the photo misidentifications.

Now, new evidence in a federal proceeding regarding Rickie's conviction has brought to light that the prosecutor knowingly withheld evidence that could have proved Rickie's innocence. There was a second, more fair photo line-up from which Rickie was not identified as a perpetrator by the victims and witnesses and a 911 dispatch report revealing what time the perpetrators left which was at 7:11pm. At that time, Rickie was picking up his girlfriend from work on the opposite side of town at the same time the crime was ending nearly 9 miles away proving that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime.

Below, follow along and click on the hyperlinks to read documents and evidence in Rickie's case. Also, sign the petition to help correct the grave injustice that was done to Rickie.

In his [federal habeas appeal](/pdfs/rickie-2AP.pdf), Rickie detailed how the facts against him were unjust for several reasons:

The unfair photo line-up

During the police investigation, an unfair photo line-up was presented to, the victims and witnesses that caused them to misidentify Rickie.

Specifically, the photo line-up was made in a way that caused Rickie's photo to stand out from the rest of the photos. The color and background was uniquely different from the other 5 photos in the line-up, which psychological made his picture stand out to the viewers. Psychologists and police protocols have long-warned about making one photo stand out from the rest because it can lead to misidentification. The investigation deliberately did not follow the proper protocols.

The Innocence Project has an in-depth study of misidentification, which details how bias has been used to convict innocent people of crimes they did not commit. https://www.innocenceproject.org/eyewitness-identification-reform/

New evidence of a second more fair photo line-up

At a recent hearing, ordered by a federal judge, the now-retired lead detective in this case, Jesse Priedo (who retired after wrongly accusing 15 year old Patrick Wayne Harper of a crime that he was later exonerated for) testified for the first time ever that a second more fair line-up was shown to the witnesses in 2004. In that instance no one picked Rickie out of this more fair line-up.

However, this information was not adequately provided to Rickie's attorney before trial, and the jury did not hear about this second more fair photo line-up. Police did not promptly preserve this photo line up as evidence. Hearing about this second more fair photo line-up, would have undermined the first unfair photo line-up and Rickie would likely have been acquitted had the jury heard this.

Rickie deserves a trial where this evidence can be presented to the jury.

New evidence of when the perpetrators left the crime scene and the prosecutor's deception

At Rickie's trial, a big issue was what time did the perpetrators leave the crime scene. This was an important question because Rickie's girlfriend testified that Rickie picked her up at 7:15 pm, 9 miles away from the crime scene. Additionally, an investigator drove the fastest route possible between the crime scene and where Rickie's girlfriend worked to determine the fastest time it would take to drive that route. The fastest route was 20 minutes.

At trial, the prosecutor secured a court ruling requiring that the jury be told that the perpetrators left the crime scene at 7 pm. However, new evidence (a 911 dispatch report, which was withheld by police and prosecutors all these years) proves that the perpetrators actually left the crime scene at 7:08 pm.

Specifically, the call came in at 7:11 pm and the caller is documented as having stated to the dispatch operator that the crime had happened 5 minutes ago. This statement was made one minute and 48 seconds into the call, which means that the statement was made at 7:12 pm. The dispatch report documents this as t/l 5 minutes ago, which means that the time-lapse of the crime was 5 minutes ago. Simple subtraction of 7:12 pm minus 5 minutes means that the perpetrators left between 7:07 and 7:08 pm.

Additionally, the now-retired detective testified at a new hearing that a witness who was the boss of Rickie's then-girlfriend originally stated that he had left work at 7:15 pm. This statement combined with the fact that he stated that he saw Rickie as he was pulling out of the parking lot means that Rickie must have been there at his girlfrien's place of work at 7:15 pm, 9 miles (or 20 minutes away) from the crime scene. At trial, the prosecutors knowingly hid this statement from Ricki's girlfrien's boss from the jury.

This new information means that Rickie could not be one of the perpetrators at the crime scene.

As such, the fact Rickie arrived at 7:15 to pick up his girlfriend at 715 North Nellis Blvd means he could not have perpetrated the crime because the earliest it would have taken a perpetrator to drive from 2612 Glory View would have been 7:28-7:30. This new evidence demonstrates Rickie's need for a new trial to show the jury the evidence of his actual innocence. The fact that the prosecutor misled the jury at trial into believing that the perpetrators fled the crime scene at 7:00 (and at the same time corruptly withheld a dispatch report that showed the contrary) is significant because it changed the actual timing of the event to favor the prosecutor's fictionalized version and caused Rickie to be wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit.

You can read more by visiting the cases: Slaughter v. Charles Daniels A-20-812949-W 8th Judicial District Court Slaughter v. Renee Baker - A-18-784824-W