Kurtis Watkins has spent over a decade in prison, convicted of a crime he insists he did not commit. His conviction, based largely on the testimony of Officer Steven Pinkerton, was rooted in one crucial detail: Pinkerton’s identification of Watkins as a suspect in a 2013 shooting. But crucial information about Pinkerton’s past—information that could have undermined his credibility—was never shared with the jury.
In August 2013, Pinkerton, a white officer with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police, was staked out in an alley when a gunfight broke out between a group of men. The officer later claimed to have seen one of the shooters flee through the alley, firing shots as he ran. Despite his brief, unclear glimpse of the suspect, Pinkerton pursued him and fired five shots. About 15 minutes later, Kurtis Watkins, a 23-year-old Black man, was arrested two blocks away and identified by Pinkerton as the shooter.
However, Watkins maintains he was nowhere near the shooting that night, and that he had no involvement in the crime. With no physical evidence linking him to the crime scene and no witnesses identifying him, Watkins’ case seemed to hinge entirely on Pinkerton’s testimony. The trial’s prosecutor even said, “The only issue in this case is identification of the defendant by Officer Steven Pinkerton.”
Yet, there was more to Pinkerton’s history that could have questioned his reliability. Two key pieces of information that could have potentially swayed the jury’s perception of Pinkerton’s credibility were uncovered by The Independent. These details, however, were never shared during the trial.
A Fatal Encounter and Social Media Controversy
First, just months before the arrest of Watkins, Officer Pinkerton had been involved in another controversial encounter that resulted in a death. In October 2012, Pinkerton mistakenly identified a man named Kerwin Harris as a robbery suspect. Pinkerton chased Harris, tackled him to the ground, and then held him in a chokehold while another officer used a Taser. Harris, a 39-year-old Black man, died at the scene. The incident was ruled an accident, but experts, including law professor Vida Johnson, now argue that it should have been classified as a homicide.
Second, Pinkerton’s social media history raised further questions about his biases. Posts from his Facebook account revealed derogatory comments about Black people, including one post stating, “Black people are pathetic,” and another criticizing them for wanting “favored treatment.” These posts were concerning to at least one of Pinkerton’s colleagues at the time. Yet, despite this troubling history, neither the fatal encounter with Harris nor Pinkerton’s racist social media activity were disclosed during Watkins’ trial.
The Legal Oversight
Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Brady v. Maryland (1963), prosecutors are required to disclose any information that could affect the credibility of witnesses, especially when it could have impacted the outcome of a case. This means that information about Pinkerton’s violent history and racist behavior should have been shared with Watkins’ defense attorneys, as it could have influenced the jury’s judgment of his reliability as a witness.
Watkins, who has been appealing his conviction for years without success, didn’t learn about Pinkerton’s past until he was informed by a reporter from The Independent during an interview at Jefferson City Correctional Center, where he is currently incarcerated. His reaction was one of disbelief.
“All along, he’s racist,” Watkins said when told about Pinkerton’s history. “They let him put me in prison?”
Despite his ongoing legal battles, Watkins’ case remains unresolved, and his conviction stands. The failure to disclose vital information about the officer who identified him has raised important questions about justice and accountability, especially for Black individuals in the criminal justice system.
The Importance of Disclosure in Criminal Trials
The case of Kurtis Watkins underscores the critical importance of ensuring that all relevant information is disclosed in criminal trials. If Pinkerton’s troubling history had been known, it may have influenced the jury’s perception of his testimony. However, the failure to reveal this information has left Watkins, a man who insists on his innocence, languishing in prison for a crime he maintains he did not commit.
Legal experts argue that this case highlights systemic issues in the criminal justice system, especially regarding how police officers are treated as witnesses. Given Pinkerton’s history and the serious implications of his actions, the question arises: How many other cases are similarly influenced by undisclosed information about law enforcement officers?
Comments