IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

CRIMINAL DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

)
Plaintiff, )
) Circuit Court No. 94 CR 1334401
v. )
) Honorable Judge Dennis J. Porter
NEVEST COLEMAN, )
)
Defendant. )
)

MR. COLEMANS 2-1401 PETITION TO TEMPORARILY

VACATE HIS SENTENCE DURING THE PENDENCY OF
THE STATES RE-INVESTIGATION AND VACATE HIS CONVICTION

NOW COMES Petitioner, NEVEST COLEMAN, by and through his counsel, THE

EXONERATION PROJECT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL, and

seeks to vacate his sentence and be released on bond pending the States reinvestigation of this

case, as well as to eventually have his conviction vacated, as follows.

Introduction

Nevest Coleman has maintained his innocence throughout these proceedings.

Incarcerated since April 1994 for the rape and murder of Antwinica Bridgeman, stunning new

DNA evidence suggests that he and his co-defendant, Darryl Fulton, are entirely innocent of the

crimes. Petitioner brings this motion in the hope that he does not have to remain incarcerated

while the State conducts its investigation to bring the true perpetrator to justice.

Specifically, DNA from the semen on the victims underwear, semen on the victims

sweatshirt, and DNA from underneath the victims fingernails all exclude Coleman, Fulton,

Eddie Taylor (the third man implicated by Colemans confession, against whom all charges have

1
been dropped), and the victims boyfriend, and all implicate a serial rapist who has been linked

by DNA evidence to three other rapes. In contrast, Mr. Coleman had never been arrested in the

25 years of his life, and was employed as a groundskeeper at Comiskey Park when he was

arrested.

In light of this new evidence and additional evidence, detailed below, Mr. Coleman

respectfully requests that his sentence of life imprisonment be vacated and he be released on an

I-Bond pending the States reinvestigation and further forensic testing. In this way, Mr. Coleman

does not have to remain incarcerated while the search for truth continues, but his extant

conviction means that the State need not have to retry Mr. Coleman should this Court ultimately

hold that his conviction should not be overturned.

Background

Petitioner Nevest Coleman was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated criminal

sexual assault, and aggravated kidnapping following his trial in 1997. The sole evidence against

him was his confession. At the time of Mr. Colemans trial, there were grounds to disbelieve the

confession: All of the forensic evidence then available excluded Mr. Coleman and the two men

implicated by his confession, Darryl Fulton and Eddie Taylor. But the jury credited the

confession and convicted Mr. Coleman.

The conviction did not square with Mr. Colemans background as a law-abiding and

hard-working man. Despite living in Englewood his entire life, Mr. Coleman had never been

arrested in his life for any crime until his arrest in this case at age 25. At the time, Mr. Coleman

was working as a groundskeeper at Comiskey Park and had a steady work history ever since he

graduated high school.

2
 Mr. Coleman was just one member of his hard working family. His brother, Micquel

Coleman, owns his home in Evanston and has worked for the past 28 years for the same

company, A & H Mechanical, where his current position is superintendent. Mr. Colemans sister,

Jennice Coleman, owns her home in Chicago and has worked for the past 15 years for Union

Pacific Railroad. Thirty people came to court to testify on Mr. Colemans behalf at sentencing,

even after he was convicted of this brutal rape and murder. They included family, friends, co-

workers, and religious figures, all there to attest to Mr. Colemans character.

New Evidence of Mr. Colemans Innocence

Powerful new evidence of Mr. Colemans innocence has now come to light. DNA testing

discovered semen on the victims underwear and excluded Mr. Coleman, Mr. Fulton, and Mr.

Taylor from being the donor of the semen. The victims boyfriend was similarly excluded as the

source of the DNA. See Exhibit A, forensic report dated May 31, 2017. The DNA profile

obtained from the semen on the victims underwear matched, with almost scientific certainty, to

a serial rapist. That rapist has been connected to at least three other rapes.

Even more telling is that testing on male DNA obtained from underneath the victims

fingernails revealed that the same serial rapist could not be excluded from being the source of

that DNA. Mr. Coleman, Mr. Fulton, Mr. Taylor, and the victims boyfriend were all excluded

from being the donor of that DNA. See Exhibit B, forensic report dated May 4, 2017. Likewise,

testing on a semen stain on the victims sweatshirt excluded Mr. Coleman, Mr. Fulton, Mr.

Taylor, and the victims boyfriend, but could not exclude the serial rapist. See Exhibit C, forensic

report dated July 21, 2017.

In sum, recent DNA testing, unavailable at the time of trial, has revealed that a serial

rapist left his semen on the victims underwear and sweatshirt, and his DNA was found

3
underneath the victims fingernails. At the same time, all of the people implicated by Mr.

Colemans confession (as well as the victims boyfriend) are excluded from having contributed

any of the DNA found on the victims clothing and underneath her fingernails.

In addition, new evidence reveals that Mr. Colemans investigators have obtained

numerous other false confessions. Specifically, Mr. Coleman testified that his confession was the

product of coercion and false promises. He testified that he was physically abused during his

interrogation and told that if he cooperated with the police by providing an inculpatory

statement, he could go home.

New Evidence of Misconduct

Bill Foley, the lead detective on his case, and the detective who obtained his confession,

has since been revealed as the detective who obtained a false confession from Harold Richardson

in the now-notorious Englewood Four case. See Exhibit D, supplementary report dated

November 23, 1995. In that case, all four convicted men were exonerated when DNA from a

serial rapist murderer was discovered at the crime scene; that same DNA excluded all four

defendants. See Exhibit E, Motion for Certificate of Innocence. Mr. Richardson was later

awarded a Certificate of Innocence by this Court despite the confession obtained by Detective

Foley. See Exhibit F, Richardsons Certificate of Innocence.

After the Englewood Four were exonerated, the FBI discovered an insiders account of

how those false confessions were obtained. Former Assistant States Attorney Terrence Johnson

revealed that the Englewood Four were told they could go home if they cooperated by confessing

to the crime and implicating others. They were told witnesses go home. See Exhibit G,

Johnson 302 report. Johnson further reported that the detectives created a cheat sheet to help

4
them keep their stories straight when testifying at the subsequent motions to dismiss brought by

the Englewood Four. See Exhibit H, Englewood Four Cheat Sheet.

The Detectives were successful; the motions to suppress were denied and the Englewood

Four were convicted despite, just as here, no forensic evidence inculpating them. But for

advanced DNA testing, the four would remain incarcerated like Mr. Coleman.

Mr. Coleman testified that he was interrogated by approximately eight detectives; police

reports included Detectives Boudreau, Halloran, and OBrien as among the detectives working

the case. (Halloran testified at Mr. Colemans trial). These three detectives have been accused by

dozens of men of coercing false confessions from them. Petitioner details only those cases that

led to exonerations; there are many, many, more examples of misconduct perpetrated by these

detectives. See Exhibit I, Chart of Area 1 Detectives misconduct.

In November 1992, Detectives Boudreau, Halloran, and OBrien jointly induced Harold

Hill, Dan Young, and Peter Williams to provide interlocking confessions to raping and killing a

woman.1 Notably, records revealed that despite confessing to murder, Williams was actually

incarcerated at the time of the crime. Because of his demonstrated innocence, Williams was

never charged. Hill and Young, however, were convicted although their confessions implicated

Williams, who was undeniably innocent. Again, later DNA evidence exonerated Hill and Young,

leading to their release from prison. See Exhibit J, Harold Hill First Amended Complaint.

Likewise, Detective Boudreau featured prominently in the case against Tyrone Hood and

Wayne Washington, coercing a false confession from Washington. Both Hood and Washington

later had their murder convictions overturned. See Exhibit K, Hood Petition for a Certificate of

Innocence.

1
Coincidentally, the victim in that case was impaled and her body was left in an abandoned apartment on Garfield
Blvd, just as what transpired in this case.

5
 As the Chicago Tribune observed, Boudreau stands out not only for the number of his

cases that have fallen apart, but for the reasons. In those cases, Boudreau has been accused by

defendants of punching, slapping or kicking them; interrogating a juvenile without a youth

officer present; and of taking advantage of mentally retarded suspects and others with low IQs.

See Veteran Detectives Murder Cases Unravel, Chicago Tribune, December 17, 2001,

available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-011217confession-story.html

(last visited on August 3, 2017).

It just so happens that these are the Detectives who obtained the confessions from Mr.

Coleman and Mr. Fulton. As stated in the offer of proof made during Mr. Colemans suppression

hearing, Mr. Coleman made an immediate outcry to Attorney Juliette Ferguson on the day of his

interrogation. (R. J-10). He made that outcry not knowing that the detectives who obtained his

false confession had been accused of the exact same abusive behavior by scores of other men.

Mr. Colemans Alibi Corroborates the DNA Evidence

In April 1994, Jennice Coleman, Mr. Colemans sister, lived at 917 W. Garfield on the

second floor. The victim was found and presumably killed in the basement of that building. After

the victims body was discovered in Ms. Colemans basement on April 28, 1994, Ms. Coleman

recalled that she had heard a scream a few weeks before. When she heard the scream, at around

10 or 11 p.m., Ms. Coleman called her brother Nevest at his girlfriends house and spoke to him.

While Ms. Coleman cannot, 23 years later, pinpoint the exact night that she heard the scream and

telephoned her brother, she knows it was a few weeks before the victims body was recovered

and believes it occurred the night of April 11, 1994. See Exhibit L, Jennice Coleman Affidavit.

6
 Relief Sought

By this Petition, Mr. Coleman seeks two categories of relief. First, he seeks to have his

sentence vacated in light of the new evidence, and released on an I-bond. Second, Mr. Coleman

requests that his conviction be overturned on the grounds that he is innocent.

I. Mr. Coleman Seeks to be Released on Bond Pending the Outcome of the States
Re-investigation

Mr. Coleman is trying to balance the equities facing this Court. On the one hand, he has

overwhelming DNA evidence supporting his innocence from three separate items semen on the

victims underwear, semen on the victims sweatshirt, and DNA from underneath the victims

fingernails. On the other hand, more items remain to be tested and the State has indicated a

desire to conduct additional investigation.

No one has a greater desire to identify Ms. Bridgemans killer than Mr. Coleman. His

fervent wish is that the true perpetrator is swiftly brought to justice. Nevertheless, he should not

have to wait for justice while imprisoned for a crime he did not commit.

Mr. Coleman understands that the State wishes to conduct further DNA testing and

continue its investigation to determine whether the serial rapist murdered Ms. Bridgeman. At the

same time, however, the State desires to withhold the serial rapists identity, thus denying

Petitioner the right to present a fulsome defense to the Court. The State should not be permitted

to have it both ways. The State should either grant Petitioner the right to relief from his natural

life sentence or grant him access to the evidence that would allow him to prove it.

To balance the competing interests, Petitioner asks that this Court, at present, vacate his

sentence but leave his conviction intact. In this way, Mr. Coleman would be eligible to be

released on bond and not have to endure confinement in the penitentiary while the State

continues its investigation. At the same time, should this Court eventually disagree that the

7
evidence is sufficient to overturn Mr. Colemans conviction, that conviction will remain extant,

so that the State need not retry him in order to re-incarcerate him.

Release on bond is particularly appropriate here where Mr. Colemans family stands

ready to provide him shelter and ensure his appearance at all court proceedings. Mr. Colemans

brother, Micquel Coleman, as stated above, owns a seven-bedroom home in Evanston, where he

has lived for over twenty years. Micquel Colemans sons are in college and his house has plenty

of room for Mr. Coleman to live while out on bond. Micquel Coleman has worked for the same

company, A & H Mechanical, for the past 28 years and currently serves as its superintendent.

Mr. Coleman has no objection to being placed on electronic monitoring while out on bond, or

any other reasonable condition imposed by this Court.

Mr. Colemans proposal is particularly reasonable given the post-conviction evidence to

date. For the States theory to be correct, the victim would have to had consensual sex with a

serial rapist (who was not her boyfriend), sex that left his semen on her underwear and

sweatshirt, and then Mr. Coleman, Mr. Fulton, and Mr. Taylor subsequently raped the victim

without leaving any of their DNA on her underwear, sweatshirt, or fingernails. Moreover, the

victim would have had to have had consensual sex with the serial rapist close enough in time

such that his semen was on both the underwear and the sweatshirt (and under her fingernails) she

was wearing at the time she was killed. Moreover, in the over two months the State has had to

investigate, there has been no evidence presented to suggest that the victim knew the serial rapist

or had any type of relationship with him that would provide a harmless explanation for the

presence of his semen on her clothing. In short, although there remains a theoretical explanation

for the States position, it is overwhelmingly unlikely.

8
 Had this new DNA evidence been available to the Court after Mr. Colemans conviction,

but before his conviction was imposed, this Court would not have proceeded to sentence Mr.

Coleman to life in prison. All that Mr. Coleman seeks is to be returned to that procedural posture,

where he stands convicted but unsentenced, while the remainder of the investigation unfolds.

Section 2-1401 permits this Court to do just that. A petition filed pursuant to 735 ILCS

5/2-1401 seeks to bring facts to the attention of the trial court that would have precluded entry of

a final judgment had the facts been known at the time of entry of the judgment. People v.

Haynes, 192 Ill. 2d 437 (2000). Section 2-1401(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a

Petitioner may seek relief from judgment on the basis of exculpatory DNA results obtained

pursuant to section 116-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regardless whether more than two

years have passed since entry of judgment.

A 2-1401 petitioner is entitled to have his conviction vacated if, by the preponderance of

the evidence, the new evidence was not known to the petitioner at the time of trial, could not

have been discovered by the petitioner with the exercise of reasonable diligence, and would

probably change the result if a new trial is granted. People v. Waters, 328 Ill. App. 3d 117, 127

(1st Dist. 2002). A court in a criminal case has inherent power to reconsider and correct its own

rulings, even in the absence of a statute or rule granting it such authority. People v. Mink, 141 Ill.

2d 163, 171 (1990); see also People v. Elliott, 225 Ill. App. 3d 747, 75051 (4th Dist. 1992) (As

long as the case was pending before it, the trial court had jurisdiction to reconsider any order

which it had previously entered.).

Section 21401 establishes a comprehensive, statutory procedure that allows for the

vacatur of a final judgment older than 30 days. People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1, 7 (2007). A 2-

1401 petition may be used to challenge an improperly entered sentence of confinement. See

9
People v. Harvey, 196 Ill. 2d 444, 447 (2001) (sentence may be challenged via a Section 2-1401

petition), abrogated on other grounds, People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, 19. Section 2-

1401 is to be construed liberally . . . when necessary to achieve justice. People v. Lawton,

212 Ill. 2d 285, 298 (2004).

This Court has the jurisdiction to achieve the first step towards justice for Nevest

Coleman, a man who has spent 23 years imprisoned awaiting his exoneration. Mr. Coleman

requests that his conviction be vacated, this Court grant him an I-Bond, and both sides be

afforded the opportunity to continue investigating this case with an eye towards identifying Ms.

Bridgemans true killer and Mr. Colemans total exoneration.

II. Mr. Coleman Seeks A New Trial

Mr. Coleman includes in this petition, for all the reasons stated above, a new trial.

Because the parties are still engaged in DNA testing pursuant to Section 116-3, Mr. Coleman

respectfully requests that he be afforded the opportunity to amend his petition before the Court

adjudicates his request for a new trial.

Conclusion

One of the guiding principles in the application of Section 2-1401 is that a petition

under this section invokes the equitable powers of the court, which should prevent enforcement

of a judgment when it would be unfair, unjust, or unconscionable. Ostendorf v. Int'l Harvester

Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273, 285 (1982). DNA evidence exonerating Mr. Coleman has been available for

over two months, yet additional testing will take at least an additional two months. Mr. Coleman

should not have to remain incarcerated while the parties investigate to find even more

exculpatory information. This Court should employ its equitable powers and vacate Mr.

Colemans sentence and release him on an I-Bond.

10
 WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, Nevest Coleman, respectfully requests that his sentence be

vacated, he be granted an I-Bond, he be granted a new trial, and any other relief this Court deems

just.

Dated: August 7, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,

Russell Ainsworth
One of Petitioners Attorneys

Jon Loevy
Russell Ainsworth
THE EXONERATION PROJECT
311 North Aberdeen Street
Third Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60607
Phone: (312) 789-4968
Fax: (312) 243-5902
Russell@exonerationproject.org

11