← 13th Juror Podcast
13th Juror Podcast
Beyond the Jury Box: Jamie Snow
00:30:32
Go beyond the courtroom with exclusive interviews featuring Jamie Snow and a key advocate fighting for his release. As new evidence and overlooked details emerge, the curtain is pulled back on a conviction that may not be as solid as it once seemed.
Loading summary
Transcript56 lines
- [00:01]
A
Well, you know, I say I'm innocent because I am. I'm a. You know, I'm a father. I've got six kids. I've got eight grandkids. That's really who I am. But I, you know, I say I'm innocent because I. I truly am. And most people, they take the time to learn the facts about my case. They come, you know, they come away feeling the same way.
- [00:31]
B
Jamie Snow has spent more than two decades behind bars saying the same thing. He's always said that he didn't do it and that he never got a fair chance to prove that. For more than 20 years, Jamie has maintained his innocence, not just quietly, not just in court filings or appeals, but consistently through interviews, letters, and using every opportunity he's had to be heard. And in that time, the case against him hasn't just stayed the same. It's been picked apart piece by piece by people who say there's more to this story than what the jury ever heard. In today's episode, you're going to hear directly from Jamie Snow speaking from prison about the case that put him there. You'll also hear from someone who has spent years digging through the details, filing records, requests, uncovering documents, and trying to understand what really happened. And at the center of it all is one. Did the system get this right? Or is an innocent man behind bars while the real killer walks free? The prosecution says all the voices point in one direction. The defense says those voices can't be trusted. But it's the jurors who had the final say. This is the 13 Juror podcast, where we break down real court cases and put you in the juror's seat. Two sides, the same evidence. You decide what to believe. I'm your host, Brandi Churchwell. Today's episode is Illinois vs. James Snow, Part 3, beyond the Jury box.
- [02:36]
A
The single biggest misconceptions that I got a fair trial, you know, I didn't. I think everybody is, you know, they say everybody is entitled to a fair trial. You know, my trial wasn't even close to being fair.
- [02:50]
B
If you've listened to the last two episodes of 13th Juror covering Jamie's case, you'll know that from the surface and especially from the prosecution's version of the story, this looks like an open and shut case. But Jamie Snow would have to disagree. He says his trial wasn't just flawed, it was malicious.
- [03:09]
A
I mean, what they did and the way that they did was malicious. It was beyond a mistake. They did it on purpose. And again, I think that when you dig into my case and you get to learning what happened and how they did it, you know, that it wasn't a mistake, you know, it was done on purpose.
- [03:34]
B
And that's what first drew Tammy Alexander in. Tammy is now the co founder of justice for Illinois, Wrongfully Convicted, and the president of the committee to Free Jamie Snow.
- [03:44]
C
I've never written anybody in prison, but I read the article and I felt compelled to write him and say, you know, I don't know if you did this or not, but you. I don't think you got a fair trial. And that was enough for me, right? And to my surprise, he wrote me back and he was like, no, I didn't. And do you want to read my post conviction petition and I'll prove it to you. And it actually took me about six months to go through everything. It's a very thick case, and I didn't know near what I know now. So I read through it and I was like, man, what can I do to help? I believe you. What can I do to help?
- [04:29]
B
What started as a single letter turned into years of digging. And as Tammy walked her way through the case, there were a number of issues that stood out. But she says there was one detail she couldn't get past. There was one witness, Danny Martinez, who was in the parking lot putting air in his tires when the first officers arrived. He would later testify that he was walking towards the store and almost ran into the suspect, that he stood face to face with him. But according to Tammy, that version of events doesn't line up with what was documented at the time. The first officer on scene, Officer Pillo, wrote in his report that he watched Martinez walk across the parking lot, turn around and head back to his car. What he didn't report seeing was anyone leaving the store or anyone else crossing that lot at all. But by the time the case went to trial, his memory began to align with what Martinez reported.
- [05:24]
C
Of course, during the trial, Pillow just kind of said, oh, I was looking at my. Like, you need to look at your radio phone. I was doing this, I was doing that, and I was busy and I was watching for cars. But that is not what he said. A couple of days, you know, just a couple of weeks earlier.
- [05:41]
B
So now, just weeks later, the officer on the scene is saying there's a possibility that he missed the suspect fleeing the scene. The case against Jamie rested heavily on witness identification, but according to Tammy, that foundation wasn't as solid as it seemed.
- [05:57]
C
They call them eyewitnesses, but no one saw the crime occur. So I don't call them eyewitnesses.
- [06:03]
B
The prosecution called three eyewitnesses, but their accounts didn't just differ. They contradicted each other. They described different clothing, different heights, and different features. Yet at trial, they were presented as if they all told one consistent story. At the lineup, only Carlos Luna initially identified Jamie. But even that identification raised serious questions.
- [06:29]
C
And the only one that identified him in the lineup was a child. And he said, I closed my eyes and imagined each one of them doing it. And that was the person that came to mind.
- [06:43]
B
That's not a confident identification. That's imagination. Then there's the fact that Luna said he saw someone leaving the store but didn't see Martinez, who. Who was in plain view nearby airing up his tires.
- [06:58]
A
If you've read the transcripts, then, you know, the jury only asked one question, and they wanted someone to demonstrate the distance of 225ft to see whether or not you can make an ID from that distance. And there's a memo in those documents that we got through foia, where the lead task force sergeant, Sergeant Gene Irving, wrote a memo saying, you know, this isn't an identification. This kid couldn't make an identification if he wanted to. He said, I was looking out the window that night, and I couldn't identify people that were running around in the parking lot. Those were people that I knew. He said that he interviewed the eyewitness, the kid, you know, and his cousin that night, and, you know, a couple weeks later, and neither could provide anything except for a general description. That would have been huge. That was the question that the jury wanted answered. And had we have had that memo, we could have got the, you know, we could have had the police officer witness come in there and testify to those facts. But, you know, we had the answer. If they would have turned everything over, we would have had the answer. We could have got the police officer to come in there and testify, hey, you know, I was looking out that same window the night of the crime, and it's impossible. You can't make an ID from that distance. And those are his words. So I think that would have been huge. My guilt or innocence may have been hinging on that.
- [08:26]
B
And if that was the question the jury was focused on, it raises another possibility. Maybe they didn't believe the informants at all. Maybe the entire case came down to one thing, whether that identification could be trusted.
- [08:41]
A
They could have. Very, very possibly. They could have said, you know what? We don't believe any of these snitches, you know, they could have just dismissed all of the snitches and it could have just been hanging up on that one witness. That's the only, you know, they weren't asking any questions about the snitches. They wanted to know, can somebody be identified from this distance? You know, and we had the info, you know, we could have. We could have given them the information that they needed, you know, so I'm hoping that when we file a successful post conviction and start raising these issues, you know, the courts are gonna have a harder time just sweeping that under the rug.
- [09:28]
B
Even Danny Martinez, the state's star witness, was shown multiple photo arrays over the years and never identified Jamie, not once. In fact, at different points, he even identified other people. In 1994, during a polygraph, a note was made stating that Martinez specifically said Jamie Snow was not the person he saw that night. But the jury never heard that, and they never heard from Mark Foster, who Martinez reportedly told the same thing.
- [09:59]
A
He was the first person on the witness list and we didn't get to use him. Now, he was a good witness, but I promise you, there are things that were withheld in those 8,000 pages of documents that are just as explosive and would have been just as helpful as Mark Foster.
- [10:18]
B
While the defense knew Martinez had met with prosecutors, they had no idea how often they met. Tammy says they later discovered there had been at least seven additional meetings they were never told about. And it was just weeks before trial, after his repeated meetings with the prosecution, that Martinez's story changed. And at trial, he testified that he was certain. It raises the question of whether investigators were trying to force an identification and how far they were willing to go. At one point, a detective even gave Martinez's phone number to the victim's mother, creating an obvious emotional pressure.
- [10:58]
C
Eyewitness ID is very faulty, but I don't think that this was a misidentification. I think it was a malicious prosecution. I don't think this was a mistake.
- [11:21]
B
When you step back and look at how this case was built, another question starts to take shape. What if some of these strategies were tested first somewhere else? According to Tammy, that may have been what happened in Susan Powell's trial. Susan, Jamie's co defendant and sister in law, was tried first for her alleged role as Jamie's getaway driver. Which didn't make much sense when you understand the dynamic between Susan and Jamie.
- [11:48]
C
They bickered all the time, not real fights, but like family does. They would never have been in a car alone together going to the store to get stuff Much less going to the store to rob it, you know, commit a crime, just wasn't going to happen.
- [12:08]
B
Still, she was arrested, charged with murder, and then offered a deal. Testify against Jamie and she walks free.
- [12:16]
C
They offered her parole if she would say that she drove the car for Jamie and say Jamie did it.
- [12:24]
B
Facing life in prison while pregnant at the time, Susan was under immense pressure to take that deal. Jamie said the night before her jury selection, representatives for the state went into her cell, woke her in the middle of the night, and told her she had one last chance to take the deal, but she didn't. She refused to say something she didn't believe was true. And when her case went to trial, she was acquitted of every charge. Jamie said that moment her refusal to be dishonest, even to save herself, is why he calls Susan his hero. According to Tammy, investigators believed Susan was the key to placing Jamie at the scene. But when she didn't flip and the case against her failed, everything shifted. Because after Susan's trial, Tammy says the case against Jamie began to look very different, as if the weaknesses in the prosecution's case against Jamie had been identified and corrected. But while the prosecution was refining its strategy on Jamie's side, things were already unraveling.
- [13:28]
A
I had Amy Davis. She's a great lawyer. They were able to get her disqualified.
- [13:34]
B
Amy had previously represented a jailhouse informant in Jamie's case, Ed Palumbo. On an unrelated matter, and despite the fact that she had never discussed Jamie's case with Palumbo, the court disqualified her and had her replaced.
- [13:47]
A
Then they brought in this attorney named Pat Riley, who, you know, he'd had a stroke a month before. They appointed him as my attorney, and he brought in another lawyer. And their whole focus was, you know, we're going to wait, we're going to wait and see what happens with your co defendant. Let's wait until her trial's over. We'll figure out, you know, because I'm trying to figure out, what are we gonna do, you know, how are we gonna, you know, how are you gonna represent me? And, you know, they were just like, well, we really need to just wait and see what happens with her. And there was a point when, you know, I had the lawyers in the attorney room and, you know, I pulled the witness list out, you know, and I just pointed to a random name on the witness list and I was like, you know, can you guys tell me who this is and how, you know, you're gonna, you know, you're gonna approach this witness? And they just blew Up. We don't have to tell you, you know, you're. You're the inmate, we're the lawyers, you know, we don't have to explain anything to you. And at that point, I was, I was concerned, but, you know, I can't not say that. For a long time, I blamed those lawyers. Right. I thought it was their fault. And what I know now is that they hid so much information from them lawyers, just like the jury didn't get the full picture. Neither did them. Neither did them attorneys. So on one hand, I think they could have done some things differently, but on, but on the other hand, you know, I know that they hamstringed them.
- [15:22]
B
Yeah.
- [15:22]
A
I mean, they hid 8,000 pages of documents, multiple alternative suspects, deals for the jailhouse niches that they were, you know, that they were making, that I know these lawyers would have. Would have used. So.
- [15:41]
B
And once his trial actually began, it seems like things did not improve.
- [15:47]
A
Yeah. When the state rested their case, the lawyers took me in, in the back into a conference room, and they were like, okay, you know, we need to. We need to go over the witness list. And the first witness on. On the list was my co defendant, private investigator, and his name was Mark Foster. And the lawyers were like, you know, who is Mark Foster and what's he going to testify to? And I was like, you. What do you mean, you don't know? And they were like, you know, we don't. We can't argue about this right now. We got to put on our, you know, our defense. Who is he? And when I told them, they said, well, we can't use them. We didn't lay the foundation. First testimony. That's, that's when I was thinking, oh, my God, man, you know, I can't even. I can't even call my witnesses. But I swear to God, even then, I never believed that they were going to find me guilty. Yeah, I just didn't.
- [16:48]
B
By sentencing, the relationship between Jamie and his attorneys had completely broken down. He tried to have them removed and requested a crankle hearing to argue ineffective counsel. But the judge was unwilling to intervene at sentencing. His attorneys presented almost nothing. No meaningful character witnesses or any real effort to show who Jamie was beyond the charges. Jamie's sentencing guidelines suggested a 60 year sentence, but he received life without parole. Tammy says the court relied on an unusual legal theory to justify it. Despite Jamie having no history of violence. Even after part of that justification was later removed, the sentence never changed. Years after the trial, Jamie's attorney, Frank Pitzel, was convicted of financially exploiting an elderly client. His own sentencing lasted three days, with extensive mitigation. In comparison, Jamie's lasted about an hour and a half.
- [17:47]
A
I think that, you know, they just wanted my, my original attorney, Amy Davis. I think if I would have kept her as a lawyer, I, I would have, you know, I would have been found not guilty because she was a great lawyer. But she said that she believed that the head state's attorney wanted to become a judge, which he did, and they were using this, this new detective to get it done.
- [18:12]
B
The pressure from that head state attorney shaped how this case moved forward. At every turn, there was new information that came out from one of the first officers on scene, Officer Jeff Pillow. Pillow, once named officer of the year, was later convicted of multiple counts of rape and stalking, receiving a 400 year sentence. Years after the trial, he signed an affidavit saying he hadn't seen anyone else at the scene and would have if someone would have been there. According to Tammy. He also claimed he told prosecutors that at the time, but was guided in how to testify. But if the trial raised questions, what came after it raised even more. For more than a decade, Tammy Alexander and other advocates for Jamie have used Freedom of Information act requests to try to understand what really happened in this case. But the records they received were often heavily and inconsistently redacted, making it difficult to see the full picture.
- [19:19]
C
We filed a lawsuit, a FOIA lawsuit, which says they didn't give us what we were supposed to have. So we got a lot of stuff there, right? We got recordings, we got interviews, we got memos, a lot of memos about the shady deals going back and forth
- [19:36]
B
over time, they uncovered something critical, material that had never been turned over to the defense. And some of it directly contradicted what the jury heard. In one instance, a witness testified that he had never had prior contact with prosecutors and had not received any deal. But documents later revealed years of communication and evidence that he had in fact been seeking help with his own legal situation. According to Tammy, that wasn't an isolated case. Across the records, a pattern began to emerge. Witnesses with undisclosed contact, potential deals, and incentives tied to their testimony. Many of those witnesses came from jail. Most later recanted. Others admitted they had reasons, personal or legal, for testifying the way they did.
- [20:26]
C
So if you just scratch the surface, all you gotta do right beneath all of these people is big fat lies.
- [20:35]
B
When you step back and look at all of it together, the inconsistencies, the undisclosed deals, the changing stories, you're left with a bigger question. What did the jury actually hear? Because out of the thousands of pages of material uncovered years later, most of it never made it into that courtroom, including alternative suspects, which Jamie believes were the biggest loss to his case.
- [21:00]
A
Oh, my God. There's. There's some. There are some alternative suspects, and I can't really go into extreme detail, but, you know, one. You know, on the night of the crime, Danny Martinez and Gerardo Gutierrez picked out two photos and said, both of these guys look like the guy I saw between these two. One of those guys was a suspect at an earlier robbery at the same gas station three months earlier. We didn't know anything about that. That would have been nice to tell the jury about that.
- [21:32]
B
I asked Jamie what he believed actually happened that night.
- [21:36]
A
You know what? I don't really have a theory about. There's an alternative suspect that somebody called the very next day and said that this guy was the one who committed the murder, and he has a history of committing robberies during the robbery, shooting people. And there was a witness who drove by who saw someone who fit his description outside the gas station, you know, right around 8:15, right around the time of the murder. I think there was a struggle. I'm. I will. I believe there was a struggle. I think, you know, there were things knocked over in the station. Bill had a cut on his head. He had some bruises on his forearm. The detectives asked his parents and his sister, you know, do you think he would fight or do. Or do you think he would just give up the money? And they all said, you know, that he said that he would fight before he would give up the money. So I think there was a struggle in that gas station, and I think that the person who did it left something behind. And I can't believe they won't let
- [22:45]
B
us test anything after everything, the witnesses, the evidence, the unanswered questions. The one question still remains. Where does this case go from here? For more than a decade, Tammy says they've been trying to get DNA testing in this case, but every request has been denied. Jamie's attorneys believe testing the physical evidence could provide answers, but so far, the courts have said no. So I asked Jamie, if this case happened today, with today's technology, would the outcome be different?
- [23:19]
A
Absolutely. If they didn't have me in jail, convicted for this crime. Everything that we've asked to do, they would do just as a matter of protocol. There was blood found on the. On the, on the floor. We got the court to order the blood to be tested, and when they opened up the box for the sample was gone. It disappeared. But then all of a sudden, the state pops up, and with this new sample that they said they preserved on a piece of cardboard with no, you know, no chain of custody on it. But yes, absolutely. It'd be different. I mean, the technology, digital, they could enhance the fingerprints that were found. There were 21 latent fingerprints found on the counter, the door, and the cash register. Our DNA expert testified that, you know, just talking to somebody, body, you're. You're possibly leaving DNA behind. So, yeah, I absolutely think it would be different.
- [24:18]
B
Jamie said the case is now under review by the state's Conviction Integrity Unit. He also has a clemency petition pending in the governor's office. In the meantime, Jamie is hoping to spread awareness about the case at its core. His argument is simple. There was more to that scene, more evidence, more questions, and none of it was fully explored. So what does justice look like for Jamie and his advocates?
- [24:45]
C
Justice. Justice would look like getting the DNA tested. Justice would look like a new trial. A new trial. He's never even had a post conviction hearing. You see, people have three trials, and he's never even had a post conviction hearing. These witnesses that have come forward have never been questioned. I think they would drop the charges. But a fair trial, that would be justice. With all of the evidence, that would be justice. But we don't deal in justice. There is no justice with this system. With a stroke of a pen, it would be over. It wouldn't be. It wouldn't be more hearings. It wouldn't be a new trial. It wouldn't be that kind of pressure. He could just. He could just be free. He could just walk away.
- [25:50]
B
Then I asked Jamie something different. Not about the case, not about the trial, but about himself. If there was anything, he would go back and change.
- [26:01]
A
Yeah, when I first found out that I was a suspect in this case, I should have went down to the police station and been like, what can I do? What do you need from me? I'll do whatever I can, you know, but I didn't do it and I didn't care. But then finally, the lead detective, who retired, you know, talked me into taking the polygraph. And he told me when I was done with the polygraph, he was like, I'm like, now do you believe me, man? And he's like, I never thought you did it. I just think you know who did. And I said, I don't. If I knew who did it, I would tell you. I promise you that.
- [26:39]
B
Even now, he points to small decisions, moments he Wishes he had handled differently. But when it comes to the outcome, he's clear. The jury got it wrong, but he doesn't blame them.
- [26:51]
A
The jury didn't get it right. And I don't. And you know what? And I don't blame the jury. I never have. They didn't. They didn't get it right. They got it wrong. My co defendants jury, they got it right, but they didn't get all the evidence. You can't judge somebody without all of the information. I think anybody who is in my shoes would absolutely want the jury to hear everything. Not just little bits and pieces, but all of it.
- [27:21]
B
Because in his view, they never had all the information. I asked Jamie what the hardest part of being behind bars has been. He said he can handle just about anything that comes his way. But the time, the years he's missed with his children and now his grandchildren, that's what's been the hardest. Because once that time is gone, it's gone. He says that when people, especially his children, look back on his story, he wants his legacy to be simple. That he never gave up and he never stopped fighting. Before we ended the call, I asked him one final question.
- [27:56]
A
One minute remaining.
- [27:57]
B
Oh, that went by so fast. Okay. Is there anything that you want people to do after hearing your story?
- [28:04]
A
Yeah, you know, get involved. We need help. We need people to get involved. You know, we're trying to put out a YouTube program. We're gonna try and put that out here soon. But we need people to get involved, you know, and I appreciate your time, you know, and I appreciate what you do. We need people like you, you know, who's gonna hold the prosecutors accountable, hold the state accountable, hold them to their burden. You know, that's what we need, and I appreciate it.
- [28:34]
B
At the center of this case is Bill Little. Not just a name in a case file, but a person, A life that was cut short in a moment of senseless violence that his family has had to live with ever since. That loss doesn't get smaller with time, and it doesn't become easier to carry. It just becomes a part of everything. That's why cases like this matter. Because justice isn't just about closing a case. It's about getting it right. Because if the system got it right, then Bill Little's family was given the answers they deserved. The person responsible was held accountable. But if it didn't, then this case didn't just take one victim. It created another. Another life spent behind bars claiming innocence. Another family living in a different kind of grief. And the hardest part is both things can exist at the same time. Bill Little is a victim. His family's loss is still real. And if the wrong person was convicted, then that is its own kind of injustice, one that doesn't undo the first but sits beside it. Because that means the right person was never held accountable. And that means the story doesn't end with a verdict. It ends with the question of whether the system got it right and what it means for everyone involved if they didn't. Thirteenth Juror is an Audio Chuck production hosted by Brandi Churchwell. Ashley Flowers is executive producer. You can follow 13sure on Instagram at 13th Juror podcast. I think Chuck would approve.