Prosecutor Threatens Death Sentence for an Innocent Man

10250
SHARE

Leo Schofield, who has maintained his innocence for the almost 30 years he has served for the conviction, was floored by the revelation.

Enter Email to View Articles

Loading...

“Finally! The unwarranted, forced mantle of guilt fell from my shoulders when I heard the words he confessed. I carried it for so long, refusing plea deals, in hopes of one day finding justice for Michelle.” – Leo Schofield

Victoria J. Avalon, Assistant State Attorney

To a casual observer, fingerprints found at the crime scene, and a confession from convicted murderer Jeremy Scott would seem to be grounds for an immediate dismissal of charges or at least a retrial. Unfortunately for Schofield, the Assistant State Attorney assigned to this case, Victoria J. Avalon, like many prosecutors, has more of a vested interest in winning than discovering the truth and pursuing justice.

John Aguero, the original prosecutor on the case, managed to get a conviction without physical evidence in a case based largely on hearsay and conjecture. Victoria Avalon’s case, in contrast, is based on legal loopholes and technicalities. While both prosecutors’ approached the case with a win-at-all-costs mentality, Avalon may have an added incentive. Sources have told the USA Herald that Victoria Avalon has aspirations to run for the State Attorney slot in 2020.

“Prosecutors get no credit for cases they decide not to bring, either because of a lack of evidence or because pressing charges wouldn’t be in the interest of justice. They’re only rewarded for winning convictions. That’s what gets them promoted, or re-elected, or gives them the elevated profile to run for higher office. Every incentive points toward winning convictions. And particularly with prosecutors, there’s really no penalty at all for going too far to get a guilty verdict.” – Radley Balko, Criminal Justice Writer

In the State’s Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Victoria Avalon does not dispute the content of the new evidence but instead calls on procedural technicalities for the dismissal of the evidence.