Man Imprisoned 12 Years to Have Murder Conviction Reviewed

A Superior Court judge will consider today claims that a southeast Los Angeles man has been improperly imprisoned for 12 years on a first-degree murder conviction because prosecutors failed to tell a jury that their critical witness--a jailhouse informant--got a special deal in return for his testimony.

The charges were leveled in a voluminous brief filed by USC law professors and pro bono attorneys from O’Melveny & Myers, one of the city’s largest law firms. They are asking Judge Mary Ann Murphy to reverse Kenneth N. Tillman’s April, 1983, murder conviction for the 1982 slaying of Orlando Olden, who owed him $75 or $150.

Tillman, serving a 25 years-to-life term, maintains that he did not commit the murder, said Charles Weisselberg, a USC law professor and one of his attorneys.

The district attorney’s case against Tillman “was based almost entirely” on the testimony of jailhouse informant Michael Dawson, who had an extensive criminal record and a history of cooperating with the police against other defendants in return for lenient treatment, according to a brief filed for Tillman.

*

Dawson told jurors that Tillman, who had a pattern of violence and was in County Jail on unrelated charges, confessed to him that he had killed Olden “gangster style” because of the unpaid debt. Olden’s bedsheet-wrapped body was found behind a South-Central Los Angeles church on May 26, 1982. He had been strangled with electrical extension cords.

Dawson testified that he received no inducement or rewards for his cooperation and that no criminal charges were pending against him at the time of the Tillman trial.

Moreover, Dawson’s parole officer testified that he did not treat Dawson leniently because of his cooperation. And in his closing argument, prosecutor Brian D. Wooldridge “urged the jury to believe Dawson precisely because Dawson had not received any benefits for cooperating, and because there were no criminal charges pending against him,” the defense brief notes.

“But all of Dawson’s testimony that the prosecutor focused on was false,” according to the defense brief, which is buttressed by numerous court documents and police and corrections records.

“The LAPD furnished Dawson with substantial benefits specifically to induce him to testify,” the brief states. “During the trial, detectives placed Dawson--a known drug addict--in a notorious drug motel, and gave him cash to spend.

“Further, several months before Mr. Tillman’s trial, Dawson’s parole officer wrote a report in which he stated that Dawson should not be incarcerated specifically because of his cooperation in the murder case against Mr. Tillman. Most significantly, Dawson had three criminal charges and numerous parole and probation violations pending against him at the time of Mr. Tillman’s trial, which gave Dawson an enormous incentive to please the LAPD and the district attorney. The jury never heard these facts,” the brief says.

Between Tillman’s August, 1982, preliminary hearing and his April, 1983, trial, Dawson was arrested three times, including on felony narcotics and burglary charges and misdemeanor charges of check forgery and grand theft. He was released from custody on the burglary charge 11 days before testifying against Tillman. Two days after Dawson testified, his felony drug possession charges were dismissed by the district attorney’s office, according to court documents.

However, Dawson continued to run afoul of the law and eventually died of AIDS in Chino state prison.

*

Dawson played a critical role in the case against Tillman. The district attorney’s office initially declined to file charges against Tillman because it concluded that there was insufficient evidence, according to court documents. But an LAPD officer asked sheriff’s deputies at the County Jail to recruit an informant to ensnare Tillman, who came under suspicion when Olden’s sister told officers that Tillman threatened to kill her brother over the debt. The deputies recruited Dawson.

Soon thereafter, Dawson told deputies that Tillman told him, “I had to off [Olden]. . . . Every time I asked him about my money, he gave me a punk-ass excuse.”

At the time, in June, 1982, Dawson was in County Jail on a parole violation, after testing positive for drug use. Two days after giving police a written statement about Tillman’s alleged confession, Dawson was released to a drug treatment facility. He did not complete the program, but his parole was not revoked and soon after he testified at Tillman’s preliminary hearing.

The critical nature of Dawson’s trial testimony is highlighted in an LAPD detective’s application to get witness protection funds for him: The prosecution had “virtually no case without [Dawson], who testified to the defendant’s confession.” Moreover, Dawson’s remarks were the only testimony the jury requested to have read back to it during deliberations.

The defense brief contends that by failing to correct the false testimony about Dawson’s pending felony charges, rewards for his testimony and prior informant activity, Wooldridge deprived Tillman of due process of law.

Wooldridge said, “I can’t tell you anything about” the allegations in the defense brief. “I never did anything for Dawson. I can’t speak for the LAPD or for the Probation Department.”