Shawna Ornt's Statement, What Shawna told the Prosecutor before the trial Options

[Bill Ferguson]

The following component is from Ryan Ferguson’s 29.15 Motion To Vacate Judgment & Sentence.

There are many more areas of concern addressed in this document. This is but one.

8(A)(2) Shawna Ornt’s Lack of Identification of Ryan

Ryan was denied the right to present evidence to the jury because the State failed to disclose to defense counsel that Shawna Ornt saw pictures of Ryan Ferguson and Charles Erickson in the Columbia Daily Tribune and she told the prosecutor, Kevin Crane, that it was not Ryan Ferguson and Charles Erickson that she saw in the parking lot of the Columbia Tribune on November 1, 2001. The non-disclosed evidence was in the possession or control of the state, tended to negate Ryan’s guilt, and was material to the case.
Shawna Ornt worked for a cleaning service that had a contract to clean the Columbia Tribune in October/November of 2001. Shawna worked at the Tribune on the night Kent Heitholt was murdered. Shawna went out for a smoke break behind the building next to the parking lot and saw two males by Kent Heitholt’s car. One of the males spoke to her and told her to get help. She was able to look at his face, but did not see the face of the other person. Ms. Ornt was interviewed more than once by law enforcement and assisted in two different composite sketches of the one male whose face she did see in the parking lot.

Shawna Ornt was endorsed by the State as a witness in the case against Ryan Ferguson. After Ryan and Chuck Erickson were arrested and charged with this murder, Ms. Ornt was asked to come down to the prosecuting attorney’s office and meet with Kevin Crane. This was after their arrest but before her deposition of June 29, 2005. She was picked up by an employee of the prosecutor’s office and taken by van to meet with Mr. Crane.

When Ms. Ornt met with Mr. Crane, she told him that she had seen the pictures of Ryan Ferguson and Chuck Erickson on television and in the newspaper and neither one of them were the males she saw in the parking lot of the Tribune the night of the murder. Mr. Crane then told her that he knew these were the right people and that Jerry Trump says they were the males in the parking lot. Ms. Ornt kept trying to tell Mr. Crane that Ryan and Chuck were not the ones in the parking lot, but Mr. Crane persisted in trying to get her to agree with him. Ms Ornt met again with Kevin Crane after her deposition, but before trial for “trial preparation”. She was shown the high school pictures of Ryan Ferguson and Chuck Erickson from 2001 and again she told Mr. Crane that the boys in the pictures were not the people she saw in the parking lot. The boys in the pictures were younger looking than the males she saw in the Tribune parking lot. Ms. Ornt was somewhat intimidated by Mr. Crane but she did tell him that she would not identify Ryan in court.

Shawna Ornt was scared at the deposition and at the prosecutor’s office. She felt that she could not speak out in court on her own when testifying and was never asked by either Kevin Crane or the defense attorney if she could identify Ryan in court during the trial. If she would have been asked, she would have said that Ryan was not one of the males she saw in the Tribune parking lot on the night of Kent Heitholt’s murder.

Prosecuting Attorney Kevin Crane never disclosed the fact that Shawna Ornt told him that Ryan and Chuck were not the males she saw in the parking lot of the Tribune the night of Kent Heitholt’s murder. This information that a witness said Ryan was not in the parking lot that night was never disclosed to defense counsel. Ryan was denied the right to investigate this evidence and to present it the jury because the State failed to disclose this information before trial.

Due process requires the State to disclose information in its possession or control which tends to negate the guilt of a defendant, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce punishment. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
Prosecutors are responsible for disclosure of exculpatory or impeachment evidence regardless of any failure by police to bring such evidence to the prosecutors’ attention. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. at 421. The State was required to disclose the fact that Shawna Ornt said it wasn’t Ryan and Chuck in the parking lot, and Ryan was prejudiced by its failure to do so. If the information had been disclosed, defense counsel could have then presented this evidence to the jury to show his innocence. If defense counsel had this information, they could also have presented information to the jury that Shawna Ornt told Alicia Shelton, whom she worked for in the cleaning service and who also is a friend, that when she saw the yearbook pictures of Ryan and Chuck on television and in the newspaper she knew they were not the two males she saw in the parking lot of the Columbia Tribune. This evidence is clearly material to the case in that it would have provided Ryan with plausible and persuasive evidence to support a theory of innocence and would have enabled Ryan to present a plausible theory of innocence. Ryan was effectively barred from presenting the evidence to the jury by the State’s failure to disclose the material and vital information. Ryan must be granted a new trial.