-1-

Case Review

GORDON “RANDY” STEIDL

Introduction

In August 1987, following a trial at the Edgar County Courthouse in Paris, Illinois, Gordon R.

(Randy) Steidl (“Steidl”), aged 35, was sentenced to death for the murder of a local couple,

Dyke and Karen Rhoads (the “Rhoads couple”). Steidl spent 12 years on death row before

the Center on Wrongful Convictions helped prove his innocence. Resentenced to life

imprisonment in February 1999, on 28 May 2004, he finally walked from Illinois Correctional

Center at Danville a free man. This is his story.

On 6 July 1986, fire-fighters responded to a report of a fire at a house in Paris, Illinois.

After extinguishing the fire and entering an upstairs bedroom, they discovered the bodies of

the Rhoads couple. Dyke was lying on the floor near to the bedroom door, having been

stabbed 28 times, whilst Karen was found on the floor near to the foot of the bed, having

been stabbed 26 times. No physical evidence found at the scene linked Steidl or his co-

defendant, Herbert Whitlock (“Whitlock”), to the murders.

On 17 February 1987, seven months and eleven days after the murders, the trial’s key

witness, Debra Rienbolt (“Rienbolt”), a local drug addict and alcoholic, contacted Agent

Jack Eckerty of the Illinois State Police and Detective Parrish of the Paris Police Department.

She presented Agent Eckerty with a knife, claiming that it was the sole weapon used by

Steidl and Whitlock to murder the Rhoads couple. Rienbolt explained that she knew Steidl

and Whitlock from around town and through drug dealing, supposedly having visited the

Rhoads’ house on a number of occasions with Whitlock to speak to Dyke about drugs.

Rienbolt’s statement recounted that on 5 July 1986, she decided not to work her 3:00 p.m.

to 11:00 p.m. shift at the Paris Health Care Center, asking a colleague to clock her in.

Instead she attended a local bar, ‘Jeannie’s Place’, in which she stated she overheard Dyke

Rhoads tell Whitlock that he wanted “out”, with Whitlock replying that someone doesn’t “get

out” of illegal drug activity that easily1. Leaving the bar with a friend to continue drinking,

smoke marijuana and take codeine pills, Rienbolt stated she later attended another local

bar, the ‘Tap Room’, where she saw Whitlock, Steidl, Darrell Herrington (“Herrington”) and

another unidentified man.

Rienbolt stated that she saw the murder weapon (the “Rienbolt Knife”) for the first time in

the hands of Whitlock in the Tap Room, where Whitlock had told her that he “had to take

care of a few people” who “knew too much”2. Later, attending a bar named the ‘American

Legion’, she again saw Whitlock and Steidl. Rienbolt claimed that she had then asked an

acquaintance, Barbara Furry, where the Rhoads lived because she had a “weird feeling”3. In

her initial statement, where she claimed that she was not involved in the murders, Rienbolt

stated that she was merely driving by the Rhoads’ house earlier in the night. It wasn’t until

she was walking home later in the night that she heard the sirens. Rienbolt told police that

Whitlock had given her the Rienbolt Knife two days after the murders, warning her that it

had “been around”4. On the back of Rienbolt’s evidence, Steidl and Whitlock were arrested

by the Paris police on 19 February 1987.

1 People v. Steidl 1996 WL 33657597 (Ill.), at 7 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., at 8

-2-

On 29 March 1987, Rienbolt changed her version of events after an associate of hers had

come forward to the police and said that they had seen a knife in Rienbolt’s purse a month

prior to the murders. In a new statement, Rienbolt said that the Rienbolt Knife belonged to

her and that on 4 July 1986 Whitlock had asked to borrow it. She also told police that on

the morning of 6 July 1986 she entered the Rhoads’ house and, on entry, had seen the dead

bodies of the Rhoads couple.

In further statements to the police on 11 and 13 April 1987, Rienbolt now maintained that

she was present in the Rhoads’ bedroom when the murders took place. Rienbolt stated that

she restrained Karen Rhoads and Dyke Rhoads as they were being stabbed and that a lamp

or vase had been broken in the process. In a plea on 29 April 1987, Rienbolt asserted that

both Steidl and Whitlock had used the Rienbolt Knife to commit the murders. At no point

did she mention that Herrington had been present at the scene of the crime.

Following Steidl’s arrest, the police ceased any investigation into other suspects and focused

their attention on corroborating Rienbolt’s version of events. The owner and operator of

Jeannie’s Tavern, Eva Jean Trover, told the police that Steidl, Rienbolt, Whitlock and the

Rhoads couple were not present in her bar on 5 April 1986. However, the police did not

report Trover’s statement. Barbara Furry, also interviewed by police, stated that she had

not been at the bar with Rienbolt, nor, therefore, did she find out where the Rhoads couple

lived. Furry’s statement was later confirmed at trial by another witness, Carol Wallace.

The second key witness, Herrington, a local alcoholic, had first approached the police on 21

September 1986 and was interviewed a second time on 24 November 1986. Having

recently had his driving licence suspended for drunk-driving, Herrington requested the sum

of $240 and for the Paris police Chief Gene Ray’s help to restore his driving privileges in

exchange for providing information about the Rhoads couple’s murders. Chief Ray agreed,

but this was not disclosed to Steidl’s counsel, John Muller (“Muller”). Herrington’s account

of events was a complete contradiction to Rienbolt’s. According to Herrington, neither

Steidl nor Whitlock had attended the Tap Room or the American Legion, but instead

attended several different bars. He also stated that he did not see Rienbolt at the scene of

the crime, nor in any of the bars that he visited during the course of the evening. It wasn’t

until Steidl’s trial that Herrington’s testimony began to match Rienbolt’s.

The Trial

Steidl’s trial began on 4 June 1987 at the Edgar County Courthouse. The two key

witnesses, Rienbolt and Herrington, both testified that they were present at the Rhoads’

house at the time of the murders. Rienbolt claimed that she entered the house through an

unlocked door at the rear of the property and moved up the stairs to find Steidl and

Whitlock in a bedroom with the Rhoads couple. In the bedroom, she testified that she saw

a broken lamp. Rienbolt further testified to seeing Steidl and Whitlock stab Dyke Rhoads

with the Rienbolt Knife, before Rienbolt, for a reason she could not explain, held Karen

Rhoads down on the bed while the defendants slit her throat. Rienbolt testified that

Whitlock returned the Rienbolt Knife to her the following day, after which she meticulously

cleaned it, only then to present it to the police seven months after the incident. Forensic

analysis of the Rienbolt Knife showed no traces of human blood or tissue; only animal hairs

were found on the blade.

Rienbolt testified that while scheduled to work at the Paris Health Care Center on the night

of the murders, she had not. She stated that either someone else had clocked her in or

that she had clocked herself in and then left. She further admitted that she was both an

alcoholic and drug addict who suffered from blackouts and, consequently, it was difficult for

her to remember some parts of the night of the murders.

-3-

Herrington testified that he was also an alcoholic and had been drinking since noon on the

day of the murders. He stated that he had been given a lift home from the American Legion

by Steidl and Whitlock when they stopped at the Rhoads’ house. Testifying that he dozed

off whilst Steidl and Whitlock entered the Rhoads couple’s house, he was woken up by the

sound of something breaking, following which he entered the Rhoads’ house. He claimed

that Steidl took him upstairs to the bodies of the couple and said “that’s what’s going to

happen to you and your family if ever there’s a word said”5.

Dr John Murphy (“Dr Murphy”), a pathologist who performed the autopsies on the Rhoads

couple, testified for the prosecution at the trial. He stated that Dyke had been stabbed 28

times, the fatal wound being below his left armpit, measuring six inches deep and 2.5

centimetres wide at the point of entry. Karen had been stabbed 26 times with two possible

fatal wounds. One was under her right armpit, again, six inches deep, while the other was

in her chest. Dr Murphy stated that the wounds were consistent with the dimensions of the

Rienbolt Knife.

At the trial, Ferlin Wells (“Wells”), who was in police custody at the time that Steidl was

arrested, stated Steidl had said to him that he “supposed” that the Rhoads couple were

killed because they did not pay for drugs. He also maintained that Steidl had said to him

that had he known Herrington was going to come forward to the police, “he would have

definitely taken care of him”6. However, on cross-examination, Wells clarified that Steidl

had never admitted to personally killing the Rhoads couple.

Steve Dosch, a fireman responding at the scene, testified that, on entering the bedroom

with body bags for the Rhoads couple, he had pushed a lamp onto the floor outside the

bedroom door. This testimony contradicted Rienbolt’s version of events as she testified that

she saw the broken lamp prior to the murders taking place.

Steidl, in his defence, presented an alibi. He stated that while he knew Herrington, he had

never met or seen Rienbolt before. Steidl testified that he had not seen Herrington on the

night of the murders and, therefore, could not have given him a lift home. He confirmed

that he had been to a few bars earlier on 5 July 1986 and between the hours of 12:30 a.m.

and 3:15 a.m. he had been at a friend’s apartment with three others; this was corroborated

by Christy Farris and Nanette Klein. In addition, two further witnesses, Carol and Beecher

Lynch, testified that they had seen Steidl leave the Legion Hall bar, between 12:00 and

12:30 a.m. on 6 July 1986, alone in his car. Steidl also called three witnesses who worked

with Rienbolt at the Paris Health Care Center; Beverly Johnson, Nancy Davis and Bonnie

Tribbe. Through these witnesses it was established that the records showed that Rienbolt

punched in at 3:45 p.m. on 5 July 1986 and punched out at midnight. None, however,

testified that they had observed Rienbolt at work.

Sentencing

Following the completion of the evidence at the trial, the jury found Steidl guilty on two

counts of first degree murder. At the sentencing hearing, held the following day before the

same jury, Muller only presented a short statement regarding Steidl’s lack of serious

criminal history as mitigating evidence. Muller did not present any witnesses on Steidl’s

behalf. As a result, the jury found Steidl eligible for the death penalty and sentenced him to

death.

5 Universal Case Opinion, Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, Case No. 01-CV-2249, at 4 6 Ibid., at 5

-4-

Post-Trial Proceedings

Steidl filed a post-trial motion in the trial court citing numerous grounds for a new trial.

Following the court’s denial of his motion, he appealed both his conviction and death

sentence to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Post-Judgment Relief Petition

While Steidl waited for an answer from the Illinois Supreme Court to his appeal of his

conviction and sentence, he filed a petition for post-judgment relief7 in the trial court on 8

February 1989. Subsequently, a four-day evidentiary hearing was held regarding the

petition. Steidl claimed that he was entitled to relief from his conviction as the two main

prosecution witnesses, Rienbolt and Herrington, had subsequently recanted their trial

testimony. Herrington had made a statement to a court-reporter in which he admitted that

he had never seen Steidl with the Rienbolt Knife, while Rienbolt had signed two affidavits

which contradicted her trial testimony. Steidl also presented two affidavits from prisoners

who stated that Wells had confessed that he had lied at trial. However, at the hearing,

Rienbolt, Herrington and Wells all testified that their trial testimony had been truthful.

Steidl’s petition for post-judgment relief was denied on 20 March 1990.

Appeal To The Illinois Supreme Court

The Illinois Supreme Court ordered that Steidl’s appeal of the post-judgment relief decision

be consolidated with the pending direct appeal of his conviction and sentence. The

consolidated appeals were heard on 24 January 1991 and raised the following issues.

The Trial

Steidl contended that the prosecution failed to prove that he was guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the murders of the Rhoads couple. He asserted that he produced a strong alibi

defence, which was corroborated, while the state’s key witnesses were unconvincing. He

argued that both Herrington and Rienbolt lacked credibility as witnesses because of the

inconsistencies between their testimonies at trial and their pre-trial statements. He argued

that, as both Herrington and Rienbolt suffered from alcohol and drug addictions, both were

likely to lie to the court to ensure that they were not deprived of access to drugs and

alcohol. The court disagreed with Steidl. The court applied the principles of review set out

in People v. Jimerson8 and concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Steidl’s

conviction. The court stated that although the testimony of Rienbolt as an accomplice

should be regarded with suspicion, it may be enough to sustain a conviction. Similarly,

although the testimony of narcotics addicts must be viewed with caution, it may also be

enough to sustain a conviction if considered credible in view of the surrounding

circumstances.

Steidl further alleged that the state had violated Supreme Court Rule 412(a)9 by submitting

a statement from Debra Steidl, Steidl’s ex-wife, concerning conversations between herself

and Steidl. It was argued that the statement should not have been introduced as evidence

as it was made two days after the trial had begun and, therefore, was not disclosed to

Muller during the discovery process. The court noted that the only circumstance that may

excuse the failure to disclose such a statement is where the prosecution is unaware of its

existence prior to the commencement of the trial and it could not have been discovered

7 Petition filed under Code of Civil Procedure 735 Comp. Stat. 5/2-1401 (West 2000) 8 166 Ill.2d 211, 652 N.E.2d 278 (1995) 9 107 Ill.2d R. 412(a)

-5-

through due diligence. In the circumstances, the court found that Supreme Court Rule

412(a) had not been breached where the prosecution had delivered the statement to

Steidl’s counsel one business day after it had been transcribed.

Steidl also argued that his right to be present at every stage of the trial, his right to a fair

trial and his right to due process were denied when the trial judge told the jury, off the

record and during jury deliberations, that transport and lodgings would be made available to

them if they did not come to a decision by 11:00 p.m. that night. It was put to the court

that the judge’s statements had the effect of prejudicing Steidl as they seemingly put

pressure on the jury to produce a verdict. However, in this instance the court found that

the judge’s comments had the effect of removing, and not creating, pressure and,

therefore, could not be found to be prejudicial to Steidl.

Further, Steidl argued that his right to effective assistance of counsel was denied when

Muller failed to:

(1) Object when the trial court refused to supply testimonial transcripts to the jury to use

during their deliberations;

(2) Object to the inclusion of Debra Steidl’s statement as evidence;

(3) Object to the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments; and

(4) Use prior statements made by Rienbolt for impeachment purposes.

The court considered the two part test laid out in Strickland v. Washington10 in examining

whether Muller had rendered ineffective assistance as counsel. The test states:

(1) Defence counsel’s representation of a defendant must have fallen below an objective

standard of reasonableness; and

(2) The counsel’s shortcomings must be so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair

and reliable trial.

The court found Muller’s decision whether or not to object to testimony was generally a

matter of sound trial strategy. The court also determined that the judge’s failure to give the

jury transcripts and trial counsel’s decision not to object to the prosecutor’s closing

argument did not prejudice Steidl. Additionally, the court held that Rienbolt’s prior

statements did not exculpate Steidl and, therefore, the test laid out in Strickland v.

Washington was not satisfied.

Steidl also asserted that he was denied a fair sentencing hearing because a prospective

juror was excluded due to the juror having reservations about the death penalty. The court

mooted this point as Steidl had failed to object to the juror’s exclusion at the trial, thereby

waiving his right to object on appeal. Therefore, the court accepted the findings of the trial

court. Further, the court rejected any claims that the death sentence was disproportionate

in this case as the jury had found Steidl guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, while also

having regard to his previous convictions and the violent nature of the murders.

Post-Judgment Petition

Steidl had submitted new evidence to the Edgar County trial court in support of his petition

for post-judgment relief. His appellate counsel, Peter Rotskoff (“Rotskoff”), had spoken

with Rienbolt over the phone and had met her in person. Rotskoff testified that in these

conversations Rienbolt had repudiated her testimony, saying “none” of her prior statements

were “close to the truth”11. She signed an affidavit on 13 January 1989, stating that she

10 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984) 11 People v. Steidl 142 Ill.2d, 240, 568 N.E.2d 837, 857, 154 Ill.Dec. 616 (1991), at 26

-6-

told the police prior to the trial that Steidl had not murdered the Rhoads couple. However,

Rienbolt, giving evidence to the court, denied all of the statements that she had made to

Rotskoff and explained that she had not looked at the affidavit prior to signing it.

Steidl had also submitted a written statement made on 28 November 1988 by Herrington.

In this statement Herrington had recanted some of his trial testimony. However, the

statement was replete with off-the-record conversations and leading questions. The

statement was also taken by a court reporter who refused to sign an affidavit saying that

Steidl’s attorneys, Muller and Rotskoff, did not speak with Herrington during the off-the-

record conversations. At the petition hearing, Herrington reaffirmed his trial testimony

stating that during the conversations he had told Steidl’s attorneys “what they wanted to

hear”12.

Steidl also alleged that one of the state’s witnesses, Wells, had lied. Two other witnesses

testified that when Wells had gone back to jail, he told them that he had lied at the trial.

Steidl’s arguments concluded that, in light of the evidence presented, the trial court abused

its discretion in not ordering a new trial. He argued that since Rienbolt, Herrington and

Wells had clearly committed perjury at the original trial, his petition for post-judgment relief

should have been granted. However, the Illinois Supreme Court noted that recantations

had always been held as inherently unreliable. The court stated that the conditions in which

the recantations were made in Steidl’s case were less than ideal, thus the trial court had

discretion as to deciding how much weight to give to the recanted testimonies.

Consequently, Steidl failed to prove that the testimonies upon which his conviction was

based were clearly and convincingly false.

Steidl went on to argue that should evidence of the recantations prove insufficient to entitle

him to a new trial, the new evidence adduced should at least entitle him to a new

sentencing hearing. The court followed the reasoning in People v. Hall 13which stated that

“the factors controlling the admissibility of evidence are relevance and reliability and the

determination of admissibility rests in the discretion of the trial court”14. As the trial court

had already found Rienbolt and Herrington’s recantations unreliable, the court held that the

trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Steidl a new sentencing hearing.

Constitutionality Of The Illinois Death Penalty

Steidl’s final arguments involved broad based attacks on the constitutionality of the Illinois

Death Penalty Act, but the court found that he offered no new reasons to find the statute

unconstitutional and only argued that the court should re-examine earlier precedents. The

court, having only recently reviewed the precedents upholding the constitutionality of the

Death Penalty Act, found no reason to re-examine them. As such, the court affirmed

Steidl’s conviction and sentence and the trial court’s denial of his petition for a new trial.

Petition For Post-Conviction Relief

On 3 April 1992, Steidl filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Illinois Post

Conviction Hearing Act15. This petition was superseded by an amended petition filed on 22

June 1995. In the amended petition, Steidl argued that his trial counsel, Muller, had

rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because:

12 Ibid., at 27 13 114 Ill.2d 376, 416, 102 Ill.Dec. 322, 499 N.E.2d 1335 (1986) 14 114 Ill.2d at 416-7 15 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 1994)

-7-

(1) He failed to discredit Rienbolt’s testimony that she supplied the Rienbolt Knife to Steidl

and Whitlock;

(2) He failed to obtain expert examination of the broken lamp found at the scene of the

murders, consequently failing to show that the lamp was broken after the fire had started,

rather than before, as put forward by Rienbolt;

(3) He failed to call Rienbolt’s supervisor as a witness to testify that she had been at work

on the night of 5 July 1985, contrary to Rienbolt’s testimony; and

(4) He failed to prepare and present sufficient mitigation evidence at Steidl’s sentencing

hearing.

On 25 October 1995, the trial court denied Steidl’s post-conviction petition without an

evidentiary hearing.

Second Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court

Steidl appealed the denial of his post-conviction petition to the Illinois Supreme Court. With

new legal representation from Michael Metnick (“Metnick”), Steidl asked the court to re-

visit his claims of unfairness and ineffective assistance of trial counsel in light of all the new

evidence that had been uncovered.

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel At The Trial

Metnick presented the following claims in support of Steidl’s petition for post-conviction

relief.

(1) Failure to conduct an investigation of the crime scene

Metnick submitted evidence that police officers at the Rhoads couple’s house had discovered

a second knife in the kitchen sink (“Kitchen Sink Knife”). Muller and Dr Murphy had not

examined this knife at the trial. Metnick had obtained an expert opinion from a pathologist,

Dr Michael Baden (“Dr Baden”). In Dr Baden’s affidavit, he stated that the Kitchen Sink

Knife was eight inches long and 2.4 centimetres wide. In comparison, the Rienbolt Knife

was only five inches long and 1.3 centimetres wide. Dr Baden considered that, as autopsies

of the Rhoads couple revealed the fatal stab wounds were six inches deep and 2.5

centimetres wide at their entry point, the Kitchen Sink Knife was the more likely murder

weapon.

In response to this, Dr Murphy filed an affidavit, but it did not contain any evidence to

refute Dr Baden’s opinion. Additionally, attached to Steidl’s petition were notes taken by a

police officer present at Karen Rhoads’ autopsy, stating that the knife used in the murders

was longer than the Rienbolt Knife. As Muller had failed to examine the Kitchen Sink Knife

in his preparation for the trial, failed to cross-examine Dr Murphy regarding the

discrepancies between the length of the Rienbolt Knife and the stab wounds and failed to

retain his own expert to examine the Rienbolt Knife, Metnick claimed that Steidl’s case was

substantially prejudiced. The state countered this argument by stating it was a matter of

Muller’s trial strategy as to whether to adduce his own expert examination and that both

knives could have been used in the murders.

Rienbolt testified at Steidl’s trial that she had seen a broken lamp in the Rhoads’ house at

the time the murders were committed. The broken lamp was recovered from the Rhoads

couple’s house by police officers. The prosecution used this information to corroborate

Rienbolt’s testimony. Metnick had a certified fire examiner examine the broken lamp. The

examiner concluded, on the basis of smoke stains and soot residue found on the inside of

-8-

the lamp, that the lamp was most likely to have been broken by firemen on entering the

property. It was claimed that Muller’s failure to obtain any expert examination of the

broken lamp at the trial prevented Steidl from casting doubt on Rienbolt’s testimony. The

state, in response, argued that evidence surrounding the broken lamp was inconclusive and

thus did not weaken Rienbolt’s testimony.

At the trial, Herrington testified that he threw a pillow over Karen Rhoads’ face after she

had been killed. Dr Baden contended that the pillow was likely to have been used to stop

Karen Rhoads’ screams, as evidenced by bruises on her arms, which suggested a struggle

had taken place. Muller did not retain an expert to elicit this testimony at the trial. Metnick

stated that, as a result, Muller had missed an opportunity to discredit Herrington’s

testimony. The state in their reply did not dismiss Dr Baden’s theory, instead arguing that

Herrington had placed the pillow on Karen Rhoads’ face after she was killed.

(2) Failure to challenge the credibility of Rienbolt’s testimony

It was argued that Muller’s faulty investigation resulted in missed opportunities to meet with

or call various witnesses to testify at the trial to challenge the credibility of Rienbolt’s

testimony. Muller never met with Rienbolt’s alibi witness, Dennis Ouzleman, or called him

to testify at the trial. Barbara Furry was also not subpoenaed to dispute Rienbolt’s

testimony that they had been in the American Legion bar on 5 July 1986. Muller also failed

to interview Rienbolt’s supervisor at work, whose log indicated Rienbolt was at work on 5

July 1986, despite Rienbolt’s stating under oath that she was at the Taps Room and

American Legion with Steidl the same night.

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel At The Sentencing Hearing

At Steidl’s sentencing hearing, Muller only presented a short statement relating to Steidl’s

lack of serious criminal history as mitigation evidence. Following the sentencing hearing,

Muller testified in a post-hearing deposition that he did not prepare for the hearing as he

was unaware it would take place immediately following the trial. He also claimed that Steidl

requested that no mitigation evidence or witnesses be presented on his behalf. In his

petition for post-conviction relief, Steidl refuted Muller’s testimony by claiming he did not

wish to testify on his own behalf, but Muller could have presented other witnesses (there

were ten family members present at the sentencing hearing willing to testify). Attached to

this petition were affidavits from 27 people who would have testified on Steidl’s behalf at

the sentencing hearing had they been contacted by Muller.

Newly Discovered Evidence

Metnick presented two new developments in the petition, which he argued warranted a new

evidentiary hearing. Since the trial, Rienbolt and Herrington had recanted their trial

testimony and then subsequently reaffirmed it. Evidence had also come to light that both

Rienbolt and Herrington had received money from the state after the trial had concluded.

In the petition, Metnick argued that both witnesses had been paid by the state in return for

providing testimony against Steidl.

Substitution Of The Trial Judge, Paul Komada

Metnick also petitioned the court regarding the trial judge’s associations and conduct with

those involved in the case, in particular regarding his association with Muller, with whom he

had been a law partner 15 years previously. On hearing Steidl’s petition, filed on 22 June

1995, Judge Komada relied upon personal knowledge of Muller’s performance in previous

cases in determining the competency of his legal representation of Steidl. Therefore,

-9-

Metnick argued that the judge showed bias towards Steidl and, therefore, should not

preside over any evidentiary hearing granted by the court.

The Illinois Supreme Court’s Ruling

The court held that Muller’s failures in his investigation prevented the trial jury from hearing

evidence. It also regarded his failure to interview and call witnesses at the trial as an

indication of incompetence. Given the balance of evidence in the case and the lack of

physical evidence linking Steidl to the murders, the jury’s judgment rested upon the

credibility of the witnesses presented to them. Since Rienbolt had recanted her testimony,

in these specific circumstances, the court warranted that a review would be justified at an

evidentiary hearing.

The court considered that Muller’s complete lack of preparation for the sentencing hearing

raised serious questions as to the effectiveness of his legal representation. As a result, the

court concluded that there was a reasonable probability that Steidl’s sentence would have

been different had Muller properly prepared for the hearing.

However, the court did not find any evidence that Steidl’s constitutional rights were violated

by both Rienbolt and Herrington receiving money from the state.

Lastly, the court held the judge, in relying on his personal knowledge of Muller’s previous

performance, did show bias towards Steidl. Consequently, based upon the above, the

Illinois Supreme Court decided that the petition demonstrated that Steidl’s constitutional

rights were violated as a result of Muller’s ineffective representation as counsel. The court,

therefore, reversed the trial court’s decision and awarded an evidentiary hearing before a

new judge.

Evidentiary Hearing

On various days between the months of July and October 1998, a nine-day evidentiary

hearing was held before Circuit Judge Tracy W. Resch. Eight witnesses and experts gave

evidence.

Paula Brklach

Paula Brklach was a nurse who worked with Rienbolt at the Paris Health Care Center. She

kept a nursing log for the evening shift on 5 July 1986, which showed Rienbolt had been at

work. She testified that while she did not have any specific recollection of the activities on

that day, she would only have written Rienbolt’s name down if she “was there working that

evening”16. She also testified that Muller did not talk to her prior to Steidl’s trial but she

would have been able to testify at the trial.

Dr Murphy

Dr Murphy testified that he had handled about 20-25 autopsies involving death by stabbing;

but most of these cases were handled by another physician in his office.

He testified that the wounds found on the body of Dyke Rhoads measured as follows.

The depth of the fatal stab wound was six inches;

The width of the fatal stab wound (i.e. the linear mark on the surface of the skin caused

by a stab wound) was 2.4 centimetres; and

16 Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, op. cit, at 11

-10-

The wound in the sternum was two centimetres in width.

Dr Murphy testified that the wounds found on the body of Karen Rhoads measured as

follows.

One of the fatal wounds was 6⅜ inches deep and 2.5 centimetres in width; and

The other fatal stab wound was almost six inches deep and 2.5 centimetres in width.

He opined that a knife with a five inch blade could make a wound that is six inches deep,

due to the compressibility of the human body, but some force would be needed. He also

said that the Rienbolt Knife measured five inches in length and had a ricasso against the

handle (a thicker, squared off, portion of the blade), which, if it had gone into the wound

itself, would cause the wound to be square at each end. The wounds found on the bodies of

the Rhoads couple were not square at each end.

Dr Murphy testified that the Rienbolt Knife also had a hilt, which separated the handle from

the blade. This hilt should have left marks or some type of bruise or abrasion on the

Rhoads couple, none of which he saw around the wounds on either victim. However, he

testified that it was his opinion that the Rienbolt Knife was compatible with the wounds

suffered by the victims.

Dr Murphy was shown the Kitchen Sink Knife. He testified that it was eight inches long and

2.4 centimetres wide. This was consistent with the wound found in Dyke Rhoads’s sternum,

which was six inches deep. Dr Murphy testified that the Kitchen Sink Knife could have

caused the wounds on the Rhoads couple. Nevertheless, he also maintained that it is not

possible to measure precisely the depth of a wound and that all stab wounds are a

combination of cutting and stabbing, so the length of the wound would not necessarily be

indicative of the blade that caused the injury.

Dr Baden

Dr Baden testified that he had been a physician since 1959 and was a certified forensic

pathologist. He had performed over 20,000 autopsies, over a thousand of which involved

stabbings, and had been employed by the New York State Police as a forensic pathologist

since 1985. Dr Baden stated that he had reviewed the police reports, crime scene

photographs, the autopsy records in this case and some of the trial testimony. He also

examined the Rienbolt Knife and the Kitchen Sink Knife. In addition, he spoke to Dr Murphy

and examined Dyke Rhoads’ sternum.

Similarly to Dr Murphy, Dr Baden testified the blade of the Kitchen Sink Knife was eight

inches long and 2.4 cm wide. He also agreed with Dr Murphy’s opinion that a five inch knife

can cause a six inch wound. But, in his opinion, if the Rienbolt Knife had been used in the

murders, the stab wounds found on the Rhoads couple would have to have been “inflicted

with sufficient force to go all the way down to the hilt and that would have caused some

bruising or injury to the skin beneath it”17. Furthermore, Dr Baden said that the Rienbolt

Knife was too narrow to have caused the wounds and said that “it would be extremely

unlikely in my experience that a smaller blade would keep giving the same measurements

of up to 2.5 cm”18.

Accordingly, it was his opinion that the Rienbolt Knife was not the knife that caused the fatal

injuries. Moreover, his examination of the sternum supported this conclusion because the

stab wound in the sternum did not match the Rienbolt Knife (the sternum, he said, is

significant evidence because it “tends to preserve its shape or will preserve the shape of the

17 Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, op. cit, at 14 18 Ibid., at 15

-11-

weapon going through it in a more complete fashion”19). He stated that the Kitchen Sink

Knife, on the other hand, was entirely consistent with the wounds found on both victims.

Dr Blum

Dr Blum said that he had performed around 150-200 autopsies which involved stab wounds.

He said that stab wounds can be elongated because of a cutting action which often occurs in

homicidal cases. Consequently, in his opinion, one cannot determine the length of the blade

by examining the length of the wound. He believed that either knife could have caused all

of the wounds.

He testified that the hilt marks can be visible depending on a number of factors such as: the

amount of force used, whether the victim was wearing clothing, whether the individual’s

hand covered the hilt and the extent to which the fire in these circumstances had altered

the skin’s appearance. On cross-examination, Dr Blum acknowledged that if a person’s

fingers covered the hilt, then bruises could still be left from the hand. Moreover, “cutting or

moving back and forth”20 was much less likely in the sternum. He said that typically a knife

with a ricasso would make one end of the wound squared off and the other pointed, but if

the wound gaped open you would not necessarily see this.

John Muller

Muller testified that part of his trial strategy was to show that a knife with a five inch blade

could not have made a six inch stab wound and that he strategically waited until closing to

present information about the length and depth of the wounds. He admitted to not having

read any books on stab wounds or consulting an expert. He did not remember whether he

examined the Kitchen Sink Knife or whether he interviewed Brklach. He further admitted to

neither having the Rienbolt Knife forensically tested by experts nor utilising a crime scene

investigator or a fire examiner.

Donald Tankersley

Tankersley testified that he was a special agent in the arson division of the Illinois office of

the State Fire Marshal and an expert in soot patterns. He investigated the fire at the

Rhoads’ house and, in his view, the fact that there was no soot deposit on the interior of the

lamp found outside the Rhoads’s bedroom “means that portion there had been broken after

the time of the fire”21.

Terry Lynn Brown

Brown was a certified fire and arson investigator and investigated fires for insurance

companies. He reviewed photographs taken of the Rhoads’ bedroom after the fire and also

examined the broken lamp. He said that the outline of a lamp could be seen from the soot

patterns in the photographs and the “lamp appears to have been intact at the time of the

fire”22. Furthermore, he said that the lack of soot on the inside of the lamp meant that the

lamp was not broken at the time of the fire.

19 Ibid., at 13 20 Ibid., at 16 21 Ibid., at 17 22 Ibid.

-12-

Debra Rienbolt

Rienbolt testified that she lied during the videotaped witness statement which she gave on

17 and 18 February 1996. She said she “just wasn’t thinking”23 when she recanted her trial

testimony and that everything she said at the trial was true.

The Court’s Verdict

On 11 December 1998, Judge Resch entered an opinion and order refusing Steidl’s request

for a new trial. However, Judge Resch also found that Muller had provided ineffective

assistance at sentencing and so a new sentencing hearing was granted.

New Sentencing Hearing

On 18 February 1999, Steidl was resentenced to a term of life imprisonment after the state

declined to pursue the death penalty.

Appeal To The Illinois Appellate Court

As a result of Steidl’s resentencing, on 3 May 1999, the Illinois Supreme Court transferred

Steidl’s appeal of Judge Resch’s ruling to the Appellate Court for the fourth district.

On 5 December 2000, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgement of the trial court. The

court found that Steidl was not prejudiced by Muller’s failure to submit the Kitchen Sink

Knife for forensic testing, explaining that “any arguable deficiencies in the defence trial

counsel’s performance were not significant enough to indicate that the outcome would have

been different”24.

The End Of The State Process

Following the decision of the Appellate Court for the fourth district, on 5 December 2000,

Steidl filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. He was denied leave

to appeal on 4 April 2001, bringing an end to the state court process.

Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus

To this point, the Illinois state courts had ruled on issues of both state and federal law.

However, as the federal courts have the last word on matters of federal law, Steidl was

entitled to petition the federal court to review the state-court rulings on his federal

constitutional claims. He did this by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on 5

October, 2001. His petition was heard on 2 August, 2002.

The Application

In addition to Metnick, Steidl was represented in federal court by Jane Raley, Karen Daniel

and Professor Lawrence C. Marshall of the Bluhm Legal Clinic of the Northwestern University

School of Law.

The Illinois Appellate Court had ruled that Steidl failed to demonstrate that trial counsel had

provided ineffective assistance, as defined by Strickland v. Washington. It would be his

23 Ibid., 18 24 Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, op. cit, at 19

-13-

burden to demonstrate to the federal court that this ruling was “contrary to, or an

unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court.” Steidl claimed that Muller’s representation had been ineffective because he had:

(1) Failed to present Brklach, Rienbolt’s nursing supervisor, as a witness;

(2) Failed to present expert testimony that the Rienbolt Knife was not the murder weapon;

and

(3) Failed to investigate and present forensic evidence to contradict Rienbolt’s testimony

that the lamp in the Rhoads couple’s bedroom was broken at the time of the murders.

Brklach’s Testimony

Counsel argued that Muller could easily have located Brklach as he had her nursing log in

his possession. Counsel stated that her testimony would have been extremely helpful as

Brklach would have testified that Rienbolt was at work during the time that she claimed to

have been in the Taps Room and American Legion with Steidl and Whitlock. The federal

court found that, despite the previous decisions to the contrary, Muller’s failure to contact

and interview Brklach could not be considered “trial strategy” and, instead, was

representation that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court went on

to say that, as Muller had subpoenaed the wrong supervisor, the jury was denied the

opportunity to hear testimony that Rienbolt was physically present at work on the evening

of 5 July 1986, contrary to her trial testimony. Clearly, the court stated, Brklach’s

testimony could have led the jury to conclude that Rienbolt was lying about her activities on

the night of the murders and that her claim to have been an eyewitness to the murders was

not worthy of belief. No witness called by Muller at trial was able to present this kind of

testimony. Therefore, the court held that the Appellate Court’s conclusion that Muller’s

failure to investigate and call Brklach as a witness was not ineffective assistance of counsel

was objectively unreasonable.

The Rienbolt Knife

Steidl also claimed that Muller had been ineffective for failing to present forensic evidence

that the Rienbolt Knife was not the murder weapon. Counsel argued on his behalf that

Muller had failed to take steps to either:

(1) Establish that the Rienbolt Knife could not have been the murder weapon; or

(2) At least create significant doubt regarding whether the Rienbolt Knife was the murder

weapon.

It was argued that Muller did nothing but reinforce Dr Murphy’s opinion that the Rienbolt

Knife was compatible and consistent with the fatal wounds. Counsel argued that Muller

“winged it” by failing to speak with experts, conduct meaningful cross examination and

present evidence to challenge the prosecution’s assertions that this forensic evidence

constituted strong evidence of Steidl’s guilt. The Appellate Court did not decide the issue of

whether Muller’s performance in this regard fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness. Instead, the Appellate Court concluded that Steidl had failed to establish

any prejudice resulting from Muller’s allegedly deficient performance. The District Court

also stated that the Appellate Court’s statements evidenced a profoundly mistaken reading

of the record. Dr Baden testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the

Rienbolt Knife did not cause the fatal wounds of the Rhoads couple. Therefore, the

testimony presented at the hearing showed that there were significant reasons to doubt

whether the Rienbolt Knife was actually the murder weapon. The Appellate Court’s

statements that “Dr Baden did not testify that the Rienbolt Knife could not have caused the

-14-

fatal wounds”25 and that “all of the pathologists agreed…the Rienbolt Knife could have

caused each of the fatal wounds”26 were simply incorrect and were unreasonable

conclusions based upon the record. The District Court stated that it was clear that the

prosecution, in this closely balanced case, relied heavily on Rienbolt’s claim that she had

provided the police with the murder weapon in persuading the jury to accept her testimony.

Having reviewed the evidence and the reasons supporting the Appellate Court’s decision,

the District Court decided that its decision was not even minimally consistent with the facts

and circumstances of this case and was, therefore, unreasonable.

The Broken Lamp

Rienbolt testified that she saw a broken lamp in the bedroom where the Rhoads couple were

murdered. The prosecution argued that “Rienbolt says the broken lamp was in the

bedroom”27 and “this was a fact that was known to virtually no-one because in fact the lamp

was found outside the bedroom”28. Counsel argued, however, that the evidence indicated

that the lamp was not broken until after the fire, which was started after the murders had

taken place. Muller had presented no evidence to refute Rienbolt’s testimony. The jury

were only presented with Rienbolt’s version of events regarding the broken lamp; as such,

this appeared to be compelling proof that Rienbolt was telling the truth. The Appellate

Court argued that “in any event, such a minor discrepancy in Rienbolt’s testimony would not

significantly discredit her description of seeing Steidl and Whitlock stabbing the victims.”29

However, the District Court concluded that to call this evidence a “minor discrepancy” was

inaccurate and not supported by the record in this case. Because of the importance

attributed to the broken lamp by the prosecution, it was unreasonable for the Appellate

Court to retroactively find this testimony insignificant, especially where the testimony of

Terry Lynn Brown and Donald Tankersley was irreconcilable with Rienbolt’s testimony. Had

Muller presented expert testimony discrediting Rienbolt’s version of events, it would have

gone a long way towards convincing the jury that Rienbolt’s trial testimony was not

credible. The federal court, therefore, concluded that there was a reasonable probability

that scientific refutation of one of the key aspects of Rienbolt’s testimony would have

resulted in a different outcome at trial. The court stated that this probability was sufficient

to undermine confidence in the trial outcome and was a further demonstration of the

unreasonable application of the Strickland standard.

Cumulative Effect

The court further concluded that, based upon the record, even if the instances of deficient

performance were not individually considered sufficient to warrant the grant of habeas

corpus relief, considered together they clearly warranted relief. Therefore, the proper

application of Strickland would have required the Appellate Court to hold that acquittal was

reasonably probable if the jury had heard all of the evidence. For that reason, the District

Court granted Steidl’s writ of habeas corpus and vacated his conviction.

On 25 March 2004, Attorney General Lisa Madigan declined to appeal the District Court’s

decision. Subsequently, on 28 May 2004, all charges were dropped against Steidl and he

was released from prison.

25 Ibid., at 28 26 Ibid., at 29 27 Ibid., at 31 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid.

-15-

Sources

1. People v. Steidl 142 Ill.2d, 204, 568 N.E.2d 837, 857, 154 Ill.Dec. 616 (1991)

2. People v. Steidl 1996 WL 33657597 (Ill.)

3. People v. Steidl 177 Ill.2d 239, 685 N.E.2d 1335, 226 Ill.Dec. 592

4. Steidl v. Jonathon R. Walls, Warden Case No. 01-CV-2249

Work completed by Reed Smith LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One

For Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of any individual partner of

Reed Smith LLP.

Chronology

GORDON “RANDY” STEIDL

6 July 1986 Bodies of Dyke and Karen Rhoads discovered by firemen

extinguishing a fire at their house in Paris, Illinois. Both were

found nude and had suffered multiple stab wounds.

21 September 1986 Darrell Herrington gives a statement to the police accusing

Gordon R. (Randy) Steidl and Herbert R. Whitlock of murdering

the Rhoads couple.

16 February 1987 Debra Rienbolt voluntarily comes forward to the police with a

knife, which she claimed was used by Steidl to murder the

Rhoads couple. Rienbolt claims that she was present when the

murders were committed.

19 February 1987 Steidl (and Whitlock) are arrested by Paris police.

10 March 1987 Edgar County grand jury returns indictments charging Steidl (and

Whitlock) with both murders.

July 1987 Trial held at the Edgar County Court. Steidl found guilty of two

counts of first degree murder.

12 August 1987 Steidl’s sentencing hearing is heard at the Edgar County Court.

The jury finds Steidl eligible for the death penalty. Steidl is

sentenced to death.

21 November 1988 Harrington recants his trial testimony in a statement before a

court reporter. He states that police fed him information and

urged him to change parts of his story.

13 January 1989 Rienbolt recants her trial testimony in a signed affidavit.

Steidl files a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence to the

Illinois Supreme Court.

8 February 1989 While Steidl’s Illinois Supreme Court appeal is pending, Steidl files

a petition for post-judgment relief.

March 1990 Four day evidentiary hearing is held in the trial court regarding

Steidl’s petition. At the hearing, Rienbolt and Herrington testify

that their trial testimony had been truthful.

20 March 1990 Edgar County Court denies the petition for post-judgment relief.

24 January 1991 Illinois Supreme Court affirms Steidl’s conviction, sentence and

the denial of Steidl’s petition for post-judgment relief.

3 April 1992 Steidl files a petition for post-conviction relief.

22 June 1995 Steidl files a superseding amended petition for post-conviction

relief.

25 October 1995 Trial court denies Steidl’s post-conviction petition without an

evidentiary hearing.

17-18 February 1996 Rienbolt recants her trial testimony for the second time in a four-

hour, videotaped statement.

23 February 1996 Rienbolt retracts her second recantation in an audio-taped

statement to the Edgar County State’s Attorney.

17 July 1996 Steidl appeals the trial court’s decision to deny him a post-

conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing to the Illinois

Supreme Court.

18 September 1997 Illinois Supreme Court reverses the trial court’s decision and

remands the case for an evidentiary hearing before a newly

substituted judge.

July – October 1998 A nine day evidentiary hearing is held during this period.

11 December 1998 Evidentiary hearing Judge denies Steidl’s request for a new trial,

but grants Steidl a new sentencing hearing on the grounds that

his attorney provided ineffective assistance at the sentencing

phase of the trial by failing to present evidence in mitigation.

Steidl appeals the decision not to grant him a new trial.

18 February 1999 Steidl is resentenced to a term of life imprisonment after the

state declines to pursue the death penalty.

3 May 1999 As Steidl is no longer sentenced to death, the Illinois Supreme

Court transfers Steidl’s petition appealing the evidentiary hearing

judge’s decision to the Appellate Court.

5 December 2000 The Appellate Court of the Fourth District affirms the judgment of

the Edgar County Court.

Steidl files a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme

Court.

4 April 2001 Illinois Supreme Court denies Steidl’s petition for leave to appeal.

5 October 2001 Steidl files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the US District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

2 August 2002 Steidl’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is heard.

17 June 2003 Steidl’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted by Judge

Michael McCuskey of the US District Court for the Central District

of Illinois.

25 March 2004 After an intensive review of the case, Attorney General Lisa

Madigan declines to appeal McCuskey’s decision.

28 May 2004 All charges against Steidl are dropped. Steidl is exonerated and

released from prison.

25 October 2011 Steidl files a lawsuit against the Illinois State Police and settles for

$2.5 million.

Work completed by Reed Smith LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For

Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of any individual partner of Reed

Smith LLP.

Case Summary

GORDON “RANDY” STEIDL

In August 1987, following a conviction in the Edgar County Court in Paris, Illinois, of the

murders of a local newlywed couple, Dyke and Karen Rhoads, Gordon “Randy” Steidl was

sentenced to death. After spending 17 years in prison, 12 of which were on death row, Steidl

was finally exonerated after the Center on Wrongful Convictions helped to prove his innocence.

The Rhoads couple had been discovered by local fire-fighters responding to a fire at their

house in the early hours of 6 July 1986. Both had been stabbed more than 25 times. As there

was no physical evidence suggesting that either Steidl, or co-defendant Herbert Whitlock, were

responsible for the murders, their convictions rested on the testimony of two key witnesses –

Debra Rienbolt and Darrell Herrington, who claimed to have been present while the murders

took place. The evidence against Steidl also included the testimony of a jailhouse snitch, Ferlin

Wells, who claimed that Steidl confided that, if he had thought Herrington would come

forward, he would have taken care of him. Throughout the trial, Steidl maintained that he had

never met Rienbolt before, while he only knew of Herrington. He also presented an alibi in his

defence which was corroborated by two witnesses who confirmed that he was not at the

Rhoads’ house on the night of the murders.

Over the 15 years following his conviction, Steidl’s extensive appeal process involved the trial

court, the Illinois Supreme Court, the Appellate Court of the fourth district and culminated in a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus being filed and heard at the US District Court for the

Central District of Illinois. Initially arguing that Rienbolt’s and Herrington’s testimonies lacked

credibility after numerous recantations of their statements, Steidl’s prevailing argument in his

habeas corpus hearing was that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, in

relation to challenging the credibility of both Rienbolt’s and Herrington’s testimony. Steidl

argued that John Muller, Steidl’s trial counsel, had: (1) missed the opportunity to discredit

Rienbolt over her statement that the knife she had supplied to the police was used by Steidl

and Whitlock in the murders; (2) failed to obtain an expert examination of a broken lamp that

was found in the house, a key piece of evidence that that state had used to add credibility to

Rienbolt’s testimony; (3) failed to call Rienbolt’s supervisor at the Paris Health Care Center as

a witness to verify that Rienbolt was in fact present at work on the night of the murders; and

(4) failed to prepare and present sufficient mitigation evidence or witnesses at Steidl’s

sentencing hearing.

Counsel for Steidl during his habeas corpus hearing stated that the cumulative effect of the

above arguments resulted in a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have

been different if Muller had provided effective assistance as counsel. On 17 June 2003, US

District Court judge Michael McCuskey agreed with this argument and granted Steidl’s writ of

habeas corpus. On 26 March 2004, having reviewed the case, Attorney General Lisa Madigan

declined to appeal the District Court’s decision. As a result all charges were dropped against

Steidl and he was released from prison.

Steidl was the 18th man to be exonerated and released from Illinois’ death row. He is now an

active campaigner for the abolition of the death penalty across the United States. The death

penalty was abolished in the state of Illinois on 9 March 2011.

Work completed by Reed Smith LLP in collaboration with Amicus. Any position on the Amicus or One For

Ten website for or against the death penalty does not reflect the views of any individual partner of Reed

Smith LLP.