| Contact Leon Benson | |
|---|---|
 | Leon Benson # 995256 P.C.F. 4490 W. Reformatory Rd. Pendleton, IN 46064 USA |
| DOB: January 9, 1976 | |
| Leon Benson's case data | |
|---|---|
| Status | possibly innocent |
| State and County | Indiana, Marion County |
| Case No. | 49G02 9808 CF 134837 |
| Crime | Count 1: Murder Count 2: Carrying a Handgun without License |
| Date of Crime | August 8, 1998 |
| Date of Arrest | |
| Date of Conviction | July 6, 1999 |
| Sentence | 60 years to serve 30 |
| Age at the Date of Crime | 22 |
| Contributing Factors | Perjury, Mistaken Eyewitness Identification |
| Did DNA evidence contribute to the conviction? | No |
| Is there DNA evidence to test? | No |
Loading ...Crime scene and Leon Benson’s whereabout
Summary
What happened on the day of the crime?
On August 8th, 1998 between the hours of 3:40 AM and 3:45 AM, Kasey Schoen (a white male – 24 y/o) was shot several times while he sat in “98” Black Dodge Ram pick-up truck parked in front of the Damien Center at the 1350 block of Pennsylvania Avenue, near downtown Indianapolis, Indiana.
911 was called at exactly 3:50 AM and EMS and police arrived on the crime scene at 3:53 AM to find a lifeless Kasey Schoen in the driver’s seat of his truck.
Leon Benson says he was nowhere near the crime scene when that crime occurred. He was in an appartment building nick named “Little Viet Nam” located 1309 Pennsylvania Avenue, where he heard the shots.
What was he doing in that building during the time? — He was selling crack cocain out the back door.
How far is the “Little Viet Nam” building located from the crime scene? — One block away!
Introduction
My name is Leon Benson and I am an African American originally from Flint, Michigan. I have been falsely imprisoned, here, in Indiana since August of 1998. After you review the information concerning my case, you will acquire the same vision I possess. Regardless if you help me or not, I will continue, with all, that is in my power to win my freedom back. I will not quit!
I am falsely convicted of the crime of murder. I say “falsely” opposed to “wrongfully” convicted for a specific reason. The U.S. Supreme Court has terms called “actual” and “factual” innocence. “Actual innocence” is when a person is absolutely innocent of a crime even beyond what the language of the law says (e.g. Genarlow Wilson, the 17 year old who was falsely convicted of rape of a 15 y/o girl consented to sex. Wilson was exonerated in 2007 after Georgia’s legislation had changed the law that was more reasonable about teenagers ages in consential sex.) Also “actual” innocence refers to when a person had no involvement in a crime. Then there is “factual” innocence, where a person “could be guilty” but the language of the law says they are innocent (e.g. like if someone instignated a fight between two other people, and the fight ended in one of their death. In actuality the instignator is, just as, guilty of the crime as the killer. However, by law the instignator is factually innocent.) Therefore, “false” and “wrongful” convictions fall in specific categories, too. A “wrongful” conviction is when a person was convicted unconstitutionally. But “falsely convicted” is when a person was convicted and had absolutely no involvement in the crime.
“I AM ACTUALLY INNOCENT AND FALSELY CONVICTED!”
Moving forward. With every claim of innocence, there must be evidence to prove the claim (i.e., DNA, physical, eyewitness or testimonial evidence.) In my innocence case the exonerating evidence is eyewitness testimonies. The conclusion of truth will come down to examining one witness statement over another. This task was given to twelve (12) jurors but they did not make the right conclusion. Why? Because key eyewitnesses and evidence were not presented at the trial. So an over emphasis of credibility was placed on the state’s sole eyewitness, whose testimony and identification were beyond contradictory.
Because the exonerating evidence in my case is eyewitness testimony, the actual documents are provided, here, in an organized way to demonstrate my actual innocence. The difficult aspect about innocence cases like my own, is when these cases are based on testimony alone. Prosecutors can manipulate the perception of testimony. This is what happened in my case during trial. But with the documentation presented on the IIPPI website, you will see the simplicity of my exoneration focus, which can only be found to be complicated by those who refuse to see the TRUTH before their very eyes.
I am beyond confident after you have reviewed all this information that you will come to the conclusion of my innocence. I only hope you have the courage to actually assist me to exoneration after you draw this conclusion. There are a lot of people in the world, who know of my innocence in this crime, but they are doing nothing to bring justice and freedom to my life! And I only can do what I am doing today, to bring justice and freedom to my own life by me exposing the facts.
Leon Benson
How you can help
Share this article and visit the IIPPI Forum for updates!
Leon Benson needs a private investigator, an attorney and investigative journalists.
Donations can be made via JPay.com directly into his inmate account.
Papers
Leon Benson (Indiana Case Chart) (pdf)
#1: This is a case chart or summary of the facts of my case. I personally composed this summary as objective as possible to illustrate all the existing salient pretrial facts and salient trial facts. I will present the actual documents to the main exonerating salient facts to corroborate my actual innocence.
Crime Scene Diagram
#2: is the actual crime scene diagram created by Indianapolis crime specialist officer R. Layton the night of the crime. – This will give the reader an idea of the crime scene surroundings.
On Scene Statement of the Eyewitness Christy Schmitt (pdf)
#3: This is the actual on scene statement of Christy Schmitt, the eyewitness. As you will be able to follow the movement of her statement by the previously seen crime scene diagram.
Actual Photo Array Line-up
#4: is the actual photo array line-up that Christy Schmitt picked my photo out of as the shooter on 8-14-1998 – which was six days after giving her on-scene-statement and identification of the shooter 8-8-1998 (i.e. the first left photo on the top row).
Indiana’s Epidemic of Misidentification (pdf)
#5: This is an essay I composed after weeks of keen research through my actual trial transcripts, discovery evidence to demonstrate how much my case correlated with Dr. John Brigham – research of eyewitness unreliability. – Basically I am keenly illustrating how much an expert testimony was needed to bring clarity to Christy Schmitt’s misidentification. The essay will examine every element and condition of eyewitness identification is subjected to.
Voluntary Statement of Eyewitness Dakarai Fulton (pdf)
#6: is the voluntary statement of Dakarai Fulton who eyewitnessed the crime, but identified another person as the shooter. This statement was given 8-17-1998 to lead detective Alan Jones. And this statement was a part of my discovery evidence.
Another Photo Array Line-Up
#7: This is the actual photo array that Dakarai Fulton identified another suspect as the person who did the shooting. The photo is located in the top middle row.
Photo Array Signature Sheet
#8: is the actual photo array signature sheet that Dakarai Fulton actually signed on for his photo identification of the person he saw commit the crime.
Crime Stopper Report
#9: is the actual crime stopper report of an anonymous caller, who reported another person’s involvement.
Exhibit that Leon Benson personally composed (pdf)
#10: is an exhibit I personally composed with the actual crime stopper diagram illustrating the movement of the suspect and position of the witness according to their statement of events. I felt this would give the reader a comparitive analysis of all the statement of events by witness to summarize a conclusion. – This type of simple comparitive analysis was not present to the jurors at my trial. So, the jurors were confused with the position of Schmitt and her distance from the crime, when she observed the crime. Hopefully, this brings you the clearness that was missing at my trial.
“DNA: Denied Necessary Assistance” by Leon Benson (pdf)
#11: is another essay I composed as a result of my frustration while pursuing assistance from innocent projects, organizations, firms, etc. only to be denied help from these places, because they only dealt with innocence claims that involved D.N.A. evidence to exonerate and my case is misidentification. What I found ironic was that the criminal justice system as well as those non-profit organizations who claim to give innocent prisoners help to freedom, know the main cause of false convictions is misidentification, yet they refuse to help innocence claims caused by misidentification. This is a very informative essay that shows how much I have personally struggled thus far for help.
External Links
http://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2002/02150201-bed.html
Leon Benson v. State of Indiana
Supreme Court of Indiana
February 15, 2002
Campaign Websites:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-LEON-Benson/439577522775962
Leon Benson’s FACEBOOK page
www.freewebs.com/freeleonbenson/