False Testimony Puts Innocent Man Behind Bars For Life -- The Tony Thrash Story

"The evidence, independent of Gaddy's testimony, would not be sufficient to convict Thrash of Capital felony murder. -- Arkansas Supreme Court, in response to a direct appeal submitted by Tony Thrash

My name is Anthony Thrash, and I was convicted of a capital offense, the shotgun murder of Tommy Gill. Gill was shot at close range while sitting in his pick-up truck on Friday, June 6, 1980.

In 1980 I was associated with a woman named Deidra Gaddy. When Gaddy was arrested on suspicion of murder, she testified against me to save herself from any real punishment. I was not involved in the murder in any way and knew nothing of the murder until my arrest.

The case against me was tried in Dumas, Arkansas, and all evidence in the case hinged on the word of Deidra Gaddy. I was convicted without any physical evidence or forensic evidence linking me to the crime. I was convicted on testimonial evidence that was highly conflicting and not supported by physical proof. The crux of the state's case against me came from Gaddy's confession, in which she named me as her accomplice. All other witness testimony on behalf of the state was stretched, molded, and shaped to corroborate Gaddy's testimony. Two eyewitnesses, who would have been in their late teens at the time of the murder, were approached five years after the murder to pick the suspect out of a photo lineup. In the six pictures they viewed five years after the murder, my picture was distinctly different from the rest. Mine was the only frontal shot, and I was noticeably lighter-skinned than the other men in the line-up, who were all photographed with side views. There was never a clear motive for the murder, and Gill's pick-up truck was never found. His body, found in the summer two weeks after the murder, was decomposing under an abandoned house. No weapon was recovered. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

When Gaddy was overheard talking about a murdered man in Arkansas , a friend taped her. That tape, handed over to police, was enough to arrest Gaddy. Only after Gaddy's arrest did she begin to implicate me as her accomplice. Gaddy's version of the events involved in Gill's murder is as follows:

Friday, June 6, 1980 -- Dumas, AR
Gaddy and I shoot Mr. Gill twice at close range with a shotgun.
We then steal Mr. Gill's truck and drive it to Oak Street, in the projects, and park.
We then burglarize a pool hall owned by Mr. Frank Blount.
We then stop by our house to pack some things, then walk back to Gill's truck.

Saturday, June 7, 1980
We leave before daybreak in Mr. Gill's truck, driving from Arkansas to Kansas City.

Critical discrepancies in this timeline support my claim of innocence. First, Dr. Fahmy A. Malak, a chief medical examiner, testified that Mr. Gill was shot only once, disputing Gaddy's claim that he was shot twice. Second, the pool hall that Gaddy alleged we burglarized, was not burglarized Friday night, as she stated, but on Saturday night. Owner of that hall, Mr. Frank Blount, presented his police report as evidence that the hall was not burglarized until Saturday, June 7th. Third, state witnesses Albert and Mary Jane Clark testified that they saw Mr. Gill's truck on June 9th and 10th, parked on Ash Street. According to Gaddy, we left in that truck for Kansas City on June 7th, days before the Clarks saw the truck. The Clarks, who were the prosecutor's own witnesses, said they were sure of the days they saw Gill's truck parked on Ash Street because they saw the truck parked there two mornings in a row while Albert was taking Mary Jane to work. Since Mary did not work on the weekend, they had no doubt that the days were June 9th and 10th, Monday and Tuesday. When that same prosecutor asked Deidre Gaddy if she was "sure" she had her nights and events straight, she first answered, "Yes," then answered more quietly, "I'm pretty sure."

To dispose of Mr. Gill's body, I would have had to physically lift and carry him. I was honorably discharged from the Army in the 1970s after breaking my neck. This break was a serious injury and it is impossible now to lift heavy objects at the risk of re-breaking my much-weakened neck. Despite evidence in my favor, I was convicted and sentenced to life without parole in the murder of Tommy Gill.

On Friday, June 6, 1980, I was playing cards with two friends, Ozell Brown and Elbert King. These two witnesses in my defense were subpoenaed for my trial to testify as alibi witnesses, but were not present or called to the stand. I strongly felt that if I could locate Brown and King and obtain affidavits from them verifying the fact that I was with them the night of the murder, the case for my innocence would be made stronger. Unfortunately, three days after my trial ended I was moved from Arkansas to Kansas to complete my sentence. This move put me at a disadvantage because it took me away from everything and everybody involved with my case or who was able to assist me in any way.

So what have I been doing? Or what have I found that would help prove my innocence? I think it is important to take note of the fact that at the time Gaddy confessed and my subsequent trial took place, five years had elapsed since the murder occurred. At the time of my Arkansas trial, I was already serving out an unrelated sentence in the Kansas State Penitentiary. On November 1, 1985, after being found guilty in Arkansas and sentenced to life without parole, I informed the judge that I wanted to appeal this conviction and that Mr. Don E. Glover, my trial attorney, was to file the appeal on my behalf. Three days later, on November 4, I was taken back to Kansas to complete my prior sentence. I did not come back to Arkansas until June 22, 1990, four and a half years after my trial had ended.

I wrote letters to my attorney, Mr. Glover, inquiring about my case but to this day have never received any reply from him, except for a copy of the Arkansas Supreme Court's ruling affirming my conviction in March 1987. Sufficiency of evidence was the strongest of the three points the attorney raised as argument on that appeal. Knowing I was convicted on so little evidence, I was left with the sour taste of having very little to go on in seeking to prove my innocence.

It made sense to me that if it was Gaddy's testimony (and not physical evidence) that convicted me, that in order to prove my innocence I would have to go beyond the discrepancies and lies the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled sufficient to convict me. I would have to show that Gaddy's testimony was wrong, incorrect, and false. It was very hard to obtain information and investigate my own case from inside prison. Fifteen years later I am still zealously seeking information and help to have this wrong corrected.

After a number of years, I was finally able to get affidavits from Brown and King, stating that I had been playing cards with them on the night of June 6, 1980, when the murder of Mr. Gill allegedly took place. When I presented these affidavits to attorneys and asked for their help, I learned that this type of evidence, though in my favor, would do little in post-conviction proceedings without substantial evidence to corroborate it.

In 1995, I was transferred and housed at the Tucker Women's Unit, which was very beneficial to me. I was able to have brief conversations with female inmates who had served time with Gaddy. In 1996, a crisis came about in my life. To be at the side of a dear loved one in danger, I walked off from the Cummins Unit to do what I could to help that loved one. I was out for seven months, committed no other crime (other than the prison escape) and was apprehended with no incident and later pleaded guilty to second degree escape.

During my months on the outside, I took the only opportunity I've had in all these years to investigate some of the circumstances and occurrences surrounding my case and the 1985 trial. Armed with the information from Gaddy's fellow inmates, and free to investigate my own case outside prison walls, I worked with Ms. Deloris Robertson who talked with Gaddy's fellow inmates on my behalf, which gave me some stunning leads to follow up.

Ms. Robertson found, after speaking with those inmates, that Gaddy and her prosecutor, Sam Pope, had agreed before my trial, that he would work a plea with her for testifying at my trial. Gaddy had nothing to fear when she testified falsely against me, because she knew from the outset that she would be untouchable after the trial.

Meanwhile, when Gaddy and her attorney were formulating plans to make sure she would not serve hard time, I was given an inexperienced lawyer who had never been involved in a capital murder trial. When he asked to be recused from the case, he was refused. When he requested funds to investigate questionable aspects of my case, he was denied. He was given access to me only two weeks before the trial, only during visiting hours of the jail, and only in the presence of a room full of other inmates. At my trial, as the prosecutor was delivering his closing arguments, my attorney was frantically looking for his briefcase, which had been misplaced and which contained all his notes for my case.

Before my trial, a supplemental Motion for Discovery was filed asking the prosecutor to disclose whether there were any inducements requested for, or offered to, Gaddy in return for her testimony. The prosecutor, Sam Pope, answered, "The state will request that Deidra Gaddy be given [use] immunity from the use of her statements in the (Thrash) trial against her in her trial. There are no other offers."

I was never informed by my attorney of his Discovery request nor of the prosecutor's response. Only inklings of concessions offered or given to Gaddy came at the start of my trial during opening statements, at which time my attorney attempted to make the jury aware of Gaddy's immunity agreement. However, the prosecutor strongly objected and chastised defense counsel. When Gaddy took the stand, the prosecutor asked her if she knew what the immunity agreement covered. The truth was not told regarding her agreement:

Gaddy: That the testimony on the video that I gave would not be used against me.

Pope: You haven't been granted immunity from your testimony in this hearing?

Gaddy: No, no.

Pope: You earlier gave the state a video sworn statement and you were given immunity for that; is that correct?

Gaddy: Yes.

Later, the prosecutor knowingly allowed Gaddy to testify falsely when he asked, "Have you been promised anything in exchange for your testimony?" Gaddy's answer was "No, I haven't."

Through these questions and answers, Gaddy and Pope intentionally misled the jury and me, giving us cause to believe that the immunity granted to Gaddy could protect her only from the videotaped testimony and nothing else. We were led to believe the immunity agreement did not protect Gaddy's trial testimony, and that her testimony at my trial could be used against her in her own trial.

My attorney never made any objections to the way the prosecutor and Gaddy cited the immunity, even when, at the closing arguments, the prosecutor said to the jury, "There was a grant of immunity in this case. It happened, and you need to know what it meant. The exhibit is here. Basically, what it meant is that she's given me a prior sworn statement and you heard her say something about the video. It was videotaped. And this gives her immunity from the use of that videotape against her in any further trial, and that's all it does. She didn't have immunity in here the other day. I don't want her to. That can be used against her."

Contrary to the prosecutor's statements, Gaddy's immunity agreement included protection from trial testimony she gave at my trial. This was in direct contrast to what the jury and I had been told in the courtroom. This prosecutorial misconduct supported by Deidra Gaddy proves that, at the very least, I was not given a fair trial, and therefore have not legally been found guilty. Gaddy had been promised leniency in exchange for her testimony against me.

In being told of this hidden promise of leniency, I acquired copies of Gaddy's court proceedings. In Gaddy's Plea and Sentencing Hearing transcripts, it reads "The twenty year sentence recommendation and charge reduction" that Sam Pope made to court on behalf of Gaddy was in exchange for her testifying at my trial. The prosecution, without physical evidence, had only one shot at convicting me -- the testimony of Gaddy, a woman willing to save herself at any costs, even by lying under oath at my trial to convict me, an innocent man.

Unfortunately, relief from courts is granted rarely, even when it is clearly warranted. Very few, or in some cases no, solicitor generals, attorney generals, or officers of the court are willing to confess error. In addition, I am under a one-year time limitation for filing a writ of habeas corpus, which could prevent me from reviewing my claims of prosecutorial misconduct. The Federal Court has dismissed my habeas petition as time barred under 28 USC 2244 (d) (1). Yet, 2244 (d) (1) (B) carries within it an exception that equitably tolls the one year time limitation period when an act of fraudulent concealment by the prosecutor is involved. This is exactly what I have alleged, but the court has ignored this exception in my case. While I scramble to build my case of innocence, with the system and time working against me, Gaddy is a free woman and Sam Pope can brag about one more "conviction."

If you want more information on the status of the case of Tony Thrash, or if you want to send words of encouragement, support and wisdom, please email thrash@justice.com. Your email will be sent to Tony via snail mail. You may also write directly to Anthony Thrash 94228, Tucker Maximum Security Unit, 2501 State Farm Rd., Tucker, AR, 72168.

©Justice: Denied