Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsWednesday, June 25, 2008 4:05 PM CDT
Comments Comments (50) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Yoder: McLean Co. likely will retry Beaman for murder
By Sharon K. Wolfe
swolfe@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

BLOOMINGTON -- Alan Beaman likely still faces a new trial on murder charges despite an Illinois Supreme Court ruling overturning his conviction in the 1993 death of an Illinois State University student.

McLean County State’s Attorney William Yoder said in a statement Tuesday his office will “continue to move forward with the investigation and prosecution of Alan Beaman.”

Beaman, now 35, was convicted in 1995 of first-degree murder in the Aug. 23, 1993, stabbing and strangulation of Jennifer Lockmiller, a former girlfriend. He was sentenced to 50 years in state prison.

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the conviction May 22. The case will return officially to McLean County Circuit Court on Thursday for action.

“We are in a position to re-prosecute that case,” Yoder said Tuesday evening. “We reviewed the evidence over the past month.”

Officials at the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law at Chicago, which has backed Beaman’s appeals for more than a decade, expressed regret that Yoder plans to pursue the case. The center will continue in his defense.

Meanwhile, Beaman’s mother expressed confidence Tuesday that his time in prison is coming to an end.

“We’re glad they (the Supreme Court) made a decision,” said Carol Beaman of Rockford. “Now they can get on to the next part.”

She said the family hopes Beaman will be given an affordable bond so he can be released. She said her son hopes to celebrate the Fourth of July with his family.

Yoder said the McLean County trial court can set a bond amount for Beaman’s release, but “the charges as they existed prior to the initial trial remain in full effect.”

“One of the possibilities in this case is a retrial,” Yoder said.

“I can tell you this: They are planning to retry Alan Beaman,” said Jeff Urdangen, clinical assistant professor of law at the center on Wrongful Convictions. “I wish it were otherwise.”

Urdangen said the case against Beaman is weak.

“If someone wants to get a sense of the quality of the evidence against Alan Beaman, they need to read the Supreme Court opinion on how thin the state’s case was,” Urdangen said. “They used the word ‘tenuous’ more than once in addressing the quality of the state’s evidence.”

Beaman’s parents, Barry and Carol, have stood by their son throughout this, Urdangen said.

“Mr. and Mrs. Beaman have been very resilient,” he said. “They’ve suffered greatly.”

Beaman’s parents also look forward to a new day in court, Carol Beaman said.

“It’s a chance for people to see all the evidence on the table. People will see the wrong person has been put away,” she said, adding she hopes someone will “look at the real killer — whoever that is.”

In arguments earlier this year before the Supreme Court, Beaman defense attorney Karen Daniel argued Beaman had inadequate legal representation that did too little to challenge prosecution theories and evidence during his trial. One area of dispute is whether Beaman had time to drive from Rockford to Normal to kill Lockmiller and return home within the defined period of time.

The jury also was not told about a potential suspect identified by police as John Doe, Daniel said.

Beaman, who lived in Rockford and attended Illinois Wesleyan University at the time of the 22-year-old Decatur woman’s death, has been in prison since 1995. He has served time at Menard, Joliet and Mount Sterling prisons, and he has spent the last four years at a Dixon prison, about an hour from Rockford.

“He’s had a life while in prison. He’s improved himself,” Carol Beaman said.

She said that when he is asked how he is doing, he consistently uses two words: “fantastic” and “blessed.”

While in prison, he has tutored prisoners for general equivalency diploma classes, been a hospice volunteer, coached intramural football and volleyball and gotten an automotive certificate. He also formerly helped publish a Christian newsletter.

“I don’t know how many people have told me they’ve written to him to buoy up his spirits,” his mother said. They end up telling her, “he wrote back and he buoyed me up,” she said.

“He’s had a much closer walk with God.”

When asked how her family copes, she replied: “God has been with us always — He hasn’t failed us. We can’t fail Him.”

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 50 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

mostly curious wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:46 PM:

" Woo: Sorry, but I am neither a cop nor a state's attorney. I don't have anything at all to do with the justice system in McLean County. I do agree, though, that it "should" be about the guilt or innocence of any accused defendant. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly common for prosecutors and police to focus in early on one defendant and refuse to look in any other direction. That's not supposed to be what the justice system in this country is all about. I have no opinion on the guilt of Beaman, but I do think if Yoder decides to go ahead with another trial it should be moved far away from McLean County. With the press coverage that takes place here every time a new wrinkle develops it would be tough to find an impartial group of twelve. "

woo wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:07 PM:

" To mostly curious, U sound like a cop or states atturney your self. Not a good one so dont let your head swell up. lol... Its not always about a conviction. Its about rather or not they really did it or is the good ole boys at the Blm. police station and mclean county courthose just putting another knotch on their belt or makeing their resume look better by getting another conviction even if they are putting a innocent person in prison. When they put innocent people in jail or prison just to get a conviction they not only ruin these people's lifes but also deprive family's and kids from having a normal life just to have a nice resume. Its really sad and when their time comes to get though those gates theirs gonna be a lot of dirty cops and prosecuters that will be turned away. "

meto wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:48 PM:

" who was the judge then? "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:06 PM:

" I really do not see how they can expect to win this. They should know that the defense is going to push to have the other suspect investigated. What a waste. Why save themselves some time and investigate him now. "

Govt oppressed Mule wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:04 PM:

" TO GDM

I can't believe it, but I agree w/ you whole heartedly. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:00 PM:

" I really do not see how they can expect to win this. They should know that the defense is going to push to have the other suspect investigated. What a waste. Why save themselves some time and investigate him now. "

just wondering wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:53 PM:

" TO Rivers who wrote on Jun 25, at 9:12 AM What does CYA mean? I wish that posters would not use unknown letters to define a word because most of the readers do not know what it means? And by the way, McLean County prosecutors are not the only ones who don't care if a defendant is innocent. The Livingston County prosecutor does the same. And there is no one else that ever runs against him. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse too. "

Gov't Depressed Mule wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:34 AM:

" I propose a new method for prosecuting suspects. Let the DA prosecute the defendent. If the DA loses, the DA serves the sentence. How many cases would Yoda try if his freedom was on the line?
Congratulations to Mr. Beaman and his family. And my sympathy to the Lockmiller's. "

boston wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:19 AM:

" I cannot believe that Mr. Yoder is going to retry Mr. Beaman. I always believed that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. There certainly was reasonable doubt. Even a retired Normal police officer now believes this. What a waste of time, effort, and money.

I have supported Mr Yoder in the past. I will never vote for him again if he retries Mr. Beaman.

That his office is even considering this is unbelievable to me. "

hepper wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:19 AM:

" One of the reasons the verdict was set aside is the that another suspect that police were looking at was never mentioned in court. So now that will be brought up at a new trial. So you still have that goofy timeline and now another suspect. Can anyone say reasonable doubt? "

DaveII wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:17 AM:

" McLean County taxpayers paid for nothing the first time...why compound the matter for the benefit of the Yoder Resume. If the Lockmiller family think it OK, so do I with the condition of a Release of All Claims from the Beaman family to prevent recovery from the McLean County taxpayer for the lack of ability of our Leaders.

Guilty or not, McLean County could better spend this money collecting via radar, DUI and parking enforcement...something they can do that adds revenue and they have plenty of experience in this area. "

isunormalil wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:12 AM:

" I say if Yoder wants to try the case...that's fine. If he loses he pays the County/State Back by working for free until the debt is paid. I don't want this guy wasting my hard earned dollars. "

senior lady wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Prosecutors are willing to spend unlimited taxpayers money just to try to prove that they were right. They don't care if a person is innocent. They only want notches on their belts. They don't have to serve time in a prison Hell for a crime they did not commit. How are they going to give Mr. Beamen 15 years of his life back? "

rbll wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:18 AM:

" In all these posts I have not seen one mention of the victim's family. If I were Yoder, I would 1st confer w/them & get their recommendations. Remember, fellow Christians, the value of foregiveness. Then we have the probability of another conviction w/ 13 yr. old evidence & witnesses, etc. (remember the Hendrecks retrial). It seems to me that a plea agreement w/ time served (13 long years) & no possibility of Beamon suing the state or county or Normal in the future might be the best, most effecient, economical outcome, not to mention the justice. "

Ted Kennedy's Swim Instructor wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:48 AM:

" I'll wager $1 that Yoder now says they're on track to prosecute, but later on he declines to bring the case. Yoder is just setting himself up for a possible re-trial by making this decision before the filing date passes, but he'll review the evidence and decline to prosecute at a later date. "

dwarf wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:46 AM:

" I think Beaman is likely innocent, but I think Yoder is well within his rights to re-try it. "

Great Responsibility wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:40 AM:

" Personal opinions in either direction aside, It would be a miscarriage of justice NOT to re-try him. It's not like some name-clearing evidence was revealed and he has been exonerated. All the State supreme basically said was "we don't like how that trial went down. Withdraw the verdict and do it again." So the court has to decide if they want to do it again or not.
If they try him and find him Guilty OR innocent then that is an actual decision that clears him or condemns him, but simply to not re-try him is the same as him getting out on a technicality.
The charges against him would stand and he would not have a guilty OR innocent verdict.
Or worse: they drop the charges. Would any of you really want the county to NOT put a key suspect on trial for a murder? "

Rivers wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:12 AM:

" If the SA is only positioning himself so there is the possibility of a plea bargain, probably for time served or something else, the bigger problem would be that they are in CYA mode and that there is a large probability a murderer is still on the loose. "

Advocate wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:10 AM:

" Let's see..... how many high profile murder cases has McLean County sucessfully tried on circumstancial evidence alone and succeeded? There was Hendricks. That was overturned. Now Beaman. I remember the trial well. He was an arrogant young man who had a bad temper and even smoked cigarettes! That means he's guilty in McLean County! "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Okay JTE so they didn't say they have the wrong guy, they said he might not have had a fair trial...so maybe if he did have a fair trial he would have been found innocent and not have spent the last 15 years in prison. So let's try him again because "we" might have made some mistakes. Yes that seems fair to me, not! "

ONLY IN AMERICA wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:34 AM:

" The world being so liberal today we have professors telling people who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. If they wanted to be prosecutors they should go to work for a states attorney's office not prosecute from the school of public opinion....THE DUMBING OF AMERICA CONTINUES !!! "

fishpoop wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:15 AM:

" to Yoder time to put your pride to the side and understand Alan didn't do it! Let the man be free as he should have been years ago! "

isunormalil wrote on Jun 25, 2008 7:37 AM:

" It's simple...every election year the States Attorney tries to make a case for his reelection. Yoder hopes to try Beaman to make a name for himself...or waste the county money if he is found not guilty. It's obvious the police zeroed in on one suspect back in 1995, and no one was interested in INVESTIGATING the case. I will be voting for anyone over Yoder, even if Mickey Mouse ran against him. The only good thing he has done is put Pelo behind bars. "

So what wrote on Jun 25, 2008 7:17 AM:

" To Mostly Curious:

Yoder had until a certain date to decide if he was going to appeal the Supreme Court reversal of the conviction. What he is deciding now is whether to re-try him or not. "

So what wrote on Jun 25, 2008 7:15 AM:

" Personally, I'm glad they are going to re-try him. I was here when the first trial was going on, and I've always felt that he was guilty based on the evidence. "

landlord wrote on Jun 25, 2008 6:52 AM:

" thanks for the explanation xkcd "

Robin the Hood wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:09 PM:

" Yoder, do something worthwhile or go to HELLO! "

cub fan - bud man wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:44 PM:

" I'd even rather have my taxes go to support the colliseum than retry this!!! "

Louie wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:39 PM:

" Vote against him and for whom? Is there another candidate? "

mostly curious wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:38 PM:

" His conviction was overturned, he was not acquitted, so no double jeopardy attaches.

I doubt that Bill Yoder would waste the time & money to retry him unless he felt there was a very good chance of another conviction.

I wonder if there's a possibility that he's just trying to preserve his right to go to trial again by announcing this now, and could decide later to drop the charges if he feels that he can't convict? I thought I read somewhere that he only had until a certain date to make this decision. "

dman wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:18 PM:

" Good..they need to retry him.., no reason for him to be walking out of prison like he is.
No need in him, OJ and Hendricks all partying on our dime. "

xkcd wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:09 PM:

" The supreme court REVERSED the decision, not OVERTURNED it. If they had overturned it, it would like similar to an acquittal, but what the supreme court did was to just put it back down to the lower courts to retry, if they choose. Usually, having the supreme court behind you as a defendant is a good thing, and the state's attorneys won't reprosecute, but apparently Yoder believes that the decision to reverse the decision was more of a technicality than a hole in the prosecution's case. That's why it's not double jeopardy: because the case was not dropped, dismissed, or adjudicated (completed) in a court of law. "

sam wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:06 PM:

" I seriously think Yoder should reconsider this decision to retry Beaman. I don't think this is the best thing for McLean County. The conviction was overturned. All previous individual arguments were addressed and taken care of. This is the highest court saying they don't believe what was presented was enough to say guilty. I am sure all evidence was looked at before being presented. There will be no new evidence. Since the trial several key people have changed their thoughts of guilty to innocence beginning with law enforcement officers. I think Yoder should also consider this possability. We just spend quite a bit on the Pelo case now we are going to spend this on Beaman. Let's just think "what if" Beaman is not guilty? "

isabelle wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:45 PM:

" I didn't live around here when this case was originally in trial, but from what I hear MANY people around here think Beaman is innocent. I guess there is another person most people think should have been investigated and wasn't. So maybe it's not a total waste of time.

That being said, I hope justice is served...but part of me does feel like "here we go again"!! "

isunormalil wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:39 PM:

" Doesn't Yoder run for reelection in November? If so... I plan to vote against him. "

dancinggirl wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:34 PM:

" this is only a waste of money if the prosecutors in Yoder's office are incompetent because Beaman was convicted the first time. 12 people were convinced. oh wait.... he has almost all incompetent attorneys so it is a waste of money "

Lighthouse wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Wow, amazing. Last week the prosecutor's office was getting a bunch of slaps on the back for the Pelo verdict and now the office is getting dissed. I think Yoder has been doing a great job as DA. I seriously doubt they'd be trying this case again if they didn't think they had the right guy. I love all the negative comments from those who don't even know the difference between overturning a verdict and double jeopardy. Get out your dictionary once in awhile and stop expecting tv to educate you on the law. "

Grandma of Two wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:53 PM:

" To: Landlord - because he never completed his entire prison term. But, Yoder is definitely wasting his money. I doubt very much if they can even figure out who the "other suspect" was, let alone find the evidence to convict somebody else. I hope they pick young jury people. "

normel wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:45 PM:

" This arrogant man should not be representing the People of McLean County.

The role of a prosecutor is different from that of other attorneys. In addition to the obligation to advocate zealously within the bounds of the law for his client (all of us), prosecutors must strive to meet a higher aspiration: to do justice.

This is where Mr. Yoder fails McLean County. "

michelle24 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:33 PM:

" If he is able to make bond, will he be set free until the trial? Just curious. "

noogie wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Actually, this is probably good for Beaman. If they didn't retry it, he would always have those charges against him, unless the County dismissed them (unlikely). Now, he will win and have a not guilty verdict returned. "

c.a.t.s. wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:30 PM:

" he will walk out of Mclean co. a very rich man "

JTE wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:23 PM:

" The Supreme Court didn't say "you got the wrong guy", they said "the original trial may not have been fair, so it's possible you got the wrong gjy". Big difference there. "

Lawndale Reader wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:15 PM:

" You have got to be kidding me. If this isn't a waste of taxpayers' money I don't know what is. "

realtor11 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Something made them convict this man years ago and if they dig deeper they might just find enough to convict him once again! Don't judge so quickly. Why would Yoder want a case he didn't think he could win????? Stop and think!!! "

isunormalil wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:59 PM:

" Vote Yoder out of office when he up for reelection. He must think our county has unlimited funds to play with. Is he related to blegojvic? "

landlord wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:56 PM:

" I have very limited legal knowledge, can someone please explain why this is not considered double jeoporady? "

WorkinTheOpinionBoard wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:52 PM:

" Can he be tried again? He was convicted the first time around, then the conviction is overturned...Is that the same as trying him twice for the same crime....which is illegal? Are do I have that wrong? "

Pastafarian wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Thanks Yoder for wasting our tax money in a quest to not only further persecute this man and waste his life but to also not admit that the previous holder of your position screwed up. Are you going to reopen the investigation? Are you going to look at other suspects? Or have you made up your mind to not admit defeat? I'll remember this come November, even though you have no opposition, I'll vote for None of the Above. "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:35 PM:

" It was overturned by the Supreme Court, okay I'm not a legal genuis but to me that means "we made a mistake, this is the wrong man" So they are going to try him again? That doesn't seem right. He's already done, what 15 years? If he is found innocent this time I hope he sues for millions...I know the state will give him a few hundred grand to say "Sorry you sat in a cell with no freedoms for 15 years but here ya go" but what is a few hundred grand going to do? His reputation is damaged, 15 years of his life are gone, I'd at least want a few million so I could go live on an island somewhere and TRY to have a normal life. "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy