photo by: Sara Shepherd

Albert N. Wilson listens to his attorney give closing arguments in his trial on Thursday, Jan. 10, 2019, in Douglas County District Court.

The question of innocence is at the heart of a dispute between the state and the attorney who is suing on behalf of a man whose Lawrence rape case was dismissed after he had spent two years in prison.

The state asked the Douglas County District Court in March for a judgment on the pleadings — arguing that no facts are in dispute and that the state is entitled to judgment as a matter of law — in the case of Albert Wilson, who is suing for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. The state claims that Wilson’s vacated rape conviction and dismissal are not the same as a finding of innocence, while Wilson’s attorney claims that such a finding is not required for relief. Wilson’s attorney argues that all that’s required is that the case have been vacated, dismissed or have ended in an acquittal.

Wilson, 27, of Wichita, was convicted of rape in Douglas County District Court in January 2019. On appeal, his conviction was vacated, and he was granted a new trial in March of 2021. Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez declined to retry the case and dismissed it on Dec. 22, 2021, as the Journal-World reported. Wilson spent about two years in jail and prison throughout the case.

Assistant Attorney General Shon D. Qualseth, arguing for the state, filed the motion for judgment on March 20 and argued that Wilson’s conviction was vacated due to ineffective counsel and was remanded back to Douglas County District Court for a retrial. Qualseth wrote that there was never a legal reason given for why the case was dismissed.

“Claimant must show that the reversal or vacation of the conviction was because he did not commit the crime; that he was innocent,” Qualseth’s motion said.

Qualseth argued that without evidence of his innocence, Wilson is entitled to no relief under Kansas’ wrongful imprisonment law.

Qualseth’s argument cites a subsection of the law that requires a person seeking relief to show with evidence, specifically subsection C:

KSA 60-5004. Civil action for persons who were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

(D) the claimant did not commit or suborn perjury, fabricate evidence, or by the claimant’s own conduct cause or bring about the conviction. Neither a confession nor admission later found to be false or a guilty plea shall constitute committing or suborning perjury, fabricating evidence or causing or bringing about the conviction under this subsection.

Wilson’s attorney, Larry Michel, filed a response on March 28 claiming that Qualseth has misinterpreted the law and that the dismissal of the charges with prejudice has provided the necessary element to show that Wilson “did not commit the crime” and that a formal finding of innocence is not required.

“The State argues that the latter statute requires that the dismissal of the charges be based on actual innocence, which is a distorted reading of the statute,” Michel’s motion states.

Michel argues that the statute lists three case resolutions that can qualify a person for relief: a conviction must be reversed or vacated; or dismissed; or the person was found not guilty at trial. Michel argues that these three elements are independent and any one of them can satisfy the statute’s requirement that Wilson “did not commit the crime.”

In Valdez’s March 2021 statement about the dismissal, she said that Wilson and the alleged victim engaged in a mediation session to resolve the matter and to avoid a second trial. Valdez said the woman “wanted to address Mr. Wilson directly and to convey to him the impact this entire experience has had on her.”

What happened in the mediation session was confidential, according to Valdez’s statement, but the result was that the charges were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled.

Michel’s motion concludes that by requiring a party to prove his actual innocence the statute would be ineffective at offering relief to people who were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

“This is very obviously not the result intended by the legislature and would result in extremely few, if any, viable claims,” Michel’s motion said.

Qualseth responded on April 11 and said that the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the wrongful conviction statutes must be read narrowly and that the statute is not intended as a remedy for all people who were wrongfully convicted and incarcerated but only for those who can show with evidence that they did not commit the crime.

“If the Legislature had intended to compensate those individuals who had their convictions reversed because of ineffective assistance of counsel, it certainly could have done so. It did not. Therefore, Claimant is not entitled to compensation as a matter of law,” Qualseth wrote.

The case is scheduled for a bench trial in Douglas County District Court on August 28.

As the Journal-World has reported, the alleged victim in the case, a woman who was 17 at the time, met Wilson at The Hawk, a popular bar near the University of Kansas campus. She testified that she was drunk and that Wilson, then a 20-year-old KU student, lifted her skirt and assaulted her at the bar and then walked her to his house a couple of blocks away, raped her, then walked her back to the bar.

Wilson was convicted of rape for the incident at the house, but the jury hung on the incident at the bar. District Court Judge Sally Pokorny eventually ordered a retrial, saying defense counsel could have raised questions based on thousands of text messages, which had not been used as evidence in the trial, to influence the jury’s verdict.

Wilson is seeking monetary relief to the full extent allowed; attorney fees; tuition assistance; the right to participate in the state health care benefits program; and a certificate of innocence expunging convictions and arrests in connection with the case.