Selma Butler, a Chicago man convicted of murder decades ago in a trial that lasted just 45 minutes, was denied a new trial on May 15 by a Cook County judge. The decision was a serious blow to an actual innocence case that had drawn significant concern from an Illinois Appellate Court.
Butler has spent 25 years in prison after being convicted of fatally stabbing 34-year-old Angela Young 66 times in the Robert Taylor Homes in 1995. Police found her body in a pool of blood on the floor of her bedroom.
After delaying his decision four times following a three-month evidentiary hearing, Judge James Obbish ruled that Butler failed to present new evidence proving he is innocent and that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted of first-degree murder in 1998.
“This is ridiculous. I’m an innocent man,” Butler said after the ruling. “They have nothing on me.”
Butler’s lawyer, Jennifer Bonjean, said in a statement, “We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling. He is by all metrics an innocent man wrongly convicted by a system that threw poor young Black men away like garbage. We will not stop fighting for justice for Selma.”
The ruling did not surprise Butler’s legal team, which in 2018 urged the Illinois Appellate Court to grant their client a new trial outright, rather than remanding the case to Cook County for an evidentiary hearing. There, Butler faced an uphill battle to win a new trial.
He and his lawyers carried the heavy burden of presenting newly discovered and material evidence sufficient to prove his innocence. They faced a tough bench under Judge Obbish, who often challenged the defense during proceedings.
Bonjean presented DNA evidence, a witness who refuted earlier testimony, and a detective, among others. But Judge Obbish ruled that the DNA was not conclusive and said the defense’s two witnesses “did not create a probability that there would be a different result on retrial.”
In his written ruling, Judge Obbish said Butler failed “to show by a preponderance of evidence, that he suffered a substantial violation of his constitutional rights.” He also found that Butler “fails to present evidence” that would “undermine confidence in his conviction.”
Butler was 17 years old in 1995 when he was arrested and charged in Young’s murder. Police found her body in her Robert Taylor Homes apartment. He was convicted in 1998.
The Illinois Appellate Court raised alarms after reviewing Butler’s postconviction petition and trial, which lasted less than an hour. His public defender, identified in records as Grezca, made no opening statement, asked only four questions during the entire trial, and gave a closing argument that lasted two minutes.
Butler and co-defendant Gino Wilson were tried separately in bench trials with similar evidence. Wilson was acquitted. Butler was convicted.
The prosecution’s primary witness was Earl Gilmore, a 14-year-old who was in police custody for a curfew violation. Butler’s attorneys said Gilmore was coerced by police into testifying. On the stand, Gilmore recanted his grand jury testimony and said repeatedly—11 times—that he had been forced to accuse Butler.
There were no fingerprints linking Butler to the crime, and crime scene photos that could have helped the defense were never introduced at trial. Antonio Thomas, a 16-year-old who testified in Wilson’s trial, did not appear in Butler’s—even though he was nearby.
Butler’s attorney never cross-examined Bernard Ryan, who claimed Butler had admitted to being at the apartment the day of the murder. No documents or recordings substantiated that confession.
Photos that were omitted from trial showed no marks or bruises on Butler’s face, contradicting Gilmore’s account. But because these materials were available at the time of trial, they did not qualify as “newly discovered evidence” and could not be used in the evidentiary hearing, leaving Butler’s legal team with limited recourse.
At the hearing, Bonjean introduced DNA from Young’s bedroom that excluded Butler. However, Butler was not excluded from a mixed DNA sample of Black males found in the hallway and under Young’s fingernails. Judge Obbish ruled the evidence inconclusive.
Another witness, Farrah Hubbard, testified that Butler never came to her apartment the day of the murder, contradicting Gilmore’s story. Obbish dismissed her statement, saying it merely “impeaches a witness and does not justify postconviction relief.”
The evidentiary hearing was granted after the Illinois Appellate Court in 2018 concluded Butler had made a “substantial showing of actual innocence.” Appellate judges noted that, had all the available evidence been presented, Butler would likely have been acquitted.
“I’ve never seen a record like this,” said Justice Terry Lavin during a hearing before the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court. “Waived opening statements; first witnesses no question, no question, no question, then four questions. You didn’t even need a lunch break and the case is over.”
“This entire case is justice delayed,” Lavin continued. “I’m here to tell you that in a murder case where somebody gets 50 years in prison, for a lawyer to ask four questions at trial, that is just ineffective assistance, OK? I don’t understand it… But something was amiss here, and a man sat in prison all this time on some of the skinniest evidence I’ve ever seen.”
Lavin also questioned the validity of Butler’s alleged confession to a detective, noting that it was neither written nor recorded and that it had been denied by Butler. He criticized the use of Gilmore’s coerced testimony, saying, “I see a lot of cause; I see a lot of prejudice.”
Still, the appellate panel declined to accept Butler’s claim of ineffective counsel. His legal team had hoped that the appellate court would agree his attorney had failed him and grant a new trial, but the panel instead ordered the evidentiary hearing.
Judge Obbish’s denial of a new trial has renewed concerns that the appellate court’s rejection of the ineffective counsel argument ultimately harmed Butler’s chances for relief.
During the appellate hearing, Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Alexander cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Strickland v. Washington, arguing that while Grezca’s performance raised concerns, “ineffective assistance” cannot be claimed simply because a trial strategy failed. Choosing not to present evidence or witnesses, Alexander said, was a strategic decision.
Bonjean disagreed, asserting that Grezca “did not do his job.”
“The problem is some of this stuff was available to trial counsel. Had he just done his job, this was a not guilty [verdict],” Bonjean said. “Any competent attorney would have gotten a not guilty [verdict]. Because there was no investigation, obviously, and even the information in the police reports was not adequately used. So, it’s the ineffective counsel claim and new evidence.”