Charles Wakefield

Charles Wakefield Case Summary

by Claudia Whitman, for Cell Door Magazine (date would be helpful.

On January 31, 1975, Lt. Frank Looper and his father, Rufus Looper, were shot behind the ear and killed in the garage behind the Looper house in Greenville, S.C. Several young African American men from the neighborhood were picked up, questioned, and given a polygraph and/or sodium thiopental tests with regard to their possible involvement in the crime. Charles Wakefield was one of those questioned and he was released without charges. Nine months after the unsolved murders, a young man with a long, pending prison sentence staring him in his face alerted the police that his mother-in-law had information on the Looper Murder. Mrs. McIntyre, a Salvation Army worker, claimed to have been at the crime scene and to have seen the perpetrator leaving the crime scene. Four months later, Wyatt Earp Harper, an 18-year-old who was in custody for another crime stated that he was on the lookout for the Looper robbery/murder. Without one shred of physical evidence, Charles Wakefield was convicted and sentenced to death for the Looper murders. Coincidentally, Mr. Harper received a diminished sentence and Ms. McIntyre’s son received a short sentence.

In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court found the death penalty unconstitutional and required states to reform their death penalty laws. Because South Carolina had not met the Supreme Court’s requirements by 1977, all death row prisoners in the state were given the opportunity to accept life sentences. Mr. Wakefield, fearful that he might once again get a death sentence for a crime he did not commit, accepted a life sentence. Mr. Wakefield has maintained his innocence for over 32 years. Although he knew his failure to show remorse might substantially undermine his chances for parole, he could not accept responsibility for a crime he did not commit—even if it meant spending the rest of his life in prison. He has, however, always acknowledged the horrible loss the Looper family has had to endure for 32 years and for the pain they continue to live with each and every day. In October of this year, he came before the Parole Board, accompanied by his long-time pro bono attorney, Eric Gottlieb, his pro bono investigator, Claudia Whitman, his 85-year-old parents, and members of the Looper family—all there to support his request for parole. Julia McAuley, sister of Rufus Looper, stated that the family felt Charles had done his prison time with an unblemished record and that the family wished him to be paroled so that they could move on with their lives.

In 2005 Mr. Wakefield was granted a hearing on new testimony by Wyatt Earp Harper. A judge from another county was brought in to hear the case. Mr. Harper testified that he was offered a deal to say he was a lookout, that he did not know Charles Wakefield, and had not participated in any way in the murder. The judge informed him at the time that he could be returned to jail for perjury since there is no statute of limitations in a murder case. Wyatt maintained his denial of involvement and insisted that he was ready to suffer the consequences in order to set the record straight. Wyatt Earp Harper, who had been a credible witness in the original trial, was now deemed not credible and the judge ruled against Mr. Wakefield.

Despite his unprecedented flawless conduct record, Charles Wakefield was denied parole one more time.

His prison conduct record stands for itself:

  • 32 years without a single infraction

  • 12 years in a county jail where he worked outside the prison and could have walked away any time

  • several years of successful furloughs

  • dedication to self-improvement through education – got his GED and completed 2 years of college courses until educational funding was cut

  • a master gardener

  • prisoner of the year

  • supporting himself largely through his skills in crafts and painting

The Parole Board had been clear that they were not there to retry the case but rather to examine his record while incarcerated. Twice before, in 1997 and 2001, the Board had granted him parole. On each occasion, the former Police Chief Bridges, who had initially worked on the case, came forward and gave inflammatory statements which forced the Board to rescind Wakefield’s parole before he ever was released from prison. In 2005, the vote was 4 to 3 in favor of parole but state law requires 5 votes in favor. Although this retired police chief did not attend the hearing In 2007 and even though the victims’ families had asked for Wakefield’s release, he gave a statement that Charles Wakefield had been on death row and continues to be a threat to society. Once again this precipitated the ongoing denial. Police Chief Bridges did, in essence, re-try the case. The denial states, "After careful consideration of your record before and after imprisonment, the Parole Board has rejected you for Parole." The reasons for denial were: "Nature and Seriousness of the Current Offense, Indication of Violence in This or Previous Offense, Use of Deadly Weapon in This or Previous Offense." There was no reference to his perfect record while incarcerated, which they had stated as their purpose for conducting the parole hearing. Mr. Wakefield had no previous record, so the denial was based entirely on the gravity of the offense for which he was convicted. Thus, the parole hearing was, in effect, meaningless, since the offense had not changed. Amazingly, the wishes of the victims’ families were ignored.

Charles Wakefield paroled.

On May 18 Charles Wakefield walked out of Kirkland Correctional Institution waving his parole papers as he jumped into the back of our waiting car. His pro bono lawyer, Eric Gottlieb, who is also a filmmaker, was in the front seat with cameraman Zachary Irving, ready to record Charles’ first words as a free man. Claudia Whitman, who had investigated his case and worked on parole and many other aspects of his case, was in the back seat with him. Members of his family, Ken Clark, president of Christ Central Institute, where Charles will be finishing up his degree in religious studies, and a former Greenville law enforcement officer who had spoken at his parole hearings, were all there to welcome him.

After thanking God, those of us who had worked on his case, his family, and the victims’ family, who had repeatedly come to parole hearings pleading for his release, he read a prepared statement: “This is a bittersweet moment at best. After 35 years of confinement, today I am free. But I still remain convicted and am now on parole for a crime that I did not commit. As always, I will continue to pursue and challenge my conviction. I am an innocent man.”

Charles first contacted Claudia around 1998, asking her to investigate his case. She began collecting information and then when Eric came on board around 2000, they joined efforts. In a hearing in Greenville in 2005, the main witness against Charles recanted his original testimony, stating that he was 18 years old and was offered a chance to get out of jail if he would testify that he was the lookout for Charles on the day of the murder. He further testified that he did not know Charles Wakefield and he then apologized to Charles and to his family. He said he had put a man on death row and ruined his life as well as his own. (Charles’ sentence was commuted to Life in 1977) Nevertheless, Charles was denied relief and parole became the only option.

In 2003, Charles had a dream where the numbers 17, 12, and 13 were featured. He wrote them down and had Eric sign and date the piece of paper. Charles was granted a rehearing on March 17; was granted parole on May 12, and his assigned room at Christ Central Institute is Number 13!

Cell Door congratulates Charles on his parole and wishes him success in his studies. We will hear more from Charles in future issues.

Claudia Whitman leads the GrassRoots Investigation Project EJUSA/Quixote Center and is the Executive Director of NCCAN


Previous
Previous

Desmond Ricks

Next
Next

Lacino Hamilton