When a Sangamon County jury ruled last fall
that Adetokunbo “Philip” Fayemi had poisoned his
fiancée and seven other people, the only question left was
what punishment the court would impose. Seven months later,
however, Fayemi remains in jail as his new attorney tries to get
the verdict set aside, alleging that two Springfield Police
detectives now under investigation may have tampered with the
evidence. Fayemi, 56, was convicted in September of
attempted murder after his fiancée, Alice Minter, was found
to have thallium poisoning. Minter, 45, survived, but now uses a
wheelchair and has blurred vision, neurological problems, and other
ailments. The poisonings of Minter’s three sons and four
other close associates, never alleged to be intentional, earned
Fayemi seven aggravated-battery convictions. He faces a maximum
sentence of 30 years for the attempted murder and as much as five
years for each of the aggravated-battery convictions. Fayemi’s trial attorney, John Rogers of
St. Louis, withdrew from the case soon after the verdict. Fayemi is
now represented by Springfield attorney Patricia Hayes, who last
month filed a motion requesting a hearing regarding police
misconduct. In a separate motion, she asked the court for a
judgment of acquittal “notwithstanding the verdict,” or
a new trial, arguing that Rogers provided ineffective counsel. A hearing on both motions is scheduled for
May 25 before Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Leo Zappa. Much of the evidence in the case was
discovered by SPD officers Paul Carpenter and Jim Graham, detectives who were assigned to
what was then known as the major-case unit. Carpenter and Graham have
been on administrative leave since Oct. 4 and Jan. 17 respectively,
while the Illinois State Police investigates allegations that they
violated department policies. Chuck Colburn, who handled the Fayemi case
for the state appellate prosecutor’s office, declined to
comment on Hayes’ tactics, but first assistant state’s
attorney Steve Weinhoeft, who was involved in the earliest stages
of the case, says that Hayes’ motion regarding Carpenter and
Graham is symptomatic of a trend sweeping the courthouse. “It’s obviously an attempt to
pile on the allegation bandwagon,” he says. He has declined to comment further because
the same motion accuses him of prosecutorial misconduct.
“Since I’m a potential witness, it probably
wouldn’t be very appropriate for me to comment on the
substance of it, other than to say I categorically deny any
knowledge of any wrongdoing on anyone’s part,”
Weinhoeft says. Hayes, though, says she is working pro bono to free Fayemi because she believes he is
innocent. “I wouldn’t be doing it if I
didn’t,” she says. She became involved in the case only after
the verdict, when she saw Fayemi in jail. He asked her to explore
some civil-rights issues related to the jail, and she entered her
appearance as co-counsel. Rogers’ withdrawal left her with
the posttrial case, she says. She had represented Fayemi years earlier, in
a 1997 discrimination lawsuit against a former employer, the
Illinois Board of Education, and had won a $204,000 settlement for
him. That experience, she says, gave her a different perspective on
the poisoning case. “I had some prior experience with his
previous girlfriends when I represented him in this other matter,
and the more I’ve gotten into it, the more strongly I believe
that he needs to get a new trial,” she says. Hayes claims another inspiration for
defending Fayemi. “I do know what it’s like to be
accused of things I haven’t done, so I’m sort of
passionate about that,” she says, referring to a complaint
filed against her in July by the Illinois Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission. She was given a 30-month suspension, but
it was stayed pending certain conditions. She has appealed that
ruling, asking instead that her punishment be reduced to censure.
This article appears in May 11-17, 2006.
