Former Bible student Steven Linscott may soon have to return to jail for a murder he has consistently denied committing. The 32-year-old Linscott, while a student at Emmaus Bible School in Oak Park, Illinois, was charged in the October 1980 murder of Karen Phillips, a young nursing student who was bludgeoned to death in her studio apartment in the neighborhood where Linscott and his family lived (CT, Feb. 4, 1983).
Linscott was convicted in 1982 and sent to prison. However, he was released on November 1, 1985, after the Illinois Appellate Court, in a 2-to-1 decision, determined there was not enough evidence presented at Linscott’s trial to convict him. Prosecutors appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled 4 to 2 to overturn the lower court’s decision.
The original prosecutors admitted their evidence against Linscott was circumstantial. The state’s case hinged largely on a dream Linscott claims he had on the night of the murder. He elaborated on this dream, and speculated as to its meaning at the request of police interrogators, who had told him he might be psychic. Linscott’s description of his dream bore a resemblance to the actual crime, athough there were major differences.
In addition to the “dream evidence,” prosecutors produced scientific evidence, including samples of hair found at the scene of the crime, hair they said was “consistent with” Linscott’s. They referred to a study concluding that only one in 4,500 people have consistent head hairs when comparisons are based on 40 characteristics. However, the state’s expert had tested only about 10 characteristics and could not recall which ones they were.
It was revelations such as this that led the appellate court last year to reverse Linscott’s conviction. However, the Illinois Supreme Court determined that in this case, it is not within the jurisdiction of a court of appeals to retry the defendant. Thomas Moran, author of the majority opinion, wrote that it is the function of a jury “to assess the credibility of witnesses and to determine the weight of and inferences to be drawn from the evidence.”
Chief Justice William Clark, who wrote one of the two dissenting opinions, stated that “the majority fails to distinguish between appellate review of convictions based upon direct evidence and appellate review of convictions resting wholly upon circumstantial evidence.”
Clark argued that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, including this one, it is within an appellate court’s jurisdiction to challenge “the reasonableness of inferences drawn from the facts presented.”
Linscott’s attorney, Thomas Decker, has petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider its judgment. If this fails, he will most likely take legal action aimed at getting the case retried.
Linscott said he heard the news about the Illinois Supreme Court’s reversal from his wife. “I was standing up when she told me,” he said. “And it took all the strength out of me. It literally floored me. We’d thought about this possibility, but nobody expected it.”
Since his release from jail a year ago, Linscott has worked for a team of ophthalmologists in Centralia, Illinois. His current title is practice manager. His wife, Lois, teaches their three school-age children at home.
Linscott said he is somewhat torn between wanting his ordeal to end quickly and wanting the truth to come out in another trial. “A new trial would be more satisfactory,” he said, “to clear the air. Otherwise there will be those who’ll think I got off on some technicality.”
For now, however, Linscott’s main concern is where he will spend his time as the legal process rolls on. The state has petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to revoke Linscott’s bond. At press time, a decision on this petition was imminent.
