In the annals of criminal justice, the trial of DeAngelo Capone stands as a stark reminder of the
complexities and fallibilities of the legal system. The events that unfolded on February 24, 1994,
painted a harrowing picture of a man ensnared in a web of dubious evidence, unreliable
testimonies, and questionable tactics. This essay delves into the harrowing details of DeAngelo
Capone’s trial, shedding light on the miscarriage of justice that unfolded in his case.
The trial’s inception was marked by the surprising turn of events. A man who after seeing his car
on the news presented himself to authorities two days later, claiming that he had been
kidnapped and coerced into driving DeAngelo and his co-defendants to the scene of the crime.
This startling revelation formed the foundation of the prosecution’s case against DeAngelo.
However, the jury’s skepticism was palpable, leading to DeAngelo being found not guilty on the
kidnapping charge. This man, although admittedly the driver, was never charged. The claim’s
incredibility seems to cast doubt on the prosecution’s narrative from the very outset.
Crucial to the trial were the testimonies of two brothers who asserted that they had identified
(line up) DeAngelo as the individual running from the crime scene. However, their credibility was
tarnished by their proximity to a known gang hangout, where DeAngelo was known to frequent.
These brothers were no strangers to the world of drugs and had direct dealings with the very
gang that DeAngelo was linked to. Their assertions, fraught with the potential for bias, were
further clouded by the fact that they resided merely two houses away from this gang hub. The
likelihood that they could have easily identified DeAngelo, even under the cover of night, was a
point left unaddressed. Additionally, the prosecution’s decision to have a co-defendant with a
striking resemblance to DeAngelo shave his head bald before appearing in the lineup added a
layer of manipulation to the identification process, muddying the waters of impartiality.
A disturbing aspect of the trial was the testimony of a five-year old child who, although claiming
to have witnessed DeAngelo as the shooter of one victim, made an additional line up
identification and testimony claiming another co-defendant as the shooter of another victim. The
child’s age raised legitimate concerns about the accuracy and reliability of his account. To
compound these concerns, the child was permitted to sit on his father’s lap while testifying, an
arrangement that could have potentially influenced his responses. Shockingly, DeAngelo’s
defense attorney failed to cross-examine this crucial witness, leaving a glaring gap in the pursuit
of truth and justice.
The trial’s handling of evidence was equally confounding. The prosecution presented to the jury
a .380 caliber handgun and strategically emphasized its use, even though the actual murder
weapon was never recovered. This approach seemed aimed at swaying the jury’s perception
and creating an association between DeAngelo and the crime. Yet, the absence of concrete
evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, or gunpowder residue raised serious doubts about the
veracity of the accusations.
Missing Evidence in Robbery Charge
Perhaps most perplexing was the jury’s decision to find DeAngelo guilty of robbery despite the
prosecution failing to present any of the items allegedly stolen—no jewelry, money, or drugs
were ever recovered or shown to the jury. The charge rested heavily on the testimony of a
co-defendant who claimed that DeAngelo had shown him the items supposedly taken during the
incident. Yet, this assertion was never corroborated by physical evidence or supported by any
credible witness. This glaring absence further eroded the integrity of the prosecution’s case,
raising serious concerns about how a conviction could stand without tangible proof of the
alleged crime.
Most damningly, a trio of co defendants who initially testified against DeAngelo are now
recanting their statements and testimony, revealing that they had been coerced and threatened
into falsely incriminating him. This revelation underscored the troubling tactics employed by the
prosecution, highlighting the vulnerability of individuals caught in the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, a co-defendant who had taken a plea deal admitted that he had no incriminating
information to share about DeAngelo’s involvement in the crime. This co-defendant was not
brought to trial by the prosecutors or defence attorneys, a baffling omission that cast a shadow
over the fairness of the trial.
In a culmination of unsettling circumstances, the trial of DeAngelo Capone serves as a stark
cautionary tale about the fragility of justice. The miscarriage of justice that unfolded underscored
the need for a transparent, fair, and equitable legal system. DeAngelo’s case should serve as an
enduring reminder that justice is not a foregone conclusion; it requires meticulous scrutiny,
unbiased investigation, and unwavering commitment to upholding truth and fairness.
Parole Procedures
In a cruel twist of fate, even after enduring the tumultuous trial, DeAngelo Capone’s journey
toward justice continued to be fraught with obstacles. After serving three decades behind bars,
his judge deemed him eligible for parole after serving approximately 20 years. However, the
path to redemption remains marred by the bureaucratic challenges that plague the criminal
justice system. In a stark example of the systemic roadblocks that can impede fairness and
transparency, DeAngelo faced the Herculean task of obtaining his sentencing transcript from the
Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts.
This seemingly straightforward request revealed the systemic deficiencies that can thwart the
pursuit of justice. The struggle to secure a vital piece of documentation encapsulated the
broader issues that had marred DeAngelo’s trial from the start. The trial’s complex web of
unreliable testimonies, manipulated evidence, and coerced witnesses was not an isolated
incident, but rather a reflection of systemic flaws that can tip the scales of justice.
DeAngelo’s ordeal serves as a poignant illustration of the need for comprehensive reform within
the criminal justice system. His case demonstrates the urgency of addressing issues such as
witness coercion, biased identification procedures, and the mishandling of evidence. The harrowing story of his trial and subsequent struggle to access his own sentencing transcript underscores the crucial importance of accountability, transparency, and the safeguarding of the
right to a fair trial.
In conclusion, the trial of DeAngelo Capone stands as a poignant tale of a justice system fraught
with complexities, biases, and flaws. His story serves as an urgent call for reform—a demand
that the legal system be held to the highest standards of transparency, fairness, and integrity. As
DeAngelo’s pursuit of his sentencing transcript illustrates, the challenges of the system do not
end with the verdict, but continue in the arduous quest for justice that follows. It is a story that
urges society to reflect on the transformative power of reform, so that tales of injustice may one
day be replaced with stories of redemption and equity. DeAngelo himself has become a
proponent of equal justice and prison reform with the Scandinavian Normality Model.