{"id":72,"date":"2026-08-30T19:01:18","date_gmt":"2026-08-30T19:01:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/?page_id=72"},"modified":"2026-08-30T19:07:43","modified_gmt":"2026-08-30T19:07:43","slug":"the-case","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/?page_id=72","title":{"rendered":"The Case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/use><\/svg>HOME<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
<\/use><\/svg>EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Stanley Jalowiec was convicted and sentenced to death in 1996 for the murder of Ronald Lally. He has maintained from the beginning that he was not involved. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

How the case began<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The controlled drug transaction between Danny Smith, Raymond Smith, and the confidential informant Ronald Lally<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

According to the investigative files the chain of events that lead to the murder of Ronald Lally began in the early morning hours of January 18, 1994. However, facts worthy of mentioning started long before January 18, 1994, instead one must look to the early morning hours of June 6, 1993, when Ronald Lally went to the Elyria police department regarding a drug complaint. Lally met with the shift supervisor who then contacted Narcotics Detective Alan Leiby. Leiby responded to the police department and interviewed Lally, who admitted he had a crack problem and told Leiby he had sold his girlfriend’s microwave oven to Danny Smith, in exchange for crack cocain. According to the report, Ronald Lally regretted his actions and wanted to turn his life around. He believed that cooperating with law enforcement officers against Danny Smith would be his first step towards a new life. <\/p>\n

Detective Leiby explained to Lally the dangers of being an informant, but Lally agreeed to cooperate, and signed the necessary informant agreement. On June 7, 1993, Ronald Lally purchased crack cocaine from Danny Smith and his father, Raymond Smith. Lally was wired by the police, and three police officers listened to and taped the drug buy. <\/p>\n

\n

Danny was arrested in August 1993. <\/p>\n

\n

Five days later, Danny`s older brother, Michael Smith, called Detective Alan Leiby and said police had arrested the wrong person. Michael Smith claimed that he, not Danny, had sold the drugs to Lally. He arranged to meet with Leiby but never appeared. According to Leiby`s report, Michael became angry when his account was doubted and made remarks Leiby interperted as suggesting he might do something to the informant.<\/p>\n

This drug investigation, and Michael`s attempt to take responsiblity for Danny, was the chain of events that came before Ronald Lally`s murder.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

The murder of Ronald Lally<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

Ronald Lally disappeared on the night of January 18, 1994. He was expected to testify the following morning in the drug cases involving Danny and Raymond Smith. On January 19, Lally’s body was discovered on a roadway inside Woodland Cemetery in Cleveland. He had suffered a gunshot wound to the head and multiple blund-force injuries. His death ended the prosecutions in which he was expected to testify, and the drug cases were dismissed after the State lost its principal witness. <\/p>\n

\n

Cleveland detectives initially treated the homicide as an open investigation with no identified suspects. They collected extensive physical evidence from the scene. Once Lally was identified as a confidential informant, attention turned toward people connected to the earlier narcotics case. Once Detective Leiby was notified on February 10th that Ronald Lally had been murdered, he arranged six additional controlled drug buys from Danny Smith using a different police informant. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

The Smiths become the focus of the investigation<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

The Smith family was already connected to Ronald Lally through the drug investigation. Danny Smith had been arrested after Lally participated in the controlled cocaine purchase, and Raymond Smith was arrested days later in connection with the same case. Michael Smith had also contacted Detective Alan Leiby and claimed that police had arrested the wrong person because he, not Danny, had sold the drugs to Lally.<\/p>\n

\n

After Ronald Lally\u2019s murder, Detective Leiby continued investigating Danny Smith. Police conducted six additional controlled drug buys using a new confidential informant. Those buys led to Danny\u2019s arrest on six drug trafficking charges, exposing him to a potential twelve-year prison sentence.<\/p>\n

It was while facing those charges that Danny contacted Leiby and asked whether he could make a deal by providing information about the Lally homicide in exchange for consideration on his drug cases. Leiby told him that it was possible, depending on the information Danny could provide.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Danny Smith told Leiby that his father, Raymond Smith, could provide facts about Lally\u2019s death in exchange for consideration for both Danny and Raymond. On July 5, 1994, Raymond met with Leiby and Cleveland detectives and gave a taped statement in which he admitted being present during the homicide. The existing case summary also records that, in that statement, Raymond said Stanley was not involved and was not present at Woodland Cemetery.<\/p>\n

\n

After the interview, Leiby told Danny that Raymond had lied throughout the statement and that no consideration would be given if that was the best he could do. Danny later contacted Leiby again and said Raymond would return and give what he described as a truthful statement. Arrangements were then made for Raymond, his attorney, Detective Leiby, and the prosecutor to meet in September 1994.<\/p>\n

That sequence is important because it shows that the investigation was already centered on the Smith family, and that discussions about cooperation and possible consideration were underway months before Stanley was ultimately named as a participant.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

How Stanley Jalowiec became a suspect <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Stanley Jalowiec was not the natural focus of the investigation that followed Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. The investigation initially centered on people connected to Lally\u2019s work as a confidential informant, particularly the Smith family. Stanley\u2019s name appeared in investigative records, but the early evidence did not identify him as a participant.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

On March 4, 1994, Detective Alan Leiby brought Stanley to the Elyria Police Department for questioning. According to Leiby\u2019s own investigative chronology, Stanley came voluntarily, denied knowing anything about the homicide, and the interview was recorded. Stanley provided information about his whereabouts and people who could account for them. That recording has never been produced.<\/p>\n

Months later, Raymond Smith still was not implicating Stanley. In his July 5, 1994 taped statement, Raymond admitted being present during the homicide but said Stanley was not involved and was not present at Woodland Cemetery. Raymond\u2019s statement did not satisfy investigators. After the interview, Leiby told Danny Smith that Raymond had lied throughout it and that no consideration would be given if that was the best Raymond could provide. Raymond later agreed to meet again with his attorney, Leiby, and the prosecutor.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

By December 1994, however, the direction of the investigation began to change. Vernard Berry told Leiby that Danny Smith had accused Raymond and Stanley of involvement and had identified Corrine Fike\u2019s blue Chrysler LeBaron as the vehicle used in the crime. On December 4, police located the car at Fike\u2019s residence and found Stanley there. Stanley was taken into custody for investigation. When Leiby questioned him in the holding cell, Stanley again denied any knowledge of Ronald Lally\u2019s murder.<\/p>\n

At the same time, investigators were continuing to seek information from Danny and Raymond Smith. While Danny was in jail, the police chronology records that he offered to wear a wire against his father in an attempt to obtain a confession. In exchange, Danny wanted his six two-year drug sentences changed so they would run concurrently.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The critical change came on January 11, 1995.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

According to Leiby\u2019s own notes, Danny told him that Raymond would call again. Leiby recorded that he told Danny he needed the name of the \u201cthird person involved\u201d before he would do anything further concerning Danny\u2019s drug sentence. When Raymond called, he complained that Leiby was pressuring him and asked what he could receive in return. After further discussion, Raymond supplied the name \u201cStan.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

That same day, other witness accounts also shifted in a way that pointed toward Stanley. Corrine Fike changed an important part of her earlier account about who had obtained the keys to her LeBaron, now identifying her nephew Brian Howington as the person who had given the keys to Stanley. Howington was then interviewed after being advised that he would not be charged with drug offenses arising from the investigation. He told police that he had given Stanley the keys during the early morning hours and that Stanley later returned with Raymond in the car.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The importance of January 11 is therefore not simply that Stanley\u2019s name appeared in a police file. He had already been interviewed months earlier and had denied involvement. What changed was that, after months of investigation focused largely on the Smiths, negotiations over criminal charges and cooperation, and repeated efforts to obtain additional information, several accounts began to converge around a new theory placing Stanley in Fike\u2019s LeBaron.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In April 1995, Michael Smith supplied the account that would become the prosecution\u2019s central narrative. Michael placed himself, Raymond, Ronald Lally, and Stanley inside the LeBaron and claimed that Stanley drove the vehicle and participated in the assault. The man who had entered the investigation in 1993 trying to take responsibility for Danny\u2019s drug sale had now become the State\u2019s principal witness against Stanley, presumably again to protect his brother, Danny Smith.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The witnesses behind the conviction<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Corrine Fike and Brian Howington<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Joann Corrine Fike owned the Chrysler LeBaron investigators believed was used during the homicide. She gave recorded statements to Detective Leiby on December 27, 1994 and again on January 11, 1995.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Fike said the car had been returned the morning after the murder by Stanley Jalowiec and Raymond Smith. She described what appeared to be small blood spots in the vehicle and said she later cleaned blood from parts of the interior and trunk. She also recalled marks on Stanley\u2019s knuckles and said Stanley told her he had been in a fight behind Mom\u2019s Open Kitchen in Elyria.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

But Fike did not witness that alleged fight, and she did not witness Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. She repeatedly said that Stanley, Raymond and Danny never discussed a homicide in her presence.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

One of the most important changes between Fike\u2019s two statements concerned who had possession of her car. In her first account, she said she had loaned the LeBaron to Tammy Kasper and Danny Smith. By January 11, she said she had remembered that she was not home that night and that her nephew, Brian Howington, had given the keys to Stanley without her permission.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Howington was interviewed that same day. Before the interview, investigators assured him that he would not be charged with drug offenses arising from the investigation. He then said that he had spent the evening drinking and using crack cocaine with Stanley, that Stanley later received a page, and that he gave Stanley the keys to Fike\u2019s LeBaron at approximately 1:00 a.m. Howington said the vehicle later returned appearing washed and that he saw small blood spots in the car and a small amount of blood on Stanley\u2019s clothing.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Howington did not witness the murder. He never heard Stanley threaten Ronald Lally and never heard Stanley discuss Lally\u2019s killing.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

At trial, the accounts of Fike and Howington could appear to corroborate one another. Later evidence, however, raised a serious question about whether those accounts were truly independent. Jeff Buteau would later say that he overheard Fike coaching Howington before Howington spoke with police\u2014an issue that becomes important when evaluating how this witness narrative developed.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Terry Hopkins<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Terry Hopkins knew Danny Smith from school and knew Stanley through Danny. He did not know Ronald Lally personally and did not witness the murder.<\/p>\n

When police first interviewed Hopkins in February 1994, he denied knowing anything about Lally\u2019s death. According to Detective Leiby\u2019s investigative chronology, Hopkins said he would not associate with anyone capable of such a crime and denied that Danny had ever made statements to him about hurting anyone. Days later, Hopkins came to the Elyria Police Department on his own and again said that he knew nothing about the homicide.<\/p>\n

By January 1995, however, Hopkins was facing sentencing on felony charges and returned with a very different account.<\/p>\n

Hopkins claimed that on the night of the murder he had been drinking with Danny Smith, Tammy, his sister Sharon, and others. He said he did not see Stanley at the bar or at Mom\u2019s Open Kitchen. Later, at Danny\u2019s apartment, Hopkins said Danny appeared nervous and stated, \u201cthey did it.\u201d The trial court instructed the jury to consider only those words and not Hopkins\u2019 interpretation of what Danny meant.<\/p>\n

Hopkins also claimed that the following morning he was present during a conversation involving Michael Smith, Raymond Smith, Danny Smith, and Stanley. When asked what Stanley himself had said, Hopkins claimed Stanley stated that \u201cthey had killed the guy.\u201d But Hopkins also acknowledged that he could not reliably separate who said what and was relying on his memory of the conversation as a whole.<\/p>\n

His testimony included another allegation involving Danny. Hopkins said Danny had previously asked him to help \u201ctake care of\u201d someone and later offered Carl Hartman a red BMW if Hartman would do it. Hopkins admitted, however, that Danny never identified the person he supposedly wanted harmed.<\/p>\n

Hopkins\u2019 credibility was contested at trial. His account involved uncertainty, prior inconsistent statements, intoxication, and hearsay. He also had convictions for attempted aggravated burglary and attempted felonious assault. After serving nine months of a five-to-fifteen-year sentence, Hopkins received shock probation. Hopkins acknowledged that Detective Leiby had spoken to Judge Glavas about his cooperation before that release.<\/p>\n

The significance of Hopkins\u2019 testimony is therefore not simply what he eventually said. It is how his account changed. He began by repeatedly telling investigators that he knew nothing about the murder. Later, while facing serious criminal consequences himself, he supplied an alleged post-crime conversation implicating Stanley\u2014yet admitted he could not clearly distinguish which participant had said what.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span>Michael Smith<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Michael Smith was Danny Smith\u2019s older brother and Raymond Smith\u2019s son. His role in the case changed more dramatically than that of any other witness.<\/p>\n

Michael first entered the investigation in August 1993, months before Ronald Lally was killed. Five days after Danny was arrested on the drug case involving Lally, Michael contacted Detective Leiby and said police had arrested the wrong person. He claimed that he, not Danny, had sold the cocaine to Lally. Michael arranged to meet with Leiby but never appeared.<\/p>\n

By April 1995, Michael had become the State\u2019s central murder witness. He placed himself inside Corrine Fike\u2019s LeBaron with Raymond Smith, Ronald Lally, and Stanley Jalowiec. According to Michael, Stanley drove the vehicle, participated in the assault, and remained involved throughout the killing. His account became the principal narrative used against Stanley at trial.<\/p>\n

That transformation is significant. The jury was being asked to rely heavily on a witness who had first entered the case attempting to protect Danny from the underlying drug charge, but who later supplied the State\u2019s most detailed account implicating Stanley.<\/p>\n

Later evidence raised additional questions about Michael\u2019s circumstances and possible benefits. Danny Smith later swore that Michael told him he had been promised immunity, would not have to testify against Raymond, and that authorities had paid for him to live in Arizona. Stanley\u2019s trial attorney Edward Cleary also recalled that Michael became unavailable around Raymond\u2019s trial and then reappeared in time for Stanley\u2019s trial.<\/p>\n

According to a later affidavit from another witness, Michael subsequently said that Stanley had not been involved in Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. That statement was never presented to Stanley\u2019s jury.<\/p>\n

Michael\u2019s personal circumstances do not by themselves establish that his trial testimony was false. But the evolution of his account, the allegations of immunity and assistance, his period of unavailability, and his later reported statement excluding Stanley are all central to evaluating the reliability of the testimony that helped place Stanley on death row.onversation implicating Stanley\u2014yet admitted he could not clearly distinguish which participant had said what. Michael Smith\u2019s deposition was used in Raymond Smith\u2019s trial after Michael was not produced to testify in person.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In a 1997 affidavit, Ditannia Geiger stated that she encountered Michael at the courthouse during Danny Smith\u2019s trial. According to Geiger, Michael told her that Prosecutor Jonathan Rosenbaum and Detective Alan Leiby had sent him to Arizona before Raymond\u2019s trial. Geiger further stated that a police officer interrupted and ended their conversation after becoming aware of what they were discussing.<\/p>\n

Geiger\u2019s affidavit does not independently establish why Michael went to Arizona or prove that the purpose was to prevent him from appearing at Raymond\u2019s trial. But his absence is significant because Michael had become a central witness in the homicide cases, and Stanley\u2019s trial attorney Edward Cleary later recalled that Michael disappeared around Raymond\u2019s trial and then reappeared in time to testify against Stanley.<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sharon Hopkins<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sharon Hopkins was Terry Hopkins\u2019 sister and was with members of the group on the night Ronald Lally was killed. She did not witness the homicide itself, but her account became part of the State\u2019s reconstruction of the night.<\/p>\n

In January 1995, police covertly recorded an interview with Sharon. According to Detective Leiby\u2019s investigative chronology, Sharon said she had been out with Tammy and that they later met up with Danny Smith, Raymond Smith and Michael Smith. Importantly, Sharon said the Chrysler LeBaron had already left before she joined the group<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Sharon described Tammy driving south on Middle Avenue while Danny told her to be quiet because he had to \u201ctake care of something.\u201d She said Raymond and Michael were then let out of the car near the south city limits, after which Tammy and Danny drove away and waited.<\/p>\n

According to Sharon, the LeBaron later drove past them. They followed it until it stopped, and Sharon said Stanley was driving at that point. Danny asked Stanley something about picking up his brother, Sharon spoke briefly with Stanley, and everyone later returned to Danny\u2019s apartment.<\/p>\n

What Sharon did not<\/strong> provide was eyewitness testimony placing Stanley at Woodland Cemetery or witnessing him participate in Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. Her account placed him with the LeBaron at a later point in the evening, but she had not been present when the vehicle originally left and did not describe witnessing the killing.<\/p>\n

There is also an important circumstance surrounding her interview. Detective Leiby\u2019s chronology records that Terry Hopkins spoke with Sharon before police interviewed her. Terry told Leiby that Sharon had additional information that he himself had not previously known and said she would be \u201ctruthful\u201d when she came in. Their call was recorded, and Sharon was interviewed afterward.<\/p>\n

That sequence matters when evaluating whether Sharon\u2019s recollection developed independently or after discussing the case with Terry, whose own account had changed substantially by that point.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Evidence that contradicts the State`s case<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Raymond Smith<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Raymond Smith was charged in connection with Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. His importance to Stanley\u2019s case lies not simply in what he eventually said, but in how Stanley\u2019s name entered \u2014 and later disappeared from \u2014 Raymond\u2019s account.<\/p>\n

In his July 5, 1994 taped statement, Raymond admitted being present during the homicide but said Stanley was not involved and was not present at Woodland Cemetery. Raymond later explained that he had initially concealed the involvement of his sons because he was trying to protect them.<\/p>\n

Months later, on January 11, 1995, Stanley\u2019s name entered Raymond\u2019s account during a telephone conversation with Detective Leiby. In later sworn affidavits, Raymond said he was attempting to obtain help for Danny and believed Leiby would not provide assistance unless Raymond appeared to cooperate. Raymond stated that, rather than identify Michael Smith, he gave Stanley\u2019s name because Stanley had no knowledge of the crime and therefore could not provide police with useful information.<\/p>\n

Raymond\u2019s longer 2000 affidavit gave a very different account from the accusation that ultimately implicated Stanley. Raymond named himself, Danny, Michael and Ronald Lally as the occupants of the LeBaron, identified Danny as the driver, and expressly stated that Stanley was not there. Raymond also alleged that Detective Leiby had tried to persuade him to alter his original account.<\/p>\n

Raymond said he did not testify at Stanley\u2019s trial because he feared damaging his own appeal and believed Stanley would be acquitted. His later affidavits repeatedly rejected Stanley\u2019s involvement.<\/p>\n

The sequence is striking: Raymond first excluded Stanley, later named him while seeking consideration for Danny, and ultimately swore that the accusation against Stanley was deliberately false. That progression directly challenges one of the accounts used to draw Stanley into the murder case. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

<\/p>\n

Danny Smith<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Ronald Lally had served as a confidential informant in the drug cases involving Danny and Raymond Smith, giving Danny the clearest motive alleged by the State. Danny was later tried separately for aggravated murder and was acquitted in April 1996, although he was convicted of bribery.<\/p>\n

During Danny\u2019s trial, Stanley testified under oath despite being advised by his attorney not to testify and warned that anything he said could later be used against him. Stanley denied killing Ronald Lally, denied planning or discussing Lally\u2019s murder with Danny, and denied having any knowledge of how Lally died. On redirect, Stanley stated: \u201cI wasn\u2019t there. I had nothing to do with it. How could he be involved with me?\u201d<\/p>\n

Danny\u2019s early recorded statements also did not implicate Stanley. During his April 28, 1994 interview, investigators repeatedly confronted Danny with their belief that he was involved in Lally\u2019s murder. Danny nevertheless said he did not believe Stanley was capable of the crime. In a January 7, 1995 interview, Danny again said he had never seriously suspected Stanley and indicated that Raymond had implied his own involvement.<\/p>\n

Years later, Danny swore that Michael Smith told him police had promised Michael immunity, protection from having to testify against Raymond, and financial assistance to relocate to Arizona. Those statements were based on what Danny said Michael told him and must be evaluated in that context.<\/p>\n

Danny also directly contradicted Terry Hopkins. Hopkins testified that Stanley had participated in an incriminating conversation at Danny\u2019s apartment the morning after the murder. Danny later swore that Hopkins was not there and that no one confessed in his presence.<\/p>\n

Danny\u2019s own interests and criminal history require careful scrutiny. Even so, the man the State identified as having the clearest motive was acquitted of Ronald Lally\u2019s murder, did not implicate Stanley in his early interviews, and later supplied sworn information undermining both Michael Smith and Terry Hopkins.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

<\/p>\n

Tammy Green (formerly Kasper and Lasnis)<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Tammy Green, also known as Tammy Kasper and later Tammy Lasnis, was Danny Smith\u2019s girlfriend. She knew Raymond, Michael, Stanley, and Ronald Lally.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In her grand-jury testimony, Tammy said she had no personal knowledge of Ronald Lally\u2019s murder and had never heard Danny or Stanley discuss a plan to harm him. She denied hearing threats, seeing the LeBaron, or hearing Stanley discuss Lally\u2019s death.<\/p>\n

Her account of her own whereabouts later changed. Before the grand jury, Tammy described spending much of the evening with Danny and Raymond. In a later sworn affidavit, however, she said she remained confident that she had been working in Cleveland that night and did not see Danny until the early morning. That inconsistency has to be acknowledged when evaluating her recollection.<\/p>\n

The later affidavit also described pressure during police questioning. Tammy said Detective Leiby became angry when she insisted that she had been working, threatened that she could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, and caused her to retain an attorney. She also said Danny never confessed to her and that she did not remember Terry Hopkins being at the apartment the following morning.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Although Tammy\u2019s different accounts of her own whereabouts cannot both be fully accurate, neither version implicates Stanley in a murder plan or confession. Her later description of pressure is also relevant to understanding how witness accounts in the case developed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Sandra Williams<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Sandra Williams was Ronald Lally\u2019s girlfriend for approximately thirteen years and remained in frequent contact with him even during periods when they were separated.<\/p>\n

Sandra said she did not know Raymond Smith or Stanley Jalowiec before Lally\u2019s death. She had seen Danny Smith because Danny had come into her yard making threats, and she recalled Lally telling her that Danny and several other men had threatened him.<\/p>\n

Lally never identified Stanley to Sandra as someone he feared or as someone who had threatened him. Sandra said she had never heard Lally mention Stanley\u2019s name at all.<\/p>\n

Sandra could not say with certainty who killed Lally. She stated that the names that first came to mind were Danny Smith and Vernard Berry and that her instinct continued to point toward Danny.<\/p>\n

Her account matters because she was one of the people most likely to know whom Ronald Lally feared. She remembered threats connected to Danny Smith, but none connected to Stanley Jalowiec.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Melissa Arroyo<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Melissa Arroyo gave police a taped statement on November 29, 1995 concerning statements Danny Smith allegedly made at TGI Friday\u2019s.<\/p>\n

In that first account, Arroyo said Danny admitted participating in the killing of an unidentified man and described the victim being beaten, tied to a vehicle, dragged, and run over. When officers asked who had been with Danny, Arroyo said he had not named anyone. When asked whether, as far as she knew, Danny had acted alone, she agreed that he had not mentioned anyone else. Stanley Jalowiec\u2019s name did not appear in the statement.<\/p>\n

The 1995 report described the encounter as a date and recorded Arroyo saying that she had received no promises. It also documented that she appeared frightened and had reported being warned not to testify against Danny.<\/p>\n

In a 2012 affidavit, Arroyo gave a substantially fuller and, in important respects, different account. She said she had not been dating Danny but had been working as a confidential informant after officers promised favorable treatment in a pending assault case. She stated that police arranged and monitored the TGI Friday\u2019s meeting and that Danny identified his father and brother as the other men in the car. According to Arroyo, Danny expressly told her that no one else was involved \u2014 which would exclude Stanley.<\/p>\n

Arroyo also described numerous police-directed telephone calls that she said were recorded, repeated reports of Danny\u2019s admissions, and officers positioned close enough to hear the restaurant conversation.<\/p>\n

The two accounts differ sharply over whether Danny identified other participants, whether Arroyo was acting under police direction, whether favorable treatment had been promised, and whether recordings existed. But on one point they agree: neither account implicates Stanley.<\/p>\n

Those differences also leave an important unanswered question \u2014 what became of the informant records, notes, and recordings Arroyo said were created?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Jeff Buteau <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Jeff Buteau lived with Corrine Fike after Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. He was not present at Woodland Cemetery and had no firsthand knowledge of who killed Lally.<\/p>\n

During a January 23, 1996 police interview, Buteau described conversations that had caused him to suspect Stanley. But when Detective Leiby pressed him, Buteau repeatedly said Stanley had never directly confessed, never said he killed Lally, and never even said that he had been present. Buteau explained that his suspicions came from suggestive remarks, newspaper reports, and information he had received from Fike.<\/p>\n

Buteau also gave information that directly affected the apparent corroboration between Corrine Fike and Brian Howington. He said he overheard Fike coaching Howington before Howington spoke with police, recalling instructions along the lines of, \u201cYou can say this, but don\u2019t say that,\u201d and \u201cDon\u2019t say a lot.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a 2012 affidavit, Buteau expanded on that account. He said Fike had attended numerous meetings with Detective Leiby and her attorney and often returned distressed. After one of the final meetings, Buteau said Fike became desperate to locate Howington. According to Buteau, the two then spent hours together in an upstairs room, where he heard Fike instructing Howington about what to say.<\/p>\n

Buteau also described his own police interview as lasting roughly two hours, with the recorder repeatedly being stopped. He alleged that Leiby tried to persuade him to say Stanley had confessed, became angry when Buteau refused, threw objects, and ultimately ordered him to leave.<\/p>\n

Buteau\u2019s evidence is important for two reasons: he rejected the claim that Stanley had directly confessed to him, and he challenged the appearance that Fike and Howington had independently arrived at matching accounts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Wilbur Jeffery Lewis<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Wilbur Jeffrey Lewis knew Danny Smith, Raymond Smith, and Stanley Jalowiec from the Elyria community. His evidence is significant because he described admissions by members of the Smith family that directly excluded Stanley from Ronald Lally\u2019s murder.<\/p>\n

In May 2012, Lewis signed a sworn affidavit describing conversations he said he had with Danny and Raymond Smith. According to court filings discussing that affidavit, Lewis said Danny made admissions concerning the murder but never implicated Stanley. Lewis also said Raymond later confirmed that Danny\u2019s admissions were accurate.<\/p>\n

Lewis further stated that Raymond told him Stanley was innocent and that Lally\u2019s murder had been committed by Raymond and his sons. The affidavit therefore placed responsibility within the Smith family while expressly excluding Stanley.<\/p>\n

Lewis also described a conversation with Danny while they were incarcerated in the Lorain County Jail. According to Lewis, Danny told him Stanley was \u201cthe only one that wasn\u2019t there\u201d and that Stanley was going to \u201ctake the fall for everybody.\u201d Even when Lewis was later questioned at length by police about his affidavit, that central point remained: Danny identified Stanley as the person who had not been present.<\/p>\n

Lewis also stated that Stanley never confessed to him and that he had never discussed Ronald Lally\u2019s murder with Stanley.<\/p>\n

But Lewis\u2019s evidence never reached the evidentiary hearing.<\/p>\n

Lewis later alleged that Detective Alan Leiby threatened him before he was supposed to testify. In later testimony, Lewis described understanding the warning to mean that if he testified, bad things would begin happening to him. According to the subsequent court filing, Lewis said those threats caused him to refuse to testify, leaving the court to decide Stanley\u2019s motion without hearing his evidence.<\/p>\n

That history is particularly significant because Lewis was not merely offering a general opinion about Stanley\u2019s innocence. He described admissions from people he said were actually involved, consistently stated that Stanley was not among them, and later alleged that intimidation prevented that evidence from being heard in court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The Investigation and the Missing Record<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Detective Alan Leiby<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Detective Alan Leiby led the Elyria investigation into Ronald Lally\u2019s death. The record shows that he devoted substantial time and resources to the case, conducting interviews, cultivating informants, arranging recorded calls, monitoring jail visits pursuant to court authorization, and documenting numerous investigative steps.<\/p>\n

The concern is not that Leiby failed to investigate. The concern is whether the investigation became increasingly committed to one theory \u2014 and to developing witnesses who could support that theory.<\/p>\n

Many of the State\u2019s witnesses were facing criminal charges, incarcerated, on probation, involved in drugs, or otherwise vulnerable to pressure or inducement. Leiby maintained extensive contact with cooperating witnesses, supplied recording equipment, instructed witnesses how to conduct conversations, coordinated monitored visits, and repeatedly followed up with them.<\/p>\n

The available interviews also show occasions when investigators shared information, referred to convictions that had already been obtained, suggested theories, or responded favorably to answers that supported the developing case.<\/p>\n

One recorded conversation is particularly revealing. While speaking with Patrick Healy, Leiby stated:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe convicted Ray this week. Now we got to do Danny and Stanley.\u201d<\/p>\n

He then continued seeking information about Stanley.<\/p>\n

That statement does not, by itself, prove that evidence was fabricated or that every witness who cooperated with police gave false information. But it is significant when considered alongside the changing witness accounts, criminal exposure and benefits surrounding several witnesses, allegations of pressure, and evidence that did not support Stanley\u2019s involvement.<\/p>\n

The central question is whether the evidence independently led investigators to Stanley \u2014 or whether the investigation increasingly assembled a witness narrative around him while evidence challenging that narrative received less attention.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Detective Leiby\u2019s Own Investigative Chronology<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Many of the concerns surrounding Stanley Jalowiec\u2019s case do not depend solely on affidavits obtained years after his trial. They also appear in Detective Alan Leiby\u2019s own investigative chronology, written while the homicide investigation was unfolding.<\/p>\n

The chronology confirms that Leiby questioned Stanley on March 4, 1994, only weeks after Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. Leiby recorded that Stanley came voluntarily and that the interview was recorded. His written summary states that Stanley knew nothing about the homicide.<\/p>\n

That recording has never been produced.<\/p>\n

Its absence is particularly important because the surviving handwritten notes from Stanley\u2019s interview contain names, locations, workplaces, and times that appear to relate to his whereabouts. The missing recording would show exactly what Stanley told investigators, what alibi information he supplied, and which witnesses police could have contacted at the beginning of the investigation.<\/p>\n

Leiby\u2019s chronology also records what happened when police seized and searched Corrine Fike\u2019s Chrysler LeBaron on December 4, 1994. After Leiby and Detective Ashley searched the vehicle, the recorded result was direct:<\/p>\n

\u201cFound nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Later that same day, Leiby questioned Stanley in a holding cell. Stanley responded, \u201cWhat homicide,\u201d and again denied knowing anything about Ronald Lally\u2019s murder.<\/p>\n

The chronology shows that investigators continued trying to obtain statements from Stanley while he was being held on unrelated drug charges. Police discussed placing him in a cell with Danny Smith and giving Danny recording equipment in an attempt to capture statements from Stanley. Danny later reported that Stanley suspected the cell was wired and would not talk.<\/p>\n

The records also document the way important witnesses were handled.<\/p>\n

Corrine Fike\u2019s attorney specifically requested that one meeting with investigators not be recorded. Leiby wrote that he secretly recorded the meeting anyway, without Fike or her attorney knowing, and directed that the recording be kept confidential. Fike\u2019s attorney subsequently sought written assurance that she would not be prosecuted before she gave a formal statement, and Leiby requested a letter of immunity for her.<\/p>\n

Terry Hopkins initially told investigators that he knew nothing about the homicide. Later, while facing sentencing on felony charges, Hopkins returned with information implicating Stanley. Leiby\u2019s chronology records that Hopkins wanted his cooperation kept confidential and that Leiby contacted the court handling Hopkins\u2019 sentence.<\/p>\n

The chronology also documents the circumstances under which Stanley\u2019s name entered Raymond Smith\u2019s account. Danny Smith told Leiby that Raymond would provide information if consideration could be obtained concerning Danny\u2019s drug sentence. On January 11, 1995, Raymond called and, after further discussion, supplied the name \u201cStan.\u201d The timing matters because the accusation arose during continuing negotiations over assistance for Danny.<\/p>\n

Brian Howington\u2019s interview was likewise preceded by an assurance that he would not be charged with drug offenses arising from the investigation. Howington then supplied the account that Stanley had obtained the keys to Fike\u2019s LeBaron and left in the vehicle during the critical hours.<\/p>\n

Taken together, Leiby\u2019s chronology does more than preserve what witnesses ultimately said. It documents how witnesses were approached, what criminal exposure they faced, what protections or assistance were discussed, and how accounts developed through repeated contact with investigators.<\/p>\n

That record raises a fundamental question about the reliability of the case against Stanley:<\/p>\n

Did independent evidence lead investigators to Stanley Jalowiec, or was the case gradually constructed through recorded conversations, covert interviews, immunity, criminal leverage, and witness accounts that changed as the investigation progressed?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The offer to make charges go away<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

On January 11, 1995, Detective Alan Leiby covertly recorded a telephone conversation with Michael Lopez. At the beginning of the call, Leiby told Lopez to deny that the conversation had occurred if anyone asked. He then described Lopez as someone who could become one of his most important witnesses if Leiby could persuade him to disclose what he supposedly knew.<\/p>\n

Lopez repeatedly said that he knew nothing about Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. He denied hearing relevant conversations, denied knowing who committed the crime, and resisted Leiby\u2019s suggestions that Danny Smith had shared information with him.<\/p>\n

Leiby then shifted the conversation to Lopez\u2019s pending drug charges.<\/p>\n

He told Lopez that if he provided information and agreed to testify, the charges could be made to \u201cgo away.\u201d Leiby made clear that he did not merely mean probation. He said the charges could be dismissed entirely and told Lopez that he had already done the same for other people Lopez knew.<\/p>\n

Leiby also emphasized the prison time Lopez was facing. He discussed a potential twelve-year sentence, said he could go directly to the judge, and told Lopez he could do for him what he had previously done in Danny Smith\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

Lopez recognized what was happening. He told Leiby that it appeared Leiby was trying to frighten him and again insisted that he knew nothing about the murder.<\/p>\n

Despite those repeated denials, Leiby continued pressing him. He told Lopez that investigators believed he had been present for relevant conversations and that the information he supposedly possessed could serve as bargaining power on his criminal charges.<\/p>\n

Lopez acknowledged that the offer was attractive \u2014 but said he would not invent information simply to obtain it.<\/p>\n

The same call also shows Leiby discussing the use of pending criminal cases to develop additional sources. He told Lopez that investigators needed certain people approached through drug buys so they could get them talking and then \u201cmake some deals with people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Michael Lopez never gave investigators the accusation they were seeking.<\/p>\n

What the recording documents instead is an investigator offering the complete dismissal of criminal charges, invoking his access to judges, emphasizing the threat of imprisonment, and repeatedly pressing a man who continued to say he knew nothing about the murder.<\/p>\n

That matters because Lopez did not implicate Stanley. The significance of the recording lies in what it reveals about the methods being used to obtain testimony in the investigation that ultimately placed Stanley Jalowiec on death row.<\/p>\n

The investigative files also contain a written conditional nonprosecution agreement offered to Shawndell Donald, who was then in custody on unrelated criminal matters. Under that agreement, Donald would not be charged if he provided a complete statement, passed a polygraph if requested, and continued cooperating whenever investigators required.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Patrick Healy: A \u201cPure\u201d Statement After Police Supplied the Details<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In a covertly recorded telephone call on December 8, 1995, Detective Alan Leiby contacted Patrick Healy while developing testimony concerning an allegation that Danny Smith had attempted to hire Carl Hartman to harm Ronald Lally.<\/p>\n

Before Healy gave a formal statement, Leiby told him what Hartman had allegedly said and supplied specific details, including money, a vehicle, and ether. When Healy referred to Hartman possibly receiving a car, Leiby responded that the car was the detail he had been looking for.<\/p>\n

Leiby then instructed Healy not to speak with Hartman or anyone else before investigators took his formal statement. He explained that he did not want Healy\u2019s account influenced by another witness and described the anticipated statement as \u201cpure\u201d if it matched the accounts already obtained.<\/p>\n

But by that point, Leiby himself had already disclosed Hartman\u2019s allegations and supplied several details of the investigative theory to Healy.<\/p>\n

The same conversation also involved Healy\u2019s own pending theft and probation matters. Leiby told Healy he would investigate his case and discussed how Hartman\u2019s probation warrant had been addressed and Hartman had received a personal bond. Leiby then told Healy that he might be needed to testify in the upcoming prosecutions of Danny Smith and Stanley Jalowiec.<\/p>\n

The importance of the recording is the sequence. Investigators wanted an independent account, yet Leiby supplied information from another witness before obtaining Healy\u2019s statement and then characterized the resulting statement as \u201cpure.\u201d<\/p>\n

That creates a serious contamination concern: whether later similarities between witness accounts reflected genuinely independent memories or information that had already been introduced by investigators.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Richard Altpater: \u201cI Told Him What He Wanted to Hear\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In a recorded interview on October 23, 1995, Richard Altpater described how Detective Alan Leiby used Altpater\u2019s pending drug case while attempting to obtain testimony against Danny Smith.<\/p>\n

Altpater said that, while the recorder was turned off, Leiby told him he could help him avoid the drug charge if he cooperated. According to Altpater, Leiby wanted him to agree with information other witnesses were supposedly providing.<\/p>\n

When asked during the recorded interview whether the statement he had given Leiby was true, Altpater said it was not. He acknowledged that he had lied because he did not want to serve eighteen months in jail.<\/p>\n

Altpater also rejected one of the central allegations attributed to him. He said Danny Smith had never offered him $5,000 and had never asked him to kill Ronald Lally. Altpater said Leiby was the source of the alleged $5,000 figure. According to Altpater, Danny had only asked whether he knew someone who might hurt another person and had not identified Ronald Lally.<\/p>\n

Later in the interview, Altpater again said that Leiby had promised assistance with his drug case in exchange for cooperation.<\/p>\n

When asked whether he had simply told Leiby what Leiby wanted to hear, Altpater answered:<\/p>\n

\u201cExactly.\u201d<\/p>\n

More than ten years later, Altpater repeated these allegations in a sworn declaration. But his earlier recorded interview is particularly important because his account of pressure and false information was not something first alleged decades after Stanley\u2019s conviction. Altpater was describing it while the prosecutions were still underway.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Hetzel See Jr.: An Insider\u2019s Account<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hetzel See Jr. spent eighteen years with the Elyria Police Department, serving in several roles including street-parole officer, Neighborhood Impact Unit officer, forensic-evidence technician, and union president. He also worked with Detective Alan Leiby on other cases.<\/p>\n

See described the Neighborhood Impact Unit as operating from a separate building with a basement area used for interviewing confidential informants. According to See, the unit had an intelligence vehicle capable of monitoring and recording covert telephone and in-person conversations. He said the unit also maintained computers and files separate from the police department\u2019s central records system. Reports could be saved to floppy disks, printed, and retained outside the ordinary case file.<\/p>\n

That description is particularly important in light of Melissa Arroyo\u2019s account that police arranged and recorded conversations with Danny Smith. See\u2019s testimony does not establish that Arroyo\u2019s specific recordings still exist, but it confirms that the department possessed the equipment, procedures, and separate storage system capable of creating and retaining such recordings outside the ordinary case file.<\/p>\n

See also described what he believed was a conflict involving Michael Schoeger, a friend and business associate of Leiby who was also close to Danny Smith. See believed Leiby had disclosed Ronald Lally\u2019s identity as a confidential informant to Schoeger, who then informed Danny. See did not claim to have personally witnessed that disclosure; he said his conclusion came from the surrounding events.<\/p>\n

More broadly, See said he challenged Leiby\u2019s theory of the homicide before Stanley\u2019s trial because he believed it did not fit the physical evidence. He alleged that Leiby resisted consideration of alternative suspects and that evidence inconsistent with the prevailing theory sometimes disappeared. These were serious allegations made by a former Elyria police officer with firsthand knowledge of the department\u2019s practices.<\/p>\n

Based on his experience with the department and his knowledge of the case, See ultimately stated that he believed Stanley Jalowiec had no involvement in Ronald Lally\u2019s murder.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Stanley Jalowiec\u2019s Trial Attorneys: What the Defense Never Received<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Joseph C. Grunda<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Joseph C. Grunda represented Stanley at his 1996 capital trial. Years later, after reviewing additional police reports, witness statements, agreements, and investigative records, Grunda said substantial material had not been available to the defense before trial.<\/p>\n

Grunda identified police reports, recorded statements, investigative summaries, and prosecutor correspondence that he did not recall receiving. He said this material would have required additional investigation and would have been necessary for effective cross-examination of much of the State\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

Among the material Grunda later reviewed were earlier statements showing changes in the accounts of Terry Hopkins, Lynne Altpater, Michael Smith, and Sandra Williams. He also identified indications that additional witness statements had been taken but were still missing. Grunda did not recall receiving Danny Smith\u2019s January 7, 1995 statement or several statements made by Raymond Smith.<\/p>\n

Grunda also said he had not received documents showing that Corrine Fike had been granted transactional immunity concerning any possible involvement in Ronald Lally\u2019s death. He stated that, had the defense known about that protection, he would have used it to challenge Fike\u2019s credibility and potential bias.<\/p>\n

After later reviewing affidavits from Melissa Arroyo, Danny Smith, Tammy Green, Hetzel See Jr., Raymond Smith, and Jeff Buteau, Grunda said the information was precisely the type of evidence the defense had been trying to obtain. He specifically emphasized Buteau\u2019s account that Corrine Fike coached Brian Howington, because at trial Fike and Howington appeared to provide independent corroboration of one another.<\/p>\n

Grunda also remembered that Stanley consistently maintained that he had not been present. In Grunda\u2019s view, the evidence that emerged later substantially changed the picture the defense had been given at the time of trial.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Edward Cleary<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Edward Cleary likewise said the defense believed it was receiving complete discovery. Records were being distributed across the three separately tried cases, and counsel had been told they could obtain the material they were entitled to receive.<\/p>\n

Cleary was particularly troubled by the handling of Michael Smith. He recalled that the State arranged Michael\u2019s deposition before Raymond Smith\u2019s trial, after which Michael became unavailable and was reportedly sent to Arizona. Stanley\u2019s defense could not observe Michael testify at Raymond\u2019s trial or interview him during that period. Michael then reappeared in time for Stanley\u2019s trial.<\/p>\n

Years later, Cleary reviewed witness statements, co-defendant statements, Corrine Fike\u2019s immunity agreement, and other materials that had not been available to him at trial. He said those records were necessary to expose changes in witness accounts, benefits provided to witnesses, and evidence pointing toward alternative suspects.<\/p>\n

Cleary also expressed concern about private communications between Detective Leiby and the trial judge before Stanley\u2019s trial. Cleary believed those communications exposed the judge to aspects of the prosecution\u2019s investigation outside the ordinary adversarial process. That was Cleary\u2019s legal assessment; it was not a judicial finding.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Why Their Statements Matter<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Joseph Grunda and Edward Cleary were the attorneys responsible for investigating Stanley\u2019s case, confronting the State\u2019s witnesses, and defending him against a death sentence.<\/p>\n

Both later said they had lacked evidence that could have exposed changing witness accounts, revealed immunity or other assistance, identified evidence excluding Stanley, challenged what appeared at trial to be independent corroboration, and supported alternative explanations for Ronald Lally\u2019s murder.<\/p>\n

That distinction matters.<\/p>\n

The issue is not simply that additional documents and statements were discovered years later. The jury was asked to decide which witnesses to believe without hearing evidence that Stanley\u2019s own trial lawyers later said would have changed how they investigated the case, cross-examined the State\u2019s witnesses, and presented the defense.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

What the Physical Evidence Did \u2014 and Did Not \u2014 Show<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The crime-scene evidence helped establish that Ronald Lally was killed at Woodland Cemetery and that Corrine Fike\u2019s Chrysler LeBaron was connected to the crime. Testing showed that blood found in the trunk liner was consistent with Lally\u2019s blood.<\/p>\n

That evidence was important. But it did not identify Stanley Jalowiec as the person who drove, possessed, or used the LeBaron during the murder.<\/p>\n

No DNA, fingerprint, blood, hair, fiber, firearm, or other physical evidence identified Stanley at Woodland Cemetery.<\/p>\n

In 2012, forensic-science consultant Gary A. Rini reviewed the crime scene, the LeBaron, Ronald Lally\u2019s injuries, and the relationship between the State\u2019s narrative and the physical evidence.<\/p>\n

Rini concluded that the blood evidence was consistent with Lally having been killed at the cemetery rather than killed elsewhere and transported there. He also found that abrasions on Lally could be consistent with his body having been dragged across the roadway and that marks in the snow could reflect movement of the front-wheel-drive LeBaron.<\/p>\n

But Rini identified a significant weakness in the claim that the vehicle had actually driven over Lally. He found no documented tire-tread marks on Lally\u2019s body or clothing and no crushing injuries of the kind ordinarily associated with a vehicle passing over a person.<\/p>\n

The physical evidence therefore supported parts of the crime reconstruction while leaving other allegations uncorroborated.<\/p>\n

Most importantly, it did not answer the question on which Stanley\u2019s guilt depended:<\/p>\n

Who was inside the car, and who participated in Ronald Lally\u2019s killing?<\/p>\n

Physical evidence may help reconstruct a crime. It cannot identify a person it does not connect to that crime.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Why the Questions Remain<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Stanley Jalowiec\u2019s conviction did not rest on a forensic identification. It rested on a witness narrative.<\/p>\n

That narrative came from people whose accounts changed over time, who were uncertain about what they personally observed, who faced criminal exposure, who received or allegedly received benefits, or who later gave sworn statements contradicting the State\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

Raymond Smith first excluded Stanley, later named him, and then swore that the accusation was false. Danny Smith did not implicate Stanley in his early interviews and later contradicted Terry Hopkins. Melissa Arroyo\u2019s two accounts differ in important ways, but neither implicates Stanley. Sandra Williams remembered threats from Danny, not Stanley. Jeff Buteau denied hearing a confession and said Corrine Fike coached Brian Howington.<\/p>\n

Stanley\u2019s trial attorneys later said they had not received evidence that could have exposed changing statements, immunity, benefits, alleged coaching, alternative suspects, and accounts excluding Stanley. Hetzel See Jr. described investigative systems capable of producing and storing records outside the ordinary case file. Questions therefore remain about recordings, informant files, prior statements, and other materials that were never presented to the jury.<\/p>\n

The physical evidence connected Ronald Lally to Woodland Cemetery and the LeBaron, but it did not identify Stanley as a participant.<\/p>\n

None of these facts, standing alone, answers every question about Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. Taken together, however, they raise a more fundamental one:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Can a death sentence be trusted when the identity of the accused rests on a witness narrative that changed over time, while significant contradictory and impeachment evidence remained outside the jury\u2019s view?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Stanley has maintained from his first documented police interview that he was not present and did not participate. More than three decades later, the record still contains unresolved contradictions, missing or disputed evidence, and sworn accounts that directly challenge the foundation of his conviction.<\/p>\n

The truth of this case should not be feared. It should be fully examined.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The Missing Recording of Stanley\u2019s First Interview<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

On March 4, 1994, Detective Alan Leiby brought Stanley Jalowiec from court to the Elyria Police Department for questioning about Ronald Lally\u2019s murder.<\/p>\n

The only surviving handwritten account of that interview is a page of fragmented notes containing names, workplaces, locations, and times. Those notes appear to reference Tammy, Thermo Industries in North Olmsted, Sherry Thompson in North Ridgeville, Stanley living with a brother during January, locations in Cleveland, Power Slam, its owner, and several people who may have been able to verify Stanley\u2019s movements.<\/p>\n

But those notes were not the complete record of the interview.<\/p>\n

\n

Exhibit 25, an inventory of recorded and referenced investigative materials, specifically identifies a:<\/p>\n

\u201cCovertly Recorded Tape of Stanley Jalowiec\/Leiby \u2014 3\/4\/94.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

The supporting entry states that Leiby brought Stanley back to the Elyria Police Department from court and that \u201cthis interview was recorded.\u201d The record is referenced at EPD 1217.<\/p>\n

That recording has not been produced.<\/p>\n

Its absence is critical because the tape would preserve Stanley\u2019s own words only weeks after Ronald Lally\u2019s murder. It could establish exactly what he told Leiby about his whereabouts, which witnesses he identified, what locations and times he provided, and what investigative leads were available to police from the beginning.<\/p>\n

Years later, four witnesses gave sworn affidavits accounting for Stanley\u2019s movements throughout the evening of January 18 and placing him at his mother\u2019s home during the critical overnight hours. The missing March 4 recording could show whether Stanley supplied the substance of that alibi \u2014 and the names needed to verify it \u2014 at the very outset of the investigation.<\/p>\n

This was not an isolated recording practice. Exhibit 25 identifies numerous other recorded and covertly recorded interviews, telephone calls, and witness contacts made during the investigation. Some entries refer to recordings that were never provided, interviews for which only transcripts existed, and conversations referenced in reports but absent from the available files.<\/p>\n

What remains of Stanley\u2019s first interview is a page of scattered handwritten fragments.<\/p>\n

What is missing is the recording of what he actually said.<\/p>\n

The notes survived. Stanley\u2019s words did not.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The Alibi Timeline the Jury Never Heard<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Four sworn affidavits account for Stanley Jalowiec\u2019s whereabouts throughout the evening of January 18 and into the early morning of January 19, 1994.<\/p>\n

Together, those witnesses describe a continuous timeline that directly conflicts with the State\u2019s claim that Stanley obtained the LeBaron, travelled to Cleveland, participated in Ronald Lally\u2019s murder, and returned during those same hours.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Evening Before the Murder<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Raymond Pasterczyk, a friend of Stanley\u2019s, stated that he paged Stanley at 5:32 p.m. on January 18, 1994. Stanley returned the call at approximately 5:40 p.m. and said he had just awakened and was preparing to shower. Pasterczyk picked Stanley up from his Court Street apartment at approximately 6:30 p.m.<\/p>\n

The two travelled to Pasterczyk\u2019s home in Rocky River, arriving between 7:15 and 7:20 p.m. Stanley spent several hours cleaning the basement floor, doing other household work, and washing his laundry while Pasterczyk prepared for a birthday gathering. According to Pasterczyk, that work continued until approximately 9:00 p.m.<\/p>\n

Stanley then showered while Pasterczyk prepared dinner. They finished eating at approximately 10:20 p.m., gathered Stanley\u2019s clothing and belongings, and left the house. At approximately 10:50 p.m., Pasterczyk dropped Stanley\u2019s clothing at his apartment and then drove him to the Power Slam bar.<\/p>\n

Pasterczyk had testified only as a character witness during the mitigation phase of Stanley\u2019s trial. He later stated that he would have testified about Stanley\u2019s movements on January 18 had trial counsel or the defense investigator contacted him or returned the telephone calls he made while Stanley was awaiting trial.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Stanley Arrives at His Mother\u2019s Home<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stanley\u2019s older brother, Rick Weir, stated that Stanley arrived at their mother\u2019s house at approximately 11:45 p.m., carrying a six-pack of beer from a downtown bar.<\/p>\n

Rick said he, Stanley, and their younger brother Neil remained awake drinking beer, talking, and discussing a computer program.<\/p>\n

Rick recalled that Neil fell asleep first at approximately 1:00 a.m. Rick and Stanley then continued working on the computer until approximately 2:30 a.m. Rick slept on the couch while Stanley slept on the living-room floor.<\/p>\n

Rick stated that he would have testified as an alibi witness, but Stanley\u2019s attorneys and investigator never contacted him.<\/p>\n

Neil Jalowiec independently confirmed the central details. He stated that Stanley arrived at approximately 11:45 p.m. with a six-pack of beer and that the three brothers stayed awake together while Rick and Stanley argued over the computer program.<\/p>\n

Neil recalled falling asleep at approximately 1:00 a.m. He also stated that he would have testified about Stanley\u2019s whereabouts but was never contacted by the defense.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Stanley Is Still There at 4:30 a.m.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stanley\u2019s mother, Sarah Jalowiec, completed the overnight timeline.<\/p>\n

She stated that when she awoke at approximately 4:30 a.m. on January 19 to prepare for work, Stanley was asleep on her living-room floor.<\/p>\n

Sarah said she was certain of the date because January 19 was her stepfather Clyde Les Davis\u2019s birthday.<\/p>\n

Although Sarah later testified during the penalty phase of Stanley\u2019s trial, she was not prepared to testify about Stanley\u2019s whereabouts that night and was not asked to tell the jury that Stanley had been sleeping in her home during the hours when the State claimed he was at Woodland Cemetery.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A Continuous Timeline<\/strong>:<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Taken together, the four sworn accounts establish the following timeline:<\/p>\n

\n

\u2022 5:40 p.m.<\/strong> \u2014 Stanley returns Raymond Pasterczyk\u2019s page.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2022 6:30 p.m.<\/strong> \u2014 Pasterczyk picks Stanley up from his apartment.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2022 7:15\u20137:20 p.m.<\/strong> \u2014 They arrive at Pasterczyk\u2019s home in Rocky River.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2022 Until approximately 9:00 p.m.<\/strong> \u2014 Stanley performs household work and washes clothing.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2022 9:00\u201310:20 p.m.<\/strong> \u2014 Stanley showers and eats dinner with Pasterczyk.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2022 Approximately 10:50 p.m.<\/strong> \u2014 Pasterczyk drops off Stanley\u2019s clothing and drives him to Power Slam.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2022 Approximately 11:45 p.m.<\/strong> \u2014 Stanley arrives at his mother\u2019s home carrying beer.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2022 Approximately 1:00 a.m.<\/strong> \u2014 Neil falls asleep while Stanley and Rick remain awake.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2022 Until approximately 2:30 a.m.<\/strong> \u2014 Rick and Stanley work on the computer.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2022 Approximately 4:30 a.m.<\/strong> \u2014 Sarah Jalowiec sees Stanley asleep on the living-room floor.<\/p>\n

\n

These accounts cover virtually the entire evening and the critical overnight hours. They contain specific times, locations, activities, and details that overlap with one another.<\/p>\n

Yet the jury deciding Stanley\u2019s guilt never heard this timeline.<\/p>\n

Three of the witnesses said they were never contacted by the defense. The fourth testified only during mitigation and said he was never asked about the events of January 18.<\/p>\n

The result was that Stanley was sentenced to death without the jury hearing sworn evidence placing him away from Woodland Cemetery throughout the period in which the murder occurred.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/use><\/svg>BACK TO HOME<\/span><\/a><\/use><\/svg>EVIDENCE  AND AFFIDAVITS<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
<\/use><\/svg>CONTACT US<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

HOME EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS THE CASE Stanley Jalowiec was convicted and sentenced to death in 1996 for the murder of Ronald Lally. He has maintained from the beginning that he was not involved. How the case began The controlled drug transaction between Danny Smith, Raymond Smith, and the confidential informant Ronald Lally According to the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"brizy-blank-template.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-72","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"brizy_media":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/72","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=72"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/72\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":468,"href":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/72\/revisions\/468"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stanleyjalowiec.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=72"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}