To the untrained eye, Marvin Haynes’ case looked hopeless. He had spent almost 20 years in prison for the murder of a flower shop clerk in north Minneapolis in 2004, maintaining his innocence the entire time. Haynes had exhausted his appeals, and the statute of limitations for bringing a post-conviction claim for relief had run out long ago. 

But in 2023, Haynes found hope with the Great North Innocence Project (GNIP) and the Innocence Clinic at Minnesota Law. Based on the evidence presented in Haynes’ application, GNIP’s legal team and the students participating in the clinic believed he was innocent and agreed to take on the challenge. 

“It was an old case that presented significant procedural obstacles,” says Andrew Markquart, managing attorney at GNIP, current director of Minnesota Law’s Innocence Clinic, and lead attorney on the case. “But on the merits, this case was extremely strong.” 

On May 16, 2004, Cynthia McDermid was working at Jerry’s Flower Shop with her brother, Randy Sherer. That morning a young Black man came in and ordered a floral arrangement for his mother. As McDermid turned her back, the customer pulled a gun and demanded money and any surveillance tapes. Hearing the commotion, Sherer came out from the back of the store. When Sherer told the assailant that he had no money apart from what was in the till, McDermid fled out the front door. The startled robber then shot and killed Sherer. 

There was no physical evidence to identify the killer. Eyewitnesses, including McDermid, described the perpetrator as a young Black man with short, close-cropped hair. Investigators showed McDermid a photo lineup from which she identified a man as the perpetrator with 75 to 80 percent accuracy. However, that person was merely a filler and known to be out of state during the time of the murder. Shortly thereafter, a confidential informant called the police and suggested that Haynes was the perpetrator. This complicated the investigation, as Haynes did not match the description eyewitnesses originally gave to police. 

The police picked up Haynes, then 16, on a curfew violation for missing court and interrogated him about the murder. Subsequently, investigators showed McDermid another photo lineup, this time including a photo of Haynes. However, the police used a two-year-old photo that showed Mr. Haynes with short-cropped hair that more closely matched the witnesses’ description of the perpetrator, even though at the time at issue, Mr. Haynes wore his hair in a long, natural style. From this lineup and again during a live lineup, McDermid named Haynes as the culprit. However, she also expressed uncertainty and decreased confidence in her choices. 

The lineup procedures that police engaged in went against best practices. Offering multiple viewings of a suspect to an eyewitness risks tainting their identification, both by suggesting to the witness that the person shown twice is the suspect and by creating a risk that the witness will be confused about whether they recognize the suspect from the actual event or a prior viewing.

The flawed eyewitness evidence was used at Haynes’ murder trial, and a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder in September 2005. In the courtroom, Haynes shouted, “I didn’t kill that man!” The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed his conviction two years later. 

McDermid, the primary eyewitness who saw the shooter, had died by the time Haynes’ case reached the clinic. 

After listening to Haynes’ story, Markquart and former GNIP legal director Julie Jonas ’95 formed a team to thoroughly research the case. 

“The reality of post-conviction litigation is that often you don’t even get to the merits of the case because there are so many procedural obstacles,” Markquart says. “Particularly when you’re talking about older cases, we have a very strict statute of limitations in Minnesota — two years with very narrow exceptions. A lot of the battle was just to overcome those procedural hurdles.” 

“Marvin’s was my primary case when I joined the clinic,” says Trish Palermo ’23, now an associate at Taft. “At first, I sifted through thousands of documents to organize them and make sense of the case before we formed a plan,” says Palermo. She worked with Jonas, now an assistant professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, to create a plan and make note of the witnesses who might help with Haynes’ case. 

As a 1L, Reauna Stiff ’25 was in a criminal law class taught by associate professor Perry Moriearty, who invited her client, Myon Burrell, to speak to the class. Burrell was released by the Minnesota Board of Pardons in 2020. As a result, Stiff became more interested in the challenges incarcerated individuals face, including wrongful conviction. After researching Burrell’s case, Stiff discovered an article in the Star Tribune detailing Haynes’ fight to be released. The article mentioned that the Great North Innocence Project had agreed to take his case. 

“I registered for the Innocence Clinic in the hopes that I would come across Mr. Haynes’ case,” says Stiff. “I was assigned to the case during the first week of classes.” 

Stiff adds: “As students, we spend a lot of time studying the theory behind laws, but rarely do we encounter someone who’s been directly impacted by the criminal justice system. I entered law school to get involved in civil rights or civil rights-adjacent work.” 

Poring through filings, interviews, and police documents, the team became more and more convinced of Haynes’ innocence. 

“After sifting through thousands of documents to make sense of his case, it became clear from the start that Marvin was wrongfully convicted,” says Palermo. “I worked with Julie Jonas to form a plan for tracking down witnesses that might have knowledge on Marvin’s case. One-by-one, we tracked down individuals by knocking on their doors, calling them, or sending them letters. There was a clear pattern with those we spoke to — all minors at that time, pressured and threatened by MPD to offer statements placing Marvin at the scene of the crime. GNIP used this evidence to support their case to overturn Marvin’s conviction.” 

Midway through the process, the team got an unexpected break. A second eyewitness, then 14-year-old Ravi Seeley, signed an affidavit recanting his original identification of Haynes. 

In June 2023, Markquart, GNIP Legal Fellow Anna McGinn, and GNIP pro bono attorney Jazz Hampton filed a petition for post-conviction relief seeking to vacate Haynes’ conviction. The petition included new testimony from Seely, who said he felt coerced by police to make an identification — and that he was never sure he’d seen Haynes but was worried at the time that he would get in trouble if he didn’t cooperate. 

“I began to feel more optimistic after we interviewed Ravi,” says Palermo. “He provided an affidavit that essentially confirmed that many of the witnesses who had testified were pressured to do so.” 

Haynes was exonerated in December 2023 when 4th Judicial District Judge William Koch signed an agreement between Haynes and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, which had brought the original murder charges, saying a flawed investigation violated Haynes’ constitutional rights and led to his wrongful conviction. 

“It was a huge success for us,” says Sara Jones ’88, executive director of GNIP. “The way it was negotiated with the Hennepin County Attorney’s office, it was an amazing thing to watch.” 

GNIP recently advocated for legislation (HF 2400 / SF 2597) that will change how Minnesota’s statute of limitations works. The legislation passed as part of the recent omnibus package at the Minnesota Legislature. “We’re looking for a more reasonable standard,” Markquart says. “In a case like Marvin’s, it would make it a lot easier for him to get back into court.” 

As Haynes rebuilds a life outside prison, he expressed his appreciation for the help he got from the Great North Innocence Project and the Innocence Clinic. “It was wonderful working with the team. Everyone I worked with developed a great understanding of my situation and really dove into my case and took the process seriously.”