Broken Scales: Seeking Justice for Philip Vance

Two decades ago, Philip Vance’s life was set on the scales of justice. And found wanting. Convicted of murder, he was sentenced to life in prison. A jury found him guilty on all three counts: second-degree intentional, first-degree intentional, and first-degree premeditated. In just eight hours.

In fact, his direct appeal was denied (2006) as were four subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief (filed in 2007, 2008, and 2019 twice). As far as the justice system was concerned, there seemed little doubt that Philip Vance was guilty. But Philip himself knew otherwise.

This article is an analysis reflecting context, research and perspectives from a volunteer with the Free Philip Vance Team. Find Unicorn Riot’s reporting on Philip Vance here.

When Minnesota’s Conviction Review Unit (CRU) was established in 2021, Vance was among the first to apply for relief. Although the CRU accepted his case for review, they have been unconscionably slow in their process. He had his final interview in March 2024 and—for the past year—has been waiting for a final report with no word on when it might come. That past year marked the twenty-second year of his wrongful imprisonment.

Which is why he recently (February 26) filed a new—fifth—petition in Dakota County District Court. At the heart of this petition, drafted by new legal counsel, is the claim that his case demonstrates an instance of “structural error”: that it was marred by actions so grave they fundamentally prevented the proceedings from delivering justice. The petition raises other concerns as well (ineffective counsel at both trial and appellate levels), but the allegation of structural error is most damning. It asserts that Philip never had a chance for a fair trial even before the proceedings were gaveled in. For him, the scales of justice were broken.

Here’s what happened:

In December 2002, a South St. Paul store clerk was shot and killed during an apparent robbery. Witnesses reported seeing two masked assailants but could provide no other details—not even skin color— although one witness said the killer spoke in what sounded like Spanish (Philip does not speak Spanish). Soon after the murder, Philip was identified as a primary suspect by the Metro Gang Strike Force (MGSF). Arrested on an unrelated charge in March 2003, he was then held on this charge until his trial and sentencing.

From his first encounter with the police until today, some 8000-plus days, Philip has unwaveringly asserted his innocence. Including on the days he rejected plea deals because taking them would have required an admission of guilt he was unwilling — unable — to make.

Meanwhile, at trial, the prosecution offered no eyewitness identification or surveillance footage, no gun or DNA, no fingerprints, footprints, or tire tracks—no physical evidence at all connecting Philip to the crime. Nothing. So how did they make a case that resulted in such a resounding verdict (on all three counts) and in such short order?

Largely because they had a steady parade of witnesses who testified that they heard Philip make remarks linking him to the crime, including several who alleged he had directly acknowledged or confessed his role to them. These witnesses, framed by the prosecution’s narrative and supporting testimony from police officers, made a compelling case even in the absence of any physical evidence.

But what if all the witnesses were lying? (Jailhouse informants, as several of the witnesses against Philip were, are notoriously unreliable. Not because of poor character, but because they’re incentivized to bargain their words against the desperation of their own circumstances.) And what if, by some mix of harassment, threat, bargain, and bribery, even the other witnesses were set up by the police to finger a man about whose guilt they had no knowledge?

See Unicorn Riot’s coverage of Philip Vance’s case.

And what if a group of rogue police officers suppressed, mishandled, or even destroyed potentially beneficial evidence (including witness recordings and a possible alibi), and kept these actions unknown to the defense? If all that were true, you would have a case of structural error—an instance where the scales of justice were entirely prevented from functioning. Period. And that’s what this petition argues. With receipts.

It comes with sworn affidavits from twelve persons who have now, under oath, recanted their original testimony and/or supplied new evidence, while also disclosing the extent to which they were pressured by police during the investigation. It references the 2009 Review Report on the MGSF that found such widespread corruption (including mishandling and destruction of evidence and coercing witnesses) that it disbanded the whole unit. And it comes with evidence that both police and the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence or refused to correct testimony it knew was false.

Finally, the petition makes the case that far from being a string of malicious yet disconnected errors, these errors were concerted and coordinated in a pattern of actions that broke the very scales of justice that these proceedings depend on.

The claims are shocking—but substantiated with affidavits and other exhibits. They need to be heard. In the interests of justice, they ought to be heard swiftly. The petition seeks a new evidentiary hearing, to vacate the verdicts and conviction and, ultimately, to set Philip Vance free.

However, less than 24 hours after this petition was filed, Kathy Keena’s Office of Dakota County Attorney asked the Court to require no response from her office until 45 days after the CRU submits its final report. (Despite there being no timeline for when that final report is due!)

Her request appears disingenuous from multiple angles.

First, the 45 days she asks for more than doubled the 20 days allotted her office by the Court in its original January 2023 order. That’s a whole other story. Philip had delayed filing this new petition two years ago, to see whether the CRU process would work. The Court granted his request for a delay—necessary to keep his legal options alive—and in that order the Court gave Keena’s office 20 days after whenever Philip chose to file his petition to make its response. Thus, her request for 45 days tries to alter the terms of that earlier order—and to further obstruct and delay Philip’s claim for justice.

Second, in her letter to the Court, Keena asserts the CRU has informed both parties that “a final report is expected soon,” but neither Philip nor his attorney have heard anything from the CRU in eleven months now, which is the very reason he brought this petition. Whether or not Keena is aware of the CRU’s total silence toward Philip and his attorney, her letter factually misrepresents the situation in seeking a further delay.

Third, and most importantly, one condition of the CRU is that applicants must forgo any legal claims while their case is under review. But by now Philip is convinced the CRU is more interested in silencing his claim of innocence than in honestly investigating it. It is, after all, staffed by prosecutors who seem more determined to protect the verdicts achieved by their peers than to genuinely explore the claims of innocence by their clients. By filing this new petition—in sincere pursuit of justice and freedom—Philip chose to exit the CRU process. The CRU was never his attorney, but as of the filing of this new petition, the CRU no longer has any authority in his case. He and his attorney have set a new course.

Ironically (an understatement at best!), twenty-two years ago, it was Kathy Keena herself, in one of her first cases as a prosecutor, who used all that false testimony to put Philip Vance behind bars. So, she might well prefer to have Philip’s allegations held in safekeeping by the CRU. But that’s no longer her call.

With this petition Philip is setting his life on those scales again. After twenty-two years, it’s time for them to deliver justice.

HOW TO HELP: Philip needs to raise $50,000 to cover the costs of legal representation for this petition. To date, we’ve raised over $43,000. To help us get to the finish line, you can donate here.

David Weiss is a member of the Free Philip Vance Campaign. With graduate degrees in theology and Christian ethics, he has taught religion Augsburg University, St. Catherine University, and Hamline University. He currently writes and speaks independently on contemporary issues. His blog “Full Frontal Faith: Erring on the Edge of Honest.”