The Evidence


On June 27, 1994, a jury found Mr. Wainsworth Hall “Not Guilty” for unlawful distribution of cocaine and money laundering.  But, Mr. Hall was sentenced to death due to fabricated testimony from individuals, whom he never met before, who testified that they worked for Mr. Hall in order to reduce their sentence.  The judge caught on to what was going on with the fabricated testimony, and at Mr.Hall’s sentencing told him to save himself, but Mr. Hall refused to turn into a federal informant.  Mr. Hall admits to being involved with a drug operation, but not with the individuals who gave the fabricated testimony.

There were multiple errors conducted by the court, such as the Jury Instructions, and Wainsworth is not supposed to be serving a LIFE sentence.


The jury never found Wainsworth Hall guilty of any specific drug offense.  If Wainsworth was indicted for cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana, the jury was supposed to be specific about which drug they found him guilty of.  The jury did not.  In fact, the judge was supposed to instruct the jury that it must “unanimously agree” that the three or more drug violations were "related" to each other. 

The 4th Circuit stated:

“Hall argues that the judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree that the three or more drug violations were "related" to each other.

We disagree. 

“We do not require that the jurors unanimously agree as to the same predicate acts; this we feel will result in unjustified acquittals frustrating the important policy goals of the CCE. US v. Hall, 93 F. 3d 126 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1996.

The Supreme court of the United States “Agreed” with Mr. Wainsworth Hall.


In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled, "We must decide whether a jury has to agree unanimously about which specific violations make up the "continuing series of violations." We hold that the jury must do so. That is to say, a jury in a federal criminal case brought under § 848 must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed some "continuing series of violations" but also that the defendant committed each of the individual "violations" necessary to make up that "continuing series."  Richardson v. United States, 526 US 813 - Supreme Court 1999 at 815.

The jury never found Mr. Hall guilty of any specific drug offense.  The court was supposed to give Mr. Hall a new trial, but they continue to deny his request for over 25 years.  The 4th circuit agree that the jury instruction was an “error” and that a “new trial” should be granted, which is stated in their opinion.  


US v. Richardson, 233 F. 3d 223 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 2000 at 228.  "The instruction constitutes plain error that warrants a new trial. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). "[U]nder the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v. Olano, we may only reverse a conviction for plain error if the defendant establishes the following: (1) that an error occurred, (2) that it is plain, and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770. 

The courts moved Wainsworth out of the 4th circuit in Virginia, and moved him across the country to the 9th circuit in California.  According to federal law an inmate must reside in the same jurisdiction of the court he is seeking relief from.  Wainsworth request to be sent back to the 4th circuit has been denied for several years.  Wainsworth is now seeking Clemency.
Pin It