CLEVELAND — The prosecution's "star" witness in a 2008 homicide case recanted her testimony during an evidentiary hearing in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court on Tuesday.
Watch the video below:
Clifshell Stevenson, 30, testified that her trial testimony identifying Roberto Wynn as the shooter was not truthful.
She said, "I did not see him fire a gun." Instead, she said she saw him "running for cover."
She said she has felt guilty about her initial testimony for years.
"I just feel like my spirit been under attack since this all transpired," she said.
Stevenson was 13 when she first testified in the case. She said she felt pressured by Cleveland police and a family member to name Wynn.
Wynn was convicted of the fatal shooting of Christopher Basie, who died in the drive-by shooting on Parmelee Avenue.
Cuyahoga prosecutors said Stevenson is not a credible witness and that three other witnesses, who had similar stories, also identified Wynn as the shooter.
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Saffold said he will review all of the available evidence and rule on whether Wynn should be granted a new trial.
News 5 Investigation
Judge Saffold granted Wynn's attorney permission to file a motion for a new trial after a July attorney conference held the same day a News 5 investigation into Wynn's case aired.
The report highlighted that Wynn had been waiting over two years for a ruling on his motion to seek a new trial.
"I appreciate you airing this story, not just for myself, but for everybody else that's wrongfully incarcerated," Wynn said during a phone call from prison with News 5 Investigator Sarah Buduson.
The witness signed a letter recanting her testimony in 2022.
In the letter, she said she "blamed" Wynn for a shooting that "he didn't commit" and that she was sure he "didn't have a gun."
She wrote that she was mad at him at the time and did not realize his "life would be spent in a cage" over her statements.
The Ohio Innocence Project filed a motion requesting a hearing to present the evidence in 2024.
RELATED: The 'star' witness recanted. So why can't he get a new trial?
The request sat on Judge Saffold's docket for over two years, until our July investigation revealed how long Wynn had waited for a decision.
Wynn's interview
During the phone interview, Wynn said he was anxious, excited and nervous about Tuesday's hearing.
"My life is in the balance," he said. " I just want my freedom back."
Wynn's parents said they are hopeful Wynn will ultimately be set free.
"It's not just him locked up. We been locked up too," Wynn's father, Ronnie, said.
"I look at it as my prayers has been answered," Wynn's mother, Carla Butler, said.
Innocence cases often languish
"Unfortunately, delays are very common," Michael Donnelly, a former Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge, said.
"It's not because of an individual judge. It's a systemic problem," he said.
After 14 years on the bench in Cuyahoga County, Donnelly was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court. He is currently an adjunct law professor at Cleveland State University's College of Law and the creator of Ohio Court Watch, which aims to increase transparency and oversight in the state's legal system.
RELATED: Who gets a second chance with the Ohio Supreme Court and who doesn't?
"The safeguards that people have on the front end of the system, like the right to an attorney, the right to a speedy trial, those don't exist," he said. "As a result, cases can languish.”
Since 2014, News 5 Investigators found 28 Cuyahoga County cases where motions for a new trial were open longer than 120 days, which is the standard set by the Ohio Supreme Court.
"In post-conviction [proceedings], people can basically file anything," Donnelly said. "There's a lot of the motions that are frivolous."
"Unfortunately, cases that do have merit — that have been opposed by the state and there may be evidence to be tested — they get lost in the mix," he said.
What's being done to prevent this?
Ohio Court Watch recently launched a website that tracks cases involving innocence claims in hopes of shining a light on people waiting to learn whether they will be allowed to present new evidence.
A proposed state law would also make it easier for innocence claimants to obtain post-conviction relief.
H.B. 177 requires judges to hold a hearing when they find that an innocence claimant's case has credible new evidence. However, like many innocence cases, the legislation has also languished.
The bill was introduced in March 2025 and assigned to the Ohio House Judiciary Committee but has yet to receive a single hearing.
"This would be a reform of great significance," Donnelly said. "If you could undermine the theory of guilt, you're entitled to a new trial under the law," he said.
"But the hurdle — because of the flaw in the law in post-conviction right now — you can't get there."
Donnelly said attorneys can complain to the Ohio Court of Appeals or the Ohio Supreme Court when a judge delays ruling on a motion.
However, he said most attorneys do not because they fear angering the judge whose ruling they are seeking.
