In 1993, Kenneth Reams was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a nearly all-white jury for the killing of a white man during the course of an ATM robbery in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Mr. Reams was sentenced to death for murder despite another person confessing to pulling the trigger. The shooter pleaded guilty in exchange for a life sentence. At just 19 years old, he became the youngest person to enter death row in Arkansas.
The Legal Defense Fund and co-counsel have represented Mr. Reams since 1995.
In 2017, after years of advocacy, the Jefferson County Circuit Court vacated Mr. Reams’ death sentence. The court found that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of Mr. Reams’s capital trial. In 2018, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the Jefferson County Circuit Court’s decision. The Arkansas courts did not, however, overturn the trial conviction.
Mr. Reams spent 20 years on death row before his death sentence was overturned in 2018, including decades in solitary confinement. He is now serving a life sentence.
Despite these circumstances, Mr. Reams has transformed his life and made it his mission to create positive change within his community. Mr. Reams is a social justice advocate, visual artist, poet, and renowned public speaker. Drawing from his experiences, today he works to inspire others and disrupt cycles of violence and incarceration in his hometown of Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
In 2022, LDF requested relief for the underlying conviction in federal court in a habeas petition.
In a 101-page “recommended disposition” issued in 2024, a magistrate court concluded the State violated Batson v. Kentucky, by discriminatorily excluding Black individuals from the jury. Describing the jury selection process in Mr. Reams’ case as a “racially tinged legal farce,” a magistrate court concluded that Mr. Reams’ 14th Amendment rights were violated and recommended vacating his capital-murder conviction.
LDF is now awaiting a decision from the federal district court on a habeas petition requesting a new trial.
This case presents strong claims of gross ineffective assistance of counsel and systemic racial bias.
In 1993, the part time public defender appointed to represent MR. Reams had over 700 clients and up to 25 jury trials per year, That year, Mr. Reams’ attorney took five death penalty even though he had never represented a client facing the death penalty. Mr. Reams was his very first death penalty case.
Mr. Reams’ attorney made only one objection during the prosecution’s entire case despite several instances of inappropriate testimony. Mr. Reams was called to testify in his own defense. There were no other defense witnesses, The attorney failed to present a coherent case for a life sentence, even though Mr. Reams was only 18 years old at the time of the crime.
At the time of Mr. Reams’ trial, the Jefferson County Circuit Court still bore the hallmarks of segregation. Many Black people lived their entire lives in Jefferson County without being called for jury duty – with juries frequently being comprised of 10-20% Black people despite the Black population in Jefferson County nearing 50%. Judges told jokes imbued with racism when the jury was not present, and would address Black jurors by their first names while referring to white jurors as “Mr.” or “Ms.”
The trial prosecutors in Mr. Reams’ case used peremptory strikes in jury selection to systematically exclude Black prospective jurors on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14thAmendment. By striking Black potential jurors, prosecutors violated their obligations under Batson v. Kentucky.
There is troubling evidence that Black jurors are systematically underrepresented in Jefferson County juries and that prosecutors are routinely using peremptory challenges to exclude Black potential jurors. The exclusion of Black jurors is part of a larger pattern pervading the criminal legal system. For too long, Black people have faced significant racial bias in the jury selection process, and this case tragically reflects this reality.
The prosecution withheld critical evidence from the defense. Trial prosecutors violated their obligations under Brady v. Maryland by withholding material and exculpatory evidence about a paid informant, Jermaine Brown.
Additionally, Mr. Reams was tried by a judge who was later convicted of a felony and removed from the bench.
The death penalty in the United States is rooted in slavery lynchings, white vigilantism, and racial inequities in sentencing that persist to this day. Since 1973, at least 200 people wrongly convicted and sentenced to death have been exonerated. 108 of death row exonerees are Black.
Arkansas has a long history of racial discrimination in capital punishment. Black Arkansans are overrepresented on the state’s death row. As of 2026, 50% of the individuals on Arkansas death row are Black. Meanwhile, Black people comprise just 17% of the state’s population.
Court testimony indicates that Jefferson County deputy prosecutors routinely used racially motivated peremptory challenges to exclude Black members of from serving on juries in criminal cases involving serious violent crimes; especially cases where defendant was Black and the victim was white.
The case of Kenneth Reams was no different. Racial bias infected Mr. Reams’ trial proceedings.
Kenneth Reams is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Mr, Reams was just 18 at the time of the crime and 19 when sentenced. He became the youngest person on death row in Arkansas. The case was riddled with systemic racial bias and clear-cut jury discrimination.
Mr. Reams appeals his conviction and death sentence.
The Arkansas State Supreme Court upholds Mr. Reams conviction and death sentence.
Mr. Reams’ sentence becomes final.
The Legal Defense Fund files a petition for post-conviction relief in state court. The petition raises 14 potential grounds for relief including claims that the State used its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner to remove Black prospective jurors and that the Mr. Reams’ trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
An evidentiary hearing on all the claims raised is ordered. After four days of testimony, the hearing is halted due to concerns regarding the impartiality of the trial judge. The judge recuses himself.
The evidentiary hearing continues before a new judge where the judge heard from more than 13 witnesses.
Both parties filed simultaneous post-hearing briefs. LDF’s 120-page brief demonstrated that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing established that Reams’ trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.
The trial court issues an order granting part of Mr. Reams’ post-conviction petition. The court vacates Mr. Reams’ death sentence because of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate during the penalty phase.
The Arkansas Supreme agrees with the trial court and vacates Mr. Reams’ death sentence because his trial attorney’s failure to investigate.
LDF files a clemency petition. In the petition, Mr. Reams’ legal team shared Mr. Reams’ transformation since entering prison, exemplified by his commitment to using his artistic talents to educate the public about the impact of incarceration on him and others who have been incarcerated.
Mr. Reams’ clemency petition is denied.
LDF files a federal habeas petition on Aug. 9, 2022 requesting relief for the underlying conviction. The federal habeas petition contains the following legal claims: (1) the state court ruling unreasonably denied Mr. Reams’ Batson claim, (2) trial counsel was ineffective at trial for failing to conduct a thorough guilt-phase investigation and for failing to present crucial and available exculpatory evidence, and (c) trial counsel was ineffective at trial for failing to object to highly prejudicial evidence.
In a comprehensive 101-page opinion, the magistrate court recommends that Mr. Reams’ habeas corpus petition be granted based on the Arkansas state courts’ unconstitutional denial of Mr. Reams’ Batson claim. The Report also examines whether habeas corpus relief should be granted based on two ineffective assistance of counsel claims: trial counsel’s failure to call two available, exculpatory witnesses to testify at trial, and trial counsel’s failure to object to the admission of prejudicial other crimes evidence. Although the court recommends that the District Court deny both claims, it recommends granting a certificate of appealability for counsel’s failure to call two exculpatory witnesses.
