The Idaho Supreme Court has denied John Wurdemann access to a compensation fund intended for defendants who have been wrongfully convicted and can demonstrate their innocence. This fund has previously been used for individuals exonerated by DNA evidence.
John Wurdemann was convicted for a crime in June 2000, involving himself and three others. They were accused of forcing a woman to stop her car on Interstate 84 in Canyon County, demanding money and drugs from her, commandeering her vehicle, and driving her to a dark field along a country road. The group then took the victim’s money, credit cards, and belongings, stabbed her repeatedly, slit her throat, hit her in the head with a baseball bat, slashed her shoulder, set her car on fire, and left her to die.
Four people were initially convicted for these crimes, including John Wurdemann’s brother Kenneth Wurdemann, who pleaded guilty and has since been released.
Ten years later, John Wurdemann’s conviction was overturned on procedural grounds due to ineffective counsel related to an improper police lineup that his attorney failed to object to. The prosecutor chose not to re-try the case because Wurdemann was already serving time for another conviction. The State maintains its position that Wurdemann is guilty of the June 2000 crimes.
“I am pleased with the ruling from the Idaho Supreme Court related to the Innocence Fund,” said Attorney General Raúl Labrador. “Compensating wrongly convicted individuals based on new evidence demonstrating their innocence is a matter of moral fairness. However, demanding access to the fund for a procedural dismissal for ineffective counsel without presenting exonerating evidence is not the same thing.”
The Idaho Supreme Court agreed with the Attorney General’s Office's position and wrote in their opinion: “While the improper admission of the lineup evidence resulted in a reversal of his convictions, this does not establish Wurdemann’s factual innocence. To put it simply, Wurdemann’s convictions were ultimately overturned based on the deficient performance of his trial attorneys and the resultant prejudice to his right to a fair trial—not because evidence showed Wurdemann was actually innocent.”