UTAH STATE PRISON — Adrian Gordon has been in prison since 2002 after a judge convicted him of murdering a man behind a Salt Lake 7-Eleven store.

He is serving a sentence of five years to life for the 2001 killing of Lee Lundskog. The judge said there was no doubt Gordon intended to kill Lundskog, who was described as a gentle, mentally disabled man.

"The motive is perhaps the saddest thing of all — money, less than $45," Judge Leslie Lewis said.

But Gordon's attorney at the time said there wasn't "a scintilla" of direct evidence tying his client to the crime. And Gordon has maintained his innocence from the beginning.

Likewise, the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center believes Gordon didn't kill anyone.

"We're convinced Mr. Gordon is innocent and we're not going to stop fighting until we prove that," said spokeswoman Marla Kennedy.

But when attorneys for the center appear before the Utah Supreme Court on Friday, they will not ask the justices to overturn Gordon's conviction and sentence. Rather, they just want someone to give him a chance. They are asking the court to order DNA testing of evidence that was never tested for his original trial.

"We're not asking them to open up the prison gates and release Adrian tomorrow," Kennedy said. "We're asking just for the chance to say, 'We think he's innocent. He knows he's innocent. And there's a test that may be able to prove that.' If you're afraid of that, we don't understand why. If you've got the wrong guy, there's a way to make it right and that's by testing that evidence."

But state investigators are opposing the DNA request and say the law doesn't require them to administer it.

Botched investigation?

Early on the morning of Sept. 29, 2001, the body of Lundskog, 50, was found in a grass strip behind a 7-Eleven at 1285 N. Redwood Road. That same morning, Gordon had been inside the convenience store. Store surveillance video confirmed that Gordon had walked inside to use the phone, walked out, then walked back a few minutes later. He was later picked up by his girlfriend, whom he had called, and they drove away from the store.

Having nothing to hide, he said, Gordon contacted Salt Lake police when he found out they wanted to question him.

"I thought I was going home when I went to the police station. I ain't never been out since," Gordon said.

Gordon recounted his story to the KSL during a recent sit down interview at the Utah State Prison. It's the first time he has talked publicly about his case.

Taking the advice of his attorney during his original trial, Gordon opted for a bench trial instead of having a jury consider his fate. The defense rested without calling a single witness. Gordon was convicted by Lewis, a 3rd District judge.

In convicting Gordon, Lewis said the totality of the evidence "painted a vivid picture" of his guilt.

Gordon appealed his conviction, claiming his due process was violated in part because of ineffective counsel, but that argument was ultimately rejected by the Utah Supreme Court.

The Rocky Mountain Innocence Center — a nonprofit organization that works to correct and prevent the conviction of innocent people in Utah, Nevada and Wyoming — and a new set of attorneys took up Gordon's case in 2004. Since then, the organization has been fighting to get him a new trial.

Even though the state's high court has already rejected Gordon's appeal once, Kennedy said the latest appeal is different.

"They'll hear it again. They'll hear it until we exhaust every possible appeal he's got. We think we have compelling new evidence that shows that his case wasn't handled properly," she said.

The Rocky Mountain Innocence Center believes there were several flaws with the Salt Lake police investigation, including important pieces of evidence that were not collected, too much consideration given to unreliable witnesses and a lack of investigation of other potential suspects.

The crime scene

Reports from the trial said Lundskog bought two Big Gulps and went behind the store early that morning to a regular place where he drank the sodas and smoked. One witness said he saw Gordon wave at Lundskog, as if to beckon him. Surveillance video shows Lundskog heading in Gordon's direction, according to court documents. Another witness said he saw a man stomp and kick Lundskog behind the store and later identified Gordon as the attacker based on his physical description and his clothing.

That witness failed to positively identify Gordon in a photo line-up and during a preliminary hearing, court documents state. But the Utah Supreme Court dismissed that, noting he identified Gordon at trial as the attacker.

But according to attorneys for the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center, a Hispanic man walked into the 7-Eleven that morning wearing a shirt "soaked in blood" who was hysterical and appeared "out of it." Police and paramedics responded to the call about that man and discovered Lundskog's body. That man in the bloody shirt left the store before police arrived and was never found.

The center's attorneys also claim that one of the witnesses later admitted he lied to police. Another claimed to see a small amount of blood on his shoes from more than 100 feet away, in the dark.

Among the pieces of evidence at the scene, investigators found a 12- by 20-inch concrete piece of fence panel from a sound wall being constructed between the store and an adjacent apartment complex. The panel piece was covered in blood and was found next to Lundskog's head.

"Although the officers and EMS workers consistently referenced the bloody concrete panel in their reports, it was not taken into evidence," the Innocence Center noted.

Attorneys for the center also claim in court documents that detectives waited 90 minutes before entering the 7-Eleven, but by that time "all the floors had been mopped, and the counters wiped clean during a scheduled employee shift change."

Other discrepancies the center says it found in Gordon's case include:

• Bloody shoe prints with "Reebok" clearly on the tread were found walking away from Lundskog's body. The shoe prints were not Gordon's size.
• No blood was ever found on Gordon's clothes, shoes or in his girlfriend's car.
• The medical examiner determined Lundskog's injuries were caused by "some type of instrument with a 'more rough and uneven edge and surface'" — something that wouldn't typically be caused by the bottom of rubber-soled shoes. Prosecutors claimed Lundskog died because he was stomped to death. "Simply put, this evidence puts the state's entire theory into question," the center wrote in its court brief.
• Based on store surveillance video, Gordon would have committed the murder in four minutes. Yet when he walked back into the store after allegedly committing the murder, "He has no blood on his clothes, appears calm and acts no differently from his previous appearances on the video," according to the center.

"Put simply, officers ignored all of the physical evidence in favor of a highly questionable eyewitness identification, an equally questionable witness connecting the victim to Mr. Gordon, and a videotape showing Mr.Gordon (and many others) at the scene the morning of the murder. This egregious disregard for and destruction of critical and determinative physical evidence unquestionably violated Mr. Gordon's right to due process," center attorneys wrote in an earlier court filings.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled, however, that Gordon's right to due process was not violated. Attorneys for the center wrote in their appeal in January that they believe the court erred in its decision.

"Gordon did not ask the district court to set him free. He simply asked for a new trial where he could present a fair defense — fairness guaranteed by the U.S. and Utah constitutions. The district court denied him that opportunity. Gordon does not ask this court to determine he is innocent or set him free. Rather, he asks this court to correct the district court's errors."

DNA testing

Despite the other contradictions in the investigation that the center claims points to their client's innocence, all it wants now is the chance to have DNA preserved from the crime scene tested. None of the evidence collected on the night of the murder has ever had DNA tested, Kennedy said.

"There wasn't a single piece of physical evidence presented at that trial that tied Mr. Gordon to the crime in any way at all. We're saying the system is made up of people and people make mistakes," she said. "We're saying there's a simple way to clear this up: test the evidence for DNA. We believe the perpetrator, the person that killed the victim, left their DNA somewhere at that scene and we don't believe Adrian's DNA is anywhere near there."

The state contended that Gordon killed Lundskog for the $45 in his wallet. At the crime scene, there were empty 7-Eleven cups, Lundskog's wallet and a pair of sunglasses lying near the victim's body.

"Despite the fact that the police and prosecution believed that robbery motivated Mr. Lundskog's attacker, they failed to test Mr. Lundskog's wallet for fingerprints or DNA. They also failed to test the sunglasses or lighter — neither of which could be identified as belonging to Lundskog. Similarly, they did not test the cigarette butts or the straws found near the body for DNA. They did not test Mr. Lundskog's half-full carton of cigarettes that had been tossed into a nearby trash can," according to court documents filed by attorneys for the center.

According to Utah law, post-conviction DNA can be tested if "the evidence was not previously subjected to DNA testing."

However, the state is expected to argue that the law does not allow for Gordon's DNA to be tested. The Utah Code book also states: "The court may not order DNA testing in cases in which DNA testing was available at the time of trial and the person did not request DNA testing or present DNA evidence for tactical reasons."

Salt Lake police referred all questions about the case to the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office. District Attorney Sim Gill, whose office is not involved in the appeal, spoke in general about post-conviction testing but not specifically about the Gordon case. He said he supports the process.

"I think where issues are valid and raise a legitimate concern, it is in everyone's interest to have a mechanism to make sure we have the right person. But there is a process, and we shouldn't be overturning what are otherwise legitimate convictions," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Utah Attorney General's Office said the law is fairly straightforward on this issue, and the state does not have to test the DNA.

Related Story

2 cold case victims identified in Juab Co. thanks to DNA

A woman found dead at Yuba Reservoir in 1978 was positively identified by DNA testing in August, becoming the second named cold case victim in Juab County in the past two years, police say.

'Gotta brainwash yourself'

As Gordon sat in prison, he showed pictures of his nieces and nephews. The last time he saw them, they were all young children. Now, at least one recently graduated from high school. Gordon also has pictures of his young sons, one of whom he's never met.

Even though Gordon has been in prison for more than a decade for a crime he insists he didn't commit, he said he has to make the best of the situation and not dwell on all the years he has missed.

"You gotta drop that thought, don't let it get to you. If you stay stuck on that, you're done. You gotta brainwash yourself," he said. "You should be trying to build something every day. If you dive into all your emotions, you're done."

Gordon said he spends his days now occupied with exercising and weight training, and reading autobiographies.

Even with all the appeals and court proceedings that have been happening with unsuccessful results so far, Gordon said he has to "let them do their thing. You gotta do your thing."

Gordon said his first parole hearing isn't scheduled until 2027. Generally, the members of the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole like to hear an inmate show remorse for their crime and take responsibility for what happened before they will consider releasing them.

It's something Gordon could do some day just to get out. But he says he won't do that. He won't admit to something he says he didn't do.

"I'll die trying if that's what it takes," he said. "I don't deserve to be here."

Gordon said he still has the support of his family and has found a lot of support among other inmates in the prison who believe his story.

Related topics