By Mrs. Eileen Hunter — about the author. Posted August 8, 2026. Last updated August 9, 2026.
What the record shows
This section states only what appears in filed, unsealed records of this prosecution. Our own conclusions are separately marked, under “Our view,” at the bottom of the page.
On the night of March 10, 2001, Levi “Chico” Williams and two eleven-year-old boys, Chavez Staten and Jeremy Staten, were shot and killed at 221 Greenwood Drive in the Tanglewood Heights subdivision of Monroe, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. (Statement of Facts; trial record; opening statements, trial transcript.)
Tony Lavelle Hunter was indicted on October 17, 2002 for three counts of second-degree murder and one count of armed robbery. Trial began February 17, 2004. On March 4, 2004 the jury returned verdicts of guilty on the three murder counts and the responsive verdict of attempted armed robbery. On May 25, 2004 he was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole, plus a consecutive 49½ years, all four counts running consecutively.
The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed. State v. Hunter, 39,664, p. 5 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/05); 907 So. 2d 200, 204, writ denied, 2005-2027 (La. 3/10/06); 925 So. 2d 507.
No physical or forensic evidence connected Mr. Hunter to the scene. The prosecutor told the jury so in his own opening statement: “the crime scene unit did not recover any usable prints from inside 221 Greenwood,” and there was no “other physical evidence that would link the inside of 221 Greenwood to Tony Hunter.” He repeated it in closing: “they found no physical evidence at the scene… They looked for prints, but they found none that were usable… There were no tire prints… There were no footprints.” (Prosecution opening and closing, trial transcript.)
The State’s case rested on three men incarcerated at the Ouachita Parish Correctional Center alongside Mr. Hunter, each of whom testified that he confessed.
Affirming the conviction, the Second Circuit described that testimony as “the only evidence that directly linked Tony Hunter with the crime.”
State v. Hunter, 39,664, p. 5 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/05); 907 So. 2d 200, 204.
The jury never heard his alibi. Two people placed Mr. Hunter elsewhere on the night of the killings — at a neighborhood birthday party with his young daughter until about 7:30 p.m., and then home with his family for the rest of the evening. Neither was called to testify, and one of the two accounts does not appear anywhere in the 282-page offense report, though she is listed in it as a witness. (Brenda Graves interview, May 8, 2001, OPSO offense report; Affidavit of Stephanie Stokes, December 19, 2022, filed in the 2022 application for post-conviction relief.)
The other half: what the courts have held
The Second Circuit rejected the sufficiency challenge. It treated the informants’ accounts as direct rather than circumstantial evidence, and wrote that “the jury… heard, in great detail, the prior convictions and sentences of the inmate witnesses and, likewise, heard the possibility for favorable treatment the inmates might receive by testifying.” It found the defense had full cross-examination rights and that nothing showed the witnesses acted as government agents.
Five applications for post-conviction relief have been denied — May 31, 2007; July 14, 2009; May 29, 2013; February 1, 2023 (the Second Circuit denying June 1, 2023 and the Louisiana Supreme Court November 21, 2023); and April 29, 2026.
A federal habeas petition was dismissed as time-barred, leaving the 2009 Brady claim without review on the merits by any federal court.
Where the case stands now
The most recent application for post-conviction relief — a Brady / Giglio / Napue claim concerning undisclosed impeachment evidence about one of the three witnesses — was filed in March 2026 and supplemented on April 20, 2026 with that witness’s sentencing transcripts and court minutes.
Judge C. Wendell Manning denied it in a ruling signed April 29 and filed May 4, 2026, on two grounds: failure to comply with La. C.Cr.P. art. 926, and that the claim was duplicative of prior applications. A Motion to Reconsider was denied June 9, 2026.
An application for supervisory writ was filed in the Louisiana Second Circuit on July 9, 2026 and is pending. It asks the court to reverse and remand for the evidentiary hearing article 930 requires.
Mr. Hunter is incarcerated at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, St. Gabriel, Louisiana. He is represented by Longman Jakuback, APLC, Baton Rouge.
The four issues
Each links to a page that sets out the record in full.
- No physical evidence — no DNA, no fingerprints, no ballistics link, no fibers, no footprints or tire tracks. A Gene Screen report dated January 30, 2002, received by the State on February 2, 2002, excluded Mr. Hunter from the scene, the victims, and the weapon.
- The jailhouse informants — Vaccara Comanche, Clarence Kennedy, and Christopher Wiggins: what each testified, what each faced, and what each received.
- The window — two of the three said they overheard a conversation through a Pod 10 jail window. What the record says about whether that was possible.
- Withheld and uncorrected evidence — a second statement about the murder weapon, an illegally lenient plea, and undisclosed sentencing exposure.
Our view
This section is the site’s own analysis. It is not a report of any proceeding. It rests on the facts set out above and on the linked pages.
In our view, the record does not support this conviction. The State’s own opening and closing told the jury there was no physical evidence, and the Second Circuit described the informants’ testimony as the only evidence directly linking Mr. Hunter to the crime. What remained was the word of three men who were each facing substantial sentences at the prosecution’s discretion, whose accounts contradicted one another on the weapon, the cell, the time of day, and who was in the room. We think a jury told the full history of those three men could reasonably have reached a different verdict.
We do not say here that any witness committed perjury or that any official broke the law. Where a court has made a finding, we report the finding. Where it has not, we set the documents side by side and let readers draw their own conclusions.