Monroe County District Attorney’s Office

The Monroe County District Attorney’s Office is the county prosecution office whose changing leadership briefly seemed to offer a path toward a fair review of Walter McMillian’s conviction. The contrast between longtime prosecutor Ted Pearson and his successor, Tom Chapman, sets up a moment of hope that is sharply tested when Bryan Stevenson meets with Chapman and finds him determined to defend the existing verdict.

Leadership and a Promised New Era

After Pearson’s long tenure as district attorney, Chapman’s election was regarded by some as the beginning of a new era. Chapman, in his forties, had spoken about modernizing law enforcement in the region. There was also speculation that he might seek statewide office, making his ambitions part of the local conversation about what his leadership could bring.

Chapman’s background initially encouraged optimism about McMillian’s case. He had formerly practiced criminal defense, and Stevenson learned that he had represented Karen Kelly in an earlier proceeding. That prior connection meant Chapman was already familiar with the case; to Stevenson, it suggested that the new district attorney would not be approaching it without context.

Stevenson’s Visit

Stevenson called Chapman a few days later to arrange a meeting. When he returned to the courthouse, he went through the building to find the district attorney’s office and introduced himself to the secretary. She regarded him suspiciously before directing him to Chapman’s office, where Chapman came over to shake his hand.

The courteous greeting did not hold. Chapman dismissed the opinions of people Stevenson had spoken with as uninformed and without facts. He maintained that evidence implicated Walter McMillian in the murder and framed his own responsibility as defending the conviction. As the exchange continued, Chapman grew more argumentative and raised his voice; the calm, curious manner he had shown at first gave way to anger and disgust.

The Office’s Position on the Conviction

The meeting exposed the difference between the promise attached to a change in leadership and the position Chapman took as district attorney. His former defense practice, stated interest in modernizing local law enforcement, and prior familiarity with Karen Kelly had given Stevenson grounds for hope. But Chapman’s response was not to signal a fresh examination of the conviction: he insisted that his job was to defend it.

In the account, the office is represented through this confrontation with its new leader. The episode shows how a prosecutorial office’s approach to a wrongful-conviction claim can turn on whether its leadership treats the verdict as open to scrutiny or as something to protect. Chapman’s insistence on defending McMillian’s conviction made the transition from Pearson to Chapman less a resolution than a test of the optimism that had accompanied it.