“she changed her story three times”
So which version was true?
IMO - if the testimony of this witness was the only evidence used to convict a man “presumed to be innocent”, then justice was not served.
She initially didn't want to get involved and said so when initially interviewed because she was concerned about her safety. Then after about a year, she was being interviewed about another murder, and she said she knew who committed the murder the year before and pointed them out. Then, presumably, after a visit from the local youths, she recanted her story:
"...Griffin further testified that the statement she gave the defense investigators in July 2002 contained many false statements and that she had signed it so that her name would stay out of the case and she would not have to worry about anyone “finding out or harassing [her] or harassing [her] children.” She also admitted that she did not initially comply with the subpoena to testify at the first trial and then testified falsely at that trial because she felt intimidated and “spooked” by a man sitting in the courtroom who was “shaking and nodding his head and clearing his throat.” Thereafter, at the second trial, she testified about the occurrence, named appellant and “Dee” (referring to Hill) as the shooters, and positively identified appellant in the courtroom..." To me, the fact that the jury deadlocked WITHOUT her input states that the eyewitness testimony was not the only thing they were going on.
I am inclined to think that it was her detailed testimony that was accurate, and that the other recantations were done out of fear for her safety.
Like I said, if he is in prison as an innocent man, he bears responsibility to a degree for the company he kept. I am sure he knew who committed that murder if he didn't.