Back to Profiles

Larry Bishop
Convicted of armed robbery

On Valentine’s Day, 1996, two men crashed through the window of the Safeway in Coolidge, Arizona. Both men were armed. Money was taken from the store safe and one of the masked men shot and killed a store manager. Eyewitness descriptions could only vaguely identify height and weight. Hours after the crime, a local man, known by many to be seriously mentally ill, confessed to the crime and identified Mr. Bishop as his cohort. Mr. Bishop was arrested the day after the crime, and the police investigation seemed to come to a halt. The state sought the death penalty against both men, and because it was a death case, Mr. Bishop was given two counsel to represent him. The first jury acquitted his co-defendant, the seriously mentally ill man who had confessed and fingered Mr. Bishop. The jury could not reach a verdict as to Mr. Bishop.

Perhaps realizing their case was too weak for the ultimate punishment, the State decided not to seek the death penalty at the retrial of Mr. Bishop. This meant that Mr. Bishop was now only entitled to one counsel for his defense. The more experienced attorney at his first trial withdrew from the case. Working under immense time pressure and with few resources, the less experienced attorney faced an entirely different case at the second trial. More than a year after the crime, a witness came forward who said she overhead Mr. Bishop, along with several other men, at her trailer on the night of the crime and that her boyfriend retrieved guns for one of the other men. The next morning, one of these men (not Mr. Bishop), picked up the proceeds of the robbery from this trailer.

Although the State’s case against Mr. Bishop had drastically changed because of this new evidence, defense counsel was only given an investigator to assist him on the first day of the second trial. Not surprisingly, no additional helpful evidence was found for Mr. Bishop in this short period of time. Ten years later, at a federal hearing on Mr. Bishop’s claim that his counsel was ineffective, evidence came to light that could have resulted in Mr. Bishop’s acquittal. For instance, a police report, dated the day after the crime, identified another man as the shooter, and also identified the make of the gun used in the crime, information that was not public knowledge at the time of the report. In addition, the physical description of the man at the trailer with Mr. Bishop, who picked up the proceeds, also fit the description given by eyewitnesses. There were numerous facts in police reports that could have been brought to the jury’s attention. Instead, because of resource disparity between the prosecution and defense, the jury was left with only a partial picture of the crime.

Happily, the Pinal County Attorney’s office agreed to settle the case on appeal. Rather than sit out the long appeal process on his federal claim, which could have lasted for years, Mr. Bishop decided to plea guilty to a lesser charge of armed robbery, with credit for time served. With good time credit, Mr. Bishop should be able to regain his freedom in a few years