Tavon Tull Case: State of Maryland and Wicomico County to Split Wrongful Conviction Payment

Wicomico County, MD -The case of Tavon Tull has generated significant public interest and questions regarding the circumstances of his wrongful conviction, subsequent exoneration, and the financial settlement process.

This comprehensive examination details the investigation, trial proceedings, appeal process, and the unprecedented cost-sharing arrangement between the State of Maryland and Wicomico County.

The Tull case represents a critical example of a wrongful conviction, while also highlighting new legislation that fundamentally alters how wrongful incarceration settlements are funded in Maryland.

Understanding these details provides insight into both the judicial process and the evolving legal framework governing compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

Initial Investigation and Charges

The investigation into Tavon Tull began following allegations of sexual assault involving a two-year-old child. Wicomico County Sheriff's Office Corporal Christine Kirkpatrick conducted the investigation, which concluded with Tull's arrest on June 20, 2018.

During questioning, Tull provided a statement to Corporal Kirkpatrick in which he denied sexually abusing the child. Despite his denial, the investigation proceeded based on what investigators believed to be physical and medical evidence of sexual assault.

The charges filed against Tull included sexual abuse of a minor, second-degree rape, third-degree sexual offense, second-degree child abuse, and second-degree assault.

These charges carried severe penalties and would ultimately result in a lengthy prison sentence.

Trial Proceedings and Conviction

Tull's bench trial proceedings began on January 7, 2019, in Wicomico County Circuit Court before Judge S. James Sarbanes. This decision to utilize a bench trial placed the determination of guilt or innocence solely in the hands of the presiding judge, not a jury.

The prosecution presented evidence that included medical testimony regarding the child's condition. Two medical professionals testified regarding what they interpreted as evidence of sexual assault based on their examination of the child's medical condition.

Judge Sarbanes convicted Tull on three of the five charges: second-degree rape, third-degree sex offense, and second-degree assault. The conviction was based primarily on the medical evidence presented during the trial proceedings and a text message he sent to the child's mother.

Sentencing and Initial Appeals

At his sentencing hearing on March 21, 2019, Tull made a statement requesting leniency from the court. He maintained his innocence, stating: "Your Honor, I fear like it's unfair that I was falsely accused of raping a one-year-old girl that I didn't do," he said. "Nobody know who messed with that little girl. Nobody knows who is lying or who is telling the truth. I have a family out there that supports me and that they know that I wouldn't do nothing like that."

Despite this plea, Judge Sarbanes imposed a sentence of 20 years in prison. Tull subsequently filed an appeal, arguing that insufficient evidence existed to sustain the convictions.

However, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the conviction on April 6, 2020, upholding the lower court's decision.

Post-Conviction Relief Efforts

In 2021, Tull filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief, representing himself in the legal proceedings. The court appointed Nora Fakhri of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender to represent him in these efforts.

In early 2023, Fakhri filed a new motion and requested copies of the child's medical records for examination by independent medical experts. The state initially objected to the release of these records, but a judge ordered their disclosure, allowing for expert review of the medical evidence that had formed the basis of the conviction.

Expert Medical Review and New Evidence

On April 19, 2024, Tull filed a report prepared by a forensic nurse in Virginia and the education director of the International Association of Forensic Nurses. The medical professional conducted a comprehensive review of the child's medical records and the testimony provided by the two doctors.

They concluded that the child had not been sexually abused. Instead, the analysis determined that the child was suffering from urethral prolapse, a benign medical condition where the inner lining of the urethra protrudes through the urethral opening, creating a donut-shaped mass of swollen tissue.

Urethral prolapse is uncommon but occurs more frequently in pre-pubescent black girls than in the general population. The condition can be triggered by abdominal pressure or straining from coughing, vomiting, or constipation, and was misidentified as evidence of sexual trauma.

State Review and Additional Expert Opinions

In June 2024, Fakhri requested that the Prosecution Integrity Unit (PIU) of the Wicomico County State's Attorney review Tull's conviction. This review process included several investigative steps designed to thoroughly examine the case.

According to the Wicomico County States Attorney's Office Website, the PIU is "led by Chief Patrick Gilbert and ensures integrity at every stage of the criminal justice system. Gilbert and his team work closely with prosecutors and law enforcement to prevent, identify, and remedy false convictions. From ethical obligation training to developing internal checks and balances systems, this Unit was created to be proactive in the prevention of misconduct and ensure every community member's safety and confidence in our criminal justice system."

The PIU conducted a comprehensive review that included examining the child's medical records, re-interviewing witnesses from the original case, and consulting additional outside medical experts.

Two pediatricians, both board-certified in treating and detecting child abuse, reviewed the medical evidence. Both experts reached the same conclusion as the previous medical expert: the child suffered from urethral prolapse that had been incorrectly diagnosed as genital trauma.

This consensus among multiple medical experts provided compelling evidence that the original medical testimony was incorrect.

Case Resolution and Exoneration

On November 8, 2024, the state agreed that Tull's conviction should be vacated, and his charges dismissed based on the overwhelming medical evidence contradicting the original diagnosis. Six days later, on November 14, 2024, Judge Matthew Maciarello granted the motion to vacate the conviction.

Following the court's decision to vacate the conviction, the state formally dismissed all charges against Tull. This action officially exonerated him after spending approximately 2,121 days in prison for crimes he did not commit.

Financial Settlement and Compensation

Maryland Lt. Governor Aruna Miller and other Board of Public Works members approved payment of $573,412.34 for the 2,121 days Tull spent in prison, calculated based on Maryland's statutory compensation formula for wrongful incarceration. An additional $9,571.45 in attorney's fees was also approved as part of the settlement.

Lt. Governor Miller acknowledged that while no amount of money could replace the time lost, she expressed hope that the funding would assist Tull in rebuilding his life following his release and exoneration.

Unprecedented Cost-Sharing Arrangement

The Tull case represents a significant precedent as Wicomico County becomes the first Maryland county required to split payment in a wrongful incarceration settlement with the state. This arrangement results from new legislation that fundamentally alters how such settlements are funded.

Under the previous system, the State of Maryland bore the full cost of wrongful incarceration settlements. However, recent legislative changes have created a cost-sharing mechanism that requires county participation in certain circumstances.

Legal Framework and County Responsibility

The new law creates a situation where county governments may be required to contribute to wrongful incarceration settlements despite having no direct role in prosecution, conviction, or exoneration proceedings.

Counties do not prosecute cases, make conviction decisions, or determine exoneration settlements, yet the legislative framework now mandates their financial participation.

This represents a significant shift in how wrongful conviction costs are distributed and may have implications for future cases throughout Maryland. The legislation effectively transfers a portion of the financial responsibility from the state level to local governments.

Moving Forward: Implications and Considerations

The Tavon Tull case serves as a crucial example of how medical misdiagnosis can lead to wrongful conviction and highlights the importance of thorough expert review in post-conviction proceedings. The case demonstrates that specialized medical knowledge and proper investigation of forensic evidence are essential components of the justice system.

The cost-sharing arrangement between Maryland and Wicomico County establishes a new precedent that will likely influence future wrongful conviction cases throughout the state. Legal professionals, county governments, and state officials will need to navigate this new framework as similar cases arise.

For individuals who may face similar circumstances, the Tull case illustrates the importance of thorough legal representation and the value of seeking independent expert analysis when medical evidence forms a central component of criminal charges. The case also demonstrates that the legal system, while imperfect, contains mechanisms for correcting wrongful convictions when new evidence emerges.

Case Information Sources:

• National Registry of Exonerations
• Deep Dive: Counties Now Forced to Pay for a Process They Don't Control - and Never Did