Jordan Brown

On February 20, 2009, 11-year-old Jordan Brown allegedly shot and killed Kenzie Houk, his father’s pregnant fiancée, in their home in Wampum, Pennsylvania. The case gained national and international attention due to the defendant’s age and raised questions about how the juvenile justice system handles young offenders.

On March 24, 2009, Lawrence County District Attorney charged Jordan Brown as an adult for the murder of Kenzie Houk. The decision was controversial due to Brown’s age, sparking debates over juvenile justice and the appropriateness of adult charges against minors, especially for severe crimes like murder.

On May 11, 2010, a juvenile court held a crucial hearing to determine whether Jordan Brown would be tried in juvenile or adult court. This hearing focused on the nature of the crime, Brown's age, and psychological evaluations. The outcome would influence the potential penalties and rehabilitation options available.

On March 29, 2011, Pennsylvania's Superior Court ruled that Jordan Brown could be tried as a juvenile, reversing an earlier decision to try him as an adult. This ruling considered factors like his age and the potential for rehabilitation within the juvenile system, highlighting the complexities of juvenile justice cases.

On April 13, 2012, a juvenile court judge found Jordan Brown guilty of first-degree murder and criminal homicide in the death of Kenzie Houk. Despite challenges regarding the evidence and circumstances, the ruling followed a nonjury trial. This court decision was pivotal and sparked further appeals and controversies.

Jordan Brown, who was 11 years old at the time of the crime, was sentenced on June 14, 2012, to juvenile detention until the age of 21 for the murder of his father’s pregnant fiancée, Kenzie Houk, in 2009. This case drew significant media attention due to Jordan's young age and the nature of the crime.

On May 29, 2013, Jordan Brown's legal team filed an appeal against his juvenile court conviction, arguing that the evidence presented was circumstantial and insufficient for conviction. They highlighted procedural issues and sought to overturn the decision, marking the beginning of a lengthy legal battle for exoneration.

On July 27, 2015, a Pennsylvania judge denied a request for a new trial for Jordan Brown, ruling that the original trial had been fair. This decision was met with disappointment from Brown’s defense team, who continued to argue that the evidence was insufficient and the trial flawed. The ruling was another chapter in the extended legal battle.

On October 17, 2016, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of Jordan Brown, granting him a new hearing. The court found that his rights were violated during the initial trial, particularly concerning the use of evidence and the ability to challenge it. This was a crucial step towards his eventual exoneration.

On July 18, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Jordan Brown, stating that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt. The decision came after appeals and advocacy from Brown's legal team, who argued that Jordan was too young to have committed the crime and that there was not enough evidence to convict him.