Cindy Eastling, Isaiah Eastling, Robert “Bobby” Bintz and David Bintz (from left to right). Photo courtesy of Carla Broadnax of Jarrett Adams Law. 

David and Robert Bintz appeared at a hearing of the Wisconsin Claims Board last week, seeking compensation for decades spent behind bars before their release in September for a wrongful conviction. 

The brothers’ attorney and the Brown County District Attorney expressed different views on a confession made by David Bintz prior to conviction. 

The Bintz brothers spent more than two decades in prison for the murder of Sandra Lison. Robert Bintz is now 69 years old and David is 70, and the brothers have faced health problems and challenges reintegrating into society. In February, Adams’ law firm sent the Examiner their compensation requests, which sought over $2 million for each brother. 

“I missed all the simple things in life that makes life beautiful,” Robert Bintz said via a statement read by his lawyer, Jarrett Adams, at the hearing. 

In April, the Examiner reported on the Bintz brothers’ return from prison and the gap in support to help exonerees in Wisconsin re-enter society. 

“We don’t know if David will still have his housing the next day,” Jarrett Adams, an attorney representing the brothers, said at the hearing. “We don’t know if David will have resources for his medical needs and medication. We don’t know a lot of things…But what we do know is that David is in need right now.”

Wrongly convicted people in Wisconsin can attempt to obtain compensation through the state law, which caps payouts at $25,000 and $5,000 per year of imprisonment. The exception is when the state Legislature approves a higher amount, which is rare. The claims board can recommend that the Legislature issue more compensation. 

Wrongly convicted people can also try to obtain a payout through a lawsuit. The Examiner previously reported that Adams said the brothers might not have an opportunity to get compensation if the state does not award it.

“This may be their only shot,” Adams said at the hearing. 

Brothers’ attorney, DA view case differently 

The claims board has said that the Wisconsin statute does not provide money to someone who only establishes that their conviction was vacated. The board must find that there is clear and convincing evidence of innocence, not just that a conviction was overturned. 

The statute says that the board will decide an amount of compensation for a person if it finds the person is innocent and that they did not contribute to bring about their conviction through their act or failure to act. 

Adams argued that the brothers did not contribute to their convictions. He said David had a documented learning disability and was made to sit under questioning for hours until he signed a confession. 

Brown County District Attorney David Lasee said he didn’t think it was his role to take a position on whether the Bintz brothers should receive additional funds, but he disagreed with Adams’ portrayal of the confession, saying that concern was considered during the legal process.

“…They were not charged until 12 years after the death of Ms. Lison, and that was based on statements that were made by David,” Lasee said at the hearing. “And there’s a confession from David. There’s also statements that David made to other inmates in prison, which is what prompted the investigators to come back and interview him. So that didn’t happen in a vacuum. And again, I take issue with the notion of the statement being coerced…so the defense attorney for David litigated the motion of whether it was a coercive statement that should be suppressed, and the statement obviously was not suppressed, and we proceeded to trial.”

Lasee was asked about how it was determined that the statement was not coerced. He said it was litigated but he did not recall the specifics of the decision.  

The Brown County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted the Bintz brothers with a theory of robbery and murder. 

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, when David’s trial began, the prosecution’s theory changed from the way the case had been investigated at the outset. 

“It was no longer that Lison had been robbed, raped, and killed,” the registry says. “Now, the prosecution contended that the Bintz brothers went to the bar to rob it because they felt Lison had overcharged them for a case of beer and ended up killing her because she could recognize them.”

The registry says that “by the time David’s trial began in May 2000, DNA testing had excluded both brothers from the semen found in the rape kit. Blood found under Lison’s body was not their blood, according to testing.” 

According to the registry, during closing argument in Robert’s trial, the prosecution argued that it was “‘clear that this was not a sexual assault, and whoever the donor of those spermatozoa is, [he] was not involved in this murder.’”

In 2006, the Wisconsin Innocence Project obtained additional DNA testing that confirmed blood found on Lison’s dress came from the same male whose sperm was found in the rape kit, the registry says. A motion for a new trial based on the testing was denied. 

The registry also says that police interviewed 32 year-old David Bintz and his brother, as well as a friend, Vincent Andrus. 

“David reported that Robert and Andrus had gone to the bar from David’s house during the evening to buy a case of beer,” the registry says. “Lison had sold them four six-packs for $3.50 each. When Robert and Andrus got back to David’s home, David, who was intellectually disabled, became angry because he thought Lison should have charged them for the price of a case, which was cheaper. 

“He had called the bar at one point and chewed out Lison. Some would later say he threatened to come over and blow up the tavern.”

The exonerations registry says prisoners testified that David had made various admissions to the crime. 

The registry says that when detectives interviewed David, he eventually agreed to a statement admitting he and Robert were involved and that Robert had strangled Lison. David also said he was home at the time of the crime and was not involved. 

Lasee said that he would “unequivocally state that based on the evidence that exists right now, I do not believe that the state of Wisconsin would be able to prove their guilt at trial.” 

But he said that “we did not stipulate that there was clear and convincing evidence of their innocence, because that’s not what we do. That’s not the standard we operate under.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE