Will Triple Murderer Joshua Miner Help Bethany McKee Escape A Retrial Conviction?

JOLIET, IL — On Feb. 20, Joliet Patch, the region's primary source for Will County Courthouse news, broke one of the biggest court stories in years. Will County Judge Sarah Jones overturned the first-degree murder conviction for Bethany McKee in Joliet's notorious Nightmare On Hickory Street strangulation murders of Terrance Rankins and Eric Glover.

Judge Jones ruled that McKee is getting a new trial.

Afterward, over at the Will County State's Attorney's Office building, Jim Glasgow and his team of long-time criminal prosecutors huddled and plotted their next move. In recent days, Glasgow filed a motion asking Judge Jones to reconsider her order granting McKee a new trial after second-stage post-conviction proceedings.

As for McKee, she remains at the Illinois Department of Corrections, at the prison for women at Logan Correctional Center. According to the new filing from assistant state's attorney Colleen Griffin, McKee was charged with six counts of first-degree murder, as were three co-defendants, Alisa Massaro, Adam Landerman and Joshua Miner, in the deaths of Glover and Rankins.

"On February 20, 2026, this court issued its order and granted defendant a new trial based on the affidavit of a codefendant, Joshua Miner that averred, amongst other things, that defendant 'was never part of any conversation or plan to rob the victims or to hurt them in any way,'" Griffin argued.

In her motion to consider, Griffin argued that "this court failed to properly follow the post-conviction hearing act."

"The People are entitled to show here that Joshua Miner is not credible therefore this court should not grant relief based on his affidavit," Griffin asserted. "The People, if this case indeed proceeds to an evidentiary hearing, which it must before this court may grant any relief, are entitled to show the discrepancies in Miner's affidavit and show that the averments contained therein are in conflict with what Miner told the police, and are in conflict with defendant's statements to police. The People would be entitled to get into the fact that Miner killed two people in this case. The People would be able to question Miner about that fact that he continued to kill, after he provided this affidavit, by murdering an individual in the Department of Corrections in Brown County in 2025, in case number 25CF1. The People would also have the opportunity to explore any potential reason Miner would have to provide this affidavit.

"This Court basically took away the People's ability to challenge the credibility of this witness and to show that his testimony would not change the outcome of any potential retrial based on the fact that he is a stone-cold murderer and liar," Griffin argued in her motion to reconsider.

Griffin's motion later explained on page 14, "the People request that this court reconsider its second stage order granting a new trial, and, if the court determines that any of defendant's claims should be advanced to a third stage evidentiary hearing, conduct that evidentiary hearing on those claims. But, as set forth in the State's motion to dismiss, and below regarding this specific claim, the People request that this Court dismiss the petition in its entirety."

From there, Griffin's filing contained the following section in bold capital letters: THIS COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA MINER MADE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.

"Requests for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence are to be viewed with great caution and are not lightly granted," Griffin wrote. "The trial court's determination is discretionary one that will be overturned only upon a clear abuse of discretion ... Defendant asserts that Miner's evidence is 'new' because he could not have been forced to violate his rights against self-incrimination and provide this information sooner. Defendant asserts that such information offered years and sometimes decades later is de facto newly discovered evidence ... Joshua Miner was tried after defendant. Thus, while defendant obviously was aware of Miner at the time of her trial, the evidence in Miner's affidavit was nevertheless unavailable at defendant's trial, and can qualify as newly discovered ... However, as demonstrated below, defendant cannot show she is entitled to a new trial based on this affidavit."

Griffin's filing went on to argue, "defendant says that Miner's affidavit is material, in that it is relevant and probative of defendant's innocence ... defendant continues that Miner's statement goes to a fact essential to defendant's conviction, whether she was a part of a plan to rob the victims. Even if the evidence was material since it goes to whether defendant planned the robbery, as set forth below, it is not conclusive ... turning to the conclusive character of the affidavit, the most important element of an actual innocence claim, defendant cannot meet her burden of establishing the conclusive character of the evidence ... Miner's new affidavit, is positively rebutted by the evidence at defendant's trial; she admitted to being part of the plot to rob Terrance Rankins. She said so on a tape that was played for the jury.

"When given the opportunity to inform Mr. Massaro what was happening at that very time upstairs, defendant declined to do so, instead opting to be part of the lie that was told to Mr. Massaro. Her actions after the crime also show evidence of a guilty conscious. This affidavit is positively rebutted by the record in defendant's trial."

To bolster her argument, prosecutor Griffin declared, "the evidence overwhelmingly implicated defendant as being the force behind luring the victims to Massaro's home. The victims would not have been murdered absent those actions. This court should find there is no probability that a fact finder would reach a different result on retrial ... Indeed, defendant does not address the fact that she confessed to being the mastermind behind the robbery. Defendant merely addresses Miner's affidavit against what Massaro testified to at trial and says that his affidavit is 'more true' than Massaro's testimony, since his affidavit is 'self-incriminating' and Massaro received an extremely generous plea offer in exchange for her testimony. Defendant does not even acknowledge her confession ... this Court should dismiss defendant's amended postconviction petition in its entirety. If this Court finds that any of the defendant's claims should advance to a third-stage evidentiary hearing, this court should advance only those claims where defendant has shown entitlement to a hearing and advance those specific claims and conduct an evidentiary hearing," Griffin ended her 19-page motion by stating.