This is a terrible article; it's just an opinion piece and a poorly-argued one at that.
I am a career prosecutor and I spent twelve years specifically answering post-conviction appeals. These appeals are of the type at issue here, as they are brought years after conviction by defendants who allege grounds for relief such as newly-discover…
This is a terrible article; it's just an opinion piece and a poorly-argued one at that.
I am a career prosecutor and I spent twelve years specifically answering post-conviction appeals. These appeals are of the type at issue here, as they are brought years after conviction by defendants who allege grounds for relief such as newly-discovered evidence, failure of trial counsel to effectively investigate and represent at trial, potential new scientific technologies that might be used to examine the physical evidence, and recanting witnesses. This last claim--witnesses now coming forward to take back their testimony at trial/statements to police--is especially common and is especially suspect.
So I was eager to learn what specifically has been alleged by the defense in this case that may call Marcellus Williams' guilt into question. However, I learned nothing from this article.
I'd have to read the transcripts from the trial (and any subsequent evidentiary hearings) and all of the subsequent prosecutor and defense briefs plus the opinions issued by the courts who heard all of the numerous subsequent appeals to have a fully-considered analysis. Nothing that I have been able to read so far strikes me as establishing a miscarriage of justice or actual innocence.
This is a terrible article; it's just an opinion piece and a poorly-argued one at that.
I am a career prosecutor and I spent twelve years specifically answering post-conviction appeals. These appeals are of the type at issue here, as they are brought years after conviction by defendants who allege grounds for relief such as newly-discovered evidence, failure of trial counsel to effectively investigate and represent at trial, potential new scientific technologies that might be used to examine the physical evidence, and recanting witnesses. This last claim--witnesses now coming forward to take back their testimony at trial/statements to police--is especially common and is especially suspect.
So I was eager to learn what specifically has been alleged by the defense in this case that may call Marcellus Williams' guilt into question. However, I learned nothing from this article.
Here is a link to a brief written on William's behalf asserting his innocence: https://dpic-cdn.org/production/legacy/MarcellusWilliamsBoardOfInquiryLetter.pdf
Here is a link to the 2003 Opinion issued by the Missouri Supreme Court wherein the trial evidence and defense claims were initially examined and the conviction and death penalty were upheld: https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html
I'd have to read the transcripts from the trial (and any subsequent evidentiary hearings) and all of the subsequent prosecutor and defense briefs plus the opinions issued by the courts who heard all of the numerous subsequent appeals to have a fully-considered analysis. Nothing that I have been able to read so far strikes me as establishing a miscarriage of justice or actual innocence.