Prosecutor backs down, releases another innocent
I know, you’re getting tired of hearing about innocent prisoners released after DNA testing. But you need to stop getting used to it and continue to be appalled at cases like this. After seven and a half years in prison for a murder that he did not commit, Clarence Elkins finally got his break. His wife (who testified that she was with him at the time of the murder) intrigued some local law students with the case and they got to work, conclusively establishing that DNA from the crime scene belonged to someone other than Elkins. They deduced that a man who lived two doors from the victim was the probable killer and when good fortune brought the man into the very same prison with Elkins on an unrelated rap, Elkins managed to pick up a cigarette butt from him and sent it off for testing. Sure enough, the suspect’s DNA matched that found at the crime scene and Elkins had a prime suspect.
So, that should have ended the case, right? Not quite. The Prosecutor steadfastly balked and refused to yield to science. Even the judge in the case was unpersuaded by the DNA evidence and denied a motion for a new trial, citing a frightening preference for the circumstantial evidence at trial. Undaunted, the defense team managed to secure a second set of DNA evidence and once again matched it to the suspect. With that, Ohio’s Attorney General Jim Petro got involved and, after a showdown with the local prosecutor, secured a court order releasing Elkins from prison.
You have to wonder about a prosecutor and judge who are willing to let a man sit in prison on a murder charge based on circumstantial evidence in conflict with an alibi defense, in the face of DNA evidence conclusively establishing the crimescene presence of a neighbor who just happened to be a convicted sex offender in prison for rape. Were they worried about appearing soft on crime? Were they afraid to admit they made a mistake? Why did it take a command from the state’s Attorney General to get them to act?
Cases like this are helping set a new national tone of skepticism that will undoubtedly lead to better scrutiny in the first instance. But this one was too close for comfort. Suppose those law students hadn’t had their interest piqued by Elkins’ case? Suppose the real killer didn’t smoke? Suppose Ohio’s Attorney General was a gutless bureaucrat more worried about his own political future than the justice he was sworn to uphold? Think about it, read about it here, and resist the temptation to let go of your outrage.
RP
December 29th, 2005 at 8:31 am
I have been involved in Clarence’s case since the FIRST A&E Show (”What the Girl Saw”) appeared about two years ago. I have contributed over $200. to the DNA Fund. I also drove from Milwaukee to Baberton, OH for a memorial Service in June. I have been interviewed on TV and have written numerous E_Mails to help win Clarence’s Freedom.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:29 am
Kudos to you, Bob, for your contribution to Clarence’s freedom. Can you tell us how he’s doing and what the status is of his case at the moment?
RP
January 7th, 2006 at 10:21 am
What I want to know is what is going to happen to Mike Carroll, Judy Hunter, Sherri Walsh and the rest of these ‘circle-the-wagons’ power-drunk bastards? How anyone can say with a straight face that because perfect evidence (which was not available at the time of the trial) was not used to gain the conviction, that it could not be used for exculpation, just blows my mind. That’s the worst circular argument I’ve ever heard.
I would get a warm glow from seeing each of them locked in a room and hammered with these questions until they collapse in sobs. No more supercilious, self-righteous nonsense, no bullet-proof press conferences, no ‘no comment’ dodges, and no jabs at Petro for breaking ranks. Just confrontation, followed by termination of employment, personal liability and disbarment.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
I agree with Kate. Except for the termination of employment, personal liability and disbarment parts. :-\