I'm talking about Doug Prade about whom I've written a couple of times before. He's a former Akron cop. In 1998 the jury said he was guilty of murdering his ex-wife, Margo. Shooting her to death. He said, always said, he didn't do it. And then they tested the DNA. Oh, sure, he had to fight his way to the Ohio Supreme Court, but by a 5-2 vote, they allowed him to try and convince the trial court to order it to be tested. All he had to do was convince the court that a test might be outcome determinative. Which he did.
See, before she died, she I suppose before the gun went off, she struggled. In the struggle, the killer bit her in the arm. Through her lab coat. Bit her so hard that she bled, bled right through the coat. And the killer would have left his DNA on the coat. But back then, DNA testing wasn't sophisticated enough. They found Margo's DNA, from her blood. But that overwhelmed whatever else. Except Now they can do more. And after a court order (the state fought, er, tooth and nail to prevent testing the DNA because . . . . Oh, yeah, because it might fuck up their case.
And so they did the new testing and they found not just Margo's DNA but also another person's. A man's. The killer's. Don't know who that is, though. The only thing they know is that it isn't Doug Prade's DNA. Which means that Doug isn't the killer.
And Judge Judy Hunter cut him loose. She wrote,
The Court concludes as a matter of law that the Defendant is actually innocent of aggravated murder. As such, the Court overturns the Defendant's convictions for aggravated murder with a firearms specification and he shall be discharged from prison forthwith.
And of course, the state appealed. Because the jury said he was guilty and just because the killer was maybe (probably? almost certainly?) someone else, well, that doesn't count. Because sure, that male DNA could be from some contamination somewhere along the way. So the court examined the trial court's decision to see if it was wholly irrational or arbitrary. And concluded, that it was. Because they weren't convinced. (Which isn't the standard they claimed to have used, but what the hell.)
Having conducted a thorough review of the DNA results and the testimony interpreting those results, this Court cannot say with any degree of confidence that some of the DNA from the bite mark section belongs to Margo's killer, Likewise, we cannot say with absolute certainty that it does not. For almost 15 years, the bite mark section of Margo's lab coat has been preserved and has endured exhaustive sampling and testing in the hopes of discovering the true identity of Margo's killer. The only absolute conclusion that can be drawn from the DNA results, however, is that their true meaning will never be known. A definitive exclusion result has been obtained, but its worth is wholly questionable, Moreover, that exclusion result must be taken in context with all of the other "available admissible evidence" related to this case.And so they undid the finding that he was innocent and ordered him back to prison. Of course, Prade appealed. And yesterday, by a vote of 4-3 and without any explanation from anyone, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Which means?
The state says, according to press reports, that it's over. Prade was found guilty by the jury and then by the court of appeals. Whether he's innocent is irrelevant. Back to prison. He'll be eligible for parole for the first time when he's 78 or 80. If he lives that long.
His lawyers say he gets a new trial. Because the court of appeals never addressed the question of whether he was entitled to that.
And while they're squabbling about that? He either does or doesn't go back to prison. From which he's been out for about 18 months now.
Let's recap.
- Doug Prade, found guilty in 1998.
- With new evidence found innocent in 2013.
- Found guilty in 2014 because after all the new evidence might or might prove he's innocent so he must be guilty.
Meanwhile, in Texas, Hank Skinner got the DNA tested and the trial court held a hearing. The state, which had spent years fighting against the DNA testing, said the results proved Skinner was guilty. Skinner's lawyers said the tests showed he was innocent. The judge carefully weighed the conflicting arguments, noting that the DNA results were largely inconsistent with the state's theory of the case, agreed with the state that some exculpatory evidence shouldn't come in. And then said that Skinner was guilty and should be killed.
Skinner will be appealing. And you know how well that's likely to go in the courts that already said there was no point in testing the DNA because he was guilty so there was no point in looking to see if he actually did it.
I've said before that Ohio wants to be Texas. We've got a ways to go, but still.
Posts
