On April 18, 2024, the Arkansas Supreme Court decid­ed 4 – 3 to reverse a 2022 low­er court deci­sion and allow genet­ic test­ing of crime scene evi­dence from the 1993 killing of three eight-year-old boys in West Memphis. The three men con­vict­ed in 1994 for the killings were released in 2011 after tak­ing an Alford plea, in which they main­tained their inno­cence but plead guilty to the crime, in exchange for 18 years’ time served and 10 years of a suspended sentence. 

“This is mon­u­men­tal,” said Damien Echols (pic­tured), the only man orig­i­nal­ly sen­tenced to death for the crime and the defen­dant seek­ing the addi­tion­al test­ing. ​“We appre­ci­ate the [Arkansas Supreme Court] giv­ing this rul­ing and hope we can now once and for all solve this case, clear our names and find the per­son respon­si­ble for car­ry­ing out these hor­ren­dous crimes,” he said in a statement. 

In the major­i­ty opin­ion, Justice Karen Baker wrote: ​“It is undis­put­ed that Echols has been con­vict­ed of a crime, and as a result, he is enti­tled to seek relief pur­suant to Act 1780.” Crittenden County Circuit Judge Tonya Alexander had pre­vi­ous­ly denied Mr. Echols’ request for addi­tion­al test­ing in 2022, inter­pret­ing state law to require defen­dants to be incar­cer­at­ed at the time of a new DNA testing request. 

Stephen Braga, lead defense coun­sel, expressed sup­port for the recent rul­ing ​“uphold­ing the plain lan­guage of the statute,” and explained to CNN that this ​“opens up the pos­si­bil­i­ty that key evi­dence in the case can now be test­ed with the most advanced tech­nol­o­gy pos­si­ble.” However, attor­ney General Tim Griffin, whose office argued the case, expressed his dis­ap­point­ment, stat­ing the new rul­ing ​“under­mines final­i­ty in long-closed crim­i­nal cas­es and will result in unse­ri­ous fil­ings,” and encour­aged the leg­is­la­ture to clar­i­fy the law. Justice Barbara Webb shared sim­i­lar sen­ti­ments in her dis­sent­ing opin­ion, writ­ing that the rul­ing ​“oblit­er­ates any sense of final­i­ty in our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem.” She explained, ​“Their inter­pre­ta­tion of Act 1780 means any­one who has ever been con­vict­ed of a crime — whether or not they be in State cus­tody — can seek DNA or oth­er sci­en­tif­ic test­ing even if such test­ing would not prove that individual’s innocence.” 

Specifically, the defense team seeks to use new tech­nol­o­gy, known as the M‑Vac wet vac­u­um sys­tem, to car­ry out addi­tion­al DNA test­ing on the vic­tims’ shoelaces that were used to tie their own arms and legs togeth­er, as well as addi­tion­al items of cloth­ing. In 2020, defense coun­sel had reached an agree­ment with then-pros­e­cut­ing attor­ney Scott Ellington to con­duct such test­ing. But in 2021, Keith Chrestman, who replaced Mr. Ellington as pros­e­cu­tor, direct­ed Mr. Echols’ team to peti­tion the court for permission.