On September 2, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (pic­tured) grant­ed clemen­cy to Kevin Keith, com­mut­ing his death sen­tence to life with­out parole. Keith, who was con­vict­ed of killing three peo­ple, has always main­tained his inno­cence, and some evi­dence point­ed to anoth­er sus­pect. Gov. Strickland’s com­mu­ta­tion state­ment addressed his con­cerns regard­ing Keith’s case: ​“Mr. Keith’s con­vic­tion relied upon the link­ing of cer­tain eye­wit­ness tes­ti­mo­ny with cer­tain foren­sic evi­dence about which impor­tant ques­tions have been raised. I also find the absence of a full inves­ti­ga­tion of oth­er cred­i­ble sus­pects trou­bling.” The gov­er­nor acknowl­edged that Keith might well be guilty and that the Ohio Parole Board had rec­om­mend­ed against clemen­cy, but he could not allow an exe­cu­tion with the doubts that per­sist­ed. The gov­er­nor left open the pos­si­bil­i­ty that future devel­op­ments might require addi­tion­al relief for Mr. Keith. Attorneys for Keith applaud­ed Gov. Strickland’s actions, but said they will con­tin­ue to peti­tion for a new tri­al to address new­ly dis­cov­ered evi­dence, evi­dence with­held by the State, and new sci­ence behind eye­wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, all of which, they claim, point to Mr. Keith’s innocence. 

(A. Johnson, ​“Strickland com­mutes death row inmate’s sen­tence to life with­out parole,” Columbus Dispatch, September 2, 2010; ​“Governor’s Statement Regarding Clemency Application of Kevin Keith,” September 2, 2010; and ​“Statement from Attorneys for Kevin Keith in Response to Governor Strickland’s Commutation to Life Without Parole,” September 2, 2010). See Clemency, Innocence and Life Without Parole.

http://​gov​er​nor​.ohio​.gov/​D​e​f​a​u​l​t​.​a​s​p​x​?​t​a​b​i​d​=1778

Governor’s Statement Regarding Clemency Application of Kevin Keith — Sept. 2, 2010

Columbus, OH – Governor Ted Strickland today issued the fol­low­ing state­ment regard­ing the pend­ing clemen­cy appli­ca­tion of Kevin Keith:

​“Kevin Keith was con­vict­ed, by a jury, of cal­lous­ly mur­der­ing three peo­ple — includ­ing a four-year old child — and shoot­ing three oth­ers, includ­ing two young chil­dren. Since the time of his arrest more than 16 years ago, Mr. Keith has main­tained his inno­cence, insist­ing that some­one else com­mit­ted the mur­ders.

​“Mr. Keith’s con­vic­tion has been repeat­ed­ly reviewed and upheld by Ohio and fed­er­al courts at the tri­al and appel­late lev­el. The Ohio Parole Board rec­om­mend­ed against clemen­cy in this case. There is evi­dence which links him to the crimes that, while cir­cum­stan­tial, is not oth­er­wise well explained. It is my view, after a thor­ough review of the infor­ma­tion and evi­dence avail­able to me at this time, that it is far more like­ly that Mr. Keith com­mit­ted these mur­ders than it is like­ly that he did not.

​“Yet, despite the evi­dence sup­port­ing his guilt and the sub­stan­tial legal review of Mr. Keith’s con­vic­tion, many legit­i­mate ques­tions have been raised regard­ing the evi­dence in sup­port of the con­vic­tion and the inves­ti­ga­tion which led to it. In par­tic­u­lar, Mr. Keith’s con­vic­tion relied upon the link­ing of cer­tain eye­wit­ness tes­ti­mo­ny with cer­tain foren­sic evi­dence about which impor­tant ques­tions have been raised. I also find the absence of a full inves­ti­ga­tion of oth­er cred­i­ble sus­pects trou­bling.

​“Clearly, the care­ful exer­cise of a governor’s exec­u­tive clemen­cy author­i­ty is appro­pri­ate in a case like this one, giv­en the real and unan­swered ques­tions sur­round­ing the mur­ders for which Mr. Keith was con­vict­ed. Mr. Keith still has appel­late legal pro­ceed­ings pend­ing which, in the­o­ry, could ulti­mate­ly result in his con­vic­tion being over­turned alto­geth­er. But the pend­ing legal pro­ceed­ings may nev­er result in a full reex­am­i­na­tion of his case, includ­ing an inves­ti­ga­tion of alter­nate sus­pects, by law enforce­ment author­i­ties and/​or the courts. That would be unfor­tu­nate – this case is clear­ly one in which a full, fair analy­sis of all of the unan­swered ques­tions should be con­sid­ered by a court. Under these cir­cum­stances, I can­not allow Mr. Keith to be exe­cut­ed. I have decid­ed, at this time, to com­mute Mr. Keith’s sen­tence to life in prison with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole. Should fur­ther evi­dence jus­ti­fy my doing so, I am pre­pared to review this mat­ter again for pos­si­ble further action.”

Citation Guide