A recent edi­to­r­i­al in the Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio) called for DNA test­ing in the death penal­ty case of Tyrone Noling. Noling has been on death row for 17 years. His con­vic­tion was based large­ly on the tes­ti­mo­ny of three friends who have since recant­ed their sto­ries, claim­ing they were coerced by the pros­e­cu­tion. No phys­i­cal evi­dence linked Noling to the crime, and he has passed a poly­graph test. Noling is request­ing the test­ing of addi­tion­al evi­dence that could final­ly prove he was not involved in the crime. The edi­tors wrote, An oppor­tu­ni­ty exists to clear up the many uncer­tain­ties about whether Tyrone Noling mur­dered the Hartigs. More, the state must take nec­es­sary care to ensure that Ohio avoids the griev­ous mis­take of exe­cut­ing an inno­cent man.” Read full editorial below.

Test for the truth

In May, the Ohio Supreme Court opened the door to new DNA test­ing in the case of Tyrone Noling. A 5 – 2 major­i­ty reversed a low­er court deci­sion and sent the ques­tion to Judge John Enlow of the Portage County Common Pleas Court. Earlier this month, attor­neys for Noling filed a motion ask­ing the court to per­mit test­ing of addi­tion­al evi­dence. The request makes sense — if the objec­tive is jus­tice, or at least address­ing the mount­ing doubt about the Noling conviction.

A jury found Noling guilty of the 1990 killings of Cora and Bearnhardt Hartig in their house in Atwater Township. He has resided on death row the past 17 years. The indict­ment of Noling didn’t come until five years after the episode, described by pros­e­cu­tors as a rob­bery that turned into mur­der. Key to the con­vic­tion was the tes­ti­mo­ny of three friends of Noling at the scene.

They long ago recant­ed, cit­ing coer­cion by the pros­e­cu­tion. On their own, these rever­sals might be played down. Striking is how they fit into a pat­tern, the case against Noling hav­ing erod­ed so sub­stan­tial­ly. Noling and his friends were involved in ear­li­er rob­beries in Alliance. At the Hartig house, there was no phys­i­cal evi­dence link­ing them to the crime. Nothing was tak­en from the house. If many in prison pro­claim their inno­cence, know fur­ther that Noling’s gun didn’t match the mur­der weapon. He passed a polygraph test.

Four years ago, attor­neys for Noling learned through a pub­lic records request about an alter­na­tive sus­pect. The infor­ma­tion wasn’t shared at the tri­al. Yet the per­son in ques­tion lived near the Hartigs and even­tu­al­ly mur­dered a young woman. He received a death sen­tence and was executed.

Noling wants to apply the more sophis­ti­cat­ed DNA test­ing of today to a cig­a­rette butt found on the dri­ve­way. (He already has been exclud­ed.) A search for the truth requires such a step. So does state law, the leg­is­la­ture in 2010 expand­ing the con­cept of a defin­i­tive” DNA test.

As the Supreme Court stressed, a test must be per­formed if it hasn’t been con­duct­ed yet and the out­come could be deter­mi­na­tive,” or like­ly change the result of a tri­al. Find the pres­ence of an alter­na­tive sus­pect, includ­ing a sec­ond pos­si­bil­i­ty, an insur­ance agent for the Hartigs who refused to take a poly­graph, and that sure­ly would be the result. It would be espe­cial­ly so in view of the col­laps­ing case of the pros­e­cu­tion on other fronts.

Logic fol­lows: If the cig­a­rette butt is test­ed, then a jew­el­ry box and shell cas­ings should be test­ed, too. The pros­e­cu­tion has argued that both were touched by the killer. Recent advances in DNA test­ing make pos­si­ble gain­ing deci­sive evi­dence from each item. An oppor­tu­ni­ty exists to clear up the many uncer­tain­ties about whether Tyrone Noling mur­dered the Hartigs. More, the state must take nec­es­sary care to ensure that Ohio avoids the griev­ous mis­take of exe­cut­ing an innocent man.

(“Test for the Truth,” Akron Beacon Journal, October 23, 2013). See Innocence. Read more Editorials about the death penalty.

Citation Guide