INNOCENCE: Ohio’s ​“Substantial Inequitable Conduct” Leads to Nation’s 140^th Death Row Exoneration

On January 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by the state of Ohio chal­leng­ing the uncon­di­tion­al writ of habeas cor­pus and bar to the re-pros­e­cu­tion of Joe D’Ambrosio (pic­tured), thus end­ing the cap­i­tal case. He has now been freed from death row with all charges dismissed. 

A fed­er­al District Court had first over­turned D’Ambrosio’s con­vic­tion in 2006 because the state had with­held key evi­dence from the defense. The fed­er­al court orig­i­nal­ly allowed the state to re-pros­e­cute him, but just before tri­al the state revealed the exis­tence of even more impor­tant evi­dence and request­ed fur­ther delay. Also the state did not divulge in a time­ly man­ner that the key wit­ness against D’Ambrosio had died. 

In 2010, the District Court barred D’Ambrosio’s re-pros­e­cu­tion because of the pros­e­cu­tors’ mis­con­duct. The court con­clud­ed that these devel­op­ments biased D’Ambrosio’s chances for a fair tri­al, and hence the state was barred from retrying him. 

District Court Judge Kathleen O’Malley wrote: ​“For 20 years, the State held D’Ambrosio on death row, despite wrong­ful­ly with­hold­ing evi­dence that ​‘would have sub­stan­tial­ly increased a rea­son­able juror’s doubt of D’Ambrosio’s guilt.’ Despite being ordered to do so by this Court … the State still failed to turn over all rel­e­vant and mate­r­i­al evi­dence relat­ing to the crime of which D’Ambrosio was con­vict­ed. Then, once it was ordered to pro­vide D’Ambrosio a con­sti­tu­tion­al tri­al or release him with­in 180 days, the State did nei­ther. During those 180 days, the State engaged in sub­stan­tial inequitable con­duct, wrong­ful­ly retain­ing and delay­ing the pro­duc­tion of yet more poten­tial­ly excul­pa­to­ry evi­dence… To fail to bar retri­al in such extra­or­di­nary cir­cum­stances sure­ly would fail to serve the inter­ests of justice.”

In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the bar to re-pros­e­cu­tion. (D’Ambrosio v. Bagley, No. 10 – 3247, Aug. 29, 2011). Even the dis­sent referred to the state’s ​“remark­able inabil­i­ty to com­pe­tent­ly pros­e­cute D’Ambrosio.” The state appealed this deci­sion to the U.S. Supreme Court main­ly on juris­dic­tion­al grounds, but was denied cer­tio­rari on Jan. 23. (Bagley v. D’Ambrosio, No. 11 – 672, denying cert.). 

D’Ambrosio is 140^th for­mer death row inmate to be exon­er­at­ed since 1973 and the 6^th from Ohio. He was first indict­ed for the offense in 1988.