Ohio Parole Board Recommends Clemency for Death-Row Prisoner William Montgomery

Faced with doubts about pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct and the accu­ra­cy of foren­sic evi­dence, the Ohio Parole Board has rec­om­mend­ed that Governor John Kasich grant exec­u­tive clemen­cy to William T. Montgomery (pic­tured), sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed on April 11. 

Montgomery was con­vict­ed and sen­tence to death in 1986 for two mur­ders he has long main­tained he did not com­mit. An Ohio fed­er­al dis­trict court, affirmed by a fed­er­al appeals court pan­el, over­turned his con­vic­tion in 2007 because pros­e­cu­tors had sup­pressed evi­dence and wit­ness state­ments that under­mined its ver­sion of how the crime occurred, but with five judges dis­sent­ing, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rein­stat­ed the conviction. 

Montgomery’s sup­port­ers argued to the parole board that there was too much doubt about his guilt to risk exe­cut­ing a poten­tial­ly innocent man. 

Prosecutors argued at tri­al that Montgomery mur­dered Debra Ogle and then killed her room­mate, Cynthia Tincher to pre­vent her from tes­ti­fy­ing against him, then dumped Ms. Ogle’s body in the woods where it was not dis­cov­ered for four days. However, pros­e­cu­tors with­held from the defense evi­dence that mul­ti­ple wit­ness­es had seen Ms. Ogle alive four days after she sup­pos­ed­ly had been killed and an inde­pen­dent review of the autop­sy report showed that Ms. Ogle’s body like­ly had been dis­cov­ered with­in hours of her death. The report not­ed that a body left in the woods for four days in above-freez­ing tem­per­a­tures would have shown signs of decom­po­si­tion, insect infes­ta­tion, and ani­mal pre­da­tion, none of which were present, and the body’s state of livid­i­ty indi­cat­ed death had occurred with­in twelve hours of its discovery. 

Adding to the doubt in the case, Montgomery’s co-defen­dant, Glover Heard told police five dif­fer­ent sto­ries before set­tling on a ver­sion of events that fit the pros­e­cu­tion’s the­o­ry and, instead of fac­ing the death penal­ty, was sen­tenced to a term of years with eli­gi­bil­i­ty for parole. 

Montgomery’s lawyers also pre­sent­ed the parole board with affi­davits that under­mined its con­fi­dence in the jury ver­dict, includ­ing one from a juror who was con­fused as to what the law required, anoth­er from a juror who had doubts about Montgomery’s guilt, and a third juror whose psy­chi­atric behav­ior raised ques­tions about her abil­i­ty to serve. 

The Board major­i­ty cit­ed both the State’s fail­ure to dis­close the wit­ness reports that Ms. Ogle was alive after the State claimed she had been killed and the jurors’ affi­davits as rea­sons for rec­om­mend­ing com­mu­ta­tion. Four Board mem­bers opposed com­mu­ta­tion, argu­ing that the infor­ma­tion pre­sent­ed was insuf­fi­cient to over­turn the jury ver­dict and find­ing no ​“man­i­fest injus­tice” in the case that they believed warranted clemency. 

In an op-ed in the Toledo Blade, Phyllis Crocker, Dean of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and a for­mer mem­ber of the Ohio Supreme Court Joint Task on the Administration of Ohio’s Death Penalty, wrote: ​“At best, Montgomery was con­vict­ed on a false set of facts and at worst, he may be actu­al­ly inno­cent. In death penal­ty cas­es there must be no doubt what­so­ev­er. There is too much doubt to allow this execution.” 

Montgomery’s lawyer, Jon Oebker, reit­er­at­ed that his clien­t’s asser­tion of inno­cence and said the defense plans to ​“explore every avenue we can.” Governor Kasich must issue a deci­sion on the par­dons board­’s rec­om­men­da­tion before the April 11 execution date.