Ohio Appeals Court Rules Prosecutors Cannot Use Witness Testimony in Retrial of Elwood Jones

In late August 2025, the First District Court of Appeals of Ohio ruled that Hamilton County pros­e­cu­tors can­not use pri­or wit­ness tes­ti­mo­ny in their retri­al of Elwood Jones, who was on Ohio’s death row for 27 years until he was grant­ed a new tri­al in December 2022. Mr. Jones was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death for the mur­der of Rhoda Nathan in a Blue Ash, Ohio, hotel in 1994, despite con­sis­tent­ly main­tain­ing his inno­cence. In 2022, Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Wende Cross ruled that the with­hold­ing of thou­sands of pages of evi­dence from Mr. Jones’ tri­al coun­sel was a sig­nif­i­cant vio­la­tion of his con­sti­tu­tion­al rights, war­rant­i­ng a new tri­al. Judge Cross held that the evi­dence left undis­closed to Mr. Jones’ coun­sel under­mined the jury’s ver­dict and rein­forced ​“a win-at-all-cost men­tal­i­ty that under­mines the pur­suit of jus­tice.” Judge Cross added, “[i]t is clear the fail­ure to dis­close the exis­tence of rel­e­vant excul­pa­to­ry and impeach­ing evi­dence pri­or to tri­al deprived Elwood Jones of a fair trial…The Sixth Amendment requires a new tri­al as the only appropriate remedy.” 

The state appealed Judge Cross’ deci­sion and attor­neys for Mr. Jones asked the court to exclude tes­ti­mo­ny dur­ing a retri­al from now-deceased Blue Ash Police Officer Michael Bray, whose tes­ti­mo­ny was essen­tial to secur­ing a con­vic­tion against Mr. Jones. Among the doc­u­ments ini­tial­ly with­held from Mr. Jones’ tri­al coun­sel was infor­ma­tion regard­ing anoth­er man’s alleged con­fes­sion of his involve­ment in the mur­der of Ms. Nathan, as well as evi­dence that would have impeached Officer Bray’s tes­ti­mo­ny sur­round­ing his col­lec­tion of evi­dence. Officer Bray claimed to have dis­cov­ered a unique gold pen­dant miss­ing from Ms. Nathan’s body in a tool­box in Mr. Jones’ car, after oth­er offi­cers had already searched the tool­box and car and did not recov­er any evi­dence. Also with­held from tri­al coun­sel was evi­dence that offi­cials from the Blue Ash Police Department trav­elled to New York to vis­it Ms. Nathan’s home and dis­cov­ered the pen­dant was sim­ply pur­chased from a local jew­el­er and was not cus­tom made and unique to her. The pros­e­cu­tion also with­held evi­dence, includ­ing a Hepatitis B test that ​“is so sig­nif­i­cant that the state’s the­o­ry is sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly implau­si­ble,” wrote Judge Cross. 

In 2023, Judge Cross ruled that tes­ti­mo­ny from Officer Bray would be exclud­ed from Mr. Jones’ new tri­al because Mr. Jones could no longer con­front Officer Bray in efforts to impeach his tes­ti­mo­ny. A three-judge pan­el from Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Cross’ deci­sion, not­ing that Mr. Jones’ tri­al coun­sel did not have ​“an ade­quate oppor­tu­ni­ty to cross-exam­ine Officer Bray in 1996” and would be unable to do so now. The pan­el also not­ed the state did not con­test this point: ​“The State had nev­er argued that [Mr.] Jones’ oppor­tu­ni­ty to cross-exam­ine Officer Bray in 1996 was oth­er­wise ade­quate or that any parts of Officer Bray’s tes­ti­mo­ny are admis­si­ble under the Confrontation Clause.” 

Following the panel’s deci­sion, Hamilton County Prosecutor Connie Pillich told local news that she has ​“famil­iar­ized [her]self with Elwood’s case and the many oth­er death penal­ty cas­es in the appeals process. My office is tak­ing [this] case by case and is ded­i­cat­ed to jus­tice with integri­ty for the vic­tims and the defen­dants.” Jay Clark, an attor­ney for Mr. Jones, said the state’s case against his client has fall­en apart because ​“they cer­ti­fied with­out this evi­dence, they can­not suc­cess­ful­ly pros­e­cute the case. As it stands right now, they don’t have that evi­dence any­more.” Ms. Pillich, the first elect­ed Democrat pros­e­cu­tor in 92 years in the coun­ty and the county’s first elect­ed female pros­e­cu­tor, estab­lished a Conviction Integrity Unit in April 2025 ​“to iden­ti­fy, review, and cor­rect wrong­ful con­vic­tions or mis­car­riages of jus­tice” with the goal of enhanc­ing pub­lic trust ​“by pro­mot­ing trans­paren­cy and accountability.” 

Mr. Jones spoke with local news fol­low­ing the panel’s deci­sion to affirm Judge Cross’ rul­ing. Mr. Jones told WLWT he is ​“very thank­ful” for his attor­neys’ efforts to fight for his free­dom. ​“I said over and over, I feel sor­ry, but I’m a vic­tim just like her. I did noth­ing. I did not hurt your moth­er or kill her. I was nev­er in that room,” Mr. Jones empha­sized. Despite being out of prison for near­ly three years, Mr. Jones told WLWT ​“It’s a ride. Some days it’s good. Some days it’s bad.” Mr. Jones said he found his strength dur­ing his time behind bars in both faith and his fam­i­ly, “[t]hat’s all I have left,” Mr. Jones said. 

A sep­a­rate appeal in Mr. Jones’ case remains pend­ing in front of the Ohio Supreme Court.