POSSIBLE INNOCENCE: Despite DNA Evidence Clearing Marcellus Williams, Missouri Intends to Execute Him

The Missouri Supreme Court is con­sid­er­ing how to apply a rarely used state law intend­ed to pre­vent wrong­ful exe­cu­tions. Marcellus Williams (pic­tured), a death row pris­on­er who main­tains his inno­cence, could face exe­cu­tion if the state’s high court allows Governor Mike Parson to dis­solve a board of inquiry that for­mer Governor Eric Greitens formed to exam­ine Mr. Williams’ inno­cence claims. Mr. Williams’ attor­neys argue that state law requires the board to pro­vide a report and rec­om­men­da­tion to the gov­er­nor, while Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey argues that Gov. Parson’s clemen­cy author­i­ty allows him to dis­band the board of inquiry. 

Marcellus Williams was con­vict­ed in 2001 for the 1998 mur­der of a local jour­nal­ist, Felicia Gayle. St. Louis Police sus­pect­ed that Ms. Gayle’s mur­der was a rob­bery gone wrong, and the crime scene details matched those of a crime that occurred just a few weeks ear­li­er. The med­ical exam­in­er at the time not­ed the sim­i­lar­i­ties between the two cas­es and the local police chief told author­i­ties they had iden­ti­fied a ​“prime sus­pect” whom they believed had killed before. Despite this lead, no arrests were made until the victim’s fam­i­ly offered a $10,000 reward for infor­ma­tion lead­ing to the killer’s arrest. A jail­house infor­mant, Henry Cole, went to police with a sto­ry about how Marcellus Williams, a for­mer cell­mate of his, con­fessed to killing Ms. Gayle. Cops lat­er secured a sec­ond infor­mant, Mr. Williams’ for­mer girl­friend, Laura Asaro, who told the police that he had killed Ms. Gayle. Both Mr. Cole and Ms. Asaro were fac­ing unre­lat­ed charges and stood to ben­e­fit from tes­ti­fy­ing for the state. Despite each informant’s sto­ry chang­ing, Mr. Williams was charged, con­vict­ed, and sen­tenced to death for the mur­der of Felicia Gayle. 

At tri­al, Mr. Cole and Ms. Asaro were essen­tial to the state’s case against Mr. Williams. No phys­i­cal evi­dence dis­cov­ered at the crime scene could be con­nect­ed to Mr. Williams, but Ms. Asaro claimed that he had scratch­es on his face the day fol­low­ing the mur­der. Scientific test­ing revealed no for­eign DNA under­neath Ms. Gayle’s fin­ger­nails. Mr. Cole told the jury that Mr. Williams had stolen cloth­ing from the victim’s house to cov­er bloody stains, yet no clothes were deter­mined to be miss­ing from Gayle’s home. Additionally, bloody shoeprints at the crime scene were a dif­fer­ent size than Mr. Williams’ feet and the fin­ger­prints lift­ed at the crime scene were unus­able, per the state’s stan­dard, and were nev­er giv­en to the defense to ana­lyze before being destroyed. Before Mr. Williams’ tri­al, the cir­cuit court judge refused to allow DNA test­ing of some of the evi­dence col­lect­ed from the crime scene. In 2015, Mr. Williams was giv­en per­mis­sion for DNA test­ing of the mur­der weapon, which revealed a male DNA pro­file incon­sis­tent with that of Mr. Williams.

With this new evi­dence, Mr. Williams appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, but they dis­missed the new evi­dence and set an August 2017 exe­cu­tion date. The same day Mr. Williams was sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed, he received a stay of exe­cu­tion from then-Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, who cre­at­ed a Board of Inquiry to review the DNA evi­dence. A five-mem­ber board con­sist­ing of retired judges was impan­eled to ​“assess the cred­i­bil­i­ty and weight of all evi­dence” in Mr. Williams’ case. In the order from Gov. Greitens, he indi­cat­ed that the board must make a final report and rec­om­men­da­tion to the gov­er­nor ​“as to whether or not [Mr.] Williams should be exe­cut­ed, or his sen­tence of death commuted.” 

Just a year after the board’s for­ma­tion, Governor Greitens left office and cur­rent Governor Mike Parson took his place, advis­ing the pan­el to con­tin­ue their evi­den­tial inquiry. In June 2023, Gov. Parson issued an exec­u­tive order rescind­ing Gov. Greitens’ order to estab­lish the board of inquiry. In his state­ment, Gov. Parson said that ​“this board was estab­lished near­ly six years ago, and it is time to move for­ward… We could stall and delay for anoth­er six years, defer­ring jus­tice, leav­ing a victim’s fam­i­ly in lim­bo, and solv­ing noth­ing. This admin­is­tra­tion won’t do that.”

A 1963 state law intend­ed to pre­vent wrong­ful exe­cu­tions, allows the gov­er­nor to not only grant reprieves, com­mu­ta­tions, and par­dons, but also pro­vides the gov­er­nor with the author­i­ty ​“to appoint a board of inquiry tasked with gath­er­ing infor­ma­tion bear­ing on whether a per­son ​‘con­demned to death’ should in fact be exe­cut­ed.” The board ​“shall” issue final reports and rec­om­men­da­tions to the gov­er­nor. Attorneys for Mr. Williams are suing Gov. Parson, argu­ing that he vio­lat­ed state law when he dis­solved the board before it could ful­fill its statu­to­ry oblig­a­tion to pro­vide a rec­om­men­da­tion in his case. They say Gov. Parson’s dis­so­lu­tion of the board before it could pro­vide a report direct­ly con­tra­dicts the leg­is­la­tion passed more than six­ty years ago.

“All Mr. Williams is ask­ing is for the board of inquiry to be able to com­plete its work and issue a report and rec­om­men­da­tion, ensur­ing that at least one gov­ern­ment enti­ty final­ly hears all the evi­dence of his inno­cence,” said Midwest Innocence Project Executive Director Tricia Rojo Bushnell. ​“Mr. Williams has a right to this process that was start­ed by Gov. Greitens pre­cise­ly out of the con­cern that Missouri may exe­cute an inno­cent per­son,” Ms. Bushnell added. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey asked the Circuit Court to dis­miss the law­suit, but the court con­clud­ed that it should pro­ceed. AG Bailey has now asked the state Supreme Court to weigh in on the valid­i­ty of Mr. Williams’ law­suit. AG Bailey told the court that Mr. Williams is attempt­ing to ​“hijack” Gov. Parson’s clemen­cy author­i­ty. Mr. Williams’ attor­neys wrote to the Missouri Supreme Court that ​“the governor’s clemen­cy pow­er exists for the pub­lic good, not his own… As a result, a board of inquiry serves the pub­lic, not the gov­er­nor, and the board ​‘shall’ make a report and rec­om­men­da­tion for the governor’s con­sid­er­a­tion before he makes a final clemency decision.”

The Conviction and Incident Review Unit in the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office has asked the state Supreme Court to not set an exe­cu­tion date for Mr. Williams for at least the next six months. The office is also inves­ti­gat­ing Mr. Williams’ case and needs to deter­mine whether it will seek to vacate his sen­tence under Missouri law.