Innocence and Clemency

Cases involv­ing strong inno­cence claims, includ­ing those of Robert Roberson in Texas, Richard Glossip in Oklahoma, and Justin Wolfe in Virginia, con­tin­ued to draw sig­nif­i­cant atten­tion in 2025. Elwood Jones was exon­er­at­ed in Ohio on December 12, becom­ing the 202^nd per­son exon­er­at­ed from death row since 1973. For only the sec­ond time in the mod­ern era of the death penal­ty, an Alabama death row pris­on­er was grant­ed clemen­cy; Governor Kay Ivey reduced Rocky Myers’ death sen­tence to life with­out parole due to ques­tions about his guilt.

Potential inno­cence cas­es high­light­ed sys­temic prob­lems, par­tic­u­lar­ly those of offi­cial misconduct and ​“junk sci­ence.” Official mis­con­duct, which includes mis­con­duct by pros­e­cu­tors, police, or oth­er gov­ern­ment offi­cials, is the lead­ing cause of wrong­ful death sen­tences, and result­ed in court deci­sions this year grant­i­ng relief to Richard Glossip and Justin Wolfe. False foren­sic evidence or ​“junk sci­ence” is the num­ber three cause of wrong­ful death sen­tences. This year, the debunked theory of ​“shak­en baby syn­drome” or SBS was used to threat­en two Pennsylvania defen­dants with death sen­tences, and gar­nered nation­al atten­tion in the Texas case of Robert Roberson, who came with­in one week of exe­cu­tion before receiv­ing a stay from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Only Two Clemencies Granted in 2025

In February, Governor Kay Ivey grant­ed clemen­cy to Alabama pris­on­er Robin ​“Rocky” Myers. Mr. Myers was con­vict­ed in the 1991 mur­der of Ludie Mae Tucker in Decatur, Alabama. His jury rec­om­mend­ed that he be sen­tenced to LWOP, but the judge in his case over­rode the jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion and hand­ed down a death sen­tence. The prac­tice of judi­cial over­ride was abol­ished in Alabama in 2017.

Mr. Myers has con­sis­tent­ly main­tained his inno­cence. No evi­dence direct­ly links him to the crime, and eye­wit­ness­es did not iden­ti­fy him as the per­pe­tra­tor. A for­mer juror in the case, Mae Puckett, came for­ward in 2023 with her belief that Mr. Myers was not guilty: ​“They nev­er placed him in the house that night … I know he is inno­cent.” In reduc­ing Mr. Myers’ death sen­tence to life with­out parole, Gov. Ivey said she had ​“enough ques­tions about [his] guilt that I can­not move for­ward with exe­cut­ing him.” A recent review by DPI of the pub­lic rea­sons giv­en by those autho­rized to grant clemen­cy found that pos­si­ble inno­cence was cit­ed in 26% of all indi­vid­ual clemen­cy cas­es and was one of the top four rea­sons cited nationwide.

On November 13, Governor Kevin Stitt accept­ed the rec­om­men­da­tion of the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board and reduced Tremane Wood’s sen­tence to life with­out parole. Mr. Wood learned of the deci­sion just moments before his sched­uled exe­cu­tion. In a state­ment, Governor Stitt said, ​“This action reflects the same pun­ish­ment his broth­er received for their mur­der of an inno­cent young man and ensures a severe pun­ish­ment that keeps a vio­lent offend­er off the streets for­ev­er. In Oklahoma, we will con­tin­ue to hold account­able those who com­mit vio­lent crimes, deliv­er­ing jus­tice, safe­guard­ing our com­mu­ni­ties, and respect­ing the rule of law. I pray for the fam­i­ly of Ronnie Wipf and for the sur­viv­ing vic­tim, Arnie; they are mod­els of Christian for­give­ness and love.”

Mr. Wood’s broth­er con­fessed to the crime and received a life sen­tence. Mr. Wood has con­sis­tent­ly main­tained his inno­cence. The sur­viv­ing vic­tim of the crime, Arnold Kleinsasser, and the moth­er of mur­der vic­tim Ronnie Wipf both opposed Mr. Wood’s exe­cu­tion. At Mr. Wood’s clemen­cy hear­ing, his attor­ney, Amanda Bass Castro Alves, said, ​“The com­pas­sion and the mer­cy that the vic­tims in this case have extend­ed to Tremane, root­ed in their life-affir­m­ing Christian val­ues and in their recog­ni­tion that we have all fall­en short, is noth­ing short of trans­for­ma­tive. Mrs. Wipf and Arnold [Kleinsasser] are show­ing Tremane — and in fact, are show­ing all of us — that even when irrepara­ble harm has been inflict­ed, there is a path for­ward beyond vengeance, a path for­ward that is instead paved by for­give­ness, by com­pas­sion and by mercy.”

Elwood Jones Exonerated in Ohio

The only death row exon­er­a­tion in 2025 came on December 12, when Hamilton County, Ohio Prosecutor Connie Pillich announced the dis­missal of charges against Elwood Jones. ​“I did not take this extra­or­di­nary step light­ly,” said Prosecutor Pillich. ​“But after review­ing the evi­dence, I am not con­vinced that Mr. Jones killed Rhoda Nathan.” Mr. Jones, now 57, was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death in 1996 for the 1994 mur­der of Rhoda Nathan. 

Mr. Jones spent 27 years on Ohio’s death row before being grant­ed a new tri­al in December 2022, when 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. The undis­closed mate­ri­als includ­ed infor­ma­tion about anoth­er person’s alleged con­fes­sion to involve­ment in Ms. Nathan’s mur­der and evi­dence regard­ing a pen­dant found in Mr. Jones’ vehi­cle. He was released on bond in January 2023. 

Mr. Jones is the 202^nd per­son exon­er­at­ed from death row in the U.S., and the 12^th in Ohio.

Courts Grant Relief in Two Prominent Cases of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Federal courts chas­tised pros­e­cu­tors in the cas­es of Oklahoma pris­on­er Richard Glossip and Virginia pris­on­er Justin Wolfe, grant­i­ng both men the relief they request­ed after spend­ing decades on death row due to pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct. Both men were con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death in mur­der-for-hire cas­es in the ear­ly 2000s and have con­sis­tent­ly main­tained their innocence.

Richard Glossip’s 2004 con­vic­tion was over­turned by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 25. The Court ordered a new tri­al because pros­e­cu­tors allowed a key wit­ness to lie in court and with­held cru­cial infor­ma­tion about the same wit­ness. Justice Sonya Sotomayor, writ­ing for the major­i­ty, said that pros­e­cu­tors in Mr. Glossip’s case ​“vio­lat­ed [their] con­sti­tu­tion­al oblig­a­tion to cor­rect false tes­ti­mo­ny,” and thus, he ​“is enti­tled to a new tri­al.” The case involved the extra­or­di­nary inter­ven­tion of the state’s Attorney General, Gentner Drummond, in sup­port of Mr. Glossip.

On June 9, AG Drummond announced he would not seek a death sen­tence for Mr. Glossip at his retri­al, but just a month lat­er, Mr. Glossip’s attor­neys accused AG Drummond of reneg­ing on an agree­ment that would have result­ed in Mr. Glossip’s release. According to court fil­ings by attor­ney Don Knight, who rep­re­sents Mr. Glossip, in an April 1, 2023, email, Mr. Knight out­lined terms of an agree­ment regard­ing Mr. Glossip’s resen­tenc­ing with AG Drummond. At that time, Mr. Glossip had a pend­ing motion in front of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) ask­ing the court to over­turn his con­vic­tion. Once Mr. Glossip’s con­vic­tion was vacat­ed, as both par­ties antic­i­pat­ed, the state would file a sin­gle charge of being an acces­so­ry after the fact. AG Drummond, in reply to Mr. Knight’s pro­posed plea deal, said, ​“We are in agree­ment.” The deal would have giv­en Mr. Glossip a 45-year sen­tence with cred­it for time served and good behav­ior, mak­ing him eli­gi­ble for imme­di­ate release, as his sen­tence would have been com­plet­ed in 2016.

Mr. Glossip’s fil­ing is pend­ing before an Oklahoma judge.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of for­mer death row pris­on­er Justin Wolfe on July 7, vacat­ing a low­er court dis­missal of his most recent habeas peti­tion, and paving the way for a new hear­ing where Mr. Wolfe will have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to present new evi­dence in sup­port of his innocence. 

In his most recent peti­tion, coun­sel for Mr. Wolfe argued that a 2023 signed dec­la­ra­tion from Owen Barber, the indi­vid­ual respon­si­ble for car­ry­ing out the mur­der, exon­er­ates Mr. Wolfe and proves his actu­al inno­cence. Attorneys for the Commonwealth pre­vi­ous­ly argued that this dec­la­ra­tion was not new evi­dence, and in 2023, a fed­er­al judge agreed with them. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals pan­el dis­agreed, cit­ing the mis­con­duct of pros­e­cu­tors, and find­ing Owen Barber’s 2023 declaration ​“con­sti­tutes new evi­dence” that was not pre­vi­ous­ly avail­able. Mr. Wolfe’s con­vic­tion had been over­turned in 2011 after Mr. Barber recant­ed his tes­ti­mo­ny that Mr. Wolfe had hired him to kill a mar­i­jua­na dis­trib­u­tor in north­ern Virginia. Prosecutors threat­ened Mr. Barber with a death sen­tence if he tes­ti­fied for Mr. Wolfe at a retri­al, caus­ing Mr. Barber to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to tes­ti­fy. In 2016, Mr. Wolfe was resen­tenced to 41 years in prison after agree­ing to a plea deal to avoid a new death sentence.

Debunked ​“Shaken Baby Syndrome” Hypothesis Raises Serious Doubts in Capital Cases

Robert Roberson, a Texas death row pris­on­er who has been on death row since 2002 for the death of his two-year-old daugh­ter, Nikki, received a stay of exe­cu­tion in October over con­cerns about the valid­i­ty of the evi­dence used to con­vict him. Mr. Roberson was sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed on October 16, 2025, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals halt­ed the exe­cu­tion on October 9, remand­ing his case to the dis­trict court for fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion of his request for relief based upon relief offered in a sim­i­lar case, Ex parte Roark. Like Mr. Roberson’s case, Ex parte Roark also involved a con­vic­tion based on the now discredited ​“Shaken Baby Syndrome” hypoth­e­sis (SBS), and the CCA grant­ed relief to Mr. Roark based on con­clu­sions that the sci­ence behind SBS is no longer sound. 

Mr. Roberson request­ed relief under Texas’ junk sci­ence statute, cre­at­ed in 2013, which allows pris­on­ers to chal­lenge their con­vic­tions if the evi­dence used against them relied on now out­dat­ed and/​or debunked sci­ence. Since the law’s cre­ation, no death row pris­on­er in the state has suc­cess­ful­ly secured a new tri­al or form of relief.

Mr. Roberson’s case has gar­nered nation­al atten­tion due to his com­pelling inno­cence claims. Numerous med­ical experts agree that Nikki’s death was caused by pneu­mo­nia and pre-exist­ing med­ical con­di­tions. The lead detec­tive in the orig­i­nal case has spo­ken pub­licly about his belief that Mr. Roberson is inno­cent, and even the judge who set his most recent exe­cu­tion date called the decision ​“unfor­tu­nate” but acknowl­edged he had no legal basis to reject the Texas attor­ney general’s request for an exe­cu­tion date to be set. The involve­ment of the attor­ney gen­er­al, the gov­er­nor, and sev­er­al mem­bers of the Texas leg­is­la­ture inject­ed a com­pli­cat­ed polit­i­cal dimen­sion to the case pro­ceed­ings. Mr. Roberson’s case is the sub­ject of NBC​’s ​“Dateline” pod­cast and a forth­com­ing non-fic­­tion book by John Grisham enti­tled Shaken: The Rush to Execute an Innocent Man

Two defen­dants in Pennsylvania fac­ing cap­i­tal charges in alleged SBS cas­es filed a peti­tion before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court alleg­ing that Washington County District Attorney Jason Walsh has demon­strat­ed a pat­tern of improp­er­ly threat­en­ing or seek­ing death sen­tences in vio­la­tion of the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. The peti­tion not only impli­cates the debunked sci­ence of SBS but also rais­es seri­ous alle­ga­tions of prosecutorial misconduct.

In the case of one defen­dant, Joshua George, the peti­tion alleges DA Walsh’s First Assistant failed to dis­close excul­pa­to­ry tes­ti­mo­ny to the defense until after the pre­lim­i­nary hear­ing. Mr. George was ulti­mate­ly acquit­ted of all charges after only 90 min­utes of jury delib­er­a­tions. In the oth­er case, that of Jordan Clarke, the peti­tion alleges DA Walsh inter­vened so that Washington County would con­duct the autop­sy despite the death occur­ring in Allegheny County. Although Washington County pathol­o­gist Jennifer Hammers found the cause of death to be ​“blunt-force trau­ma of the head and tor­so,” Washington County Coroner Timothy Warco filed an invalid death cer­tifi­cate stat­ing the death was due to ​“Shaken Baby Syndrome/​Abusive Trauma” and deemed it a homi­cide after Allegheny County had already filed a death cer­tifi­cate. The Department of Health did not accept Coroner Warco’s improp­er fil­ing, instead accept­ing the death cer­tifi­cate filed by Allegheny County, which list­ed cause of death as ​“intracra­nial hem­or­rhage” and ​“man­ner of death as undetermined.” 

The affi­davit pro­vid­ed by Washington County Coroner Warco on July 25, 2025, states that DA Walsh coerced him to file a fraud­u­lent death cer­tifi­cate in the case of Mr. Clarke’s child to ensure it was deemed a homi­cide. Coroner Warco alleges that DA Walsh told him, “[you] know that I need this to be a homi­cide, I need it to win an elec­tion,” as his cam­paign plat­form focused on harsh pun­ish­ment for those who kill children.

Systemic Obstacles to Exoneration

These cas­es illus­trate some of the immense chal­lenges faced by pris­on­ers seek­ing exon­er­a­tion. Mr. Roberson, Mr. Glossip, and Mr. Wolfe have all been impris­oned for more than 20 years. Decisions by state offi­cials – pros­e­cu­tors and attor­neys gen­er­al – to retry them or pur­sue exe­cu­tion, even in the face of pub­lic out­cry and after favor­able judi­cial deci­sions, have left these cas­es in lim­bo for a generation. 

While some leg­is­la­tion, like the Texas junk sci­ence law that result­ed in Mr. Roberson’s stay of exe­cu­tion, has opened new avenues for pris­on­ers to pur­sue inno­cence claims, oth­er efforts have made it more dif­fi­cult. Louisiana and North Carolina passed laws to cur­tail their appeals process and poten­tial­ly expe­dite exe­cu­tions. Experts warn that these efforts will endan­ger peo­ple who have been wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed, espe­cial­ly because exon­er­a­tion evi­dence may not be dis­cov­ered for many years after a con­vic­tion. According to Jim Boren, a Louisiana cap­i­tal defense attorney, ​“What this bill would like to do is keep any more inno­cent peo­ple on death row from hav­ing ade­quate hear­ing and tri­als post-con­vic­­tion to deter­mine if their tri­al was fair.” 

On the fed­er­al lev­el, deci­sions inter­pret­ing the pro­vi­sions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) have sig­nif­i­cant­ly nar­rowed and some­times elim­i­nat­ed legal oppor­tu­ni­ties for pris­on­ers to access the courts, raise claims, and secure relief, even when there is com­pelling evi­dence of inno­cence. On January 20, 2025, President Trump’s Executive Order direct­ed the Department of Justice’s Attorney General to ​“take all appro­pri­ate action to approve or deny any pend­ing request for cer­ti­fi­ca­tion made by any State under 28 U.S.C. 2265,” a pro­vi­sion that per­mits states that meet cer­tain cri­te­ria regard­ing the appoint­ment of coun­sel in state post-con­vic­­tion proceedings to ​“opt in” to accel­er­at­ed fed­er­al habeas pro­ceed­ings. This year, sev­er­al states, includ­ing Texas, Arizona, Alabama, and Tennessee, have filed appli­ca­tions request­ing cer­ti­fi­ca­tion. If cer­ti­fied, death-sen­­tenced pris­on­ers will face short­ened statutes of lim­i­ta­tions and oth­er pro­ce­dur­al bar­ri­ers that are intend­ed to reduce the length and scope of fed­er­al habeas appeals.