With weeks left before his sched­uled exe­cu­tion on May 21, 2026, coun­sel for Tennessee death-sen­tenced pris­on­er Tony Carruthers has asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to order DNA test­ing that they argue could prove their client’s inno­cence. On April 9, lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an emer­gency motion seek­ing DNA test­ing on spe­cif­ic pieces of pro­ba­tive phys­i­cal evi­dence, most of which has nev­er been test­ed, and which will like­ly point to the real per­pe­tra­tor or per­pe­tra­tors and avoid a wrongful execution.”

Mr. Carruthers was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death for his alleged involve­ment in the kid­nap­ping and mur­der of Marcellos Anderson, Delois Anderson, and Frederick Tucker in 1994. Mr. Carruthers has long main­tained his inno­cence. Forensic evi­dence has nev­er con­nect­ed Mr. Carruthers to the crime, and his con­vic­tion relied almost entire­ly on the tes­ti­mo­ny of a jail­house infor­mant, who Mr. Carruthers’ coun­sel now knows was paid for his testimony.

Tennessee has the foren­sic evi­dence that could help answer that ques­tion, and they must test it before it is too late. There is no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for bar­rel­ing towards an exe­cu­tion while DNA evi­dence that could prove who real­ly com­mit­ted this crime remains untested.”

Maria DeLiberato, senior coun­sel at the ACLUs Capital Punishment Project.

For 30 years, pros­e­cu­tors main­tained they did not incen­tivize their key wit­ness, Albert Shaw, for his tes­ti­mo­ny against Mr. Carruthers. Despite numer­ous requests from defense coun­sel, the state did not pro­duce evi­dence of Mr. Shaw’s sta­tus as a con­fi­den­tial, paid infor­mant until August 2024. More than 20 pages of evi­dence hand­ed over in August 2024 show that Mr. Shaw worked for the state, includ­ing signed con­fi­den­tial agree­ments between Shaw and law enforce­ment dat­ing back to mid-1980s and ledgers of pay­ments to Mr. Shaw con­tin­u­ing to at least 2003.” 

Mr. Carruthers’ co-defen­dant, James Montgomery, was also sen­tenced to death for his involve­ment in the kid­nap­ping and mur­ders, but in 2010, after being resen­tenced to a term of years, Mr. Montgomery came for­ward in a signed state­ment affirm­ing what Mr. Carruthers long main­tained: Mr. Carruthers was not involved in the crime. Instead, Mr. Montgomery point­ed to anoth­er indi­vid­ual, Ronnie Irving. Mr. Irving was killed in 2002; how­ev­er, his fin­ger­prints and a DNA sam­ple are on file with the med­ical examiner’s office. There is uniden­ti­fied phys­i­cal evi­dence from the crime scene, includ­ing fin­ger­prints and an unknown male DNA pro­file, that have not been com­pared to those of Mr. Irving. Mr. Carruthers’ new motion asks the court to order a com­par­i­son of the unknown DNA to Mr. Irving and to allow for test­ing of three addi­tion­al pieces of evi­dence found with the vic­tims which have nev­er been analyzed.

In addi­tion to DNA test­ing, there are five fin­ger­prints that were recov­ered from the crime scene that do not match Mr. Carruthers and remain unmatched at this time. Mr. Carruthers filed a pro se motion before the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in September 2021 request­ing fur­ther fin­ger­print test­ing, which remains pend­ing. Before the state car­ries out an irre­versible pun­ish­ment, it must answer the most basic ques­tion: did they get the right per­son,” said Maria DeLiberato, senior coun­sel at the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project. Tennessee has the foren­sic evi­dence that could help answer that ques­tion, and they must test it before it is too late. There is no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for bar­rel­ing towards an exe­cu­tion while DNA evi­dence that could prove who real­ly com­mit­ted this crime remains untested.” 

At tri­al, Mr. Carruthers was forced to rep­re­sent him­self because his tri­al judge became frus­trat­ed with his repeat­ed dis­missal of court-appoint­ed coun­sel — which fil­ings allege was due to his long­stand­ing and well-doc­u­ment­ed men­tal ill­ness.” Mr. Carruthers did not ask to rep­re­sent him­self and repeat­ed­ly request­ed representation.Postconviction attor­neys for Mr. Carruthers wrote in a 2019 fil­ing that his per­for­mance at tri­al was one of the most sin­gu­lar­ly inept, inef­fec­tive, and dis­as­trous cross-exam­i­na­tions pos­si­ble, one that seemed designed to secure not only a guilty ver­dict, but a death sentence.” 

In February 2026, Mr. Carruthers’ attor­neys from the Tennessee Federal Public Defender’s Office filed a motion argu­ing their client can­not legal­ly be exe­cut­ed because of his severe men­tal ill­ness. According to the fil­ing, Mr. Carruthers has a per­va­sive and all-con­sum­ing obses­sion that a cabal of cor­rupt judges, pros­e­cu­tors, and defense attor­neys have con­spired to secure his con­vic­tion and death sen­tence.” His attor­neys detail his per­sis­tent belief that his exe­cu­tion date is sim­ply a threat to get him to accept a plea deal, and that he believes ille­gal wire­tap­ping of his record­ed prison calls enti­tles him to mil­lions of dol­lars in dam­ages. The fil­ing not­ed that Mr. Carruthers has called the Tennessee Federal Public Defender’s office as often as 300 times in one day. 

Under Ford v. Wainwright (1986) and Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment pro­hibits the exe­cu­tion of a per­son who can­not ratio­nal­ly under­stand the rea­son for their exe​cu​tion​.Mr. Carruthers’ attor­neys argue that his doc­u­ment­ed his­to­ry of psy­chi­atric dis­or­ders ren­ders his exe­cu­tion uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Senior Judge Mark Ward denied counsel’s com­pe­ten­cy motion for Mr. Carruthers, and news report­ing indi­cates his coun­sel will appeal that decision.

Citation Guide