ShareThis Page

Missouri governor stops execution after questions about DNA evidence

| Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2017, 9:09 p.m.
Lisha Gayle
Lisha Gayle
Marcellus Williams
Marcellus Williams

ST. LOUIS - Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens called off an execution Tuesday so the state could make sure it sentenced a guilty man to death.

Greitens granted a stay of execution to Marcellus Williams, who had been facing death by injection Tuesday evening for the 1998 murder of Lisha Gayle at her home in University City. Williams' lawyers had claimed recent DNA tests could prove their client's innocence.

With a little more than four hours to go before the execution was scheduled to begin, Greitens said he was appointing a board of inquiry to investigate the case in light of an “inconclusive” DNA test.

“A sentence of death is the ultimate, permanent punishment,” he said in a statement. “To carry out the death penalty, the people of Missouri must have confidence in the judgment of guilt.”

Attorneys for Marcellus Williams have insisted he could be innocent, after DNA found on the murder weapon did not match Williams' DNA.

Kent Gipson, a Kansas City-based lawyer for Williams said the governor's action was “good news” and said the appointment of a board of inquiry was a “rare thing” for a Missouri capital case.

Greitens invoked a rarely-used state law giving him discretion to appoint a board of inquiry to gather information and report back on whether a person condemned to death should be executed. Former Gov. Mel Carnahan convened two such boards in the 1990s.

Greitens said the five-member board would include retired Missouri judges and have the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence. His executive order said all of the proceedings would be closed to the public.

Williams, 48, was sentenced to death in 2001. The prosecution said Williams was burglarizing the home when Gayle, who had been taking a shower, surprised him. She fought for her life as she was stabbed repeatedly.

Williams' attorneys claim recent DNA tests could prove Williams' innocence.

The Missouri Supreme Court in 2015 postponed Williams' execution to allow time for the DNA tests. Using technology that was not available at the time of the killing, those tests show that DNA found on the knife matched an unknown male, according to an analysis by Greg Hampikian, a biologist with Boise State University. Williams' DNA was not found on the knife.

Despite that finding, the state's high court denied his petition to stop the execution and either appoint a special master to hear his innocence claim or vacate the death sentence and order his sentence commuted to life in prison.

Williams' attorneys have also petitioned Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, circuit justice for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to stop the execution. Gorsuch had not ruled by Tuesday evening.

Williams' attorneys were hoping for further DNA tests to compare the case to another slaying in 1998, the unsolved stabbing death of Debra McClain in Pagedale.

“Americans don't want their states executing innocent people,” said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington-based nonprofit clearinghouse for studies and reports related to capital punishment. “They want assurances that the evidence is at least carefully reviewed before people are executed. And this decision backs Missouri off the brink here.”

He said the U.S. Supreme Court should still review the case and “clearly declare that the Constitution guarantees that death row prisoners who present substantial evidence of their innocence be given a meaningful opportunity to prove it in court.”

In its response to the U.S. Supreme Court, the state said it had a wealth of non-DNA evidence to convict Williams. The state could prove Williams had sold Gayle's laptop to a third party after the killing, and had two witnesses who independently said he confessed to them. And, the state said, the lack his DNA on the murder weapon did not mean he was innocent.

One of the witnesses was Henry Cole, who shared a cell with Williams in the Workhouse in 1999. He testified that he had heard a report on TV about a $10,000 reward offered by Gayle's family, and that Williams told him “I pulled the caper . I laid that down.”

Cole told police about Laura Asaro, Williams' former girlfriend. She would later testify that when police confronted her, she told them that Williams had admitted killing Gayle. She helped police recover the computer with serial numbers that confirmed it had been stolen from Gayle's house.

Neither Cole nor Asaro could be reached Tuesday. An Ansaro relative said Williams' ex-girlfriend “doesn't have a statement to give and doesn't want to be contacted.”

Gayle was a Post-Dispatch reporter from 1981 to 1992. She left the paper to do volunteer social work with children and the poor. Her husband, Dr. Daniel Picus, declined to comment through a family member.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.