Matthew Jacober stood to address the judge inside the small, packed courtroom on the third floor of the St. Louis County Courthouse in Clayton, Missouri. Jacober, a special counsel representing the county’s elected prosecutor, had a confession to make: The knife used to kill Felicia Anne Gayle Picus inside her home in August 1998 had been contaminated by the prosecution team that had tried Marcellus Williams for her murder.
Because prosecutors had mishandled and improperly stored the weapon, Jacober said, county prosecutor Wesley Bell had concluded that Williams’s rights had been violated. His conviction — and death sentence — could not stand. “The murder weapon was handled without the proper procedures then in place,” Jacober told Judge Bruce Hilton. “The St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office regrets its failure to maintain proper protocols surrounding key physical evidence in this heinous crime.”
It was a stunning admission on the day that Jacober had been slated to present the state’s case that Williams had been wrongly convicted of killing Picus. The fact that the state had so tragically mishandled the murder weapon, which had traces of unknown male DNA, meant that a key piece of evidence that would support Williams’s exoneration was no longer usable.
It was a bitter pill. The judge overseeing Williams’s 2001 trial had denied his request for DNA testing. It wasn’t until 2016 that testing ordered by the Missouri Supreme Court excluded Williams as the source of DNA found on the knife. In other words, he could not be linked to the weapon. Now, Jacober admitted, a new round of testing revealed that a prosecutor’s investigator could not be excluded as the source. Nor could the prosecutor who handled Williams’s trial. Whatever DNA evidence there was connecting the perpetrator to the murder had been irretrievably lost.
While Jacober conceded that Williams’s conviction could not stand, neither could the office point to the unknown DNA on the murder weapon to exonerate him. Instead, after hours negotiating behind closed doors with Williams’s attorneys as spectators waited in the courtroom, the county prosecutors offered Williams a deal: agree to a plea that would take the specter of execution off the table, replaced by a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
Photo: Midwest Innocence Project
Williams would have to accept the arrangement to avoid being executed for a crime he insists he did not commit. Wearing a silvery gray thobe and white skull cap, his beard flecked with white, the 55-year-old Williams was still as Jacober spoke. The judge asked Williams if he had agreed to the terms. “Yes,” he said.
Hilton said he agreed with the outcome, as did Picus’s husband, Dan Picus. The judge would formally re-sentence Williams to life in prison the following day.
Everyone, it seemed, was on the same page. Everyone, that is, except Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. By Wednesday night, his office had successfully appealed to the state’s Supreme Court to block the deal. But Bell’s office was determined not to let Bailey have the final word.
“Inexorable Doubt”
Dan Picus came home from work on August 11, 1998, to find his wife dead. The former St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter had been stabbed repeatedly and the murder weapon, a knife from the couple’s kitchen, had been left lodged in her neck. Additionally, there were hairs found near Picus’s body, bloody fingerprints on a wall, and a trail of bloody shoeprints. Despite the wealth of physical evidence, the investigation stalled. It wasn’t until months later, after Picus’s family posted a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of her killer, that a jailhouse informant came forward claiming his former cellmate, Marcellus Williams, had confessed to the murder. Police later secured a second informant, a former girlfriend of Williams’s, who also claimed he’d taken responsibility.
Notably, none of the physical evidence at the scene tied Williams to the killing. And there was good reason to question the accounts provided by the informants; both were facing prison time for unrelated crimes, and each had a history of ratting out others to save themselves from trouble. Many of the details they offered police shifted over time, while others did not match the murder. Nonetheless, Williams was tried and sentenced to death.
Each of Williams’s appeals were denied. He was on the eve of execution in January 2015 when the Missouri Supreme Court stepped in and ordered DNA testing on the murder weapon, which ultimately revealed unknown DNA. The court summarily dismissed Williams’s claims without considering those results and reset his execution for August 2017.
The Midwest Innocence Project, which represents Williams, turned to Missouri’s then-Gov. Eric Greitens, asking him to halt the execution and to convene what’s known as a board of inquiry to investigate the case. On the day Williams was set to die, Greitens issued an executive order convening a five-member board of retired judges to “assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence” in the case. The board was given subpoena power and, per state law, tasked with reporting back to the governor whether or not Williams should be executed or his sentence commuted.
That process was ongoing when the current governor, Mike Parson, issued his own executive order in June 2023, disbanding the board.
He mentioned that it was time to “move forward.” The Midwest Innocence Project took legal action against Parson, arguing that he had exceeded his authority by disbanding the panel prematurely, before it had issued a required report. However, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in June 2024 that Parson had the right to do so. As a result, Williams’s execution was rescheduled for September 24.
Meanwhile, the county court was reviewing a motion filed by Bell in January to overturn Williams’s conviction. Bell cited several factors, including foreign DNA on the knife, questionable snitch testimony, inadequate defense representation, and jury pool discrimination. These factors created doubt about Williams’s conviction and sentence.
Recently, an unexpected turn of events occurred. A court hearing was scheduled to present evidence of Williams’s innocence.
The court session was delayed, with parties discussing a resolution. Eventually, it was revealed that due to mishandling of the murder weapon by the state, the physical evidence was no longer reliable for proving Williams’s innocence or guilt. The state admitted its errors and removed the death penalty from consideration. Williams agreed to an Alford plea for first-degree murder, maintaining innocence but acknowledging sufficient evidence for conviction.
Despite the absence of DNA evidence, an agreement was reached that allowed Williams to appeal his sentence if new evidence surfaced.
The attorney general’s office objected to the agreement, leading to further legal battles. The attorney general had been actively trying to prevent exonerations in the state. The court ultimately ordered a hearing to proceed, despite the lack of conclusive DNA evidence.
The upcoming hearing aims to demonstrate the flaws in Williams’s case, despite the absence of definitive DNA proof. The attorney general’s interference was criticized, with concerns raised about justice being obstructed.
Overall, the legal proceedings surrounding Williams’s case have been complex and contentious, with ongoing efforts to establish his innocence and seek justice. This ruling goes against the desires of a prosecutor who was elected by the community and the community itself, as well as the grieving family who has already suffered a great deal. This is not a fair outcome.
Source link
