Missouri High Court Stops Deal To Avoid Prisoner’s Execution

In a suburban St. Louis courtroom, Marcellus Williams seemed likely to be spared from execution when the prosecutor's office questioned his guilt and consented to a life sentence without parole. Hours later, the Missouri Supreme Court halted the deal over concerns that a judge had overstepped his authority in approving the new plea and sentence, reports the New York Times. The late-night order on Wednesday was the latest move in Williams's effort to prove his innocence and avoid execution. It reflected a power struggle between the state attorney general and local prosecutors in wrongful conviction cases. Williams, who is scheduled to be executed on Sept. 24, was convicted of killing Felicia Gayle, a well-known newspaper reporter, in her suburban St. Louis home in 1998. Williams, 55, has always maintained his innocence, but his appeals and post-conviction pleadings were unsuccessful.

In 2021, Missouri allowed prosecutors to challenge old convictions if new evidence suggests innocence. St. Louis County Prosecutor Wesley Bell sought to overturn Williams's conviction, citing unreliable witnesses and racial bias in jury selection. Evidence showed Williams's DNA was not at the crime scene. A lab report revealed that DNA on the murder weapon matched an investigator and prosecutor from the original trial, suggesting possible mishandling of evidence. The surprise finding dashed the defense team’s hope that the DNA would point to an unknown perpetrator, which would bolster Williams’s claim of innocence. Instead, Bell’s office backed away from its motion that sought exoneration and proposed an agreement that would change Williams’s sentence from death to life without parole. The judge accepted the agreement, but Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey objected, insisting that Williams was guilty of murder in the death of Gayle. Bailey, who has routinely tried to block exonerations, asked the state Supreme Court to intervene, saying that the judge had not held the required hearing and that he had exceeded his power in accepting the agreement without the attorney general’s assent.