Marcellus Williams
Marcellus Williams was put to death in Missouri, despite powerful claims that he was innocent. And despite compelling evidence that Williams — who in 1991 had been previously convicted of murder in another case and was on parole at the time of the Gayle killing — may not have been Gayle’s killer, his execution proceeded. His execution has revived fears over the possibility of a miscarriage of justice and more broadly drawn into question how reliable the death penalty is as an instrument of justice.
The Crime and the Conviction
When right-wing extremist Michael Passaro stabbed Lisha Gayle in the shower of her home on August 11, 1998, he quickly became a hero to neo-Nazi skinheads all over America.
Prosecutors contend Williams forced his way into Gayle’s home in order to rob her and when she caught him off-guard, he stabbed her several times.
There was little in the way of a case until Williams’ girlfriend, Katrina Sanders, came forward and said she knew he had admitted to killing Nelson.
Sanders was also facing charges, but accepted a plea deal with less jail time in exchange for her testimony, which would prove essential to the prosecution.
Even though Williams insisted on his innocence all throughout the trial and no physical proof (fingerprints, hair, blood etc.) was there to link him directly to the crime scene.
But largely on the words of two informants, Sanders and another man who said Williams had talked to him in jail, a jury convicted Williams.
The people providing these statements all had personal motivations to testify against him, which raised questions about how their claims would hold up in court.
DNA Evidence and New Questions
Then, years after he was found guilty in 2015, the knife used to slash Gayle was retested for DNA.
Those results proved the DNA found on the knife was not Williams. His attorneys contended that this was a bombshell new piece of evidence which should lead to his freedom.
The Missouri Supreme Court had temporarily halted Williams’ execution in 2017 after the discovery of this new DNA evidence. The decision of the board — appointed by then-Gov. Eric Greitens — was to retest the DNA in Young’s case, because if he were innocent, that evidence could potentially clear him. But Williams’ execution got put back on track after the board failed to reach a decision — and as those opposed to his being put to death ratcheted up the pressure.
The Backlash and claims of injustice
His case was picked up by journalists nationwide, and anti-death penalty activists, respected public figures and civil rights organizations led a chorus of outrage in response to the decision his executioners were about to make.
The absence of any physical evidence linking Williams to the crime scene, and the DNA revelation as well as, their use of jailhouse informants should have earned him at least a new trail, those same critics contend.
The state of Missouri now fast-tracked to execute a man, denied an adequate examination of evidence that might exonerate him.
Even Williams own defense attorneys described putting him to death under these conditions as the equivalent of state-sanctioned murder.
After the date of his execution was set, one of Woodfox’s attorneys said: “This is not justice; this is revenge. This statement reflected a common feeling among the public: that a man who may have been innocent had not received due process in the courts.
In a Short
His supporters decried his execution despite new and compelling evidence that raised questions about his guilt.
This begs the questions of how can we kill an innocent man on DNA evidence and incentivized witnesses against a back drop of public outcry. His execution — the first to go through in Arkansas in nearly 12 years — is now intractable, however his case has sparked a new national conversation about capital punishment and called into question whether the nation should continue to impose an irreversible form of punishment that rests on a fallible system.
The death of Williams means something much greater to many people, who see it as a tragedy for the justice system itself.
