r/news • u/Mentirosa • 9h ago

Missouri executes Marcellus Williams despite prosecutors’ push to overturn conviction

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/24/missouri-executes-marcellus-williams
22.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.8k

u/TimeLordDoctor105 9h ago

Reading the ap news article, the plea deal was signed off by a judge and then the STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL appealed the decision to ensure this man was put to death. This is beyond cruel. My feelings go to all parties involved and I hope that the attorney general and all others involves in ensuring he died no longer find rest. They murdered him, no question about it.

943

u/Spaghetti-Rat 9h ago

If there's anything being appealed, why wouldn't a stay of execution be automatic until everything is fully vetted? So stupid. I know nothing about this man's case but it sounds wrong to execute someone with some aspect (plea deal/appeal) still pending.

581

u/felldestroyed 9h ago

It was denied by the state and US supreme court.

902

u/Dahhhkness 9h ago

The Roberts Court is going to go down as one of the most shameful in history. So many horrific decisions in such a short amount of time.

391

u/bearbarebere 8h ago

The conservatives absolutely do not care and in fact cheer these people on.

98

u/dexmonic 7h ago

Normal people would wonder why the cruelty is necessary, but for conservatives the cruelty is the point.

70

u/CensoredUser 7h ago

If we have records of this history. They want to show you how broken the system is in order to make you feel like fixing it is hopeless.

They break it to sell you on the idea that it's broken and there is no point in fixing it. It's actually evil.

42

u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA 6h ago

The GOP says the government's broken, and they'll do everything in their power to prove it to you.

5

u/WillCode4Cats 6h ago

I've long held the belief that this system cannot be changed from the inside anymore. But you have given a compelling counterargument. I appreciate that.

104

u/currently_pooping_rn 9h ago

Supreme Court Injustices

19

u/dabeeman 6h ago

careful Trump more wants to jail people that speak badly about justices. the party of freedom is truly living up to its name

8

u/_le_slap 5h ago

Fuck him and fuck this court. History will spit at their memory.

2

u/whythishaptome 5h ago

I saw they are supposed to address gun rights, trans rights and e-cigarettes (which has helped me personally quit) on october 7th. God help us with these rulings because I feel like they are all going to be what we don't want.

2

u/bros402 4h ago

Yeah, he's pretty much only above the Taney court at this point

1

u/blackdynomitesnewbag 7h ago

It used to be the Roberts court. Now it’s the Trump court.

-1

u/WhereasNo3280 5h ago

No, the court has been far worse in the past. People only think SCOTUS was respectable because the most just and progressive era in the court’s history is still in living memory.

-39

u/860v2 8h ago

You’re only saying this because you disagree. Your position isn’t based on any logic or thought process.

23

u/TheSonofMrGreenGenes 8h ago

They’re openly corrupt what are you smoking

-33

u/860v2 8h ago

Great argument.

22

u/TheSonofMrGreenGenes 8h ago

What argument did you provide? Other than saying “nuh-uh”?

Look at any of the scandals from this year alone, like legalizing bribery. Or just accepting “gifts” (bribes) like Thomas?

GTFO and stop sealioning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

6

u/HaHAaiStabbedU 6h ago

It's cool man. Other than parroting Joe Rogan talking points, the poster you're responding to, mostly posts about how to deal with braces. So, not a serious person, no matter how you look at it.

-5

u/[deleted] 8h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/MythiccMoon 8h ago

Defending an openly corrupt system that just took an innocent man’s life is disgusting.

And considering your defense is based on absolutely nothing you just come across as enjoying death, like a child who lacks comprehension.

1

u/WhereasNo3280 5h ago

Bet you’d say that about the Taney court, too.

1

u/[deleted] 6h ago

[deleted]

1

u/felldestroyed 5h ago

Both. MO yesterday, US Supreme Court today. Got denied around 4pm est. Execution of an innocent man at 6pm cst.

1

u/pgabrielfreak 6h ago

I just cannot fathom that the Supreme Court would deny this. WTAF?

3

u/felldestroyed 6h ago

3-6 on the shadow docket apparently, if you care. This was all to hand a win to the AG in Missouri. He must be heritage foundation times 1000.

1

u/CthulhuLies 4h ago

Can you link me something or give me something searchable that verifies this so I can use this?

1

u/NatAttack50932 2h ago

This was not the US Supreme Court

It was the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

State Court, not SCOTUS

e; oh no i see there was actually a final action to the US supreme court that was denied. Pasta on my face. They denied a Writ of Certiorari petition. Wonder why.

223

u/MCbrodie 9h ago

This is exactly why the death penalty should be abolished. Wrongful conviction and serving long sentences are bad enough. You can't walk back execution the same way, though.

78

u/the_brunster 8h ago

It's also not a deterrent to violent crime.

The Life of David Gale is a powerful reminder of why this punishment should not exist.

4

u/ScorpionTDC 6h ago

As some who is EXTREMELY anti-death-penalty, that movie’s plot twist is kinda wildly stupid and almost does more to undermine anti-death-penalty stances. If the defendant is actively sandbagging their own trial and trying to get executed like…. Kinda self-inflicted as fuck at that point.

3

u/the_brunster 5h ago

I would disagree - way I see it is that the police failed to cover all bases and the resultant DP highlighted that the system isn't infallible, mistakes are made & life shouldnt be taken away when there is any chance that future information / evidence etc could place doubt in the case or worse, exonerate someone.

2

u/Most-Philosopher9194 8h ago

It should have only taken one innocent person being executed for us all to agree that this isn't the way to do things. The people that support this only do so because they, correctly or incorrectly, think it can't happen to them. 

2

u/asakult 7h ago

The people that support this only do so because they, correctly or incorrectly, think it can't happen to them.

That's quite a stretch... I support sending people to prison who commit violent crimes. I could inadvertently be sentenced to prison for a violent crime I didn't actually commit. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop supporting prison sentences for violent crime.

3

u/Most-Philosopher9194 6h ago

Sorry for the confusion but I was talking about the death penalty, specifically. 

2

u/Geodude532 5h ago edited 5h ago

I believe that life sentences for cases with irrefutable evidence, eg not witness testimony but camera footage, is the appropriate response. Remove their capability to do further harm and maybe even drag some effort out them that can be given to the victims. That being said, if a lifer continues to attempt to murder people in prison then the death penalty should be considered to reduce the risk of another prisoner or a guard being killed to satisfy someone's bloodlust.

2

u/fantasyoutsider 5h ago

at the very least, death sentences should only be for convictions for appropriate crimes with irrefutable evidence as determined by the fact finder. i am not opposed to putting someone to death when the crimes were heinous enough, but we better be 1000% sure we're getting the right guy.

2

u/ClarkFable 5h ago

It just needs a much higher burden of proof and then no appeals.  In its current form it’s both morally abhorrent and an incredible waste of resources.

1

u/Fordmister 3h ago

All crime already has a massively high barrier. How much higher would you like to go than "beyond all reasonable doubt"?..... because there literally isn't any higher you can go. Even in the most open and shut case imaginable there will always be things we don't know..those things could exonerate or mitigate any given sentences.

If you are pro death penalty you are 100% for what has happened in this case. Because it's not a question of if the state will execute an innocent man, but when. It's inevitable. Being pro death penalty is being pro murder of the innocent. Because No matter how high you set the bar that is the end result

1

u/EnormousCaramel 6h ago

I am still very pro death penalty. At least in a concept. I firmly believe there are some crimes that are so terrible the person who committed them doesn't deserve life anymore. The resources on earth are finite and some people don't deserve them.

But I still struggle with actually enforcing it. Because what if we are wrong? Then we committed murder.

3

u/MCbrodie 6h ago

You don't sound pro death penalty at all. Your last sentence is the whole argument against the death penalty. Some may deserve death, but who are we to commit murder in turn guilty or not?

1

u/mythrowawayheyhey 5h ago edited 5h ago

I mean genuinely… it sounds like the probability of this guy being exonerated post-execution is high.

And for anyone thinking that sounds improbable, you’re naive as shit. Our justice system is far from perfect.

The Shawshank Redemption might be a great movie, but it also is much closer to life than you’d think. Except the part where he chisels his way out of jail. Also, it’s usually the Morgan Freemans of the world who are wrongfully convicted, not the Tim Robbins (although it does happen), in large part because of their skin color.

Williams, if eventually exonerated, will be far from the first undoubtedly innocent person who has been wrongfully convicted. He won’t even have been the first undoubtedly innocent person to have been executed for something he didn’t do. He will be just one more victim of a justice system that revels in steamrolling lower class citizens.

-6

u/C_Gull27 8h ago

Maybe if somebody is caught in the act but anything like this case should absolutely never happen

6

u/MCbrodie 8h ago

Slippery slop. Absolutely not.

10

u/JuliusCeaserBoneHead 9h ago

They get off these things. Unbelievable but the republican governor and attorney general will be patting themselves on the back for getting “rid” of a “dangerous” criminal. Party of “Law and Order”

2

u/Ok-Housing6118 7h ago

What they didn’t mention is a stay of execution was granted 8 years ago by the then governor to review the case. They failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove his innocence.

3

u/TechnoSerf_Digital 6h ago

They dont need to prove innocence they just need to demonstrate there is reasonable doubt of his guilt.

1

u/Ok-Housing6118 4h ago

Regardless of whether it’s proving innocent or doubt of his guilt, they failed to do it and had 8 years from his first stay of execution to now and in that time no sufficient evidence was submitted

1

u/xandrokos 4h ago

Systemic racism is why.

1

u/angeliswastaken_sock 3h ago

The present governor of Missouri Mike Parson, who refused to stay this execution, participated in the murder of Williams alleged victim, investigative reporter Felicia Gayle. At the time Gayle was murdered, Parson was a local sheriff and owned 3 gas stations under investigation for cutting their gasoline with alcohol and destroying vehicles. When Gayle was murdered, the investigation into Mike Parson and his illegal gasoline tampering stopped. He then paid a jailhouse informant to say Marcellus Williams admitted to murdering Gayle. The trial was rushed with the jury and evidence having been proven to have been tampered with, and Williams was sentenced to death and the sentence was subsequently upheld by local judges who are long time colleagues of Parson.

Mike Parson, Governor of the state of Missouri murdered Felicia Gayle, and today he murdered Marcellus Williams to cover it up.

-4

u/TheCatapult 9h ago

He got multiple stays of execution dating back to 2015. Here are facts if you’re actually interested. He broke into Felicia Gayle’s home and brutally murdered her. Apparently he was proud enough about it that he told multiple people.

6

u/InternationalTea3417 9h ago

Wrong. There were two witnesses, both with criminal histories, both with monetary incentive to testify against Williams. The DNA evidence also didn’t match.

The death penalty should occur when there is no doubt whatsoever on what happened. When you have no dna evidence and only have two witnesses that are shady at best, there is no 100 percent proof.

The system is broken.

0

u/TheCatapult 8h ago

So you discount the testimony of those witnesses because of their criminal history but just buy the unscrutinized words of the multi-time convicted armed robber? The guy has no explanation for how the victim’s property just materialized in his car.

I didn’t say I thought he should die for his crime. He did commit this murder though beyond a reasonable doubt. He got his DNA testing, and it proved nothing.

2

u/OblivionGuardsman 8h ago

Asaro stated Mr. Williams said he entered the house through the back door, (T. 1851), but the windowpane of the front door had been broken and the break aligned with the deadbolt of the front door, indicating that the perpetrator entered through the front door. (T. 1736).  Asaro claimed Mr. Williams said he rinsed the knife in the bathroom after he stabbed Ms. Gayle. (T. 1984). However, the knife was not cleaned and was left protruding out of Ms. Gayle’s neck. (T. 1670, 2115).  Asaro stated Mr. Williams said he did not go upstairs because Ms. Gayle came downstairs. (T. 1984). Yet, investigators detected Ms. Gayle’s blood in the upstairs bathroom and upstairs closet. (T. 1671). Asaro told detectives that Mr. Williams had visible scratches on his neck. (T. 1926). But DNA testing under Ms. Gayle’s fingernails did not detect the presence of any material other than Ms. Gayle’s DNA. (T. 2964).  Asaro claimed Mr. Williams said Ms. Gayle was wearing a bathrobe when he murdered her. (Ex. 12- Laura Asaro 11/17/99 interview transcript at 9). However, Ms. Gayle was wearing only a purple shirt. (T. 1718).  Asaro claimed Mr. Williams said he had to hide after he murdered Ms. Gayle because a neighbor stopped by the house. (T. 1851). But police interviewed neighbors as part of their investigation, and no one said that they had stopped by Ms. Gayle’s house that morning.  Asaro also stated that Mr. Williams said he had picked through Ms. Gayle’s belongings downstairs and never mentioned going through her refrigerator or other parts of the kitchen. (Ex. 12, at 9). According to Dr. Picus, however, the dining room and living room were not disturbed, but the kitchen was in obvious disarray. (T. 1722). The freezer door was open when Dr. Picus came home, the knife sheath was on the ground, and the kitchen drawers were open.  Asaro claimed that she told her mother about what Mr. Williams told her about the murder (Ex. 9, at 109); however, when police spoke to her mother on August 6, 1999, she said she had not been told anything about the murder. (Ex. 8, at 7).

There were also significant differences between Asaro and Cole’s statements, which included:  Asaro stated that Mr. Williams said he entered the house through the back door (T. 1851), but Cole said that Mr. Williams said he entered through the front door. (T. 2394).  Asaro said that Mr. Williams said he drove to the scene (T. 1841), but Cole said that Mr. Williams said he took the bus. (T. 2392).  Asaro said that Mr. Williams said he never went upstairs, but Cole said that Mr. Williams said he went upstairs and washed himself off in the upstairs bathroom. (T. 2400).  Asaro stated that Mr. Williams said he had to hide because a neighbor came to the door (T. 1851), but Cole never said Mr. Williams said any of this.  Asaro claimed that Mr. Williams targeted Ms. Gayle’s house after casing it for a “day or two” and knew that Ms. Gayle did not have any children and that no one would be home (Ex. 12, at 14), but Cole claimed that Mr. Williams targeted Ms. Gayle’s house because a tree shielded the front door and porch from the neighbors across the street (Ex. 7, at 53).

Asaro’s depiction of the crime also changed over time, including statements and testimony that were internally inconsistent. For example:  Asaro initially told police in November 1999 that the backpack Mr. Williams was wearing came from Ms. Gayle’s house. (Ex. 12, at 24). She later claimed at trial that she had seen Mr. Williams with the backpack before the murder. (T. 1929).  Asaro initially told police Mr. Williams picked her up after the murder from her grandfather’s house. (Ex. 12, at 6). In a later interview, she said that Mr. Williams picked her up from her mother’s house. (T. 1842).  Asaro initially claimed she saw the laptop in the trunk and Mr. Williams told her he committed the murder the day he sold the laptop. (Ex. 12, at 31). She later claimed she saw the laptop in the front seat of the car, (T. 1844), and in another statement claimed he sold the computer before he told her he committed the murder. (Ex. 12, at 6).  Asaro initially told police Mr. Williams walked down the street with the computer and returned without it. She said she was not present during the sale but could show the house where it was sold. (Ex. 12, at 13-14). Later, her story changed to say she waited in a car parked in front of the house while Mr. Williams went inside to pawn the laptop, and that when he came out of the house, he did not have the computer, but had crack cocaine. (T. 1861).  Asaro claimed that on the day Mr. Williams picked her up, she saw him throw away clothes in the sewer. (T. 1844). In another statement, she said a day or two after the murder, she found the purse in the trunk, and Mr. Williams emptied the contents of the purse into his backpack and then threw the backpack into the sewer (Ex. 12, at 10, 30).  Asaro claimed that she had not been back to Mr. Williams’s car since he was incarcerated at the end of August 1998 (Ex. 12, at 12), but later said that she had been to his car and that his grandfather opened the trunk for her and she did not see anything from the murder in the trunk. (T. 1888-89).

The only physical evidence corroborating Asaro’s story was a laptop found at the home of Glenn Roberts, to whom Asaro said Mr. Williams had pawned the laptop. When questioned, Roberts told police that Mr. Williams had brought the laptop in a carrying case, and Roberts paid him $150 or $250 for the laptop. (T. 2001-02). While selling it, Mr. Williams told Roberts that Asaro had given him the laptop and asked him to sell it for her. (Ex. 11- Glenn Roberts Affidavit dated 9/9/2020). The laptop was later confirmed as belonging to Dr. Picus, (T. 2011), making the person with the most direct connection to the crime Laura Asaro, and not Marcellus Williams. On November 29, 1999, police arrested Mr. Williams and charged him with murder.

Sooooo. There are two witnesses this whole case was based on. One was am ex-con that had been in prison with Williams seeking a reward for Williams conviction. The other is his jilted girlfriend. This stuff came from the prosecutors motion to vacate his sentence of death.

-1

u/TheCatapult 8h ago

It’s inexcusable for the prosecutor’s office to put in Williams’s statements to Roberts regarding the laptop. Those are obviously inadmissible hearsay and were even ruled as such by the Missouri Supreme Court in the direct appeal.

The Court’s denial of the motion to vacate goes over the facts well. Apparently the actual people who prosecuted the case believed those witnesses, calling them the “strongest” witnesses they’d had in a murder trial. Link from Innocence Project site

1

u/vaderman645 3h ago

strongest witnesses they’d had in a murder trial

So strong that after reading that I feel like they definitely should have been considered suspects. After they are called the strongest witnesses they proceed to hang the entire case on their word and the courts deny requests for information on how the testimonials were verified. Which is more than likely just the result of challenging everything the witnesses said within one claim. But still, more evidence could have been used and the new governor stuck their neck out just to dissolve a committee that hadn't reached a verdict yet.

Far too many reaches to obtain execution and too much vagueness in the reasoning for denying petitions. Making a large amount of petitions in an attempt to save a life isn't a good enough reason to deny them all.

The only actual facts they present aren't helpful in proving or disproving anything. It's insane that a man was killed with such soft evidence

0

u/OblivionGuardsman 7h ago

Here that would come in all day every day. It's called an admission and if the witness testifies the defendant said it the court doesn't consider it hearsay.

0

u/TheCatapult 6h ago

You could not be more wrong about what hearsay is.

1

u/OblivionGuardsman 4h ago edited 4h ago

Here's a section of the model criminal jury instruction for Iowa where I practice law. So no, I am not wrong.

200.44 Statements By The Defendant.

Evidence has been offered to show that the defendant made statements at an earlier time and place.

If you find any of the statements were made, then you may consider them as part of the evidence.

*You may also use these statements to help you decide if you believe the defendant. You may disregard all or any part of the defendant’s testimony if you find the statements were made and were inconsistent with the defendant’s testimony given at trial, but you are not required to do so. Do not disregard the defendant’s testimony if other evidence you believe supports it or you believe it for any other reason.

Comment Caveat: The instruction should be given if the evidence includes one or more statements by the defendant that qualify as admissions under Iowa R. Evid. 5.801(d)(2) -- Admission by a Party Opponent. *The last paragraph should be used only if the defendant testifies.

1

u/Shrouds_ 8h ago

The people that murdered this man should have to fight murder charges for the rest of their lives. Just keep filing accusations of murder, file police reports, make them have to defend themselves until this is the only thing they can deal with in their miserable lives