Missouri’s Controversial Execution Countdown: A Fight for Justice or Closure?

The execution of Marcellus Williams is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, following denials from both the Missouri Supreme Court and the state’s governor to halt the process.

Williams’ attorney argued that the state Supreme Court should postpone the lethal injection, claiming that a trial attorney had improperly excluded a Black potential juror who resembled Williams. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating, “Despite nearly a quarter century of litigation in both state and federal courts, there is no credible evidence of actual innocence or any showing of a constitutional error undermining confidence in the original judgment.”

Williams, 55, is set to be executed at 6 p.m. CT for the 1998 murder of Lisha Gayle in University City, a suburb of St. Louis. While Williams has continuously maintained his innocence, his attorney did not emphasize this stance in front of the court, instead highlighting alleged procedural errors during jury selection and the prosecution’s management of evidence.

Attorney Jonathan Potts urged the state Supreme Court to “correct an injustice,” pointing out that a juror was potentially removed for racial reasons, or alternatively, to send the case back to a lower court for further examination of that issue. The office of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey supports proceeding with the execution, asserting that the trial prosecutor acted appropriately without racial bias and adhered to proper procedures regarding the evidence used in the case.

Williams sought clemency from Governor Mike Parson, arguing that the victim’s family preferred a life sentence without parole. Nonetheless, Parson stated that he would uphold the law in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling, emphasizing that Williams has exhausted all legal avenues to contest his conviction.

Parson, who has overseen 11 executions without granting clemency, was urged by the NAACP to halt the execution. Attorney Tricia Rojo Bushnell from the Midwest Innocence Project argued that executing Williams could undermine the justice system’s legitimacy, citing new insights regarding jury selection and opposition from the victim’s family.

As part of his legal strategy, Williams’ attorneys recently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a stay of execution pending a decision on a separate but similar case involving Richard Glossip, whose situation is also under review.

If carried out, Williams’ execution would mark the third this year in Missouri and the 100th since the state resumed executions in 1989. He came close to execution twice before: once in January 2015, when the state Supreme Court intervened for DNA testing, and again in August 2017, when former Governor Eric Greitens granted a stay after DNA evidence indicated Williams’ DNA was not found on the weapon.

In previous hearings, new DNA tests complicated the assertion of his innocence, leading to a blocked agreement between Williams’ attorneys and the prosecutor’s office for a life sentence without parole in exchange for a no-contest plea. On September 12, the judge upheld the death sentence, ruling that no grounds existed to claim Williams’ innocence.

Williams’ legal team argued that the circumstances have changed since the original trial, as the prosecutor had not previously been questioned about his decision to remove a specific juror. The trial prosecutor testified that he believed the jury was fair, despite it having only one Black member. He mentioned he had reasons related to looks for striking one Black juror but did not elaborate further.

In response to the ruling, Washington County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell expressed his determination to continue efforts to prevent the execution, citing doubts about Williams’ guilt and the integrity of the conviction.

Authorities assert that Williams broke into Gayle’s home in August 1998, leading to the horrific stabbing that left evidence against him, including testimony from a cellmate who claimed Williams confessed to the murder. However, Williams’ lawyers maintain that the testimonies of his former girlfriend and the cellmate were unreliable and motivated by personal gain.

Popular Categories


Search the website