Background and Crime

Marcellus Williams, a Black man, was a devout Muslim, an imam for prisoners and a poet, according to his legal team, was convicted in 2001 for the 1998 murder of Felicia Gayle, a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Gayle was brutally stabbed 43 times in her home in University City, Missouri. The murder took place during an apparent robbery, as Gayle’s home had been ransacked, and her laptop and other belongings were missing. Williams was arrested later that year, after police connected him to the case based on tips from an informant. Police found Gayle’s laptop in the possession of Henry Cole; a man Williams had lived with. Cole testified against Williams, claiming he had stolen the laptop. Additionally, another witness, Williams’ ex-girlfriend, testified that Williams had confessed to killing Gayle during a robbery. The jury, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony, found Williams guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death in 2001.

Marcellus Williams

Questions Regarding Williams’ Guilt

Lack of Physical Evidence

Despite the testimony against Williams, there were concerns from the outset about the lack of direct physical evidence linking him to the crime scene. No fingerprints, hair samples, or other forensic materials belonging to Williams were found in Gayle’s home. Moreover, the knife used in the murder was not recovered, and there were inconsistencies in the testimonies from the key witnesses.

DNA Testing and Results

In 2015, Williams' legal team requested additional DNA testing of evidence that had not been thoroughly examined during the original trial, including the murder weapon (a kitchen knife) and other items from the crime scene. The DNA results revealed that none of the DNA found on the knife matched Williams. Instead, the DNA found on the weapon belonged to an unknown male. These findings raised significant doubts about Williams’ conviction. His defense attorneys argued that this exonerating DNA evidence was sufficient to warrant a new trial or at least halt the execution. Williams maintained his innocence throughout his trial and subsequent appeals, arguing that the state's case against him was flawed from the beginning and that the DNA evidence cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Marcellus Williams and Felicia Gayle

The Role of Missouri’s Governor

Execution Warrant and Governor’s Stay

Marcellus Williams was scheduled for execution by lethal injection on August 22, 2017. However, just hours before the execution was set to take place, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens issued a stay of execution. Greitens’ decision came after widespread public outcry and advocacy from Williams' defense team and civil rights groups who argued that the newly available DNA evidence warranted a closer examination of the case. Greitens, acknowledging the serious concerns surrounding the case, took the unusual step of appointing a five-member board of inquiry to review the DNA evidence and the overall conviction. The board was tasked with determining whether Williams should be executed, have his sentence commuted, or be granted a new trial. This move was significant, as it put the execution on hold indefinitely, pending the board's review.

Governor’s Misstep

While Greitens' decision to stay the execution was seen as a positive step, it also highlighted potential shortcomings in the state’s criminal justice process. Critics argue that the fact that the execution had progressed so far before intervention—despite the availability of potentially exonerating DNA evidence—revealed significant gaps in how Missouri handles death penalty cases. Missouri’s process of handling executions leaves much of the power in the hands of the governor, especially when there are last-minute concerns about a prisoner’s guilt. Critics of the death penalty argue that this creates an arbitrary system where life-or-death decisions may depend more on political pressures than on a thorough and impartial review of the evidence. The board of inquiry that Greitens created has yet to issue a final determination, leaving Williams' fate uncertain for several years. This delay is notable because such boards have been rarely used, and it underscores the uncertainty and confusion that surrounds cases involving the death penalty and post-conviction evidence.

Missouri Governor Eric Greitens

Missouri State Laws and the Death Penalty

Missouri has a long and controversial history with the death penalty. Understanding the legal framework within the state offers insight into how Williams’ case has unfolded.

Death Penalty in Missouri

Missouri is one of the 24 states in the U.S. that continues to employ the death penalty. The state has a particularly high rate of executions compared to other states and is known for moving relatively quickly in carrying out death sentences. The Missouri death penalty statute, like those of many other states, allows for the use of the death penalty in cases of first-degree murder, particularly when there are aggravating factors such as the commission of the crime during a robbery. A jury is responsible for determining both guilt and sentencing in capital cases, and the state’s appellate courts are tasked with reviewing death penalty cases for procedural fairness and proportionality.

Clemency and Governor’s Role

Under Missouri law, the governor has broad powers to grant clemency in death penalty cases. Clemency can take several forms: the governor may commute a death sentence to life imprisonment without parole, grant a reprieve or stay of execution, or issue a full pardon. In Williams’ case, Greitens chose to issue a temporary stay and empaneled a board to review the case rather than immediately commute the sentence or grant clemency outright. However, this broad gubernatorial power has come under scrutiny. In Williams’ case, for example, it appeared that the legal process had nearly failed to address significant evidence suggesting possible innocence. Had Greitens not intervened, the execution would have proceeded, despite serious doubts about Williams' guilt.

Post-Conviction DNA Testing Laws

Missouri, like many other states, allows for post-conviction DNA testing under specific circumstances. Missouri Revised Statutes § 547.035 permits a convicted individual to request DNA testing if there is evidence that was not tested during the trial or if more advanced testing techniques have become available since the trial. The statute also requires that the results of the DNA testing be material to the case—i.e., it must have a reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of the trial. In Williams’ case, his defense argued that the DNA evidence showing another person’s DNA on the murder weapon was more than enough to raise reasonable doubt about his guilt. Despite this, Williams’ case has stalled in the courts, and the DNA evidence has yet to lead to his exoneration or a new trial

Broader Implications of the Case

The Marcellus Williams case is emblematic of broader concerns surrounding the death penalty and wrongful convictions in the United States. DNA exonerations have shown that wrongful convictions in capital cases are not isolated incidents. Since the advent of DNA testing, more than 170 individuals have been exonerated from death row in the U.S., raising serious concerns about the reliability of the death penalty as a form of punishment. Williams’ cases also speak to issues of race and economic inequality in the justice system. Williams, an African American man, was convicted largely on the testimony of informants, raising concerns about racial bias in his trial and sentencing. The fact that his conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of individuals who may have had incentives to testify against him has further called the fairness of his trial into question.

Protestors

Conclusion

The Marcellus Williams case underscores the importance of thorough reviews of evidence, particularly in cases involving the death penalty, where the cost of error is irreversible.