A Pennsylvania judge has overturned the convictions of three men who were imprisoned for decades in the 1997 slaying of a 70-year-old woman, even though their DNA did not match the evidence found at the scene. The three men involved in this case were Derrick Chappell, Morton Johnson, and Sam Grasty, and they will remain in prison while a prosecutor decides whether to appeal the judge’s decision. The men have always maintained their innocence, and their lawyers argue that the evidence against them was weak and prosecutors “ran roughshod” over the defendants in the case.
The three men were convicted in the death of Henrietta Nickens in Chester, who was found badly beaten, with her underwear removed, and her home ransacked with blood on the walls and bedding. Despite DNA testing showing that semen found at the scene did not match any of the defendants, they were still charged and convicted in the case. The prosecution’s theories for the lack of DNA match were deemed “preposterous” by the defendants’ lawyer, as they argued that the victim had consensual sex before the slaying or that the three men brought a used condom to the scene, neither of which were likely scenarios.
Common Pleas Court Judge Mary Alice Brennan threw out the convictions and ordered new trials for the defendants, setting a bail hearing to determine if county prosecutors will seek a new trial. District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer plans to review the case before making a decision on whether to appeal the judge’s ruling. The defendants, who are now in their 40s, have filed petitions in federal court over the years claiming they were wrongly convicted, but those petitions were denied. The Pennsylvania Innocence Project also worked on the case, advocating for their release.
The defendants’ lawyer, Paul Casteleiro, expressed that the case should have never been prosecuted, and the evidence always pointed to their innocence. He criticized the prosecution for presenting inconsistent theories about the lack of DNA match and persuading juries to believe their arguments. The fact that the defendants were young people from the neighborhood and the victim was a chronically ill woman with no known male partners further raises questions about the validity of their convictions.
The decision to overturn the convictions offers some hope for the defendants after decades of maintaining their innocence despite being incarcerated. The outcome of the case will depend on whether the county prosecutors decide to pursue a new trial. The men, who were teenagers when they were initially arrested, have spent a large part of their lives behind bars and are now awaiting a potential opportunity to prove their innocence in a new trial. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based convictions and the dangers of wrongful prosecutions that can result in long-lasting consequences for those involved.
