Mo. attorney general to retry man in farm slaying

The Missouri Supreme Court overturned Mark Woodworth’s murder conviction on Jan. 8, 2013, ruling that prosecutors withheld evidence that could have helped him defend himself against accusations that he killed Catherine Robertson in her home in Chillicothe and assaulted her husband in 1990.

The Missouri Supreme Court overturned Mark Woodworth’s murder conviction on Jan. 8, 2013, ruling that prosecutors withheld evidence that could have helped him defend himself against accusations that he killed Catherine Robertson in her home in Chillicothe and assaulted her husband in 1990.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a man's murder conviction and life sentence in the 1990 slaying of a rural neighbor, but his prospects for being freed were quickly tempered when the attorney general's office announced it intends to retry him.

The state's high court ruled Tuesday that prosecutors failed to share evidence that may have benefited Mark Woodworth's defense against charges that he fatally shot Catherine Robertson and wounded her husband, Lyndel, as they slept in their home near Chillicothe, about 90 miles northeast of Kansas City.

The court ordered Woodworth released within 60 days of when its decision is finalized, unless prosecutors first file court documents seeking to retry him. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Chris Koster said later in the day that the office would seek a new trial. It would be Woodworth's third murder trial.

Woodworth, whose father farmed with the Robertsons, was 16 at the time of their deaths. He has been fighting for his release for more than a decade and was on a prison phone Tuesday with his attorney when the Supreme Court announced its decision.

"His first word was, 'All right!' Then I think I heard him say 'awesome,'" said his attorney, Bob Ramsey.

The Robertson family described Tuesday's decision as a miscarriage of justice and said they were confident Woodworth would be convicted again.

"It is also important to note that Mark Woodworth was not exonerated in this court opinion," one of the Robertson's daughters, Rhonda Robertson Oesch, said in a written statement. "His sentence was vacated because of an alleged technical error. That is not justice."

Ramsey said he plans to ask the state Supreme Court to remove the attorney general's office from Woodworth's case and instead appoint an independent prosecutor to decide whether to pursue it further. Ramsey called Koster an "unscrupulous political animal" and said he intends to call several assistant attorneys general as witnesses if Woodworth is retried.

Woodworth first was convicted in 1995 and, after briefly being released on appeal, was convicted by a second jury four years later.

His attorney argued in the latest appeal that the conviction was "tainted" by prosecutors' failure to turn over evidence that could have cast doubt on Woodworth's guilt and further undermined by new evidence pointing toward a different suspect.

The Supreme Court's 6-0 decision followed a recommendation made last May by Boone County Circuit Judge Gary Oxenhandler that Woodworth's conviction should be set aside. Oxenhandler had described Woodworth as a victim of "a manifest injustice."

The judge and the Supreme Court based their decisions in part on letters exchanged by Livingston County Circuit Judge Kenneth Lewis, Lyndel Robertson and state and local prosecutors. The letters, first publicly disclosed by The Associated Press in 2009, were not shared with the defense.

Oxenhandler "believed the letters supported the defense claim that it was the persistence of Mr. Robertson and not a fair, thorough review of the case that 'prompted' Judge Lewis to call the grand jury," the Supreme Court said in an opinion written by Judge Laura Denvir Stith. "This would have provided important support for the defense's argument that the investigation of Mark was one-sided and highlighted that the evidence against him was weak and circumstantial."

Oxenhandler also said local authorities should have told defense attorneys that Robertson's daughter, Rochelle, filed police reports alleging that her ex-boyfriend had violated a protection order after her mother's murder.

When asked by authorities who could have killed his wife and attacked him, a hospitalized Lyndel Robertson initially named Rochelle's ex-boyfriend, according to court records. The ex-boyfriend, who lived in a different city, has denied involvement in the murder. But during Oxenhandler's review of the case, several people testified that they had seen the ex-boyfriend in Chillicothe the day of the murder.

While the justices upheld Oxenhandler's conclusions, they stopped short of declaring Woodworth innocent, as he had asked.

Woodworth's attorney said he filed a motion Tuesday asking the court to set a bond for Woodworth's release.

"I think that the evidence that the state has is in such a shambles right now they should go and inform the court that they don't intend to retry him and get it over with," Ramsey said.

Comments

Paroquet 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Prosecutorial misconduct or negligence should carry the same sentence(s) for each crime where it is found. Things such as these are why innocents are sometimes wrongfully convicted, and those guilty walk. It is unforgivable that a prosecutor should be more concerned with winning a conviction than finding the truth.

0

jdb 4 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree entirely! If this were a one time occurrence it could be considered to be a mistake by the prosecutor, but this is the THIRD first degree murder charge prosecuted by Kenny Hulshof that has been overturned. Hulshoff should be doing time for the three people he railroaded. If Kenny is allowed to walk the street, he should do so without a law license. And to think he was the Republican's candidate for governor...........

0

m2thadsr 4 months, 2 weeks ago

That is normal but they just don't usually get caught.

0

Paroquet 4 months, 2 weeks ago

It's not necessarily "normal"--you just only usually see it in cases where someone's life is literally on the line. The prosecution would be much more exacting if they knew the same fate facing the accused was to be their own if they impeded the defense for want of competence or conformance to such expectations that exist in a "Motion for Discovery". Due process is to protect those who may be acquitted based upon evidence. Note that it has been determined already that an acquittal does not mean "innocent" and conviction doesn't mean "guilty".

Prosecutors wield the power of life and death. They need to face life and death the same as the accused in order they dot i's, cross t's, and toe the line. Presently they enjoy immunity, even in instances of contrivance through omission, excessive zeal, or feigned ignorance. That needs to cease. In weighing and presenting evidence as well as making it available, there is very little in the way of what would be a legitimate mistake.

0

3blindmice 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Misconduct is so common in missouri the prosecutors had a law written given full immunity

0

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting