SCOW: Conviction and Death Sentence Overturned Because of Brady Violation

In a criminal case that may be of interest to some readers, the Washington Supreme Court this morning vacated the conviction and death sentence of Darold Ray Stenson, who had been sentenced to death for the murder of his wife and business partner in 1994.

Stenson called 911 after “finding” his wife (Denise Stenson) and business partner (Frank Hoerner) dead in his home. He told police that Hoerner was with him in their office, when Hoerner went to Stenson’s house to use the bathroom. Hoerner did not return, so Stenson went to the house, where he claimed to have found his wife and Hoerner dead — both of them shot.

After investigation, the police came to a different conclusion. Evidence showed that Hoerner had been beaten unconscious in Stenson’s driveway before he was dragged into the house and shot at close range. And Stenson had financial troubles: he owed $50,000 to Hoerner that he could not repay, and he had a $400,000 life insurance policy on his wife. Add to that evidence showing gunshot residue in the pocket of Stenson’s jeans and blood spatters on his jeans consistent with Hoerner’s blood. The jury convicted Stenson and he was sentenced to death.

Then in 2009 Stenson’s attorneys learned of two facts that were not disclosed to them prior to (or during) the trial: (1) Stenson’s jeans, the ones tested for gunshot residue, had been worn and handled by an officer without gloves prior to the test, and (2) the actual testing was not performed by the FBI’s expert who testified at trial, but by another individual who had never been identified to or questioned by the defense team.

The Supreme Court concluded that the State’s failure to disclose this evidence effected a Brady violation because (1) the undisclosed evidence was favorable to Stenson, (2) the evidence was “suppressed” by the State, and (3) caused prejudice to Stenson. On this third prong, it was not necessary for Stenson to prove his innocence, or that the evidence would necessarily have led to an acquittal; rather, the standard for prejudice is that Stenson must show “a reasonable probability that, had the evidence bee disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (emphasis added). In other words, did the suppression of evidence “undermine[] confidence in the outcome of the trial”? The Supreme Court answered that it did.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted Stenson’s personal restraint petition, vacated his conviction and death sentence, and remanded for a new trial.


2 thoughts on “SCOW: Conviction and Death Sentence Overturned Because of Brady Violation

  1. Wow. Those strike me as very thin Brady violations. GSR gets contaminated if you don’t wear gloves? And how did it not come out on cross that the FBI agent that was testifying was not the person that did the test? And isn’t that more of a Crawford/Melendez-Diaz problem than a Brady problem?

    I don’t know – I haven’t read the case (I let this excellent blog do the readings for me), but I feel bad for the prosecutors.

  2. Pingback: [Tuesday] Monday [Afternoon] Morning Mash-up: May 15, 2012 | Ziff Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s