Free Tyrone Noling

OPINION
IN COURT, BOTTOM LINE IS MORE THAN WINS, LOSSES

Friday, September 8, 2006
STARK MATTERS
BOB RUSS

When I was in high school, I often thought about becoming an attorney. I grew up watching Perry Mason on television and later graduated to legal thrillers. Although there are many differences between fiction and real-life court, both have the same basic drama: Did the accused actually commit the crime, and will he or she be convicted of it?

And that’s what ultimately led me to another career.

I thought about becoming a defense attorney, but realized that at least some of the time, I’d be dedicating my efforts to freeing scum whom I knew to be guilty.

Then I thought about being a prosecutor, but the likelihood of eventually sending an innocent man to prison made me think again.

I can’t think of too many things that would weigh heavier on my conscience than knowing I put someone in prison who didn’t belong there.

WHO CARES?

Not everyone shares that concern.

Evidence has been uncovered that casts significant doubt about the guilt of a man on death row for murder and, once again, prosecutors are fighting to ensure the conviction isn’t overturned.

Maybe they truly believe they’re right. But it seems just as likely that some prosecutors are more concerned about maintaining their won-lost record — evidence be damned.

The Plain Dealer recently published a series of stories about convicted killer Tyrone Noling, on death row for the 1996 murders of a Portage County couple.

The articles raised doubts about Noling’s guilt, presenting evidence that wasn’t offered at Noling’s trial: A psychologist hired by the prosecution warned that a key witness might make up testimony to gain immunity. Three supposed accomplices later recanted, saying they lied to protect themselves after they were threatened by an investigator from the prosecutor’s office. They said the investigator provided them with details of the slaying after they agreed to take the stand against Noling. And an alternate suspect the newspaper identified refused to take a polygraph test.

Bottom line, there’s plenty of reason to doubt whether the conviction is a fair one. So you’d think prosecutors would want to be sure. Who wants to see an innocent man executed?

Instead, they’re fighting tooth and nail to be sure Noling never gets another day in court.

NOT THE ONLY ONE

We saw it happen in this area recently, too.

Clarence Elkins spent seven years in prison for the murder and rape of his mother-in-law. And he was innocent.

Elkins and his supporters insisted he’d been wrongly convicted, but authorities turned a deaf ear. But last year, his defense team announced they had DNA evidence proving another man committed the crimes. Even after Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro wrote to Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh, saying that the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation had confirmed the DNA tests and that Elkins could not have committed the crime, Elkins stayed in jail.

An angry Walsh complained that no one from Petro’s office discussed the letter with her before it was released to the media. “I find that highly inappropriate,” she said.

Ultimately, under pressure from media and with a request pending for the governor to grant Elkins a reprieve, Walsh asked a judge to dismiss charges against Elkins and release him.

If enough noise hadn’t been made, there is little doubt Elkins would still be in prison today and Walsh would still be insisting he absolutely was guilty beyond all doubt.

I find THAT “highly inappropriate.”

Reach Repository Suburban Editor Bob Russ at (330) 580-8490
or e-mail: bob.russ@cantonrep.com

Used with permission.