Richard Rojem’s death sentence was twice overturned by appellate courts, but his conviction itself has never been fully revisited.

RICHARD ROJEM JR. had 20 minutes to address the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. Wearing a maroon prison uniform, he raised his cuffed right hand and swore to tell the truth, then gave his pitch for why his life should be spared. It would take less than 90 seconds.

“This hearing didn’t have to take place,” he began. Prosecutors had offered a plea deal right up until the day of his 1985 trial; if he’d admitted to abducting, raping, and murdering his young stepdaughter, Layla Cummings, Rojem could have avoided a death sentence. But he refused: “An innocent man doesn’t ever plead guilty to a crime he hasn’t committed.”

Rojem spoke via video link from the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester. It was June 17, and his execution was 10 days away. At 66, he’d been on death row for virtually his whole adult life. He’d survived for so long in part because appellate courts had deemed his original trial to be unfair, upholding his conviction but twice overturning his death sentence. Meanwhile, fingernail scrapings taken from Cummings revealed an unknown male DNA profile and nothing from Rojem. This was potentially powerful exculpatory evidence. But a third jury, unaware of the DNA testing, resentenced him to die.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    51·
    3 days ago

    Meanwhile, fingernail scrapings taken from Cummings revealed an unknown male DNA profile and nothing from Rojem. This was potentially powerful exculpatory evidence. But a third jury, unaware of the DNA testing, resentenced him to die.

    How on Earth was the third jury “unaware” of the DNA testing? Was it because of legal shenanigans, or a fantastically bad defense? Also, why was there even a third trial to begin with?

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      312·
      3 days ago

      I don’t know about this case, but judges exclude or forbid presentation of evidence for whatever reasons and it’s considered normal. A just system would demand that any and all exculpatory evidence must be heard to prevent wrongful convictions, but that’s not the system we have.

      • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
        19·
        3 days ago

        Im reminded of the innocent man in Arizona that was murdered in cold blood by that off duty cop that had “you’re fucked” carved into the side of his gun

        The courts refused to let the body cam footage be shown in court to the jury.

        Land of the free, and all of that.

        • tektite@slrpnk.net
          15·
          3 days ago

          I believe the jury wasn’t even allowed to know about the “you’re fucked” inscription as it was deemed prejudicial. That cop had decided by the time he’s pointing his gun at you, “you’re fucked” but somehow that’s not relevant to the case of the innocent man he murdered.