Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:13] Speaker B: Hey, what's up everyone? My name is Tiara and I'm a 9th grade student at the Benjamin Franklin School of Finance and it also known as Be Fit at Campus Magnet. You're listening to a special podcast series created by our class. Each episode tells the story, true story of someone who was wrongfully convicted, sent to prison for a crime they didn't commit. We've been learning about how the justice system works and sometimes how it doesn't. These stories are deep, real and honestly kind of hard to believe, but that's what we're telling them. In this episode, I'm going to walk you through the story of Marcellus Williams. You'll hear what their life was like before the case, what happened when they got arrested, how the system failed them, and what we can learn from it today.
Before his name was tied to a murder case, Marcellus Williams was just a young man trying to find his way. But what do we really know about his life before it all fell apart?
Marcellus Williams was born on December 30, 1981 in South Bend, Indiana. At the age of five, he moved to St. Louis Story with his mother and brother. They lived in a cramped rooming house in the central west of University neighborhood. His upbringing was marked by hardship and growing up in dysfunctional household did not help him. He was exposed to drugs, physical and emotional abuse, abandonment and presence of drugs, alcohol and firearms. Without access to quality education, he faced struggles that shaped his life from an early age. Despite these challenges, Williams was known as a widely respected figure within the prison community where he was described as a leader. However, his time in St. Louis also led him into family and legal troubles, making his youth days full of trauma.
[00:02:09] Speaker C: Growing up, Marcellus Williams was surrounded by danger on a daily basis. Not only were guns, drugs and alcohol.
[00:02:16] Speaker B: Present, but they were persuasive, woven into.
[00:02:19] Speaker C: His neighborhood like cracked pavement and streetlights.
[00:02:23] Speaker B: He was exposed to violence at an.
[00:02:24] Speaker C: Early age, both in his own home and on the streets. He had to concentrate on survival every single day because it was more than just a word to him.
Sexual and physical abuse left scars that did not simply go away with time.
Rather, they became deeply ingrained within his soul and subtly influenced his perception of the world and himself.
Invisible but always hurting, emotional scars became a part of who he was.
Poverty furthered complicated matters. There was no safeguards, no additional opportunities, and no time for future focused dreams.
School was more about enduring than it was learning. It felt as though stability was unaffordable luxury. Everywhere he went, he seemed to be followed by racial bias, with people judging him based on their preconceived notions of what he stood for rather than who he was.
Instead of defending them, the legal system frequently viewed him as a threat, feeding the negative stereotypes he had worked so hard to avoid.
[00:03:33] Speaker A: His personality was described by his friends and families. Said he faced many, many hard times.
[00:03:38] Speaker C: If he was exposed to things like.
[00:03:41] Speaker A: Drugs and violence when he was young. People close to him said he had trouble life but also moments of kindness.
Some said he was smart and caring. His colleague Michelle Smith said his housing spirit he is very spiritual and bound in his faith. She also said he meant a lot.
[00:04:01] Speaker C: To her and to so many other people.
[00:04:05] Speaker A: He is a friend, a father, a grandfather, a son. He is a teacher. He is a spiritual advisor to so many people.
[00:04:12] Speaker C: His action will be a great harm open to so many people.
[00:04:17] Speaker A: Despite his struggles in life, he kept his faith and remain religious.
Marcellus Williams hopes and goals before incarceration was to have a normal life. He wanted a career. He already had a high school diploma. He graduated from St. Louis High School. But he wanted a career to a.
[00:04:36] Speaker C: Certain level of success.
[00:04:38] Speaker A: He wanted his children to have a good life.
Marcellus Williams had a son and a stepdaughter. He wanted to have a strong social life with his friends, family and community.
Marcellus Williams always wanted a close relationship with his siblings, but unfortunately his his brother passed away in 1997. His last job before incarceration was driving trucks.
When he was in prison, he worked at a correctional center and he was very religious, which stuck with him when he was a Jewish. He wanted to bring peace to everyone, even though what he went through in his childhood.
[00:05:12] Speaker B: Marcellus Williams grew up in a tough and unstable environment. Being poor shaped much of his childhood and his family constantly struggled to make ends meet. His exposure to drugs, alcohol and violence began at a young age, creating a world of chaos and instability. He faced different forms of abuse, which left emotional scars in his life. Besides all of this trauma, he found comfort in his older brother, who acted as a father figure to him. Unfortunately, during 1997, his brother died, which became another significant challenge in his soon after, Williams found his faith in Islamic teachings and practices. His deep connection to Islam inspired him to start writing poetry. Through poetry, he shared his thoughts, expressing the pain and hope that he experienced along his journey. His dedication to helping others reflected his own dedication and commitment to his future throughout everything that happened. Growing up in a difficult and unstable environment, facing personal loss and exposure to substances, he found his hope and purposes through his faith. His story Serves as an inspiration to anyone facing any issues with proving that resilience and dedication can guide the way to a better future.
In 1998, a woman was killed in her home and a city wanted answers fast. Marcellus became a target. But how did he end up accused of a crime with no evidence tying him to the scene?
[00:06:22] Speaker A: On August 11, 1998, there was a gruesome crime that terrorized the utter peaceful city of University City, Missouri. Felicia Gayle, a retired journalist, lost her life inside her own house and got stabbed a total of 43 times due to a violent attack. The investigators revealed signs of burglary values such as her purse and computer had gone missing. The investigation automatically focused on Marcellus Williams, who was indicated on both a burglary and a murder. But as the case went on, additional problems also emerged regarding the evidence and gaining justice for Marcellus.
In 1998, the case involving Marxist Williams began in University City, Missouri. University City is a small suburb just outside of St. Louis.
It's the kind of place where people knew their neighbors and life moved at a slow pace. In 1998, Missouri, like many other states, was dealing with big changes, new technology, growing cities and concerns about crimes. University City was usually quiet.
That same year, the events that would lead to Marshall Williams case took place night there in that Missouri town, making it a place tied to a story. Marshalus Williams trial started in 2001, three years after the crime.
Marcellus Williams was an innocent man. Everyone knew that. But I was wondering why it took so long for Williams to be removed as a suspect.
Well, I found in my research that two people testified against Williams, a jailhouse informant and a William that Williams had dated briefly. They would have been good witnesses against Williams if he had committed the crime. But Williams did not commit the crime and both of these witnesses were bribed to testify. They both had long criminal histories as well with pending criminal cases and were offered money and leniency on their charges in exchange for their testimony. These two witnesses sealed Williams fate with their testimony. If they had declined the offer, Williams would have most likely been sentenced to life in prison versus a death sentence. Where the Innocence Project might have eventually been able to present their case and allow Williams to walk free.
The eyewitness initially had difficulty identifying Williams. There was conflicting accounts of whether whether the witness could confidently pick him out as the perpetrator. And it wasn't until later the police line later police lineup that Williams was formally identified. The circumstances of the lineup were highly questionable and it raised concerns about the reliability of the identification process. The conviction of Marcellus Williams in 1995 was largely based off on testimony of a single eyewitness who claimed to have seen Marcellus Williams leaving the victim's house on the night of the murder. The prosecution used this testimony to paint Williams as the perpetrator, despite the lack of physical evidence linking him to the crime scene. The reliance on eyewitness testimony in Williams case is a textbook example of how much testimony can be misleading, especially when it is uncertain, influenced by external factors. At the time of the trial, the prosecution did not fully address the discrepancies in the eyewitness account, nor did the defense present sufficient evidence to challenge the reliability of the testimony. Had the eyewitnesses, doubts and inconsistencies been properly examined, Williams may have not been convicted in the first place. Unfortunately, this scenario is all too common in wrongful convictions where unreliable or mistaken eyewitness identification leads to a miscarriage of justice. For years, Williams has been condemned to death row largely because of one person's flawed recollection of events. A mistake that took decades to rectify. Marcellus Williams case illustrates a border issue in criminal justice system. The risk of wrongful convictions based on mistakes or unreliable eyewitness testimony. Studies shown that the eyewitness misidentification is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions, contributing to the significant percentage of cases overturned through DNA evidence. According to the innocence project, approximately 70% of DNA exonerations involved mistaken eyewitness identification. In the Williams case, this reliance on flawed eyewitness testimony led to the tragic and unnecessary miscarriage of justice, ultimately causing him to spend 17 years on death row for a crime he did not commit. This case is a poignant reminder for the need of need for reforms and how eyewitness testimony is used in criminal justice systems, including the introduction of more rigorous processes to ensure that lineups and identifications are conducted fairly without suggestions or pressure.
Before the execution people, many people were concerned about the case, even the victim's family regarding the evidence shown causing protests for clemency hours before his execution. Governor Eric Greetings allowed a stay for execution and informed a board of inquiry to investigate the case. But later, another Governor Mike Pearson, took apart the investigation board which had new DNA sample evidence. Its disillusion of the board showed no indicators on the status of the case. Regardless of the DNA evidence and the efforts of others, the execution still took place place causing public outrage many highly debating to the death penalty. It also being opposed by political SL legal figures, including the one who decided.
[00:12:40] Speaker B: His fate once the case went to Court everything changed. Testimonies replaced ch and Marcel was sentenced to death. What happened inside that courtroom and how did the system get it so wrong?
[00:12:57] Speaker C: Marcellus Williams was wrongly convicted of first degree murder, robbery and burglary. He nearly served 24 years. Marcellus Williams lawyer before the Midwest innocent project was Joseph Green. And Joseph Green didn't do a great job.
One problem was that Green was also working on another big case at the same time.
Because of this, he didn't have enough time to focus on Marcellus case.
A lawyer who is busy with too many things might not do their best.
Another problem was that some important evidence wasn't shown in court. This evidence could have helped prove that Marcellus was innocent. A good lawyer makes sure all the important evidence is used in the trial. If this doesn't happen, the trial might not be fair. In 2024, Joseph Green said that Marcellus didn't get the best of defense and that he made mistakes. This shows that Green knows he could have done a better job.
There was two main pieces of evidence in Marcellus Williams trial. One main problem with the evidence was that there was incentivized witnesses and signifies witnesses is a practice of paying witnesses in their testimony. Paid witnesses often provide inconsistent evidence and hopes of receiving payments for their participation in the trial.
Marcelius Williams case is noticeable for the reliance of the testimony of two incentivized witnesses known as Henry Cole and Laura Araso. Both paid witnesses were often lenten in their own criminal cases and rewarded money for testimony against Williams. Despite the fact that neither of them revealed any new information that was not already publicly known or already known to the police. Furthermore, their testimonies was inconsistent with each other and and none of the evidence they claimed could be verified. This continues to the woman Leisha Gale who has been murdered. Her body was found with a knife gouged in her neck. Marsilius has been framed for killing Lisha Gale allegedly in post conviction DNA testing conducted on the murder weapon, a knife found in the victim's neck excluded Williams as the source of the DNA. This evidence was reviewed by multiple DNA experts who could conclude that Williams is not the source of the DNA.
Despite this DNA evidence, this state has continued to pursue Williams execution with no court has reviewed the DNA evidence. Mr. Williams is excluded as a source of the footprints and hair and fingerprints. That DNA male was recently recovered from the night fandom. With no direct evidence of linking Mr. Williams to the crime. The state depended on two unreliable witnesses known as Henry Cohen, Laura Aroso. Going back to the incentivized Witnesses evidence leading to his execution for a crime he did not commit.
Marcelius Williams case There was many unfair evidence against him. For example, there was no physical evidence like hair and fingerprints, no DNA on the murder weapon. It showed it was him, but there was unreliable testimony which his former cellmate, his ex girlfriend claimed to confess to the murder. It was also stated that he had no motive to do the crime, but they still believed it was him. This shows how unfair it was because there was no reliable evidence against him. But they still put him on death row for no reason. People then started to believe that there may have been some racial bias which could have contributed to him being put on death row.
[00:16:29] Speaker B: During the Marcellus Williams case, he presented an alibi stating that he was at his cousin's house shoveling snow at the time of the murder. He also asserted his innocence and claimed that physical evidence did not link him to the crime. Marcellus Williams had other defense attorneys during his trial. The lead attorney was Tricia Rojo Bushell.
She advocated for resentment of evidence highlighting the lack of DNA evidence linking Marcellus Williams to the crime. She sought clemency and halt to his execution, emphasizing the importance of fairness and justice in the legal process.
This case isn't just about one bad decision. It's a chain of all failures from the police to the prosecutors to the evidence. Something's always off. Let's break it down.
Marcellus Williams was sentenced to that even though DNA evidence didn't match him. The prosecutors used testimony from two people who got deals in exchange for testifying. The jury didn't hear about the key evidence that could have helped him. It raised big question about about whether the police and prosecutors were more focused on winning the case than finding the truth.
There are many issues with the forensic evidence from Marcellus Williams case. When he was convicted of killing a white woman on June 15, for example, in Marcella's case, the fingerprint here and DNA had no link or connection to Mr. Williams including the murder weapon found in Ms. Gil. Sketching it did not match Marcel's. Another issue or testimony with the two witness Henry Cole and Laura Arsel.
Their statements were inconsistent with their own prior statements and could not be independently verified. Also, both of those individuals were well known fabricators which proved that Marcelo William was innocent but still had injustice due to the juice.
[00:18:17] Speaker A: There was no one who confessed to Williams case. But the murder weapon, a knife was mishandled with Prosecutor admitted to mishandling the murder weapon. He touched it five times before the trial without wearing gloves, contaminating the murder weapon even though it was contaminated and a DNA test was done on the murder weapon and there was no DNA.
[00:18:38] Speaker C: Of Marcellus Williams on on the murder weapon.
[00:18:41] Speaker A: But he still got charged with the.
[00:18:42] Speaker C: Crime because of a stolen laptop.
[00:18:46] Speaker B: Facial bias played a significant role in the outcome of Williams case. During jury selection, the prosecutor excluded seven black jurors from the jury. One was excluded because the prosecutor said the jury looked like he could be Williams relative. This goes against Kentucky v. Batson which ruled that racial discrimination when selecting jurors was unconstitutional. In the end, there was one black juror and 11 Caucasian jurors. It also is important to note that the victim was Caucasian. According to the Innocence Project, this makes it clear there was a significant amount of racial discrimination in Williams case leading to his execution and that the prosecution was the racial bias to keep him incarcerated until he was killed.
Thankfully, the Innocence Project heard about Marcellus Williams case in 2015. Marcellus Williams filled with a petition requesting additional DNA testing. When they tested the DNA they found on the night, they found that the DNA was not a match to Marcellus Williams, but showed a match to an unknown white man which was who was later found to a police officer. This Innocence Project submitted this new piece of evidence to the court. But the court refused to vacate Williams conviction in the death sentence, saying that the judicial process has been through and that the other evidence was enough. This case is powerful reminder of the importance of the Innocence Project. But unfortunately in the case and innocent has executed.
Even with new DNA evidence and growing doubt, Marcellus stayed on death row. So what does this case teach us and what can we do to stop more stories like this from happening.
[00:20:31] Speaker C: Based on this case?
[00:20:32] Speaker A: If I were wrongfully convicted and face.
[00:20:34] Speaker C: The death penalty like Marcellus Williams, I would feel scared and worried that I.
[00:20:38] Speaker A: Don'T have enough time to prove my innocence.
[00:20:40] Speaker C: It would be hard to believe that.
[00:20:41] Speaker A: I will be punished for something that I did not commit.
[00:20:44] Speaker C: Mostly the biggest situation I would be scared about is my family and how they will feel knowing that I'm facing.
[00:20:49] Speaker A: Such a harsh punishment for a crime that I did not commit.
[00:20:52] Speaker C: I would desperately hope for someone to believe me and prove my innocence before it's too late.
Marcellus Williams was a religious Muslim and he became Muslim while incarcerated and studied Islam extensively.
[00:21:04] Speaker A: Mr. Williams inspired me.
[00:21:06] Speaker B: This case teaches important lessons about justice. One example is people often judge based on one person's story. But it's important to look at solid proof like DNA for the jury in Williams case. This shows how decision should rely on facts, not just testimony.
Another lesson is to avoid judgment based on discrimination like someone, race or background. Society needs to improve how it judges people to make sure innocent lives aren't unfairly punished, especially with something as serious as the death penalty. A mistake like this leave another death on their conscience.
My name is Roshan Marcelo. Marcellus Williams was falsely accused of murder, robbery and burglary due to unreliable testimony from two incentivized witnesses. This case shows that it is important to question the justice system because it helps prevent abuse of power, ensure fairness, and protects people's rights.
Marcellus Williams stories isn't just about wrongful conviction. It's about how hard it is to undo injustice once it begins. His case reminds us evidence should matter and truth should matter. And so should every lifeguard in the system.
Thanks for listening to this episode of our Wrongful Convictions podcast series from Be Fit at Campus Magnet. These stories aren't just about the past, they connect to things still happening today. That's why it's important for students like us to speak up, ask questions, and really understand how justice should work. If you found this episode powerful, share it, talk about it, and remember, one voice can change a lot. I'm Tiara, and this has been my episode Peace Sam.
