hairs were negroid. they were caucasian and they did not belong to mr. elmore. that should be sufficient to warrant a new trial. we got all excited to ask the judge to set a new hearing. it was december 21st. we were going to have christmas beyond all christmases. on december 21st, 2000, a new hearing was held. if a new trial were to be granted, elmore could be released on bail and join his family for the holidays after more than 18 years on death row. the judge again presided, the same judge who had stated elmore may well be not guilty. lab corps has september us a report indicating there are hairs from someone other than dorothy edwards and there were no hairs of anyone of
materials recovered from the victim s body at the time of the autopsy. one hair, not hairs. one hair. it was merely another hair in the bedroom. of mrs. edwards. this is a completely different case than what the jury heard. in the final analysis, the question really is if not now, when? if this is not enough to grant somebody a new trial, then when is post conviction relief ever appropriate? unexpectedly, rather than adjourn and read the filings before ruling, the judge issued his decision on the spot. all motions are denied. the judge said, one hair is not enough. i m out of here. in this case, there are a number of things that stink and if you look at it as a whole, it doesn t just stink, it wreaks. an execution date was set for elmore. he was placed in a high security lockdown cell while awaiting his
i became literally became hysterical. completely sobbing, running, i threw it at john blum. what the hell is the matter with you? john blume had assigned elmore s case to diana as an intern. i was stunned. i had really expected that he would grant relief because they had presented a compelling case of mr. elmore s innocence. diana was discovering that proving mr. elmore s innocence was not enough. to get a new trial, elmore s team would have to prove that elmore s constitutional rights had been violated. a person can be innocent but as long as they get a fair trial, that s all they re entitled to. well, that begs the question. is it a fair trial if somebody has lied? diana s team immediately appealed judge kinnard s decision to the south carolina supreme court. but in the meantime, the state prosecutor, donald zelenka had
appeals would be the highest court ever to hear elmore s case. the fourth circuit has the reputation of being the most conservative federal appellate court in the country. so we felt our chances of prevailing were very slight. in yet another face-off with donald zelinka, the court s circuit three-judge panel heard oral arguments in september of 2010, and remarkably, they came down hard on zelinka. the time of death, we were locking it down because the defendant was saying at 9:30. locking down the time of death based on his alibi. i thought you locked downtime of death by science. the judge have moral righteous indignation in their voices and what they re saying. you put in evidence there was hairs found on the bed there was a big part of the conviction? yes, it was. not one photograph was taken where the hairs were supposed to be. does that make sense? well, i don t know. do you think that makes a difference now that we know he is mentally retarded? no, not at al
fate up to other judges to decide. i became literally became hysterical. completely sobbing, running, i threw it at john blume. what the hell is the matter with you? john blume had assigned elmore s case to diana as an intern. i was stunned. i had really expected that he would grant relief because they had presented a compelling case of mr. elmore s innocence. diana was discovering that proving mr. elmore s innocence was not enough. to get a new trial they would need to prove that his constitutional rights had been violated. a person can be innocent but as long as they get a fair trial, that s all they re entitled to. well, that begs the question. is it a fair trial if somebody has lied? day an a s team immediately appealed the judge s decision to