Will the new prosecutor continue to pursue sending Elwood Jones back to prison?

The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday has paved the way for Hamilton County Prosecutor Connie Pillich to decide whether to continue her office's long-running effort to return Elwood Jones to death row in Ohio.

Jones, who spent nearly three decades behind bars awaiting execution, was released in 2023 after Common Pleas Judge Wende Cross overturned his conviction. Cross found that prosecutors in Jones' original trial had withheld thousands of pages of evidence from his defense team. Prosecutors challenged this ruling, claiming Cross had erred, and sought permission from the Ohio First District Court of Appeals to appeal. When the appeals court declined, they turned to the Ohio Supreme Court, which ruled 5-3 in favor of allowing the appeal.

Since the initial request for appeal, the county has a new top prosecutor. Pillich, a Democrat, won the November 2024 election against incumbent Republican Melissa Powers. She now faces the choice of whether to continue an appeal she inherited.

During her campaign, Pillich criticized the handling of certain murder convictions by the prosecutor's office and promised to establish a special unit to review past cases. Jones case is among several homicide convictions that have unraveled years later, some due to withheld evidence and others involving informants used in prosecutions.

Asked on Thursday if she would proceed with the appeal, Pillich said she had not yet reached a decision. "This case has been top of mind since I took office," she stated. "My team and I are reviewing today's Ohio Supreme Court decision carefully, and then we will determine the appropriate next steps."

Jones attorney, Jay Clark, urged Pillich to drop the appeal, noting that Jones, now 73, has endured a lengthy legal battle. Clark also argued that nothing in the Supreme Court ruling suggests the prosecutors would succeed if they return to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals. The court's majority decision focused on procedural errors in evaluating the request to appeal, not the merits of the case itself.

Justice Sharon Kennedy, writing for the majority, explained that the appeals court had not determined whether the State showed a sufficiently high probability of trial-court error to justify a discretionary appeal.

Clark described the ruling as politically driven and noted it offered no clear standard for how lower courts should assess similar appeals. In dissent, Justice Pat Fischer argued that the First District had properly exercised its discretion and pointed out that the prosecutions appeal had not addressed all the reasons for overturning Jones' conviction, making further appeals likely futile.

Pillich has not announced a timeline for her decision on whether to continue pursuing the appeal.

Author: Olivia Parker