Utah death row inmate gets new trial

SALT LAKE CITY — A man who has been on Utah’s death row for decades is going to get a new trial. The Utah Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Douglas Carter can have his case heard again in relation to the murder of Eva Olesen in 1985.

The supreme court’s opinion found that Carter’s constitutional right to due process was violated because of evidence that shows police and prosecutors engaged in misconduct. Multiple witnesses said they were encouraged to make false statements at Carter’s initial trial, in some cases by threats and in others by payments. 

Olesen was killed in 1985 and Carter was convicted of her death that same year, and was later sentenced to death. The death sentence was appealed that in 1985, only for Carter be given a second death sentence in 1992.

Fast forward to 2019, when the case went back to the 4th District Court in Provo, where the “tainted” testimony information became public. 

“The (witnesses) signed sworn declarations stating that during the investigation and prosecution of Carter, the police had threatened them, pressured them to make untrue statements, and instructed them to lie at Carter’s trial about significant financial support they had received from the police,” the court documents stated.

Carter then petitioned for post-conviction relief.

“After the evidentiary hearing, the court found that Carter’s trial and sentencing were tainted by serious misconduct by the lead prosecutor, the lead investigator, and another police officer who was responsible for ‘taking care of’ the (witnesses),” court documents stated.

According to documents, the lead investigator had allegedly told one of the witnesses to make a false testimony about Carter. Both the lead investigator and one other officer had also allegedly told the witnesses “to lie about receiving financial assistance from the police.”

Court documents state that one of the witnesses lied about receiving financial assistance from officers, and had given false testimony about Carter. Documents said the witness stated they had received a $14 witness fee, but was later found to have received at least $4,000 from police.

The court documents also stated that the prosecutor knew about the witnesses receiving financial assistance from officers but did not say anything about it to the defense.

“The constitutional violations that took place during Carter’s trial and resentencing are serious. It is rare to see a case involving multiple instances of intentional misconduct by two different police officers—one of them the lead investigator on the case—and a prosecutor,” the court document conclusion stated.

The conclusion went on to talk about how one witness gave false testimony, while the prosecutor knew about it.

“The prosecutor stood by while (the witness) denied receiving any benefits, knowing the testimony was false, and did nothing to correct it,” court documents stated. “The post-conviction court granted Carter’s petition, vacated his conviction and sentence, and ordered a new trial because it determined these violations prejudiced Carter within the meaning of the PCRA. Its ‘confidence [was] undermined in both Carter’s conviction and sentence.’ So is ours.”

This story in breaking and will be updated.