D.A.’s office objects to reopening 1981 murder case
MEDIA COURTHOUSE » Testimony continued Thursday on a motion to DNA test evidence in the case of a Chester man sentenced to life in prison for the 1980 slaying of “Avon Lady” Emily Leo.
Defense attorney Michael Malloy contends that evidence in the case does not match up with testimony provided during the 1981 trial that resulted in the conviction of Leroy Evans.
Assistant District Attorney William Toal III argued that the relief being sought is well outside the statute of limitations for Evans’ case, however, and that there are no “new facts” that have come to light that would justify opening up the investigation again.
Evans, who has been in prison for the last 37 years, has always denied his involvement with the murder, but did admit to taking clothing from the home of co-defendant Anthony Jones and burning it.
Jones testified at trial that it was Evans’ idea to lure Leo into the house in the 3000 block of West 11th St. on the morning of Nov. 11 under the pretense of buying Avon products.
He said Evans choked Leo with a clothesline in the kitchen and beat her about the head with an iron before Jones stuffed her into a trashcan and took her to a nearby vacant lot.
A truck driver called police after seeing Jones throwing rocks at Leo’s near-lifeless body. Jones ran off but was arrested later that same day. Leo remained in critical condition at Crozer-Chester Medical Center in Upland until her death Nov. 28.
Jones, who was 17 at the time, made a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty and name his alleged accomplice in order to avoid the death penalty. Jones’ testimony that Evans hatched the plan and carried out the attack was the only thing linking him to the murder, according to Malloy.
Jones provided a statement to Malloy in 2016 indicating Evans was not involved with any aspect of the murder.
Malloy is seeking DNA testing on the clothesline, the victim’s clothing, two pocketbooks, a date planner and other items allegedly grabbed by Evans during the murder. The iron identified as the murder weapon is not in custody.
Jones was present for Thursday’s hearing, but indicated he was exercising his Fifth Amendment right not to answer any questions under the advisement of public defender James Wright.
Wright did testify that he is representing Jones for a potential resentencing as required by a Supreme Court decision affecting juveniles serving life sentences.
He said Jones is not standing by his statement to Malloy and does not intend to testify at any future proceedings for Evans. Wright also said Jones had indicated that he was under duress and expressed issues with threats when he gave Malloy the statement.
Toal noted Jones has provided exculpatory state-
ments for Evans in the past and then recanted.
Defense attorney William Corey also argued that the commonwealth was attempting to prevent the development of new facts by opposing the DNA testing.
He noted the statute concerning such testing does not have the same stringent timelines as set forth for appeals under the Post Conviction Relief Act, but rather allows for an “equitable” period of time.
Corey pointed out that Evans had sought DNA testing in 2006, but was told he did not have a right to it. He added that the petitioner would pay for the testing and the commonwealth was unable to prove any prejudice by allowing testing to move forward.
“This case could be resolved or furthered very quickly just by allowing the testing,” said Corey.
Toal countered that even in cases where DNA testing had been allowed, there was at least some basis for actual evidence of actual innocence to be uncovered.
“Nobody’s looking to deprive the opportunity to find the truth, but I’m looking at the statute … where the onus is on the petitioner to establish that the results will demonstrate actual innocence and in this instance the results will not do that,” he said.
Toal noted the defense’s own expert witness, forensic biologist Arthur W. Young, stated that the mere absence of Evans’ DNA on the rope could not conclusively rule out that he had touched it after so long and with pre-DNA minded evidence collection techniques in place.
Corey said the “actual innocence” standard is not what Evans is seeking, but rather a much lower standard of whether it is “within the realm of reason” that some result could prove innocence.
Delaware County Common Pleas Court Judge James Bradley has set the next hearing date for April 15. He indicated he may or may not have come to some conclusions by then.