Kevin Keith is an Ohio prisoner who has served more than thirty years for a 1994 triple murder in Bucyrus that he says he did not commit, and his case has drawn national attention because federal courts have acknowledged prosecutors likely withheld evidence pointing to another suspect while procedural rules have kept any court from ordering a new trial. Keith was sentenced to death, came within two weeks of execution in 2010, and had his sentence commuted to life without parole by Governor Ted Strickland. He remains at Marion Correctional Institution while his attorneys continue to challenge the conviction.
What Happened in Bucyrus in 1994
On February 13, 1994, three people were shot and killed at the Bucyrus Estates apartment complex in Crawford County. The victims were Marichell Chatman, her seven-year-old daughter Marchae, and Marichell’s aunt Linda Chatman. Three other people in the apartment were shot and survived, including Marichell’s boyfriend, Richard Warren.1Supreme Court of the United States. Report and Recommendation – Keith v. Warden
Prosecutors charged Keith with three counts of aggravated murder with death-penalty specifications and three counts of attempted aggravated murder.2Ohio Together. Motion for New Trial Based on New Evidence Their theory was retaliation: the victims were related to Rudel Chatman, who had cooperated with law enforcement in drug raids in nearby Crestline. A jury convicted Keith on all counts and sentenced him to death.
Why the Eyewitness IDs Are Disputed
The state’s case leaned almost entirely on two eyewitness identifications, and both had reliability problems that have grown clearer over time.
Richard Warren, the surviving boyfriend, told four different people after the attack that he did not know who shot him. He described the gunman as a “masked man” whose mouth and nose were covered, and he told police he thought he could identify the shooter only by build and size.1Supreme Court of the United States. Report and Recommendation – Keith v. Warden About eight hours after surgery, Warren wrote “Kevin” on a piece of paper for a nurse. In a later phone call, a police captain suggested possible last names, and Warren said he was 75 percent sure the name was “Kevin Keith.” He later picked Keith’s photo from a six-person array, saying he was 95 percent sure.
After trial, Keith’s attorneys located the nurse. In a sworn statement, she said Warren never told her the shooter’s name, which directly contradicts what the police captain reported.1Supreme Court of the United States. Report and Recommendation – Keith v. Warden
The second identification came from Nancy Smathers, a neighbor. She heard popping sounds, looked outside, and saw a large man run to a light-colored car that then slid into a snowbank. The driver spent nearly five minutes rocking the car free. Weeks later, after seeing Keith on television, she told police she was 90 percent sure he was the man. On cross-examination, she conceded that she had originally told police she could not identify the man at all.1Supreme Court of the United States. Report and Recommendation – Keith v. Warden
The “042” Snow Impression
The physical evidence tying Keith to the scene came from the same snowbank Smathers described. The state’s forensic analyst, G. Michele Yezzo of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, testified that an impression in the snow contained the sequence “042,” which she said was a partial license plate from a vehicle Keith drove to the complex.2Ohio Together. Motion for New Trial Based on New Evidence
Defense experts reached the opposite conclusion. They found that the “042” marking was not a plate impression at all but was consistent with a tread pattern from a BFGoodrich tire.2Ohio Together. Motion for New Trial Based on New Evidence Independent tire experts who reviewed the evidence found the markings did not match the tire configuration on Keith’s vehicle.3Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Parole Board Report – Application for Clemency of Kevin Keith That impression was the only physical evidence prosecutors offered to place Keith at the scene.
What Prosecutors Didn’t Turn Over
Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to the defense, including material that would undermine a state witness.4Justia. Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Keith’s attorneys have identified two categories of undisclosed evidence, and both matter.
The Forensic Analyst’s Personnel File
Yezzo, the analyst whose testimony placed Keith’s vehicle at the scene, had a personnel file the defense never saw. BCI’s assistant superintendent wrote in 1989 that the “consensus opinion” was that Yezzo “suffers a severe mental imbalance and needs immediate assistance.” The same report stated that her “findings and conclusions regarding evidence may be suspect” and that she would “stretch the truth to satisfy a department.”5U.S. Government Publishing Office. Keith v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution
In August 1993, months before she testified against Keith, Yezzo was placed on administrative leave for threatening co-workers and experiencing fits of rage. Internal notes described her as having a “reputation of giving dept. answer [it] wants if [it] stroke[s] her.” The file also documented racist outbursts, including her use of racial slurs against colleagues. She was still under investigation when she took the stand in Keith’s capital trial.5U.S. Government Publishing Office. Keith v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution Keith, who is Black, was convicted by a jury that heard her testimony as the primary forensic evidence against him.
The Alternative Suspect
Investigators also had information pointing to another man, Rodney Melton. Ohio Pharmacy Board files documented that Melton and his associates were involved in a pharmacy burglary ring, and that two weeks before the shootings, Melton told a confidential informant he had “been paid $15,000 to cripple ‘the man’ who was responsible for the raids in Crestline.”1Supreme Court of the United States. Report and Recommendation – Keith v. Warden The victims were relatives of Rudel Chatman, the informant behind those Crestline raids.
Melton’s associates told police he had vowed to kill anyone who informed on him. He owned and drove a yellow Chevy Impala consistent with Smathers’ description of a “real light” colored car, and the first three digits of a license plate registered to him matched the partial number she described from the snowbank. Melton appeared at the crime scene after the shooting, knew the type of bullets used, and told police that his car had been broken down that night.1Supreme Court of the United States. Report and Recommendation – Keith v. Warden The jury heard none of this.
How Keith Avoided Execution
In September 2010, Keith was two weeks from his execution date. The Ohio Parole Board voted against clemency, but Governor Ted Strickland commuted the death sentence to life without parole. Strickland said Keith might well be guilty, but that the “real and unanswered questions” surrounding the conviction made the death penalty inappropriate.3Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Parole Board Report – Application for Clemency of Kevin Keith The commutation left the conviction itself untouched. Keith has been held at Marion Correctional Institution since 2014.
Why the Courts Haven’t Fixed It
Keith’s post-conviction fight has stalled on a procedural rule rather than on the merits. Federal habeas law imposes strict limits on prisoners who have already filed one federal challenge; new claims can be treated as “second or successive” petitions and face a much higher standard for review.
Both the federal district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals have acknowledged that Keith has a “viable Brady claim” based on the suppressed evidence. The Sixth Circuit found that Keith satisfied the elements of a Brady violation regarding the Yezzo personnel file.5U.S. Government Publishing Office. Keith v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution Both courts nevertheless dismissed the claim because it came in what they classified as a second habeas petition subject to the heightened bar.
In January 2024, Keith’s attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a narrow question: whether Brady claims can be dismissed as “second or successive” when the suppressed evidence only surfaces after the first habeas petition has already been resolved.6Supreme Court of the United States. Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Kevin Keith v. Warden The petition described the situation as a catch-22: a prisoner cannot raise a Brady claim until the hidden evidence emerges, but by then the procedural window has often already closed.
Where Things Stand Now
Federal judges have recognized that the state likely violated Keith’s constitutional rights by hiding evidence, and procedural rules have kept any court from deciding whether the outcome of his trial would have been different. The Parole Board has continued to recommend against clemency, most recently voting against it in 2023.
The picture available today differs sharply from the one presented to the 1994 jury. That jury heard from a forensic analyst whose employer had internally described her work as suspect and her rages as disqualifying. It heard eyewitness identifications that began as uncertainty and hardened after suggestive contact with police and television coverage. It never heard of Rodney Melton, his stated motive, his vehicle and plate matching the witness account, or his statements about killing informants. Whether any of that would have changed the verdict is a question no court has been permitted to answer on the merits.