On a muggy North Carolina summer evening in 1990, police officers responded to a call at a local convenience store. When they arrived at the scene, they discovered two dead bodies; those of Vietnamese store owner Minh Rogers and her 16-year old daughter Linda.

Officers found semen on Linda's clothing and sent it to an FBI forensic lab for testing. Bloody footprints were also found at the crime scene, and a number of witnesses identified a local man, Jerry Conner, as the perpetrator. Conner was convicted on rape and double homicide charges, and sentenced to death.

Now, more than 25 years after his sentence, Conner is requesting new DNA testing. State Superior Court Judge J. Richard Parker denied Conner's requests last week, citing that the earlier test was sufficient support for prosecutor's arguments.

As Conner's execution date approaches, currently set for May 12, his defense lawyers are filing new appeals for DNA testing, citing that the semen samples found at the crime scene were not only tested using old methods but also came back inconclusive. Conner has a clemency hearing set for May 2, but his, defense attorneys are befuddled by Judge Parker's initial denial to re-test evidence.

“The real question in Jerry's case is: Why not?” says Conner's attorney, Mark Klienschmidt. “Why not retest his DNA? When we look at state- of-the-art DNA testing, we see that in the last 16 years there have been significant changes. In 1990, it would take weeks to get the results back; now, it takes a day. Why deny this man a new test?”

According to District Attorney Frank Parrish, the judge was right to deny re-testing because Conner confessed to the crime, and a shotgun was recovered from his home that officials say was used in the murders.

“I am not against re-testing DNA if it sheds some light or has some worth on a case. But none of those things apply in this case,” says Parrish. “I've lived with this case for almost 16 years and there is more than a smattering of evidence against this man. You have to remember, too, these were horrific killings.”

According to Parrish Conner's DNA tests came back inconclusive because the hot North Carolina weather degraded the semen samples. Moreover, Parrish says that Conner's confession is a key component in this case, not the DNA sample.

“The fact that he described undressing and raping the young girl, and how he fired a shotgun round into her when she turned her head is pretty compelling evidence,” he says. “His crime was corroborated by his confession in so many respects. He admitted that he stole a briefcase, and there was a briefcase missing at the crime scene. Nobody else would know that information.”

Conner's attorneys maintain that his confession was mitigated because of his mental state.

“Admittedly, a confession is generally strong evidence of guilt,” says Kleinschmidt. “But the state is relying on the confession of a borderline mentally retarded person. There needs to be some discussion about how this confession is analyzed. This confession is unreliable and internally inconsistent. None of it matches up, because they never found any of the things Jerry claims to have stolen.”  

Recent Supreme Court cases have examined the issue of mental illness in conjunction with the death penalty. This week, justices heard arguments on how states could define “insanity” and on the constitutionality of convicting defendants of intentional murder despite claims of delusion. According to Kleinschmidt, Conner's mental capacity should be taken into account.

“When Jerry was confronted by law enforcement at his house, 10 days after the crime was committed, he was basically told ‘We know you did it, Jerry.' Jerry's confession is essentially a crazy story,” he says.

However, Conner's mental illness defense is less of a focus than the issue of DNA re-testing.  Parrish thinks DNA is the least of Conner's problem.

“We have a bloody footprint at the scene of the crime that has been matched to a pair of Conner's shoes. There were 15 points of identification on those shoe prints. That's very similar to fingerprints. Those impressions matched at every point,” says Parrish. “This is not a ‘who-done-it?' case. He had the knowledge and the facts that perpetrators have. DNA sample or not, there is still enough evidence to prove he was there and that he committed this crime.”

As Parrish and Kleinschmidt gear up for Conner's clemency hearing, corrections officials are keeping an eye on a case that could set a DNA re-testing standard for death row inmates.