The Arkansas Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of Andrew Ross, Jr., who is serving a life sentence for the murder of Robert Branscum. The court ruled against Ross's appeal for additional scientific testing on evidence from the crime scene, stating that the request did not meet legal requirements. This decision impacts Ross, who has been incarcerated since his conviction in 1999, and it reinforces the standards for post-conviction testing in the state.
Ross's case began in September 1999, when he and an accomplice killed Branscum during an attempted robbery in Blytheville, Arkansas. Ross has never denied being present at the scene of the crime. In fact, he admitted that he was shot in the groin by Branscum during the incident. The evidence against him was substantial, including bloody clothing and a ski mask found in his possession. A jury convicted Ross of capital murder, and he received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 2001.
In the years following his conviction, Ross filed a petition under Act 1780, seeking to have certain items of evidence, including a ski mask and a t-shirt, tested for DNA and other scientific analysis. He argued that this testing could potentially undermine his conviction by suggesting that the items belonged to his friend, who was also involved in the murder. However, the circuit court denied his request, leading Ross to appeal the decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled against Ross, stating that his claims were without merit. The court emphasized that for a petition under Act 1780 to be successful, the petitioner must show that the identity of the perpetrator was in question during the original investigation or prosecution. The court stated, "Ross’s claim is frivolous, and the circuit court correctly rejected it." The court noted that the testing Ross sought would not provide evidence of his innocence but could only show that his friend had contact with the items in question.
Justice Nicholas J. Bronni delivered the opinion of the court, with Special Justice Cory Cox joining. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, maintaining that Ross's appeal did not meet the legal standards required for post-conviction testing. The ruling reinforces the stringent requirements for individuals seeking to challenge their convictions based on new scientific evidence.
This ruling has significant implications for Ross and others in similar situations. It underscores the difficulty of overturning a conviction long after the fact, especially when the evidence presented does not directly challenge the core elements of the conviction. The court's decision also serves as a reminder of the legal framework surrounding post-conviction petitions in Arkansas, particularly under Act 1780.
Moving forward, Ross's options for appeal are limited. The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision is final, and there are no indications that he has any related cases pending. Ross's situation highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking to revisit their convictions after many years, particularly when the evidence they wish to introduce does not directly address the key issues of their guilt.