Buncombe District Attorney Releases Statement on Supreme Court Decision

This Source Verification Page documents a Mountain Xpress article publishing a statement from Buncombe County District Attorney Todd Williams following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Richard Eugene Glossip v. State of Oklahoma. The article explains Williams' participation in the prosecutors' amicus curiae brief and his views regarding prosecutorial ethics, the disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and the responsibility of prosecutors to address wrongful convictions. Statement of Facts D cites this source to document Williams' public statements concerning prosecutorial obligations, the importance of correcting wrongful convictions, and the duty of prosecutors to ensure confidence in the integrity of criminal convictions and the justice system.

Related SMAR Citation

“[Mountain XPress, "Buncombe District Attorney releases statement on Supreme Court decision", 2/26/25]”

Source Name

Buncombe District Attorney Releases Statement on Supreme Court Decision

Author(s)

News Release from District Attorney Todd Williams

Publication

Mountain Xpress

Publication Date

March 2025

Verification Source

Buncombe District Attorney Releases Statement on Supreme Court Decision

Source Location

Mountain Xpress

Highlighted Pages

1 -2

Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 35, Paragraph 65

Source Status

✔ Article obtained and reviewed.

✔ Relevant passages highlighted.

✔ Publicly available source.

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive.

Cited to Support

Lyle C. May alleges that District Attorney Todd Williams publicly described his participation in the Richard Glossip amicus brief as reflecting an "unwavering commitment to ethical prosecution" and expressed concern regarding prosecutorial misconduct that undermines confidence in criminal convictions. The Mountain Xpress article is cited to document Williams' statements that the Supreme Court's decision addressed misconduct that has challenged the integrity of the justice system and reinforced prosecutors' obligations regarding the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence. May relies upon these statements to support his claim that the types of misconduct discussed in the Glossip litigation—including the destruction of evidence, the withholding of favorable evidence, and the presentation of false or misleading testimony—are similar to allegations raised in his own post-conviction proceedings arising from the Buncombe County prosecution of the July 1997 murders in Asheville, North Carolina and therefore warrant judicial review.

Supporting Documents

Original Article

Link to the original article.

View Website →

Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →