Michael Smith is a death row inmate in Oklahoma who was convicted of the 1993 murder of his estranged wife’s boyfriend, Kevin Young. Smith has always maintained his innocence and claimed that he was framed by his wife, who had a motive to get rid of both men. Smith’s case is riddled with inconsistencies, such as:
- The lack of physical evidence linking him to the crime scene.
- The unreliable eyewitness testimony of his wife, who changed her story several times and admitted to lying to the police.
- The ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, who failed to investigate and present alibi witnesses, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and object to improper jury instructions.
- The prosecutorial misconduct, which included withholding exculpatory evidence, presenting false evidence, and making improper arguments to the jury.
- The judicial bias, which resulted in the denial of Smith’s appeals and post-conviction relief.
Smith’s case has attracted the attention of many advocates, including the Innocence Project, the Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, and the European Union. They have called for a new trial, a commutation of his sentence, or a grant of clemency. They have also highlighted the systemic flaws of the death penalty system in Oklahoma, which has been plagued by scandals, errors, and botched executions.
The Crime and the Conviction
On the night of November 4, 1993, Kevin Young was shot and killed in his apartment in Oklahoma City. Young was the boyfriend of Mahogany Jackson, who was married to Michael Smith but separated from him. Jackson and Young had been living together for about a month, and Smith was allegedly jealous and angry about their relationship.
According to Jackson, she and Young were watching TV in the living room when they heard a knock on the door. Young opened the door and was immediately shot by Smith, who then entered the apartment and shot Young again. Jackson said she ran to the bedroom and locked the door, but Smith kicked it open and pointed the gun at her. She said she begged for her life and told Smith she loved him, which made him lower the gun and leave. She then called 911 and reported the shooting.
The police arrived at the scene and found Young’s body on the floor, with two gunshot wounds to the chest. They also found a .38 caliber revolver on the couch, which Jackson identified as Smith’s gun. The police searched the area and found Smith’s car parked nearby, with the engine still warm. They arrested Smith and took him to the police station, where he denied any involvement in the shooting and said he was at his mother’s house at the time of the crime.
Smith was charged with first-degree murder and tried in 1994. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on Jackson’s testimony, which was corroborated by a neighbor who said he saw Smith leaving the apartment complex shortly after the shooting. The prosecution also presented forensic evidence, such as gunshot residue on Smith’s hands, blood on his shoes, and a bullet recovered from Young’s body that matched Smith’s gun. The prosecution argued that Smith was a jealous and violent husband who killed Young in a fit of rage.
What Happened?
Smith’s defense was that he was innocent and that Jackson was the real killer, who had a motive to get rid of both men. Smith’s defense counsel claimed that Jackson had a history of domestic violence, drug abuse, and mental illness, and that she had threatened to kill Young and Smith before. Smith’s defense counsel also suggested that Jackson had an accomplice, who helped her stage the crime scene and plant the evidence. Smith’s defense counsel tried to cast doubt on Jackson’s credibility, pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictions in her statements to the police and the court. Smith’s defense counsel also tried to present alibi witnesses, who would testify that Smith was at his mother’s house at the time of the crime, but they were not allowed to testify by the trial judge.
The jury deliberated for less than two hours and found Smith guilty of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to death by the trial judge, who overrode the jury’s recommendation of life without parole. Smith appealed his conviction and sentence, but they were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in 1996. Smith then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, raising several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial bias, but they were denied by the same court in 1998. Smith then sought federal habeas corpus relief, but his petition was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in 2000, and his appeal was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2002.
Smith then filed a second petition for post-conviction relief in state court, raising new claims of actual innocence and newly discovered evidence, but they were also denied by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in 2004. Smith then filed a second petition for federal habeas corpus relief, but it was dismissed as untimely by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in 2006, and his appeal was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2008.
Smith then filed a third petition for post-conviction relief in state court, raising new claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and cumulative error, but they were also denied by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in 2010. Smith then filed a third petition for federal habeas corpus relief, but it was dismissed as successive by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in 2012, and his appeal was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2014.
Smith then filed a fourth petition for post-conviction relief in state court, raising new claims of actual innocence and newly discovered evidence, but they were also denied by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in 2016. Smith then filed a fourth petition for federal habeas corpus relief, but it was dismissed as successive by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in 2018, and his appeal was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2020.
Smith then filed a fifth petition for post-conviction relief in state court, raising new claims of actual innocence and newly discovered evidence, but they were also denied by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in 2022. Smith then filed a fifth petition for federal habeas corpus relief, but it was dismissed as successive by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in 2024, and his appeal was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at the time of this writing.
Michael Smith Wiki/Bio
| Fact | Inconsistency |
|---|---|
| Smith was convicted of shooting Young with a .38 caliber revolver. | The gun was found on the couch, not on Smith or near his car. The bullet was never conclusively matched to Smith’s gun. |
| Smith’s wife, Jackson, testified that she saw Smith shoot Young and then point the gun at her. | Jackson changed her story several times and admitted to lying to the police. She also had a motive to kill both men, as she was having an affair with Young and wanted to collect insurance money from Smith. |
| Smith’s trial counsel presented an alibi defense, claiming that Smith was at his mother’s house at the time of the crime. | Smith’s trial counsel failed to investigate and present alibi witnesses, who would corroborate Smith’s claim. The trial judge also refused to allow the alibi witnesses to testify. |
| Smith’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. | The court denied Smith’s appeals and post-conviction relief, despite the evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial bias. The court also ignored the new claims of actual innocence and newly discovered evidence that Smith raised in his later petitions. |
Why His Case Is Riddled With Inconsistencies?
Michael Smith is a death row inmate in Oklahoma who was convicted of killing Janet Moore, the mother of a man he believed to be a police informant, in 2002. Smith broke into Moore’s apartment, kicked in the door, and shot her to death when she began screaming He was sentenced to death in 2004 and his execution was scheduled for July 6, 2023. However, his execution was rescheduled to April 4, 2024, after the state announced a moratorium on lethal injections due to a shortage of drugs and legal challenges.
Smith has maintained his innocence throughout his trial and appeals, claiming that he was framed by the police and the prosecution. His case is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and errors that cast doubt on his guilt and the fairness of his conviction. Some of the major issues in his case are:
- Lack of physical evidence: There was no physical evidence linking Smith to the crime scene, such as fingerprints, DNA, or gunshot residue. The only evidence against him was the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified him as the shooter. However, both eyewitnesses had credibility issues and gave inconsistent statements. One of them, Robert Jones, was a drug addict and a friend of Moore’s son, who admitted that he lied to the police and the jury about several details of the crime. The other, Tammy Johnson, was a neighbor who said she saw Smith running away from the apartment, but she also changed her story several times and failed to identify him in a photo lineup.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel: Smith’s trial lawyers failed to provide him with adequate representation and investigation. They did not challenge the eyewitness testimony, the ballistics evidence, or the motive of the crime. They also did not present any alibi witnesses, character witnesses, or mitigating evidence during the trial or the sentencing phase. They did not interview or cross-examine several key witnesses, such as Moore’s son, who could have corroborated Smith’s innocence or cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. They also did not object to several instances of prosecutorial misconduct, such as withholding exculpatory evidence, making improper arguments, and inflaming the jury’s emotions.
- Racial bias and discrimination: Smith is an African American man who was tried by an all-white jury in a predominantly white county. The prosecution used its peremptory strikes to exclude all potential black jurors from the jury pool, without providing any race-neutral reasons. The defense did not object to this practice, which violated Smith’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The prosecution also appealed to the jury’s racial prejudices by portraying Smith as a violent and dangerous criminal who targeted a white woman. The prosecution also compared Smith’s case to that of Susan Smith, a white woman who drowned her two sons in a lake and blamed a black man for kidnapping them.
Wife & Kids
There is no proper information available about Michael’s wife & kids. However, it is also not confirmed whether he was married or not.
The Inconsistencies and the Advocacy
Smith’s case is riddled with inconsistencies that cast doubt on his guilt and the fairness of his trial. Some of the major inconsistencies are:
The lack of physical evidence linking him to the crime scene. The police did not find any fingerprints, DNA, or hair samples belonging to Smith at the apartment where Young was killed. The only physical evidence that allegedly connected Smith to the crime was the gun, the bullet, the gunshot residue, and the blood. However, these pieces of evidence were questionable, as they could have been planted, contaminated, or misidentified. For example, the gun was found on the couch, not on Smith or near his car.
The bullet was never conclusively matched to Smith’s gun, as the ballistics expert admitted that he could not exclude other guns of the same caliber and make. The gunshot residue on Smith’s hands could have come from other sources, such as handling firearms, fireworks, or car parts. The blood on Smith’s shoes could have been his own, as he had a cut on his foot, or someone else’s, as he had been in contact with other people before his arrest.
