ST. LOUIS, Mo. — The state of Missouri is preparing to execute Lance Shockley on October 14, 2025, amid growing concerns about jury misconduct, untested DNA evidence, and a controversial judicial override that overturned a deadlocked jury’s decision. Shockley’s supporters and legal team are urging Governor Mike Kehoe to act before the execution proceeds.
Shockley, who was convicted in 2009 of murdering Missouri State Highway Patrol Sergeant Carl DeVasto, maintains his innocence. Prosecutors relied solely on circumstantial evidence, with no physical links such as DNA or fingerprints connecting Shockley to the crime scene. His legal representatives are pushing for DNA testing on 16 pieces of evidence from the investigation, a request that prosecutors have resisted.
The trial attracted scrutiny for irregularities, particularly concerning a juror identified only as “Juror 58.” This juror reportedly distributed a self-published novel to fellow jurors and the presiding judge, a narrative that bore striking similarities to the case at hand. Despite this apparent conflict, the juror remained involved in the deliberations, ultimately contributing to the conviction.
Following revelations of the misconduct, Shockley’s defense sought a mistrial. However, the judge declined to question other jurors about the book’s influence and denied the mistrial request. This decision faced criticism from former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith, who argued in her dissent that the misconduct warranted a new trial.
The jury’s sentencing phase also experienced complications, as the jurors were unable to reach a unanimous agreement, splitting between life without parole and the death penalty. Missouri law allows a judge to impose a sentence if the jury deadlocks. In this case, Carter County Circuit Judge David Evans opted for death, making Missouri one of only two states where judicial override remains in effect. Advocates for Shockley argue that this practice undermines jury authority and constitutional rights.
The “I Stand With Lance” campaign seeks to draw attention to these judicial anomalies, asserting that executing Shockley would constitute a grave injustice, especially given Missouri’s history of executing individuals amid lingering doubts about their guilt.
Since his incarceration, Shockley has taken on a significant role at the Potosi Correctional Center, where he serves as president of the Restorative Justice Organization. He mentors peers facing addiction and trauma and leads worship services. Former chaplain Herb Conley praised him as a vital figure in restorative justice programs.
Supporters emphasize that clemency would not release Shockley but would commute his sentence to life without parole. This would allow him to continue his advocacy work while preserving the opportunity for DNA testing to potentially exonerate him.
Missouri’s death penalty practice has drawn national scrutiny, having executed 97 individuals since 1976, some under dubious circumstances. Recent executions, including those of Walter Barton and Leonard Taylor, took place despite substantial questions regarding their innocence. Advocates argue that Shockley’s case mirrors this troubling trend, marked by reliance on circumstantial evidence and deflection of modern scientific scrutiny.
As the execution date approaches, advocates are mobilizing through petitions, rallies, and public outreach to demand clemency. The clemency process in Missouri grants the governor significant discretion, though petitions are often ignored. Shockley’s legal team hopes that the combination of jury misconduct, untested evidence, and judicial overruling will compel Governor Kehoe to intervene.
With under two months remaining before the scheduled execution, the urgency of the situation escalates. Supporters assert that Shockley’s case goes beyond an individual story, reflecting broader systemic issues in Missouri’s justice system, where questions of fairness and integrity are at stake. His attorneys are emphasizing that DNA testing could definitively address lingering doubts, making the refusal to allow such testing a potential misstep for the state.
The public is encouraged to participate in the conversation surrounding this case, highlighting the critical intersection of justice, mercy, and integrity within the legal framework. While time is fleeting, advocates stress the importance of raising awareness before it becomes too late.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.