ObFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ‘Stare Carrot Montcomery, ALABAMA 36130 Kay Ivey Governor Fax: (334) 242-0937 STATE OF ALABAMA April 26, 2017 Suhana 8. Han, Esquire Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004-2498 Re: — Thomas D. Arthur Request for DNA Testing Dear Ms. Han: Your letter to Govemor Kay Ivey has been referred to this office for review and response. On Mr. Arthur's behalf, you request Governor Ivey to access a piece of physical evidence, a wig that was purportedly worn by the person who killed Troy Wicker. This office's review of the transcripts reflects that the wig in question was DNA tested in 2009. In 2008, two days before Arthur's fourth scheduled execution date, he filed successive Rule 32 petitions alleging newly discovered evidence. Arthur maintained that Bobby Ray Gilbert, another death row inmate, had provided an affidavit in which Gilbert claimed to have murdered Wicker. In support of his request, Arthur asked the Circuit Court to grant him access to physical evidence, including the wig, for DNA testing to demonstrate his innocence. During the evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court determined, through the State's witness's testimony, that Gilbert's affidavit was a fraud. Notwithstanding the Court's finding, the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences was ordered to conduct the requested DNA testing to eliminate the possibility of execution of an innocent person. On August 10, 2009, Angelo Della Manna, Chief of Forensic Biology and DNA for the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, appeared at a second evidentiary hearing to testify about the results of his testing, The Department indicated that Gilbert's DNA profile was not identified in any of the physical evidence tested and completely contradicted the statements Gilbert made in his affidavit. Based on the witness testimony and the expert testimony provided following DNA testing, the Circuit Court concluded that in light of the evidence, “...Arthur attempted to perpetrate a fraud.”On appeal from the Circuit Court's determination and a Rule 32 hearing, Arthur asserted that he had shown good cause for further DNA testing of the wig because of the allegedly undisputed fact that the perpetrator wore the wig and that were was genetic material on the wig. In his forensic report, Angelo Manna testified that he was unable to obtain any DNA profile from the wig, let alone Gilbert's DNA. Manna testified during the August 2009 evidentiary hearing that he had used the most sensitive equipment and procedures available to maximize the possibility of obtaining a DNA profile. However, Manna was unable to obtain any DNA profile from the wig. During the hearing, Manna also testified that no DNA profile could be obtained from the wig because of possible contamination, and also based on the possibility that no DNA profile could have been left on the wig. ‘The wig had been scraped, tested, handled, wor, and contaminated as it had been stored from trial to trial over 27 years. In qualifying Manna as an expert, the Court noted that Manna was an accredited forensic scientist and DNA analyst who sits on the FBI Oversight Board for DNA research, and that Manna’s lab was accredited by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. On appellate review, the Court found no reason to call the DNA report into question and Arthur offered no evidence to discredit or undermine the DNA analysis in the Rule 32 hearing. Governor Ivey has been briefed about your request made on behalf of Mr. Arthur, and declines to order further testing, Mr. Arthur has been tried and convicted of Wicker’s murder on three separate occasions before different juries. His convictions have been reviewed by state and federal courts, to include the Supreme Court of the United States. Your request on behalf of Mr. Arthur merely recycles the same request and contention made by Arthur for more testing on a piece of evidence that has been shown to contain no DNA profile. Sincerely, i ean aoe Bo . Bryar M. Taylor General Counsel BTipac ce: Thomas R. Govan, Deputy Attomey General