Utah Death Row Prisoner Released After DNA Exoneration
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
Douglas Stewart Carter, 71, was released on bail from Utah County jail late Monday after Judge Derek Pullan ordered his release following a Sept. 22 DNA analysis that excluded him as a match to blood on a doorknob and genetic material on a knife used in the Feb. 27, 1985, killing of Eva Olesen in her Provo, Utah, home. Carter had spent more than four decades on death row after 1985 and 1992 convictions that rested on a signed confession he has said was coerced and on testimony from two witnesses who later recanted; no physical evidence had linked him to the scene. The Utah Supreme Court ordered a new trial last year, citing investigator misconduct, and Utah County prosecutors last week withdrew their notice that they intended to seek the death penalty. Carter must wear a GPS monitor until a retrial planned for 2027, and Pullan said the DNA results further undermined the case against him but that a reasonable jury could still conclude he killed Olesen. Carter's attorney Neal Hamilton has urged dismissal of the remaining aggravated murder charge, while Theresa Olesen, a daughter-in-law of the victim, told the court the family had "serious concerns" about the release.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles
2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Utah Supreme Court, Judge Derek Pullan, Neal Hamilton, Erwin Petilos and Theresa Olesen
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court ruling, court filing, DNA analysis
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 20:12 UTC by The Guardian, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Guardian (court ruling).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage is simply more complete on why this conviction collapsed. Left-leaning coverage says two witnesses recanted and the state supreme court cited misconduct by investigators. Fox News reports those witnesses later said police paid them and threatened deportation. It also reports that the court found a prosecutor among those who committed intentional misconduct. A Guardian-only reader never learns that the testimony that put Carter on death row was, by the witnesses' own later account, purchased.
Left-leaning coverage says the DNA showed Carter was "not connected" to the homicide. Right-leaning coverage says the tests excluded him as the source of DNA on a doorknob and a knife. The judge in both versions still said a reasonable jury could find he killed her.
Neither side says whose DNA the tests did find on the knife.
Bottom line
Carter's DNA exclusion made both write-ups; the 2011 recantations in Mexico, where the original witnesses said police paid them, appear only in Fox News.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Original trial witnesses later said they were told to lie, received cash and gifts from police, and were threatened with deportation if they did not implicate Carter
- The Utah Supreme Court cited multiple instances of intentional misconduct by police and a prosecutor
- Defense attorneys said an investigator suppressed evidence that could implicate the victim's husband, whom prosecutors had been close to charging
- Carter is Black; his attorneys said witnesses saw a White man fleeing the crime scene
- Prosecutors declined to say whether they will use the DNA evidence to search for other suspects
The Left View
The Guardian frames the DNA findings as showing Carter "was not connected" to the homicide and treats the release as belated relief after a conviction built without physical evidence. It centers Hamilton's statement that supporters are "profoundly grateful" Carter is going home yet "heartbroken by the theft of his life," contrasting the "bright young man standing on the cusp of his future" with a 71-year-old hoping to enjoy "what remains of the twilight years of his life." The coverage also highlights the push for prosecutors to dismiss the still-pending charge.
The Right View
Fox News frames the release as occurring "over objections from the victim's family" and keeps Carter's status open: he remains a defendant on monitored bail facing retrial, not a fully cleared man. It stresses the violence of the killing—Olesen found tied up, stabbed, and shot in a suspected robbery—and the judge's remark that a jury could still find him guilty, quoting Theresa Olesen that the DNA result "doesn't mean he wasn't there." The report adds details the Guardian omitted: recanting witnesses said they received cash and gifts and were threatened with deportation; the state supreme court cited "multiple instances of intentional misconduct" by police and a prosecutor; and defense attorneys, noting Carter is Black, have said witnesses saw a White man fleeing and that investigators suppressed leads that could implicate other suspects, including the victim's husband. Hamilton is quoted saying that if the state "had their way, he would have been executed 15, 20 years ago before we discovered the misconduct."
Our Take (balanced)
The Guardian's strongest argument is that DNA exclusion from the knife and doorknob, on top of a conviction that never had physical evidence and later-recanted testimony, leaves little basis to keep an aggravated murder charge alive after four decades—backed by the state's retreat from seeking death and by Hamilton's "theft of his life" account. Fox's strongest argument is that release is not exoneration: Pullan said a reasonable jury could still convict, the victim's family objects and insists exclusion "doesn't mean he wasn't there," and a confession plus a scheduled retrial remain. The central unresolved tension is whether the DNA results and documented investigative misconduct amount to practical clearance that ends the case, or whether leftover evidence still justifies treating Carter as a monitored defendant rather than a man fully cleared of the killing.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.