BUCYRUS — The Ohio Supreme Court has denied the latest appeal of convicted triple murderer Kevin Keith, according to the Crawford County Clerk of Courts.
The local agency notified the media on Friday afternoon of that decision.
Keith, of Crestline, was convicted in the 1994 aggravated murder of three people and the attempted murder of three more at Bucyrus Estates. He was sentenced to death.
But just two weeks before his scheduled execution, Keith received a commutation (reduction) of his sentence by Gov. Ted Strickland in 2010. That commutation came in spite of a parole board’s 8-0 recommendation to carry out the sentence.
Three Bucyrus residents were killed in the shooting, including Marichell Chatman, 24; her daughter Marchae, 4; and Chatman’s aunt, Linda Chatman, 39. Marichell Chatman’s boyfriend, Rick Warren, and cousins Quanita Reeves, 7, and Quentin Reeves, 4, were wounded.
“Once again, when the facts have been presented, the evidence still shows that Kevin Keith shot and killed Marichell Chatman, Marchae Chatman and Linda Chatman, and attempted to kill Richard Warren, Quanita Reevs and Quinton Reeves,” stated Crawford County Prosecutor Matthew Crall. “This is the 35th different hearing in this case.”
The 53-year-old Keith has consistently denied he was the shooter.
“The defendant professes his innocence,” Crall noted previously. “Fortunately, every court, the Crawford County Common Pleas, the Third District Court of Appeals, The Ohio Supreme Court, the Northern District Ohio Federal Court, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court — they have all, after carefully reviewing the facts, the procedure, and the evidence, reached the same conclusion.
“The verdict was just and should remain.”
The recent request for a new trial involved allegations of unprofessionalism by Bureau of Criminal Investigation criminologist Michelle G. Yezzo. She performed an analysis of tire tracks and a license plate imprint made in the snow from evidence taken at the scene.
Yezzo gave a deposition in the case which was admitted into evidence upon agreement by the parties, according to Crall.
“The facts were presented to a jury and appellate court after appellate court has ruled their judgment must be respected,” Crall said. “I have not seen or been presented any information that causes me to question the outcome of this case.”
