Utah DNA evidence doesn't match death row man
Archived — this story has rotated out of today’s deck. It is kept here in full.
The gist
DNA results received Tuesday excluded Douglas Stewart Carter as a match to blood and knife evidence in the 1985 Olesen murder.
Utah then withdrew its death-penalty notice, and Carter's attorney is pressing to dismiss the charges.
Background
Carter, 71, was sentenced to death in 1985 for murdering Eva Olesen, the aunt of a former Provo police chief. No physical evidence tied him to the scene; the jury convicted him based on a signed confession and two witnesses who said he bragged about the killing. In 2025 the state Supreme Court ordered a new trial, citing misconduct by investigators. The new DNA results arrived as prosecutors were preparing for an eight-week trial set for next July.
How it unfolded
- 1985Douglas Stewart Carter was sentenced to death after a jury found him guilty of murdering Eva Olesen.
- 2009Orla Olesen, the victim's husband, died.
- 2025The state Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Carter, citing misconduct by investigators.
- Sep 22, 2026DNA analysis results were received that excluded Carter as a possible match to blood found on a doorknob and material on the handle of a knife used to stab Olesen, who was also shot.
- Sep 23, 2026Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray said in a court filing that the state was withdrawing its earlier notice that it intended to seek the death penalty.
- Sep 24, 2026Carter's attorney Neal Hamilton urged prosecutors to dismiss the charges and requested a bond hearing.
- next JulyAn eight-week trial is set to begin.
Who’s saying what
- Official
- Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray said the state was withdrawing its death-penalty notice and planned to reexamine its decision to move forward, but added the new evidence "does not necessarily exonerate Carter of the murder," noting the handgun used to shoot Olesen was never found and Carter confessed.
- Defense
- Attorney Neal Hamilton urged prosecutors to dismiss the charges and requested a bond hearing, saying he expects his client to be released pending trial and that "It's not time to try to save face and continue with a tainted prosecution. They know they don't have a case. The moral obligation is to dismiss."
- Defendant
- Douglas Stewart Carter maintains his innocence and argues his signed confession was coerced.
Still unverified
Carter's claim that his signed confession was coerced; defense attorneys' allegations that an investigator suppressed evidence pointing to other suspects, including the victim's husband, and that prosecutors were close to filing charges against the husband but a Provo police lieutenant asked them not to; the two witnesses' later statements that police and prosecutors offered to pay their rent, coached them to lie in court and threatened them and their son with deportation.