Death row inmates granted direct DNA testing through Ohio Supreme Court under new rule
By Jim Provance,
The Blade
| 05. 22. 2017
New rule allows inmates to appeal lower courts decision
COLUMBUS—Inmates already on death row may appeal a lower court’s decision rejecting access to DNA testing of evidence directly to the Ohio Supreme Court under a new rule adopted today.
The move follows the Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in December that struck down as unconstitutional part of a state law restricting such appeals in cases involving those already convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Under the new rule, if a Lucas County Common Pleas judge denies an application for DNA testing of evidence after a death sentence has already been imposed, an appeal of that decision would skip the Sixth District Court of Appeals and be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.
Tyrone Noling was convicted of killing Bearnhardt and Cora Hartiga of Portage County in 1990 and the Supreme Court has already upheld both the conviction and sentence. He has insisted he is innocent of the murders and has filed numerous appeals over the years.
He requested DNA testing of a cigarette butt that was found in the Hartigs’ driveway...
Related Articles
By Katherine Long, Ben Foldy, and Lingling Wei, The Wall Street Journal | 12.13.2025
Inside a closed Los Angeles courtroom, something wasn’t right.
Clerks working for family court Judge Amy Pellman were reviewing routine surrogacy petitions when they spotted an unusual pattern: the same name, again and again.
A Chinese billionaire was seeking parental...
By David Jensen, The California Stem Cell Report | 12.11.2025
California’s stem cell and gene therapy agency today approved spending $207 million more on training and education, sidestepping the possibility of using the cash to directly support revolutionary research that has been slashed and endangered by the Trump administration.
Directors...
By Sarah Kliff, The New York Times | 12.10.2025
Micah Nerio had known since his early 30s that he wanted to be a father, even if he did not have a partner. He spent a decade saving up to pursue surrogacy, an expensive process where he would create embryos...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...
