A Conviction Built on Coercion and Falsehoods
Carter was sentenced to death for the murder of Eva Olesen in Provo, Utah. The case hinged on two key elements: a signed confession taken during an unrecorded interrogation and testimony from Epifanio and Lucia Tovar, who claimed Carter confessed and reenacted the murder.
But years later, both Tovars came forward and said they had lied on the stand—because police told them to. According to court documents and their own sworn statements, officers threatened them with deportation and the loss of their infant son unless they cooperated. They were also given thousands of dollars in rent, groceries, and other living expenses, which they were told to deny under oath.
Findings of Misconduct
The Supreme Court’s opinion outlines coordinated misconduct involving:
-
Lt. George Pierpont, the lead investigator, who instructed Epifanio to fabricate a damning quote—that Carter said he was going out to “rape, break, and drive”—and to deny receiving any financial support.
-
Officer Richard Mack, who acted as a handler for the Tovars, providing them rent, groceries, and utility payments, and reinforcing instructions to lie under oath.
-
Prosecutor Wayne Watson, who knew the testimony was false but failed to correct it in court—violating the State’s obligation under Napue v. Illinois to disclose and rectify perjury.
The court emphasized that these actions not only violated Carter’s rights under Brady v. Maryland and Napue, but also undermined the reliability of the entire trial.
A Systemic Breakdown
In its unanimous opinion, the Court rejected the State’s argument that the misconduct did not affect the outcome. Justice Paige Petersen wrote for the Court, stating:
“These numerous constitutional violations—suppressing evidence, suborning perjury, and knowingly failing to correct false testimony—prejudiced Carter at both his trial and sentencing.”
The Court noted that no physical evidence tied Carter to the crime scene and that the remaining evidence had been seriously compromised. The Tovars’ testimony, which supported key aspects of Carter’s confession, was now unreliable.
Implications Going Forward
The ruling affirms that postconviction relief is appropriate when due process violations cut to the heart of a case. It sends a strong message about the State’s duty to ensure fair trials, especially when a person’s life is at stake.
A new trial has been ordered. Whether the State will pursue prosecution again remains to be seen.
Why It Matters
This case is not just about one man’s conviction. It’s a warning about the dangers of unchecked power in the criminal justice system. When prosecutors and police bypass the truth to win convictions, the entire system loses credibility.
The Carter ruling is a critical affirmation of the principle that justice requires more than a verdict—it requires integrity at every step.