Ernest Riddle is shown here during his court appearance Monday in Spartanburg. He will be re-tried in the 1985 case involving the murder of Abbie Sue Mullinax. SPARTANBURG — Circuit Court Judge Mark Hayes repeatedly stressed Monday that he in no way “condoned” the actions of prosecutors during a murder trial in Gaffney 25 years ago — the results of which have since been overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct.

But Hayes did not agree those actions were enough to prohibit sending Ernest Riddle back before another jury to once again face trial for the stabbing death of a grandmother killed in her own home.

Following a day-long hearing in Spartanburg County Court of General Sessions on Monday, Hayes denied requests by Riddle’s defense attorneys to dismiss the indictments against Riddle and to stop his re-trial from occurring.

Riddle initially was convicted and sentenced to death in Cherokee County for the Aug. 8, 1985, murder of Abbie Sue Mullinax inside her home on Concord Avenue. Police and prosecutors alleged Mullinax was killed when she found Riddle burglarizing her home.

His sentence was twice overturned during appeals, however, and he was twice re-sentenced to death by jurors selected to decide his punishment.

But in 2006, the state Supreme Court overturned Riddle’s conviction altogether in a sharply worded opinion that took the initial prosecutors to task for the failure to disclose information.

Riddle’s defense lawyers, Jeffrey Bloom and Diana Holt, allege that prosecutors coached the main witness in the case, Jason Riddle, and kept evidence and information away from Ernest Riddle’s original defense lawyers.

Among the “hidden” information, they contend, was evidence that bloodhounds led police from the murder scene to a home where three people knocked on a door — and allegedly dropped blood on the doorstep — right around the time of the murder.

“When the state hid the ball, it over-rode Ernest Riddle’s right to one fair tribunal,” Bloom said in court. “No jury has ever heard the truth in this matter.”

Besides the conduct of past prosecutors, Bloom argued Riddle now must contend with the passage of time. Many witnesses are now dead, and Bloom argued it will be unfair for prosecutors to introduce past testimony through transcripts because all of the testimony from previous trials has been “tainted.”

Because of that, the defense lawyers are claiming the charges should be dismissed.

“I am not convinced that is a remedy I need to employ at this time,” Judge Hayes responded at the end of the court hearing. “I am not ready to declare this is a gameover event.”

Stressing once again that he did not condone what occurred in the past, the judge said he believed a fair, but not perfect, trial is possible.

The judge, who only recently was assigned to preside over the 25-yearold case, noted that a new trial will most likely be held in January 2011.

Though he ruled on a major issue in the case — whether or not the trial would proceed — Judge Hayes took under advisement several other issues. He made no decision on defense requests to stop prosecutors from seeking the death penalty or using transcripts of prior testimony during the re-trial.

The defense lawyers are not the only ones claiming a hardship based on the passage of time.

Principal Deputy Solicitor Barry Barnette said prosecutors are having to present a 25- year-old murder case to a “2010 jury” that watches television shows such as “C.S.I.” and “Law and Order,” shows that highlight crime-solving technology that wasn’t available in 1985.

“That’s stuff the jury is going to weigh against us,” Barnette said in court.

None of the current prosecutors in the case had anything to do with the original trial and Barnette acknowledged the difficulties the court faced.

But he argued it would be unfair to the victim for the court to dismiss the charges against Riddle.

“Abbie Sue Mullinax didn’t do anything wrong,” Barnette said.

In court, prosecutors acknowledged that they had extended an offer to drop the death penalty in exchange for a guilty plea from Riddle. They requested a formal response to their offer in court, which Bloom denied on Riddle’s behalf.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers are scheduled to be back in court on July 15 so Hayes can hear arguments on several more matters, among them a request to release Riddle on bond and a request by prosecutors to have defense attorney Diana Holt removed from the case.

In a written motion filed with the Cherokee County Clerk of Courts, Barnette and prosecutors allege that Holt had been in possession of a piece of blood evidence from the case and that the chain of custody on this evidence “is in question from March 5, 1999, to January 11, 2007.”

Because this evidence is likely to be an important item to defense lawyers during the trial, the prosecutors are arguing that Holt has become a “necessary witness” who will be needed to explain what happened to the evidence during that time frame.