This week, a Colorado man who was found guilty of first-degree murder is expected to be released on bond from his life sentence in prison. It's the first case where a conviction was thrown out after allegations swirled about a f ormer Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) forensic scientist mishandling DNA evidence. In November of 1994, Marty Grisham answered a knock on the door at his Boulder home. He was shot four times in his head and chest, dying instantly. Almost 20 years later in 2012, Michael Clark was arrested in connection with the murder. Later that year, a jury found Clark guilty of first-degree murder after prosecutors argued he shot Grisham. Evidence presented during the 2012 trial included Clark being given a key in order to watch a cat at the apartment roughly a month prior to the murder; stealing a book of checks from Grisham while at the home and cashing them using forged signatures; and ballistics evidence showing that Clark was in possession of the same kind of ammunition used to kill Grisham, despite a murder weapon never being recovered. "Nothing said that he was there, just that it was hypothetically possible, and that's why the case went cold," Clark's attorney Adam Frank said. 1994 murder conviction thrown out, new DNA results differ from trial evidenceA key piece of evidence was found under the stairwell near Grisham's apartment. It was a container of Carmex lip balm, which the prosecution argued was proof of Clark's presence at the murder scene in 1994. In the 2012 trial, former CBI Agent Yvonne "Missy" Woods testified that Clark's DNA was excluded from swabs tested from the outside of the container but not from swabs taken from the inside of the lip balm. In 2023, after working with CBI for almost three decades, Woods left the agency just before an announcement about "anomalies" in her work. An internal affairs investigation was completed with results publicly shared in March 2024. The report states that Woods altered, manipulated or deleted data in DNA testing in hundreds of cases. She omitted material facts in official criminal justice records, tampered with DNA testing results by omitting some results, and violated CBIs Code of Conduct and CBI laboratory policies, the agency reported, adding that the manipulations appear to have been intentional, but no motive was named."Since 2019, I have been holding a document that says all the DNA from his [Clark's] trial was nonsense, and it took until the scandal broke for anyone to listen. But at the same time, I am overjoyed that people are finally listening," Frank said. "God willing on Monday, you know, I'm going to stand back and watch him hug his wife and go home, and I just, I can't wait to see it." Since 2019, Frank has claimed there was ineffective counsel during the trial, which failed to find an expert witness who could have challenged the ballistics testimony, failed to investigate the credibility of witnesses called to the stand, failed to look into alternative suspects, failed to request appropriate jury instructions, and failed to convey a plea offer to Clark. Frank also argued there was juror misconduct during the 2012 trial. The claims were denied in 2020. The case then went to the Court of Appeals, which issued a mandate in 2024. "It had been forced to live on the back burner for a while, because you can't force a Court of Appeals opinion," Frank said. "We got an order from the Court of Appeals saying, 'Yes, you get a hearing on this if you can prove what you're saying is true yeah, Mike should get a new trial.' And then something like two weeks later, the Missy Woods scandal broke, and really the feeling was people are finally going to believe us."Woods faces more than 100 felonies including cybercrime, perjury, and forgery related to 58 different instances between 2008 and 2023. Clark's case is not one of those 58, but according to his attorney, the work Woods did on the investigation shows her impact stretches beyond what was initally reported. "CBI's count of the affected Missy Woods cases is, in my opinion, a significant undercount," said Frank. In August of 2024, Frank filed another motion requesting a new trial for Clark, in part because of the allegations against Woods. Due to the concerns about Woods and her work, prosecutors decided to request a retest of the Carmex container by an independent lab, even though there were "no misconduct or anomalies" identified in this case. A response filed on Friday by the prosecution states that the independent lab found "new evidence" with different results than what was introduced at trial. Clark was "statistically excluded" from the profile that was developed, using a swab from the inside of the lip balm container. "There could be a number of reasons for these results, including the advances in DNA technology," the response reads. That response concurs with the Court of Appeals, finding that the circumstantial evidence in this case was "weighty." It continues to state that "the People believe it is in the interests of justice to vacate Defendants conviction at this time and grant Defendant a new trial.""We agreed with the district attorney to get new testing of that Carmex can by an independent laboratory in Virginia. That independent laboratory did brand new testing, and the results said, Mike's DNA is not there," Frank explained. "All through the trial, it got referred to as a match. So you know, you throw false testimony that there's a DNA match, putting him at the scene into a trial, yeah, that's going to get you a wrongful conviction. That's how wrongful convictions happen."The district attorney's office will re-evaluate the evidence, locate key witnesses, and decide whether or not the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt during a second trial if prosecutors decide to retry the case. "The judge issued an order vacating his conviction. That means he is no longer convicted. That conviction is gone. He is not a convict, not at all," Frank said. "But what happens is the case then reverts to a pretrial posture. So, it's as if the conviction never happened, but not as if the charges never happened. So, he goes into a position just where he was before the trial started, where he is eligible for bond."In a statement from Friday, Boulder District Attorney Michael Dougherty said in part, that vacating the conviction is the "right thing to do" after considering the new DNA results, along with significant claims of juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel from the original trial. "In light of the charges in this case, we will carefully and thoroughly analyze all the evidence to determine the right and just outcome," the statement read. The original bond $100,000 is reinstated in the case. According to Frank, Clark will be transferred from a facility in Caon City to the Boulder County Jail where he would be held on bond. Frank said Clark's family is doing everything they can to post that bond. "The hope is he is home and sleeping in his bed tomorrow [Monday] night. That's the hope," Frank said. Ultimately, Frank wants the charges dismissed in this case."A smart and ethical prosecutor will review this evidence and will see that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and will not retry this case," said Frank. If Frank is correct and Clark is innocent a huge question lingers in this case: who knocked on the door at Grisham's home in 1994?"The worry is we are, what, 31 years down the road, and all those 31 years were spent collecting evidence against the wrong person," Frank claimed. "It's not like we have 31 years of investigation of this case. We have 31 years of investigation of Michael Clark. We have no investigation of all the other people who are the potential suspect."A status conference is scheduled for June 6 and is expected to determine next steps in this case. ...read more read less