GUILTY NY - Dr. Mary Yoder, 60, fatally poisoned, Whitesboro, 22 July 2015 #2

[sunspun]

I know so many surprises come out of the courtroom. I do think if it were any of us on trial, we'd want to use the reasoning behind her appeals.

There were two important points going back to the reasoning for overturning the conviction, it's what is allowed in legal proceedings, what is considered correct law enforcement procedures, and what constitutes a fair trial.
​

After two murder trials and a conviction, woman accused of poisoning her boss awaits news of whether she'll be tried again

Chiropractor Mary Yoder was killed in 2015, and nearly a decade later, the former employee convicted in her death was set free.

www.nbcnews.com

The problem, the appeals panel concluded, was that her defense had not done enough to stop prosecutors from introducing key evidence — details from Conley’s cellphone obtained through what the ruling described as an improperly written warrant.​

So her attorneys just didn't catch this "improperly written warrant" or what? Who would have noticed it then? In what way was it improper?

 

[Curious Me]

So her attorneys just didn't catch this "improperly written warrant" or what? Who would have noticed it then? In what way was it improper?

Good question, @sunspun. We can learn so much asking questions. I found an explanation. Apparently, the already convicted prisoner, Conley, is the one who found legalities to be able to appeal her own conviction. Who knows, she might go on now to become an attorney herself.​

After two murder trials and a conviction, woman accused of poisoning her boss awaits news of whether she'll be tried again

Chiropractor Mary Yoder was killed in 2015, and nearly a decade later, the former employee convicted in her death was set free.

www.nbcnews.com

Quoted from the news article:

A winning appeal — and release from prison
Jan. 31, 2025
A state appeals court in New York overturned Conley’s manslaughter conviction after she obtained a new lawyer who argued that Pelli failed to properly challenge the warrant that allowed authorities access to Conley’s cellphone.

Attorney Melissa Swartz told “Dateline” that Conley, who had been working in the law library at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, first drew her attention to the document, which she described as “probably the most facially insufficient warrant I’ve ever come across.”

“They believed that that was a warrant to take her phone and look in it,” said Swartz, who specializes in post-conviction matters. “But what it needs to be is two separate warrants; one to take her phone and then one to actually search her phone.” ​

 

[Quill]

Honest question: Did no one else suspect that "another person" might have been involved in some way?

 

[Tarik]

Honest question: Did no one else suspect that "another person" might have been involved in some way?

Well yes, a fair number of people still believe either the husband or the son did it. Conley's attorneys also blamed them for the murder.

 

[Cedars]

Honest question: Did no one else suspect that "another person" might have been involved in some way?

Yes, of course. There was an extensive police investigation. The first person they always investigate is the husband. They also investigated Mary's son, who had mental health problems.

No one ever suspected the clinic assistant, this very nice young woman who'd had a 'toxic relationship' with Mary's son.

However, what police really investigated was to find concrete evidence about who could have acquired and given Mary such a large dose of the unusual prescription-only drug that killed her. It was not a drug you could just buy at a store or off the street.

They traced the purchase of this drug to Mary's own clinic, and followed a convoluted trail of how it was purchased, and what happened to it.

They believe the accused made extensive efforts to conceal her own involvement and pin it on Mary's son, her former boyfriend. However, she didn't know he was out of town when Mary consumed the poisonous dose.

So, the case against her is based on the theory that she was very conniving, was really trying to punish Mary's son for breaking up with her, and didn't mind killing Mary, even though she was kind to her.

This case, if true, reminds me of the Australian deathcap mushroom poisoner, who didn't mind killing perfectly nice, kind people, and came across as such a 'nice' woman that no one could ever suspect her.

I wish I could cite a MSM source, but they seem to be just milking the melodrama to the max, rather than actually referring to the evidence.

BTW, the primary reason she won her appeal is "ineffective counsel" ie her claim that her defense attorney was incompetent. IMO, in awarding the appeal, the judge is not confirming that the defense lawyer was actually incompetent, but just allowing for that possibility, and therefore challenging the prosecutors to retry her again...

JMO