YOUNGSTOWN — The Ohio Innocence Project at the University of Cincinnati College of Law has asked Mahoning County Common Pleas Court to grant access to evidence in the criminal case of Scott A. Group, 60, who was sentenced to death in 1999 for the 1997 killing of a Youngstown bar owner.

The filing states that the Innocence Project would like to carry out DNA testing at its expense to determine whether victim Robert Lozier’s blood was on Group’s shoes. If it is not, it would indicate there is “no physical evidence tying Group to the crime,” the filing states.

Such evidence could “support future efforts to request commutation of sentence or a new trial,” the filing by attorneys Lauren Staley and Brian Howe states.

Lozier and his wife, Sandra, arrived at the bar Jan. 18, 1997, to count money and receipts in the safe from the night before.

“While counting money in the office, Sandra heard a knock on the front door and saw through the peephole someone she believed to be their regular delivery person from Ohio Wine Co.,” the filing states.

“She opened the door for the man, and he asked if he could check their invoices. They began reviewing invoices, and then he went to use the restroom. When he returned, the man forced both of the Loziers into the restroom at gunpoint,” the filing states.

The man told the Loziers that he was not after their money; rather he was doing this because he was the brother of a missing woman named Charity Agee, who had last been seen alive at the Downtown Bar on New Year’s Eve. Agee’s mother would later testify at Group’s trial that Group was not related to Agee and that Agee did not know Group, the filing states.

Sanda Lozier was shot in the head twice and sustained a defensive wound to her hand but survived, the filing states. She called 911, saying she and her husband had been shot by the Ohio Wine delivery person.

Later that day, Group learned that police were looking for him, and he went to the police station. Youngstown police detective Darryl Martin saw what Martin believed to be a small spot of blood on Group’s tennis shoes. Another officer collected a sample from the shoes and submitted the shoes and other items to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for forensic analysis, the filing states.

Group testified at his trial, saying he had taken his son to work the morning of the killing and then went to his mother’s house between 9 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Five people “verified his alibi at trial,” the filing states. They were his mother, Ruth Group; his grandmother, Naomi Socie; his sisters, Terri Banyots and Danielle Group; and a family friend, Pancho Morales. All five confirmed that Group was at his mother’s house before 11:05 a.m., when Sandra Lozier’ 911 call was recorded, the filing states.

DNA testing on the shoes concluded that the odds that the DNA was that of Robert Lozier were 1 in 220,000 white people, the filing states.

Prosecutors repeatedly “incorrectly” told jurors that the blood on the tennis shoe was the blood of Robert Lozier, the filing states. “For example, in its opening statement, the State claimed twice that Robert Lozier’s blood was on Group’s shoe. And the State repeated the statement that the blood on Group’s shoe belonged to Robert Lozier during closing arguments.”

Attorneys handling a 2018 motion for a new trial argued that Group’s counsel was ineffective for “failing to adequately defend against DNA testimony elicited at trial,” the filing added. “The statistic of 1 in 220,000 people includes far too many individuals to state with certainty that the DNA came from Robert Lozier to the exclusion of all other people,” the filing argues.

The filing states that it is believed that the blood that was tested for Group’s trial still exists and can be retested.

When the blood was tested in 1997, “the laboratory was to obtain genetic information at only nine DNA locations,” the filing states. “Today, both public and private labs routinely use testing kits that can obtain genetic data from up to 24 DNA locations,” it states.

“In short, if the swabs or any remaining blood on Group’s shoes are subjected to DNA testing using today’s sophisticated kits, the testing could reveal with much greater certainty whether that DNA came from Robert Lozier (as the State contends) or another source (as Group maintains).”

A 2002 Ohio Supreme Court ruling that affirmed Group’s convictions and death sentence states that Group made weekly deliveries to the Downtown Bar prior to the murder but had gone to the bar about a week before the murder to ask Sandra Lozier to show him the bar’s copies of invoices from Ohio Wine.

It states that on Dec. 12, 1996, Group brought his cash receipts to the Ohio Wine warehouse manager’s office to be counted and compared against his invoices. Group’s cash receipts were approximately $1,300 short. Although the police were notified, Group was never charged with stealing the missing money, the ruling states.

“The day before the murder, Group quit his job at Ohio Wine,” the ruling notes.

On the morning of the murder, Sandra Lozier was counting money in the bar and heard a knock at the front door, the Ohio Supreme Court ruling states. She recognized Group and let him in. “Group told Mrs. Lozier that he wanted to check the invoices again,” and she allowed him to look at their invoices, the ruling states. A short time later, Group shot both Loziers, the ruling states.

The ruling talked about Sandra Lozier’s testimony at Group’s trial. She “identified Group in court as the person who shot her and her husband,” it states. “Her identification was definite and consistent. When she became conscious after the shooting, she tried to write the words ‘Ohio Wine’ on the floor in her own blood, the ruling states.

“She told the 911 operator and Sergeant Martin that the assailant was the delivery man for Ohio Wine. Later that day, in the hospital, she picked Group’s picture from a photo array and identified him as the killer,” the Supreme Court ruling states.

“Moreover, the killer had asked to see invoices, and a box of Ohio Wine invoices was later discovered to be missing from the bar. This connects the crime with Group, because twice in the weeks preceding the murder Group had asked to look at the Loziers’ copies of Ohio Wine invoices,” the Supreme Court ruling states.