YOUNGSTOWN — The Ohio Attorney General’s Office has responded to the request by the Innocence Project in Cincinnati to have blood evidence from death row inmate Scott A. Group’s murder trial retested at Group’s expense using more modern techniques.

The response by Assistant Attorney General Andrea Boyd was filed Dec. 31, about nine months after the Innocence Project asked Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Judge Anthony Donofrio to allow the testing. The matter was delayed when Mahoning County Prosecutor Lynn Maro asked for a special prosecutor to be appointed because Mahoning County Assistant Prosecutor John Juhasz previously represented Group in post-conviction matters.

There is no hearing scheduled on the issue.

Group was convicted of the Jan. 18, 1997, shooting death of Robert Lozier and the shooting of his wife, Sandra, at their Downtown Bar in Youngstown. Group is on Ohio’s death row.

Boyd stated that Group claimed that the only physical evidence tying him to the crime scene was blood stains on his shoe and that additional DNA testing could demonstrate that it was not victim Robert Lozier’s blood.

“But physical evidence is not the only evidence in the case,” her filing states. She quoted from a 7th District Court of Appeals ruling that called the blood from Group’s shoe “only a small portion of the evidence against (Group) at trial and played a relatively minor role.”

Boyd added that Group’s requested DNA testing would not warrant a new trial or commutation of sentence, as the evidence implicating Group was “overwhelmingly persuasive,” including “eyewitness testimony from a victim who knew Group (Sandra Lozier), and Group’s efforts to create false evidence and intimidate Mrs. Lozier.”

Boyd summarized the facts of the case as being a 1997 murder and robbery by Group, who had worked for Ohio Wine Imports until the day before the killing.

“In early January of 1997, Ohio Wine’s manager apparently discovered that (Group’s) cash receipts were $1,300 short of the invoiced amounts. As a result, Group visited the Downtown Bar, owned by Robert and Sandra Lozier, to review their invoices and compare them to his receipts,” the summary states.

On Jan. 18, 1997, Group visited the Downtown Bar, where the Loziers were preparing to open for the day. “Sandra had just opened the safe and removed five bags that contained approximately $1,200 to $1,300 in cash.” Sandra had started to count the money when she heard a knock at the door and allowed Group to enter to look at the invoices a second time.

He went to use the restroom, but when he returned, he shot Robert in the head and shot Sandra in the neck and temple. Robert died, but Sandra survived and testified at Group’s trial before the late Judge Maureen Cronin.

Sandra called 911 and said she had been shot by “the Ohio Wine man.” She did not know his name, though she was very familiar with Group because he had been their regular delivery driver, the filing states.

When Youngstown police interviewed Group, they noticed a stain on Group’s tennis shoe and had it collected and tested for blood evidence. A gunshot residue test also was performed on Group, who told authorities that he had been shooting at a shooting range prior to the day of the homicide with his foster son, but the foster son denied it, the filing states. Two inmates also testified that Group offered them money in exchange for firebombing Sandra’s house and to intimidate various witnesses, the filing states.

The DNA results from the blood on the shoe indicated that the chance that the blood had come from anyone other than Robert Lozier were 1 in 220,000 Caucasians, 1 in 81 million African Americans and 1 in 1.8 million Hispanics, the filing states. Group was convicted of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder and other offenses, and was sentenced to death. His execution date is Feb. 17, 2027, though it was set the first time for Sept. 19. 2023. He was granted a reprieve that time.

Boyd’s filing states that Donofrio does not have jurisdiction to rule on Group’s motion because asking for additional testing of old evidence is not one the areas that have made it into case law. Among the areas that have been allowed are a motion for new trial, petition for early release, judicial release and motion to withdraw a guilty plea, Boyd’s filing states.

Boyd argues that Donofrio also should refuse to allow the testing because “there is no test result that would demonstrate that Robert Lozier’s blood was not on Group’s left shoe.

“Additional DNA testing will not tell this court that the original DNA tests that could not exclude Robert Lozier’s DNA from Group’s shoe was inconclusive or inaccurate. Even if there were some small amount of DNA left on the swabs that could now be retested, a finding that Lozier’s DNA is not present now would not mean that it was not present when the original DNA tests were conducted. It would mean only that the sample had been consumed to such a degree that none of his DNA was left and would not refute the original finding that there was only a chance of 1 in 220,000 that someone other than Robert Lozier left their DNA on Group’s shoe,” Boyd’s filing states.

DEFENSE FILING

Attorneys Lauren Staley and Brian Howe of the Ohio Innocence Project filed a response to Boyd’s filing Jan. 7, which was also a followup to their own initial filing last February.

It argues that DNA testing has become significantly more sensitive over the past several decades, and modern testing can now determine once and for all whether Mr. Lozier is the source of the blood on Group’s shoe.”

The filing states that multiple courts across Ohio have granted defendants post-conviction access to evidence used in a criminal case,” and “multiple courts across Ohio have granted defendants post-conviction access to evidence for testing at their own expense.”

Their filing also refutes Boy’s argument that Group should not be allowed to test the evidence at his own expense “because the DNA test results would not be outcome determinative — in other words, the results would not, in the State’s view, establish Group’s innocence of these crimes.

“This argument is unfounded,” Group’s attorneys stated. “The outcome-determinative standard applies to applications for state-funded post-conviction testing.”

But Group is not asking for the state to pay for testing.

“Rather, Group is seeking the court’s permission for a defense expert to conduct DNA testing on the physical evidence used against him,” the filing states.

The defense also refutes the State’s argument that re-testing “would be meaningless because prior DNA testing already established that Mr. Lozier was the source of the blood on Group’s shoe.”

Group “believes this evidence is important, and he is the one facing execution. The State is entitled to its opinion that Group is wasting his own time and resources by seeking to have this evidence tested, but that should not be a reason to deny him the opportunity to do so.”

It adds, “The DNA testing kits used today can provide data up to 24 loci — far greater than the 9 loci analyzed in 1997.” It states that the “partial (DNA) profile collected from Group’s shoe can now be expanded by up to 15 additional loci through modern testing.”

It states that if Lozier is excluded as the source of the blood stain, “then it would prove that a key piece of evidence relied upon by the State in securing its conviction and death sentence actually had no connection whatsoever to the crime.”