Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse in St. Louis
ST. LOUIS – A St. Louis jury last week issued a “truly historic” verdict in federal court, awarding $32.8 million to the estate of a man wrongfully convicted of the murder of his girlfriend.
Donald Nash spent more than 10 years in prison for the 1982 murder of Judy Spencer, who was strangled with her own shoelace and shot with a shotgun after a night of drinking and driving. Nash had attempted to keep her from driving while intoxicated, but Spencer left their apartment anyway one night in March 1982.
Her partially nude body was found at an abandoned schoolhouse outside of Salem, Mo. The case went cold but was reopened in 2007, when a mixture of Nash's and Spencer's DNA was found in her fingernails by defendant Ruth Montgomery, a crime lab employee.
The ensuing arrest and conviction of Nash were eventually overturned, and he passed away while his civil lawsuit against authorities progressed. That included a trip to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and this month’s trial.
Attorneys at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner worked pro bono on Nash’s case. After convincing jurors to compensate Nash’s estate for the 11 years he spent in prison, they now seek about $2.7 million in attorneys fees for what they called a “truly historic” result.
“In this complex, hotly contested civil rights action, Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained an exceptional result,” they wrote Friday.
“The jury’s verdict of $32.8 million is among the largest verdicts ever awarded to a civil rights plaintiff in Missouri. In fact, based on our research, it may be the first jury verdict ever awarded in this Court to a plaintiff in a wrongful conviction suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
The jury awarded more than $2.8 million for constitutional violations, $25 million to Nash’s estate on a state-law false arrest claim and $5 million to Nash’s widow Theresa.
“Not only was the case incredibly complex, but Plaintiffs faced stiff opposition at every turn by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, which had two sets of counsel representing multiple defendants,” Nash’s lawyers wrote.
“From the perspective of any plaintiff’s counsel, the case was particularly challenging in light of Mr. Nash’s death. As a result, the central plaintiff was unable to testify live before the jury to settle any lingering questions jurors might have harbored regarding the merits of his claims, but also to explain the depth of his personal, largely intangible injuries, which is a significant obstacle in a non-wrongful-death case.”
After the DNA was found, Officer Dorothy Taylor came up with the "hair washing theory," which claimed Spencer might have affected the DNA under her fingernails when she washed her hair in a friend's kitchen sink. It was disputed whether she washed her hair before she went home to Nash to change clothes or after she left Nash.
Officer Henry James Folsom prepared a probable cause affidavit noting the DNA found in Spencer's fingernails. He wrote a mixture of DNA "is often normally the result of a physical struggle" and would have been removed after Spencer washed her hair.
The Seventh Circuit's 2024 ruling that kept the case moving says officers "interviewed no other suspects, including the violent sex offender and the man who resided near the ditch where police found Spencer's vehicle."
There were many reasons Nash wasn’t initially arrested. They were that Nash didn't own a shotgun, a gunshot residue test given to him a few hours after the murder was negative, he had no marks on his body indicating a struggle, tire tracks where Spencer was found did not match his vehicle and Spencer's vehicle had fingerprints belonging to two other men, while Nash's weren't on it.
In 2009, a jury convicted Nash of capital murder. After 11 years in prison, the Missouri Supreme Court set aside his conviction, and later in 2020 the State dropped its charges because DNA on the shoelace showed Nash wasn't involved
Nash sued the officers involved in his arrest in 2021. The district court and the Seventh Circuit found a lack of information on the 2007 probable cause affidavit could lead a jury to believe his rights were violated.
