PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Genrich has maintained his innocence and has continued to fight the convictions over the years."
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Without the toolmark testimony or other forensic evidence, we can no longer meet the high ethical and legal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," the filing said. The DA wrote in the court filing that "a retrial is no longer legally or practically viable." The filing said that because more three decades have passed since the original trial, a retrial would have "many predictable but challenging practical hurdles." At least 28 witnesses who testified in the original trial are now dead, and the original toolmark expert is now 84 years old and has "documented cognitive impairment," according to the filing."
————————————————————————
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY; "A hearing is set for 9 a.m. Monday. The DA asked the court to wait to dismiss the charges until after that hearing, so victims and families can be heard."
-------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Mesa County DA files motion to dismiss murder charges against man convicted in 1991 pipe bombings," by Digital Content Kaylee Harter published by Denver7 ABC, on April 11, 2026. (Thanks to Dr. Michael Bowers of Forensics and Law in Focus CSIDDS for bringing this story to our attention).
SUB-HEADING: "A retrial is no longer legally or practically viable,' the district attorney wrote in the filing
PHOTO CAPTION: :The Mesa County district attorney has filed a motion to dismiss murder charges against the man who was convicted of killing two people in a series of 1991 Grand Junction pipe bombings rather than go to a retrial."
GIST: "James Genrich is currently serving a 72-year sentence in the Colorado Department of Corrections and remains convicted of using an explosive device and third-degree assault in connection with the bombings, which were confirmed on appeal in 1997, according to the filing. The DA said that circumstantial evidence still points to Genrich "as the primary suspect," and no other viable suspects have ever been identified.
"The District Attorney’s Office remains committed to the victims of these horrific crimes and their families. However, prosecuting a case we know cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt violates our ethical obligations," District Attorney Dan Rubinstein wrote in the filing. "It risks further traumatizing the victims with a futile trial and wastes public resources."
Genrich has maintained his innocence and has continued to fight the convictions over the years.
In 2023, Genrich successfully appealed part of the case, granting him a retrial, with a judge ruling that evidence presented in 1993 trial was "scientifically unreliable" and would not be admissible in a new trial, according to the motion to dismiss. In 1993, a toolmark expert had testified that marks on the bomb fragments matched Genrich's tools "to the exclusion of any other tool." The judge in 2023 found that testimony would no longer be allowed in court and was a cornerstone of the original case.
Prosecutors appealed the ruling, but an appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling and the Colorado Supreme Court later declined to hear the case.
Attempts by the DA and Grand Junction police to find other leads or evidence, such as fingerprints, were unsuccessful, the filing said.
"Without the toolmark testimony or other forensic evidence, we can no longer meet the high ethical and legal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," the filing said.
The DA wrote in the court filing that "a retrial is no longer legally or practically viable."
The filing said that because more three decades have passed since the original trial, a retrial would have "many predictable but challenging practical hurdles." At least 28 witnesses who testified in the original trial are now dead, and the original toolmark expert is now 84 years old and has "documented cognitive impairment," according to the filing.
Surviving victims and families of people killed are "strongly oppose any outcome that could result in the defendant ever being released from the Department of Corrections," the filing said.
"While this dismissal likely renders him eligible to apply for discretionary parole, his release is not automatic," the filing said. That decision is in the hands of the Colorado State Board of Parole.
A hearing is set for 9 a.m. Monday. The DA asked the court to wait to dismiss the charges until after that hearing, so victims and families can be heard."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true! Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
