Marlon Kiser, a death row inmate in Tennessee, has long maintained his innocence in the 2001 killing of Hamilton County Deputy Donald Bond. Convicted in 2003, Kiser launched a public campaign to exonerate himself, including creating a website and filing legal petitions. Central to his defense was the claim that his former roommate, James Michael Chattin, was the real killer, motivated by a jealous rage over an alleged affair between his wife and Deputy Bond.

On his website, Kiser detailed his version of events, stating that Chattin had frequently voiced violent intentions and blamed the deputy for personal turmoil. According to Kiser, Chattin had both motive and opportunity—and used Kiser as a scapegoat, especially since Kiser had filed a brutality lawsuit against the police in 1998. Kiser believed the authorities were biased against him and easily accepted Chattin’s accusations due to this history.

In his posts, Kiser described a falling out with Chattin over drug use, claiming that once he distanced himself, Chattin feared exposure of his criminal activities. Kiser also alleged that Chattin had even asked him to kill the deputy, which he refused. His narrative painted a picture of betrayal and systemic failure, positioning himself as a victim of both personal manipulation and police corruption.

Kiser’s campaign gained some public traction, including a petition with over 470 signatures calling for a halt to his execution and alleging police misconduct. Supporters echoed his claims, arguing that the investigation was flawed and politically motivated. The public nature of the campaign reignited interest in the case and encouraged legal efforts for post-conviction relief.

However, these efforts inadvertently backfired. As part of his legal strategy, Kiser’s team requested re-analysis of physical evidence—specifically fingerprints and palm prints found on Deputy Bond’s vehicle and flashlight. Instead of supporting Kiser’s innocence, the forensic tests confirmed his prints were present, reinforcing the prosecution’s case. These findings, along with previously existing fiber evidence, further implicated him.

Ultimately, Kiser’s attempts to prove innocence resulted in renewed confirmation of guilt. Legal experts noted that while the campaign raised compelling theories, it could not overcome the forensic evidence tying Kiser to the crime scene. Though he continues to proclaim his innocence from death row, the courts—and