Counsel for James Genrich celebrated the state's decision Monday not to prosecute their client again using what they called "junk science," adding that they are still fighting for him as he remains incarcerated "on lesser charges due to a filing deadline technicality" but based on the same evidence.
"That Mr. Genrich remains in prison is deeply unjust," his attorneys said in a statement.
"The same flawed evidence used to convict him of murder is the only evidence they have on the remaining charges. His continued incarceration is purely the result of a procedural technicality, not the merits of the case," they added, urging the state to free their client.
The murder charges were tossed because the "cornerstone" of the state's case against Genrich rested on faulty expert testimony by John O'Neil, who said marks on bomb fragments came from tools Genrich owned "to the exclusion of any other tool," prosecutors said in court filings.
Years after his trial, Genrich appealed this evidence, arguing that in the intervening time, it had been proven to be nonscientific. In 2022, at an evidentiary hearing, it was shown that "the language presented to the jury in 1993 — identifying a match 'to the exclusion of any other tool' — is no longer accepted as scientifically appropriate reporting," according to the state's request to dismiss the case.
While Genrich was afforded a new trial in 2023, the state explained in April 2026 that the main expert in its case was now 84 years old and had cognitive issues, and it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to call in witnesses decades later.
"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," prosecutors wrote in a motion to dismiss the murder charges said.
Still, they maintained that they believe Genrich was responsible, writing: "The remaining circumstantial evidence still points to Mr. Genrich as the primary suspect, and there has never been another viable alternate suspect identified."
In their statement, Genrich's attorneys said their client spent 34 years in prison for something he categorically did not do. Genrich's counsel said he had always maintained his innocence and had no prior criminal record or connection to the victims, Maria Delores Gonzales and Henry Ruble. Genrich also had an alibi, according to the statement.
"The state claimed that microscopic marks measuring less than a quarter millimeter on the bomb fragments could be traced to a single tool to the exclusion of all others," the lawyers said, adding that "leading scientific institutions, including the National Academy of Sciences and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, have rejected such claims as unsupported by science."
Genrich's attorneys said that following the prosecution's recent reinvestigation of their client, new evidence pointing away from him as a suspect was also discovered, including a "fingerprint recovered from the crime scene that does not match Mr. Genrich."
Prosecutors also acknowledged that toolmark experts they contacted more recently were not able to conclude Genrich's tools matched marks on the pipe bombs, his lawyers pointed out.
"The state interviewed Mr. Genrich's past and present cellmates in search of jailhouse informants who could support the prosecution's version of events and found none," the defense team said, noting that other potential suspects had been long ignored in the case.
Genrich's attorneys added that the decision not to prosecute him on the murder charges "marks a first step toward justice for Mr. Genrich," urging the state to do more to help their innocent client. Genrich's convictions for use of an explosive device and third-degree assault remain in effect, the state noted in a statement.
Representatives of the state declined to comment Wednesday, and representatives of Genrich did not immediately respond to requests for additional comment.
The state is represented by Daniel P. Rubinstein, Jeremy Savage and Michael Fisher of the Mesa County Colorado District Attorney's Office.
Genrich is represented by M. Chris Fabricant and Marika Meis of the Innocence Project, Brian Liegel, Greg Silbert, Irwin Warren, Corey Brady, Marina Masterson, Anastasia Zaluckyj and Jill Jacobson of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and Kathleen Lord of the Korey Wise Innocence Project and Scott Troxell and Rebekka Higgs.
The case is People of the State of Colorado v. Genrich, case number 92CR95, in the District Court of Mesa County, Colorado.
--Editing by Covey Son.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
