After 31 years behind bars, David Wood, one of Texas’ longest-serving death row inmates, is scheduled for execution on March 13. Convicted in 1992 for the murders of six women in El Paso, Wood’s case has long been marked by contested evidence, unreliable testimony, and, now, new forensic findings that his attorneys argue prove his innocence.
Branded the “Desert Killer” by prosecutors, Wood was accused of luring women into his pickup truck, driving them to the desert, sexually assaulting them, and killing them before burying their bodies in shallow graves. Investigators tied Wood to the case using fiber evidence from a vacuum cleaner, witness reports of a man matching his description, and the testimonies of two jailhouse informants who claimed he had confessed.
Yet decades later, the foundation of that case has started to crumble. DNA testing in 2011 revealed that a male DNA profile found on victim Dawn Smith’s clothing did not match Wood. Despite Wood’s requests, Texas courts have denied further testing that could match evidence to the unidentified profile.
Greg Wiercioch, David Wood’s attorney, criticized the state’s handling of the case. “We fought about that for over a decade, and the state should not be pursuing a conviction or affirming a conviction but should be pursuing justice, and they’re not doing that in this case, which begs the question, what are they afraid of?”
“Mr. Wood’s case goes to the heart of whether we, as a people in Texas and we, as a state, care about innocence.” – Texas Defender Service’s Burke Butler
At the center of the case are the jailhouse informants, whose testimony was instrumental in securing Wood’s conviction. According to court documents, Randy Wells had his own capital murder charge dismissed after testifying that Wood admitted to the killings. James Sweeney, the second informant, received a $13,000 payment for cooperating with prosecutors. A third inmate, George Hall, was also approached to testify but refused. In a newly filed affidavit, Hall states that Wells and Sweeney were given access to police investigative files to fabricate their stories before taking the stand.
Additional evidence suggests Wood may not have been physically capable of committing the crimes. Surveillance records show that police had him under observation at the time two of the victims disappeared. Meanwhile, his pickup truck – central to the prosecution’s theory – was impounded in a salvage yard for the entire month of August 1987, when three of the murders occurred.
Further complicating the case, a woman recently came forward implicating her late father, James Patrick Bradley, in the killings. Bradley, who died in prison in 2014 after being convicted of killing and dismembering his wife, allegedly confessed to his daughter before his death.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has yet to rule on Wood’s latest stay request, filed Feb. 21. Originally set for execution in August 2009, he remains on death row as legal battles continue. With his new execution date approaching, his defense hopes for a ruling within the week, arguing the state risks executing a man based on unreliable evidence. Prosecutors say revisiting the case would only delay justice.
Death penalty experts like Texas Defender Service’s Burke Butler point to Wood’s case as another example of the risks inherent in capital punishment, particularly in cases where key evidence has since been discredited. Butler references Ruben Gutierrez’s case as a similar one where DNA evidence could potentially prove innocence.
“Mr. Wood’s case goes to the heart of whether we, as a people in Texas and we, as a state, care about innocence and our justice system,” Butler told the Chronicle. “If we care about it, then we need to allow people the opportunity to have material from their crime scene tested, which is what Mr. Wood has been seeking all of these years.”
If the court intervenes, Wood’s conviction could be reexamined in light of the new findings. If not, Texas will move forward with the execution of a man who has spent more than three decades proclaiming his innocence.
This article appears in March 7 • 2025.