Elgin man on hook for murder seeks to exclude DNA evidence from trial

LA GRANDE — The defense attorneys of an Elgin man charged with the murder of his girlfriend and a juvenile are seeking to exclude DNA evidence from trial.

Gary Otis Mason, 58, was arrested in 2020 on charges of first-degree murder in the deaths of his girlfriend, Candy Williams, 56, of Elgin, and her 14-year-old granddaughter. Court documents do not name Williams’ granddaughter as she was a minor at the time of her death. The slaying took place Dec. 29, 2020, at the home of Mason and Williams on Chumos Road outside Elgin, about 25 miles northeast of La Grande. Local law enforcement found the bodies of Williams and her granddaughter after Mason called 911. Evidence suggests at least 18 gunshots had been fired into the bodies of the deceased.

The evidence in questionMason, through his attorneys Anthony Schwartz and Scott Leonard, is seeking to exclude DNA evidence collected from the minor’s body.

The results of the DNA testing indicate that Mason’s semen was located on the 14-year-old’s body, according to McDaniel. In his motion, Leonard points out that in the analytical report completed by forensic scientist Dr. Daniel Peterson, the term “sperm cell fraction” does not imply the presence or absence of spermatozoa.

In the motion, the defense argued Mason is not charged with a sex offense and any probative value of the testing, analysis and opinions is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury.”

At a hearing on April 22, Leonard said the defense was “very concerned about the prejudice.” Leonard argued the language of sperm cells was inflammatory and extremely prejudicial. That paired with the location where the sample was found would invite unfair speculation from members of the jury as to why the DNA was there.

The defense continued there is no question Mason was present and he has even made statements that might be taken as a confession.

Leonard added it is expected to find Mason’s DNA in his home and the defense could call a witness to explain how easily DNA is transferred.

DA respondsDuring the hearing, Union County District Attorney Kelsie McDaniel argued the state must prove Mason committed the killings — not just that he was present at the time of their deaths. This is especially relevant for the state given that Mason initially indicated there was an unknown intruder inside the house and made vague references to seeing the headlights of a vehicle coming up the driveway prior to the deaths. (So far, law enforcement investigation has discredited the theory.)

McDaniel said the evidence should be admitted and carries “significant probative value to the allegation” that Mason is responsible for the granddaughter’s death.

“DNA from a suspect on the body of a murder victim is relevant, regardless of location on the body or the type of DNA present,” she wrote in her response.

The 14-year-old suffered extensive injury to her body, McDaniel said, which caused a large amount of blood loss at the time of her death. She argued the sample was strong enough and there recently enough to show through these conditions.

The district attorney went on to argue while it would be expected to find some DNA on cohabitants, the strength of the DNA stands out here, especially given how the granddaughter’s body was found at the scene.

Matter under advisement

Union County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Powers did not issue a ruling on whether the evidence can be excluded during the hearing. He has taken the matter under advisement.

However, he did tell the defense attorney the argument that Mason is not charged with a sex offense does not have a lot of traction. Powers went on to say there is likely to be evidence that will come into the trial connected to other aspects of the case, for which Mason also is not being charged, such as gun-related evidence.

He said the burden of proof is on the state, and there is a significant difference between being present and being the one to commit the crime.

Leonard said the defense may be open to a stipulation about the evidence. In her response, McDaniel suggested concerns could be remedied through appropriate jury discussion.

A trial for Mason is set to begin Sept. 16 at the Union County Courthouse in La Grande. Mason’s next appearance in court will be Aug. 8 and Aug. 9 for an omnibus hearing for further discussion of pretrial matters.