ROCHESTER, N.Y. — A woman previously convicted of manslaughter for allegedly poisoning her employer has had her conviction overturned by a New York appeals court. The ruling was based on the use of evidence acquired improperly from her cell phone.
Kaitlyn Conley, who had been serving a lengthy sentence of 23 years for the death of chiropractor Dr. Mary Yoder in 2015, is now awaiting the next steps in her legal battle. This case gained additional attention due to its selection for a documentary series.
Conley’s lawyer, Melissa Swartz, expressed that her client is eager to prove her innocence. Swartz mentioned that Conley will be moved back to Oneida County, where the district attorney will decide whether to continue prosecuting the case. Efforts to reach the district attorney’s office for comments made after the decision were unsuccessful.
Currently 31 years old, Conley worked as a receptionist in Dr. Yoder’s office located in Whitesboro, New York, and had a prior relationship with Yoder’s son. Prosecutors alleged that Conley poisoned the 60-year-old doctor with a medication known as colchicine. Conley continues to assert her innocence, stating, “I did not kill Mary Yoder,” in an ABC News Studios series titled “Little Miss Innocent,” which premiered on Hulu last fall. She also conveyed her disillusionment, saying, “I put all my faith and all my trust in the system and these people, and it didn’t work.”
Originally, Conley’s first trial resulted in a hung jury. During her second trial in 2017, she faced murder charges but was acquitted of those. However, she was convicted of manslaughter, which led to her current sentence.
The recent ruling from the mid-level state appeals court highlighted significant concerns regarding the legality of how investigators accessed Conley’s cell phone. The court found that the cybersecurity center’s examination of her phone exceeded the limitations of the search warrant that was issued. This examination unearthed mentions of terms like “poison” and “colchicine,” along with connections to an email account linked to the purchase of colchicine.
The five-judge panel emphasized the importance of privacy, stating, “A person’s cell phone now contains at least as much personal and private information as their home and, thus, indiscriminate searches of cell phones cannot be permitted.” This ruling is pivotal in shaping the legal boundaries surrounding digital privacy rights in the context of criminal investigations.
