Death Row Inmate’s Desperate Plea to Prove Innocence Backfires, Strengthens Case Against Him
In a chilling twist of fate, a Tennessee death row inmate’s long-running quest to clear his name has not only failed—it has further implicated him in the very crime he hoped to be exonerated from. Marlon Duane Kiser, convicted in 2003 for the cold-blooded murder of Hamilton County Deputy Donald Bond, has spent more than two decades behind bars proclaiming his innocence. But a recent push to re-examine physical evidence, specifically fingerprint and palm print analysis, has dealt a devastating blow to his defense—by confirming that he was indeed at the crime scene.
This case, originally tried over 20 years ago, has resurfaced due to renewed public interest and ongoing legal battles. Kiser, now in his late 40s, has become known not just for the crime he was convicted of, but for the personal campaign he has waged to prove that he was framed. His efforts have included creating a website, launching petitions, and penning lengthy statements from behind bars—all aimed at pinning the blame on another man: his former roommate, James Michael Chattin.
On his website, FreeMarlonKiser.com, Kiser outlined a detailed alternative theory of the crime, asserting that Chattin had the motive, the means, and the rage to kill Deputy Bond. According to Kiser, Chattin believed Bond was having an affair with his wife, Tina Chattin, and had repeatedly threatened to kill the deputy. Kiser recounted chilling remarks Chattin allegedly made to others—vows of violent revenge over the suspected affair.
In Kiser’s version of events, Chattin’s motive was personal and deadly, while his own role was that of a scapegoat—an easy target due to a 1998 police brutality lawsuit Kiser had filed against the Chattanooga Police Department. That lawsuit, still unresolved at the time of Bond’s death in 2001, had already made Kiser a thorn in the side of local law enforcement. He claimed that Chattin used this tension to his advantage.
“To throw suspicion off of Mike Chattin, he ran to the police pointing his finger at me,” Kiser wrote, arguing that Chattin manipulated the situation and law enforcement’s distrust of him to ensure he’d take the fall. Kiser insisted he had severed ties with Chattin after discovering his drug habits and criminal behavior, claiming that Chattin turned on him because he knew too much. He even alleged that Chattin had once tried to enlist him to kill Bond—a request Kiser says he rejected outright.
But Kiser didn’t stop at online accusations. He rallied support from the public through a Change.org petition, which has gathered hundreds of signatures. Supporters echoed his claims of corruption, mishandled evidence, and prosecutorial bias. One signer wrote, “Marlon is innocent. He was betrayed by a system that wanted a quick conviction.”
The key moment came, however, when Kiser’s legal team requested a post-conviction forensic review—specifically the re-examination of fingerprints and palm prints found on Deputy Bond’s flashlight and patrol car. The hope was clear: to uncover evidence that excluded Kiser and supported the theory that someone else, namely Chattin, had committed the murder.
But science doesn’t bend to narratives.
The forensic results confirmed that the prints on the flashlight and vehicle were Kiser’s, not Chattin’s or any unidentified individual. It was a revelation that contradicted his innocence claims in the most damning way possible. These results, combined with pre-existing evidence—like fibers from Deputy Bond’s uniform found on Kiser’s clothing—only strengthened the original case against him.
Legal experts noted the irony: Kiser’s quest for exoneration had, in the end, backfired. Rather than dismantling the prosecution’s case, it had inadvertently fortified it with new physical evidence. His campaign, as impassioned and detailed as it was, ultimately fell flat when held up to forensic scrutiny.
Still, Kiser refuses to back down. He continues to release public statements, insisting he was framed and that the true killer remains free. His website remains active, regularly updated with letters, blog posts, and emotional pleas for justice. In recent messages, he claims that the system is rigged and that he will “never stop fighting to tell the real story.”
His supporters, though smaller in number now, still hold out hope. Some believe that one day new witnesses will come forward or that further evidence will emerge to challenge the official version of events. But for now, the law stands firm. The courts have reviewed the case repeatedly, and with the most recent forensic confirmations, the likelihood of reversal appears more remote than ever.
Marlon Kiser’s story serves as a stark reminder of the power—and the risk—of post-conviction appeals. For some, these efforts reveal flaws in the justice system. For others, they reaffirm a jury’s decision. In Kiser’s case, the very investigation meant to prove his innocence has done the opposite: it has etched his guilt more deeply into the record.
Whether his cries for justice are rooted in truth or denial remains a matter of opinion. But in the eyes of the court—and the evidence—the case has never looked more closed.