Glen Rogers, the Cross-Country Killer

Glen Rogers

Rogers had been scheduled to die in Florida on Feb 14, 1999, but he appealed right away to the Florida Supreme Court, raising several issues.  He claimed that the State had not presented sufficient evidence to support the charges and that the trial court had erred in the handling of mitigating circumstances.  Rogers also argued that the trial court should have granted the defense's motions for a mistrial because a witness was allowed to testify about a misdemeanor for which Rogers was convicted in California.  In addition, the prosecution was allowed to present an improper argument during closing arguments (and one that had gotten another conviction overturned in a different trial).  Rogers also contended that there was newly discovered evidence.

His appeal was delayed until March 2001, and then denied.

In 2002, reporters Stephen Combs and John Eckberg co-published "Road Dog," emphasizing how law enforcement had allowed Rogers to slip away from the murder he'd committed in Kentucky in 1993.  They contend that Rogers was a good suspect in the murder of Mark Peters, but a series of mistakes allowed him to get away.  Before the other murders had occurred, California police had arrested him and contacted Ohio law enforcement.  Detectives from Hamilton intended to fly to California to question Rogers about Mark Peters, but their chief believed it would be a waste of time and money.  He canceled their trip. Combs and Eckberg, both of whom had covered the case from different angles, wanted the public (and police) to realize that economic considerations of this nature where a killer is concerned can — and did - cost lives.

In April 2005, Rogers filed another appeal, which is still pending. In the event his death sentence is ever overturned, based on a charge of prosecutorial misconduct, it will nullify his eligibility in California to be executed.  Perhaps Louisiana or Mississippi will step forward.  Once can only wonder who Rogers might blame in those murders.  Although he claims the experience has taught him the reality of coincidence, it's doubtful that any jury looking at his case will agree.