A Louisiana True Crime Case With No DNA, No Eyewitness and No Physical Evidence

By Mrs. Eileen Hunter — about the author. Posted August 11, 2026.

How does someone get convicted of a triple murder with no DNA, no fingerprints, and no eyewitness? It happens more often than most people think — and the trial record of State v. Hunter, out of Monroe, Louisiana, shows exactly how. On November 19, 2004, a jury convicted Tony Lavelle Hunter of a triple homicide and attempted armed robbery at 221 Greenwood Drive. This post walks through what the record shows about the physical evidence: what investigators collected, what was tested, and what the testing found. Every item comes from the trial transcript or the forensic reports; the full page-by-page treatment is on the evidence page.

What investigators collected

This was not a case where evidence went ungathered. Investigators processed the scene at 221 Greenwood Drive. They seized and searched the red Ford truck Mr. Hunter had been renting — the vehicle the State theorized connected him to the scene. They searched his apartment at Colonial Manor. They recovered the murder weapon. They took fingerprints, looked for footprints and tire impressions, and collected material for forensic comparison. The record of the defense closing argument walks through the results item by item:

• No eyewitness identified Mr. Hunter as being at or near 221 Greenwood Drive.
• No fingerprints — at the scene, in the truck, or on the weapon — were matched to him.
• No footprints and no tire impressions at the scene were linked to him or to the truck.
• No blood, no hair, no fibers connected him to the scene, the victims, the truck, or the apartment — and none of the victims’ blood, hair, or fibers were found in the truck he had been driving.

(Defense closing argument, trial transcript.)

What the forensic testing found

The State submitted material for DNA analysis to Gene Screen, a forensic laboratory. The report is dated January 30, 2002, and the State received it on February 2, 2002 — more than two and a half years before trial. It excluded Mr. Hunter from the scene, the victims, and the weapon. (Gene Screen report; see the evidence page for the full chain.)

The murder weapon

The weapon identified at trial as the murder weapon — a .22 caliber semi-automatic — was recovered by Monroe police about a week after the killings, discarded on a median at a busy intersection. Nothing recovered from that weapon was connected to Mr. Hunter. (Trial record; Application for Post-Conviction Relief filed December 30, 2022.)

The investigation stalled — by the State’s own account

Captain Harris testified that in the months after the killings the investigation had hit “a brick wall because nobody would talk.” Asked whether a financial incentive had been offered for information, he answered: “Yes sir. Cash money.” He also testified that he canvassed the neighborhood, and no citizen came forward to say Mr. Hunter had confessed to or was involved in the crimes. On June 12, 2001, a KTVE broadcast publicly named Mr. Hunter in connection with the case. (Trial and bond-hearing testimony of Captain Harris; broadcast records.)

What filled the gap

What the State presented at trial was the testimony of three men incarcerated at the Ouachita Parish Correctional Center — each of whom gave his recorded statement after the broadcast and the publicized reward, on July 20, August 2, and August 20, 2001. The Louisiana Second Circuit, affirming the conviction, described their testimony as “the evidence that directly linked Tony Hunter with the crime.” State v. Hunter, 907 So. 2d 200, 204 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005). Who those men were, what they received, and how their accounts compare is documented on the informants page.

The other half

The courts have not treated this as a defect. The Second Circuit held the informants’ accounts were direct evidence — not circumstantial — and affirmed. Post-conviction applications were denied in 2007, 2009, 2013, and 2023; a federal habeas petition was dismissed as time-barred; the application filed in March 2026 was denied in April, and a supervisory writ application filed July 9, 2026 is now pending in the Second Circuit. No court has held an evidentiary hearing on the claims described here. The complete procedural history is on the appeals page.

Start with the case overview — then read the record for yourself.