Murder charge dismissed against teen accused of killing father with dog leash
Charges have been dismissed against the Durham teen accused of strangling his father with a dog leash nearly two years ago.
The Durham County District Attorney’s Office dropped the charges against Alexander Bishop, 17, who was accused of killing William Bishop, in 2018.
“Insufficiency of the evidence,” is the reason for the dismissal, according to a court documents.
However, it’s unclear why the District Attorney dismissed the case; it appeared to be moving forward with prosecution.
The District Attorney’s Office declined to comment through spokesperson Sarah Willets.
On April 18, 2018, police found William “Bill” Bishop in the theater room of his Durham home.
Alexander Bishop, then 16, told police he had found his father unresponsive with a dog leash around his neck and the family’s Labrador retriever still attached.
“I think my Dad is dead,” he told a 911 operator. “I think my dog got his leash wrapped around my Dad’s throat.”
Emergency Medical Services workers arrived helped Bill Bishop regain a pulse, and he was taken to the hospital, where he died three days later.
Police and EMS officials questioned Alexander Bishop, and Durham police investigator Tony Huelsman opened a homicide investigation three days later, after a Durham lieutenant got a call from the Duke University Hospital official relaying concerns about a suspicious death.
Alexander Bishop was arrested on a murder charge Feb. 22, 2019. He was later released on a $250,000 unsecured bond, which means he didn’t have to put up any money to get out of jail.
In September, Judge Orlando Hudson ruled most of the search warrants in the case invalid and ordered potential evidence gained from them thrown out.
Alexander Bishop’s attorney, Allyn Sharp, contended Huelsman misconstrued evidence to make the circumstances appear suspicious.
Sharp alleged that Huelsman had used false and misleading statements in seeking the warrants when he indicated there was $460,000 in missing gold in the case and that he believed Alexander Bishop and his mother had taken it.
The documents that Huelsman had cited, Sharp said, actually showed that Bill Bishop had sold the gold to a dealer in Florida more than a year before his death in April 2018.
Huelsman said he misread the document.
“Quite frankly I believe that the defendant (Alexander Bishop) has met his burden of proof,” Hudson said then. “He has met every single one of the allegations that he has made. I think the evidence shows that the investigator either was untruthful or shows a reckless disregard for the truth.”
The District Attorney’s Office indicated it was appealing Hudson’s decision.
‘Tragic cardiac event’
Bill Bishop “appears to have died after a tragic cardiac event during or after which the dog got his leash wrapped around William Bishop’s neck,” Sharp wrote in a media release sent Thursday.
“As a result of the investigation, Alexander Bishop was told he would not be permitted to return to his private school, Durham Academy.
“The life of this innocent young man has been on hold since then,” Sharp wrote. “Alexander is grateful to finally be able to move on with his life after the tragic loss of his father and an unwarranted criminal prosecution.”
Sanctions sought against DAs, investigator
On Dec. 17, Sharp asked Hudson to hold Huelsman, District Attorney Satana Deberry, and Assistant District Attorney Beth Hopkins Thomas — the main prosecutor in the case — in contempt for discovery violations that included not providing all the evidence to the defense team.
In addition to seeking dismissal due to the violations, Sharp also sought to have the investigator and two prosecutors sanctioned — up to $500 fine or 30 days in jail.
“The District Attorney and Investigator Huelsman have intentionally disregarded their statutory discovery obligation and are in contempt of the Superior Court discovery order,” the filing states. “The District Attorney’s misrepresentation to this Court make clear that the District Attorney’s violations of her obligation and abuses of her authority have been willful and in bad faith. “
A hearing on the alleged violations was discussed Jan. 16 at the homicide status conference — a quarterly review of all homicide cases — but no date was set because Huelsman was dealing with an illness in his family, Hopkins Thomas said.
In a Feb. 3 letter to Hudson, Sharp again raised concerns about a hearing date.
She argued that she interpreted Hudson to have directed the parties on Jan. 16 to set a hearing date, but Hopkins Thomas and Deberry didn’t agree that was Hudson’s order, the letter states.
Sharp met with Deberry and Hopkins Thomas on Jan. 23 and the prosecutors said they still could not set a date because they didn’t know Huelsman schedule, the letter states.
Sharp asked that the case be put before Hudson on the next available date to clarify, but Deberry suggested they address the scheduling of the motion at the April 16 homicide status conference.
“Since the District Attorney has had ample time to determine Investigator Huelsman’s availability, no dates have been proposed, and the case has not been placed on any calendar to address scheduling,” Sharp’s letter states. “I am requesting that Your Honor schedule the Defendant’s motion for hearing based on Your Honor’s availability.”
The letter also included a Jan. 27 email from Kevin Bradley, one of Bishop’s attorneys, to Deberry with a transcript of the Jan. 16 conversation in court.
The next document in the case is the dismissal that was filed by Hopkins Thomas on Thursday.
This story was originally published February 6, 2020 at 2:28 PM.
