Grand Rapids, Mich. — A woman whose murder conviction was overturned by a federal appeals court is now facing a new trial for the 2007 killing of her husband, an event that shocked the small community of Lawrence and has drawn national attention.
Linda Stermer, accused of dousing her husband Todd with gasoline, setting him on fire, and then running him over with a van as he attempted to escape, is back in court after a lengthy legal battle. The case, originally tried in Van Buren County in 2010, resulted in a life sentence for Stermer after a jury convicted her of first-degree murder. Prosecutors contended that the crime was sparked by Todd Stermer’s discovery of his wife’s extramarital affair.
However, in 2020, a federal appeals court ruled that Stermer’s original trial had been flawed, primarily due to her defense attorney’s failure to consult with an expert witness to rebut testimony that the fire was arson. The court’s decision to order a new trial came after Stermer’s legal team argued that her trial attorney, Jeff Getting—now the Kalamazoo County prosecutor—had failed to properly challenge the prosecution’s claims regarding the cause of the fire.
Now, jury selection has begun in Paw Paw, with the retrial expected to last at least two weeks. Opening statements are set for Thursday, as a fresh defense team aims to clear Stermer’s name. Stermer, who has consistently maintained her innocence, claims that the fire was an accident. She insists that her husband had left an oil lamp and candles burning in the house, and that she accidentally hit him with the van while trying to flee to get help.
Skip Kelly, one of Stermer’s new defense attorneys, expressed confidence in their case, citing flaws in the initial investigation and the science behind the fire’s origin. “We believe the origin of the fire was not fully identified,” Kelly said. “We have an expert who will explain what he believes was the actual cause of the fire.”
The new defense strategy has put the spotlight on potential mistakes in the original fire investigation. The defense’s theory, which suggests that Todd Stermer may have intentionally started the fire in an attempt to claim insurance money and that his death was accidental, contrasts sharply with the prosecution’s depiction of a deliberate act of violence.
While the defense builds its case around the possibility of faulty fire science, the prosecution is likely to emphasize the circumstantial evidence that led to Stermer’s original conviction. The case hinges on the interpretation of the fire’s origin, as well as the motivations that might have driven Linda Stermer to allegedly kill her husband.
The retrial has already sparked debate over the fairness of the initial conviction and the role of expert testimony in such cases. Stermer’s supporters argue that the evidence supporting her innocence has been overlooked, while others maintain that her actions on that fateful night were deliberate.
As the trial continues, the community and legal observers alike will be watching closely to see if a new jury will reach a different conclusion in this high-profile case.
