An inmate serving decades for the 2014 killing of toddler Bill “Baby Bill” Thao may get a second chance in court, as new legal filings and recent reporting question who actually fired into the family’s home that night. Darmequaye Cohill, convicted in the case and sentenced to a lengthy prison term, has asked a judge to revisit parts of his conviction based on claims that multiple people pulled the trigger. The possible reopening is stirring up long-running debates in Milwaukee over evidence, witness reliability and who should be held accountable in a case that stunned the city.
New filings point to more than one gunman
As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, attorneys now emphasize ballistics and witness details in new court papers that suggest more than one shooter took part in the December 2014 gunfire. According to that reporting, those arguments have prompted a judge to consider whether Cohill should be granted a post-conviction hearing to dig into the newly highlighted material.
Conviction, crime scene evidence and the first trial
The case originally ended with a conviction. A jury found Cohill guilty, and a judge later imposed a total of 50 years behind bars, earlier local coverage shows. At the time, CBS58 reported that investigators recovered more than 40 shell casings from the scenes and that evidence pointed to multiple firearms being used. Defense lawyers now lean on those same details as they push back against the idea that Cohill acted alone.
Defense attorneys argue to the court that cellphone records, witness recantations and patterns in the ballistic matches all support their call for a new hearing. Cohill remains the only person ever charged in the 2014 shooting, and prosecutors have not publicly signaled any move to back away from the case, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Legal path ahead
If the judge grants a post-conviction hearing, the defense would get a formal chance to present the newly emphasized evidence and attack parts of the trial record. From there, the judge could order additional proceedings, deny any relief, or set the stage for a new trial. The bar for reopening a conviction is high and usually requires a showing that the new material could reasonably change a jury’s verdict, so much will depend on how the court weighs what Cohill’s legal team has brought forward…