ANNAPOLIS — New restrictions on the death penalty in Maryland are raising questions about whether a man charged with murdering two Washington County residents would still be eligible for capital punishment under the law.

If the bill is retroactive — which is still unclear — the evidence against Douglas Wayne Pryor could make him ineligible for the death penalty under the new law if he is convicted. The issue already has been raised during proceedings against Pryor, which are under way.

The House of Delegates and the Senate have passed legislation limiting the death penalty to first-degree murder cases with biological or DNA evidence, videotaped voluntary confessions or video linking defendants to a crime — said to be one of the most restrictive death penalty laws in the country.

Gov. Martin O’Malley has said he will sign the bill, according to a spokeswoman.

However, it is unclear whether the bill would be retroactive, and apply to murders committed before the bill is signed for which the defendant has not been convicted.

If the bill is retroactive, that could affect the state’s intent to seek the death penalty against Pryor, who has been charged with the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Alison Munson, and Smithsburg Police Officer Christopher Nicholson in 2007.

Proceedings in Pryor’s murder case are under way, and last week a hearing was held to consider suppressing statements Pryor made to police and inmates.

Pryor has not been convicted and the evidence against him might not meet the standards of the new death penalty restrictions set to become law.

Retroactive

Del. Christopher B. Shank, R-Washington, said he has concerns that the death penalty bill could impact Pryor’s case and asked the Maryland Attorney General’s Office for its opinion.

He was told that the bill could be interpreted to be retroactive — therefore making Pryor subject to the evidence requirements.

“As a proponent of the death penalty and as a strong believer that Douglas Pryor, who has confessed to his crimes, ought to receive the death penalty, I am concerned with the legislation the way it is drafted,” Shank said. “Now I have been given reason to believe that there could be a problem down the road with the state going forward with the death penalty (against Pryor).”

Raquel Guillory, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office, told The Herald-Mail there is an apparent “gray area” in the bill concerning crimes occurring before Oct. 1, 2009 — when the bill would take effect — for which a person has not yet been sentenced to death. Guillory said that opinion was based on an initial reading of the bill, not on a thorough legal analysis.

“We don’t really know,” Guillory said.

Shank said the portion of the bill that is causing this confusion states, “That in any case in which the State has relied solely on evidence provided by eyewitnesses or has failed to present evidence that meets the requirements of this act and the state has properly filed notice that it intended to seek a sentence of death ... in which a sentence has not been imposed, the notice of intention to seek a sentence of death shall be considered to have been withdrawn and it shall be deemed that the State properly filed notice ... to seek a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.”

The phrase “any case” leads Shank to believe it could apply to cases in which someone has been charged but not yet convicted, he said.

The sponsor of the death penalty bill, Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, D-Baltimore City, said the bill was not intended to be retroactive and believed that a person, like Pryor, who allegedly committed a crime before the law is enacted would not be subject to its restrictions.

Shank said he was told the Attorney General’s Office will do a review of the bill to determine what it means.

Even if it is determined not to be retroactive, Shank said he believes it is likely that Pryor’s attorney would appeal any sentence of death based on the new law.

Katy O’Donnell, an attorney for Pryor, already said during last week’s proceedings against Pryor that the defense will seek to have the new law apply to the current case. She said the new law should apply, or the defense would try to continue the case until after Oct. 1 — when the new law would take effect.

The evidence

Washington County State’s Attorney Charles P. Strong Jr. said in a phone interview that he believes the death penalty law would not be retroactive.

“We have not fully reviewed it, but our preliminary understanding is that it has no bearing on pending cases,” Strong said.

He would not speculate on how the evidence against Pryor would effect a death penalty ruling if it is retroactive, and would not comment on the evidence against Pryor.

If the new death penalty law does apply to Pryor, it is unclear whether the evidence against him would be enough to allow a death penalty sentence.

Under the law, there must be one of three types of evidence in order to allow a sentence of death: biological or DNA evidence, videotaped voluntary confessions or video linking defendants to a crime.

In Pryor’s case, there is no videotape of the Nicholson or Munson murders. There is not a videotaped confession of either murder — only audio.

The DNA question is more difficult.

There is DNA evidence from the Munson murder, but not Nicholson’s. The state is only seeking the death penalty in the death of Nicholson, not Munson.

The DNA evidence in the Nicholson murder apparently is weak, according to testimony given last week. DNA samples on a shirt and pants match Pryor with certainty of only 1 in 2, according to testimony.

“This is an example of why this was a broad piece of legislation that was hastily drafted and could have a negative impact on court cases working their way through the justice system,” Shank said. “I certainly hope that’s not the case. But the fact that the Attorney General’s Office can’t say for certain is not reassuring.”