The convictions of Lionel Ernest Tholmer rest on a witness a judge found not credible, forensic evidence that excluded him, and motions a court has answered with recusals and delay. As Yolo County installs new leadership, the question is no longer what the evidence shows. It is whether anyone will rule.
WOODLAND, CA — Among the cases Melinda Aiello inherited when she was appointed Yolo County’s district attorney this month is one her office has repeatedly declined to reopen: the conviction of Lionel Ernest Tholmer, who has been in prison for nearly forty years on evidence that, his prosecutors have since conceded and the record increasingly shows, never pointed to him. Whether Aiello examines it — or, like those before her, looks away — is now hers to decide.
Aiello was sworn in on June 23. The supervisors picked her unanimously, and said plainly they wanted continuity, not reform. She had been Reisig’s acting DA since his May retirement. But Aiello also talks about restorative justice, and told the board the county “can’t incarcerate” its way out of its problems.
For Tholmer, who has been in California prisons on convictions the Vanguard has chronicled since 2021, that question is not abstract. Under Reisig, the Yolo Conviction and Sentencing Review Unit repeatedly declined Tholmer’s submissions; Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven told the Vanguard in 2022 that there was no new credible evidence, and that Lt. John Kane’s credibility had already been addressed at trial and on appeal.
That rationale is what the intervening years have undercut. Since the Vanguard’s September 2025 investigation, Tholmer’s Yolo and Placer Convictions Still Mired in Doubt Four Decades Later, the case files once dismissed as one man’s account from a prison cell have hardened into primary-source court records: certified trial transcripts, a sworn concession from the state itself, and a December 1985 police report in the investigating officer’s own hand.
The witness both convictions were built on
Tholmer was convicted twice. In 1987, a Placer County jury found him guilty of second-degree murder in the death of John Meadows, the stepfather of Tholmer’s ex-wife, whom Tholmer has always said he shot in self-defense in a struggle over Meadows’ own gun in the woods near Foresthill. In 1992, a Yolo County jury convicted him of the murder of Cynthia Sparpana, 27, and the presumed murder of her three-year-old daughter Danyel, whose body has never been found. He was sentenced to death; the trial judge reduced it to life without parole.
The two cases were tied together, and the knot was a single witness: Sacramento Police Lt. John Edward Kane.
Kane commanded the Sacramento Police Department’s burglary section. The Meadows killing was a Placer County case; the Sparpana killing was a Yolo County case. By his own sworn testimony, Kane was “not in any way involved in the investigation of crimes against persons or homicides.” Yet, as the Vanguard has reported, his testimony became the spine of both convictions. Decades later, the state conceded what it had minimized at trial: at an August 2022 hearing, a deputy district attorney acknowledged on the record that Kane “certainly was involved in the prosecution of this case in Placer County” — a direct contradiction of Kane’s sworn claim of distance from cases of that kind.
What the juries did not hear is what Kane’s own department thought of him while he was building those cases.
On December 10, 1985, Kane wrote the report that anchored the case against Tholmer. On December 10, 1985 — the same day — the Sacramento Police Department demoted him. As reported in the Sacramento Bee by Wayne Wilson on July 17, 1986, Deputy Chief Lee Dohm signed the disciplinary letter that day, reducing Kane one civil-service grade. Among the grounds: that Kane had neglected his management responsibilities by “personally becoming involved in cases, interviewing suspects and informants and actually working cases at street level.” That was the same conduct he was engaged in on Tholmer’s case that very day.
The constitutional duty to disclose that demotion to the defense attached the moment it happened, under Brady v. Maryland — the 1963 ruling requiring prosecutors to turn over evidence favorable to the accused, including evidence that undermines a witness. It was never disclosed: not in the Meadows trial, not in the Sparpana trial, not across four decades of appeals.
“Anyone but Kane”
The December 10 report is now in hand, and read against Kane’s later testimony, it contradicts him on the single fact the Sparpana case turned on.
In the report, Kane wrote that Tholmer had told Oklahoma City police, where he was arrested in December 1985, that he would talk to “anyone but” Kane — “the guy who turned me in.” Kane further wrote that he and a Sacramento sheriff’s deputy “decided to have me go talk to Tholmer when he is brought back” — Kane’s own contemporaneous record of his intention to initiate contact.
On the stand, Kane told it the other way. He testified that Tholmer reached out to him, asked to see him, and did so because Tholmer trusted him. Whether Tholmer initiated that December 14, 1985 jailhouse contact became, in the trial court’s own words, “the big one” — the question on which admissibility of Tholmer’s alleged statements turned. The court let the statements in, resting its finding, it said, “mostly upon Kane’s testimony” that Tholmer “had been the one to initiate the call.”
There was no other source for that finding — and Kane’s own report, four days before the contact he swore Tholmer started, said the opposite. On cross-examination, confronted with a jail sergeant’s testimony that a “Lieutenant Kane” had phoned the jail asking to have Tholmer call him back, Kane conceded: “Yes, sir, that’s correct.” The man who swore Tholmer sought him out had, by his own admission, reached out first.
The report that would have shown the jury all of this was suppressed.
There is more, now confirmed from the certified trial record. At the Sparpana trial, in a hearing held outside the jury’s presence, Tholmer’s attorney Robert Blasier confronted Kane with a ruling from an unrelated Sacramento case — People v. Samuels — in which Judge James Long had found Kane not to be a credible witness. Asked whether that was true, Kane answered: “Yes, sir, in that specific intent case, that was the ruling that Judge Long found.” A judge had already determined Kane could not be believed under oath, and Kane admitted it.
What the physical evidence said
The reason a single witness mattered so much is that the physical evidence did not point at Tholmer at all.
In open court at the Sparpana trial, the Yolo prosecution stipulated that no fingerprint, no hair, no fiber, and no blood from the scene matched Tholmer. A forensic analysis in the case concluded the person who killed Cynthia Sparpana was left-handed. A bloody partial footprint at the scene was roughly a size nine. Tholmer is right-handed and wears a size eleven.
Cynthia’s ex-husband, Tedd Sparpana, was left-handed. He drove a diesel truck; a neighbor reported a diesel truck idling outside the home the night of the killing. Another neighbor reported seeing a man matching his description carrying Danyel from the house. A year before her death, Cynthia had filed a sworn declaration in a family-law case describing what she called Tedd’s “months long campaign of threats, harassment, and intimidation.” That declaration — Cynthia’s own account of the man she feared — is now a primary-source document. The Sparpana jury never saw it.
When the trial judge, James L. Stevens, reduced Tholmer’s death sentence to life, he said it from the bench: there was no testimony placing Tholmer at the scene, no evidence connecting him to the crime, and no motive. He added that he did not believe Danyel was dead — that testimony she had been seen alive after her mother’s killing was, in his words, not substantially refuted.
Blasier, with more than fifty years of practice behind him, put it plainly on the record: “In my professional opinion, Lionel Tholmer is completely innocent of all charges filed against him in the Yolo County case. I can truthfully say that in my over 50 years of practice, this is the only case where I feel totally confident in making that statement.”
A court that recuses instead of ruling
Tholmer is not asking for a new trial in the abstract. He has post-conviction motions pending — habeas and Racial Justice Act claims — and a 2022 finding, already on the record, that they deserve a hearing. In February 2022, the Vanguard reported that Placer County Judge Garen Horst had found “good cause” to re-examine the case based on the Kane evidence.
What has happened since, in Placer County, is a pattern of avoidance. Horst recused himself after disclosing a prior association with the original prosecutor. A second judge, Jeffrey Penny, recused the moment Tholmer appeared before him, citing only “good cause,” and was later found — after Tholmer pressed for the factual basis and could not get one — to be a former Placer County deputy district attorney. A third judge, Michael W. Jones, denied Tholmer’s motions outright — including the motion seeking Jones’s own recusal — and cut him off when he tried to assert his right to know the basis for Penny’s recusal. A February 2026 notice from the court then told Tholmer that the motion to disqualify Jones could be served only if Jones himself “gives permission to our office to accept service.” A motion to remove a judge that the same judge can refuse to let be served is a motion that can never be heard. Every filing Tholmer has since submitted in Placer County has been routed to Jones.
There is a deeper conflict at the root of the case: the judge who presided over the 1987 Meadows trial had come to the Placer bench directly from the Yolo County District Attorney’s office — the office that would later try Tholmer for Cynthia Sparpana’s murder — and at the Meadows trial admitted uncharged-conduct evidence generated by that same former office, over the defense.
Separately, the Placer County District Attorney’s office has never produced a crime-scene video from the Meadows case — footage of the very ground the state’s theory depends on — despite requests Tholmer says he began making in 1986, days after his preliminary hearing, and has renewed ever since.
The throughline, across both counties, is not a shortage of evidence. It is a shortage of rulings. A man with a good-cause finding and pending motions cannot get a decision on the merits, because the court keeps removing itself or moving on.
That is what makes the Yolo transition more than a personnel story. The previous administration declined, repeatedly, to review the case. The office’s own Conviction and Sentencing Review Unit exists to weigh exactly this kind of record — a witness a judge found not credible, forensic evidence excluding the defendant, suppressed material in the investigating officer’s own hand. The new administration can decide to look again, or decide not to.
The clock as the verdict
Tholmer was arrested in December 1985. He has been incarcerated, continuously, for about forty years. He is 68. He has three children and grandchildren he has never been free to know. Earlier this year his health failed badly; after a state senator’s inquiry into his care, it stabilized, though it remains precarious. He is litigating his own case, pro se, with a command of its record more granular than that of most of the attorneys who have tried to help him.
The longest documented wrongful imprisonments in American history now run past four decades — Glynn Simmons, exonerated in Oklahoma in 2023 after more than 48 years, the longest the National Registry of Exonerations has recorded; Anthony Mazza, exonerated in 2021 after 47. The Registry’s data indicates that, were Tholmer exonerated today, his time served would place him among the longest such terms in the country. That is the grim arithmetic of delay: every year a court recuses instead of ruling, the number climbs.
Tholmer has a phrase he has used for forty years — that the truth always eventually rises above a lie. Asked what the years have done to him, he does not talk about himself. He talks about the Sparpana family, who he says deserve to know what happened to Cynthia, and about a three-year-old still unaccounted for. “The evil that was done to me did not take root in me,” he said in a recent call. “It did not become who I am as a man.”
What stands between Tholmer and an answer is no longer a question about the evidence. It is a question about whether anyone in a position to rule will do so. In Placer County, that means a court willing to decide the motions in front of it rather than step aside. In Yolo County, it now means Melinda Aiello — a new district attorney who has spoken of restorative justice and of a system that cannot incarcerate its way out of its problems, and who has inherited a case her predecessors spent years declining to reopen. The record is in front of her. The decision is hers to make.
The Vanguard has covered the Tholmer case since 2021. Earlier reporting: the original account (2021); the investigating officer’s refusal to comment (2021); the Placer good-cause finding (2022); the Yolo DA’s refusal to review (2022); new evidence in the case (2022); and the September 2025 investigation.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
