Appeals On July 29, 1980, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed MacDonald's conviction, ruling via a 2–1 margin that the nine-year delay in bringing him to trial violated his
Sixth Amendment rights to a
speedy trial. He was released on August 22, having posted $100,000 bail, and subsequently returned to work as the Director of Emergency Medicine at St. Mary's Medical Center in Long Beach, California. He would later announce his engagement to his fiancée, Randi Dee Markwith, in March 1982. Six months later, on December 18, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 5–5 to hear the appeal
en banc. As a majority did not vote to hear this appeal, the application was accordingly denied, upholding the previous ruling. This decision was appealed, and on May 26, 1981, the US Supreme Court accepted the case for consideration, hearing oral arguments on December 7. On March 31, 1982, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that MacDonald's rights to a speedy trial had not been violated, stating the time interval between the dismissal of the military charges and the indictment on civilian charges should "not be considered in determining whether the delay in bringing [MacDonald] to trial violated his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment". He was rearrested and returned to federal prison and his original sentence of three consecutive life terms reinstated. The following year, MacDonald dismissed Segal as his legal representative. Defense lawyers filed a new motion for MacDonald to be freed on bail pending appeal, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals refused. His remaining points of appeal—including his contention the evidence presented at trial did not justify the finding of his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt—were heard on June 9, 1982, although his conviction was unanimously affirmed on August 16. Shortly thereafter, MacDonald's licenses to practice medicine in both North Carolina and California were revoked. MacDonald again appealed this decision, contending his conviction should be overturned due to suppressed
exculpatory evidence. Dupree rejected these defense motions on March 1, 1985. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision October 6, 1986. A further defense motion that MacDonald should be granted a new murder trial on the grounds of
prosecutorial misconduct was denied on July 8, 1991. This ruling was appealed on the grounds of judicial bias on October 3, but was denied. A further appeal was argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 1992. This appeal listed newly discovered evidence which MacDonald contended was suppressed at his trial and which, he claimed,
corroborated his exculpatory account of the murders. This appeal contended that, had Judge Dupree permitted this evidence, the jurors would have learned that all of the doctors hired by the defense, who had worked for the Army, or the government at
Walter Reed Hospital, had concluded that MacDonald was psychologically incapable of committing such acts of violence. The court ruled against awarding a new trial on June 2, stating Judge Dupree had acted correctly when he refused to allow the jury to view a transcript of the 1970 Article 32 hearing, and because this was not an
insanity trial, he had also acted properly in not allowing the jurors to hear any of the psychiatric testimony. This ruling also stated that Helena Stoeckley's confessions of guilt pertaining to the murders were unreliable and conflicted with the established facts of the case, and accordingly, the judge's ruling against her being allowed to testify at MacDonald's 1979 trial was valid. On September 2, 1997, the district court granted MacDonald's motion to file a supplemental
affidavit with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This affidavit contended that, although several
saran fibers found at the crime scene which did not match any evidentiary item recovered had most likely sourced from a doll and not a wig, these fibers were also used in the manufacture of human wigs prior to 1970, and thus added to "the weight of previously amassed exculpatory evidence". His motion for
DNA testing upon these fibers was transferred from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to the
district court. MacDonald's lawyers were also given the right to pursue
DNA tests on limited hair and blood evidence on October 17, 1997. This testing began in December 2000, with MacDonald's lawyers hoping the results would tie Stoeckley and her then-boyfriend, Gregory Mitchell, to the crime scene. On March 10, 2006, the
Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory announced that the results of this DNA testing revealed that the DNA of neither Stoeckley nor Mitchell matched that upon any of the exhibits tested. Furthermore, although a single hair found within Colette's left palm was also cited by MacDonald as belonging to one of the alleged intruders, this testing also revealed the hair to have come from his own body. This hair was also a precise match with others recovered from the bedspread within the master bedroom and upon the top sheet of Kristen's bed. A hair found in Colette's right palm was also determined to be her own. Three hairs, one from the bed sheet, one found in Colette's body outline in the area of her legs, and a single hair measuring one-fifth of an inch found beneath Kristen's fingernail did not match the DNA profile of any MacDonald family member or known suspect. In September 2012, the district court conducted a formal evidentiary hearing regarding DNA evidence and statements relating to key witnesses who offered testimony indicating MacDonald's innocence. On July 24, 2014, the district court rejected these claims in their entirety and re-affirmed MacDonald's conviction on all counts. Reportedly, MacDonald was disappointed, but not surprised, with this ruling. On December 21, 2018, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. In April 2021, MacDonald was denied a request for
compassionate release upon the grounds of his ailing health, with Judge
Terrence Boyle citing the compassionate release law applies only to individuals whose crimes occurred on or after November 1, 1987. A further appeal against this ruling was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on September 16, 2021.
Later confession of Helena Stoeckley Shortly after MacDonald's initial release from prison in August 1980, his supporters hired a retired FBI Special Agent and private investigator named
Ted Gunderson to assist in overturning his conviction. Gunderson contacted Helena Stoeckley, who on this occasion confessed that she and five members of what she described as a "drug cult" had developed a deep grudge against MacDonald as he had "refused to treat heroin- and opium-addicted" patients. Accordingly, she and other members of this group had plotted revenge against MacDonald, intending specifically to murder his family but leave him alive. According to Stoeckley, she had telephoned the MacDonald residence late in the evening of February 16 to determine all members of the family were present in the house. Colette had answered and stated a babysitter would be there in the early evening but that after she had left, all the family would be present and alone. The group had then "dropped mescaline" before driving to the MacDonald residence. She and four others had entered the house and confronted MacDonald, intent on him signing a
Dexedrine prescription, although the situation quickly deteriorated, with MacDonald attempting to fight his attackers before quickly lapsing into unconsciousness. Stoeckley alleged she then ran into the master bedroom to "find 'Death to All Pigs' or something like that" scrawled on the headboard and two of her friends bludgeoning Colette on the bed as her child lay asleep next to her. Stoeckley was adamant she had worn a beige, floppy hat on the evening in question. On April 16, 2007, MacDonald's attorneys filed an affidavit on behalf of Stoeckley's mother, Helena Teresa Stoeckley, who stated that her daughter had twice confessed to her that she was present in the MacDonald house on the evening of the murders and that her daughter was afraid of the prosecutors. MacDonald requested to expand his then-outstanding appeal to include this affidavit alongside all the evidence amassed at trial, the developments which he claimed had been subsequently discovered (including the 2006 results of DNA testing), and the statements of individuals to whom Stoeckley had made these confessions. This appeal also alleged that the trial statements of prosecutor James Blackburn should be considered unreliable as he had been convicted of fraud, forgery, and
embezzlement, and subsequently
disbarred in 1993. MacDonald's motions regarding the DNA results and the affidavit of Stoeckley's mother were denied. The denial of these two motions was based on jurisdictional issues, specifically that MacDonald had not obtained the required pre-filing authorization from the Circuit Court for these motions to the district court. Nonetheless, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted MacDonald's motion for a successive
habeas petition and remanded the matter back to the District Court Eastern Division.
Britt affidavit On January 12, 2006, MacDonald was granted leave to file a further appeal based upon a November 2005 affidavit of retired Deputy
United States Marshal Jim Britt, who had served in this role during the trial. Britt stated that he had overheard Helena Stoeckley admit to prosecutor James Blackburn she had actually been present at the MacDonald house at the time of the murders and that Blackburn had threatened her with prosecution if she testified as a defense witness admitting this claim. (Stoeckley had earlier met with the defense counsel prior to this alleged meeting with Blackburn, and informed them she had no memory of her whereabouts on the night in question.) In November 2008, Judge
James Carroll Fox denied this appeal. This denial was based on the merits of the claim, specifically that, as Stoeckley had made many contradictory statements regarding her participation, or lack thereof, in the murders, her claims were unreliable. In addition, MacDonald's claim that Stoeckley had been expected to testify in a manner favorable to him at trial until she had been threatened by Blackburn is contradicted by the official trial records. MacDonald faced several legal obstacles in his efforts to incorporate a motion relating to the earlier results of DNA testing of hair and fiber evidence recovered from 544 Castle Drive into his motion regarding the claims made in Britt's affidavit, with the court stating he must obtain a pre-authorization for what should be a separate motion filed in relation to the results of the DNA testing. On April 19, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals granted a pre-filing authorization relating to his DNA claims, reversing the decision of the district court, and remanding his appeals for further proceedings. However, in July 2014, Judge Fox ruled against MacDonald's appeal, upholding his convictions.
Fatal Vision In June 1979, MacDonald invited author
Joe McGinniss to write a book about his case. McGinniss agreed to his request, and was given full access to MacDonald and his defense team during the upcoming trial. The book McGinniss wrote relating to the murders,
Fatal Vision, portrays MacDonald as "a
narcissistic sociopath" who was guilty of murdering his family and who believed in his ongoing capabilities to deceive both legal personnel and personal acquaintances. McGinniss quotes a 1979 report compiled by a psychologist named Hirsch Lazzaar Silverman, who stated MacDonald "handled his
conflicts by denying that they even exist", adding that MacDonald lacked any sense of guilt, had been capable of committing "asocial acts with impunity", and had been "incapable of [forming] emotionally close" relationships with females of any age. Silverman further states MacDonald had avoided and resented his commitments as a husband and father and that, given his ongoing "denial of truth", he would continually seek both attention and approval.
Fatal Vision also alleges a possible motive for the killings. As MacDonald was regularly taking the amphetamine
Eskatrol in an effort to lose weight via a weight-control program for his Green Beret unit, McGinniss suggests MacDonald may have murdered his family in a spur-of-the-moment fit of psychotic rage as a result of his frequent consumption of the amphetamines. Furthermore, the book emphasizes the fact MacDonald worked extremely long hours in several medical employment roles in 1969 and 1970, and his extensive social and family commitments, resulted in his suffering from an increasing lack of sleep. Reportedly, MacDonald had expected McGinniss's book to profess his innocence and the ongoing
miscarriage of justice to which he had been subjected. In 1987, he sued McGinniss for
fraud, claiming that the author had agreed to hear his innermost thoughts in order to write a positive account of his ongoing fight for justice for himself and his family, but had actually falsely claimed to believe his claims of innocence after he had already reached a conclusion of his guilt, in order that he (MacDonald) continue cooperating with him on the project. This lawsuit resulted in a
mistrial on August 21, 1987. The two later
settled out of court for $325,000, although the Kassabs subsequently filed their own countersuit against MacDonald, citing an inheritance clause, resulting in MacDonald receiving only $50,000. ==Aftermath==