Transcript for Double-Jeopardy Hearing for Death Row Woman
That's a scary situation. And now double jeopardy out of Arizona. Debbie melky was convicted for killing her 4-year-old son, that was overturned, and prosecutors are trying to try her again. But her lawyers are trying to black it. Reporter: Debra heads back to a court hoping not to head back to prison. After all, the 50-year-old spent more than two decades on Arizona's death row. I just have no comment right now. I'm sorry pip just don't. She was convicted of murder in the death of her 4-year-old son in 1989. They convinced jury she hired two men to shoot him. Last year, a federal appeals court overturned her conviction, saying prosecutors withheld evidence of alleged misconduct by this retired police officer. He claimed she confessed, she denied that. With the help of her many supporters, she made bail and is free until her trial next year. This is a high profile case. Reporter: Tuesday her attorneys were hoping to convince a three-judge panel a second murder trial amounts to double jeopardy. This is dismissal, dismiss the charges. Reporter: Prosecutors disagree, but neither side would elaborate after the hearing. No statements or opinions to the media. Reporter: She's always maintained her innocence. The question, will another jury get to decide if they believe her, or will she be free? Ryan Owens, ABC news, los Angeles. Talk to Dan Abrams. This double jeopardy claim, you don't think it's double jeopardy? I don't think that's the strongest argument here. There are very often cases where an appeals court says give the person a new trial, they are retried and there's no double jeopardy issue. The issue here is the defense is saying she shouldn't be tried again at all, that there is no evidence here. Now that this appellate court stepped in and recognized that there was all this past of this detective that was not turned over to the defense with the defense is saying they don't have anything. We should effectively end this. So far that argument has not worked. And what will likely happen is a jury will have to decide whether there is any evidence. But what do the prosecutors have? Without this detective's testimony, and look, this detective has been forced, it seems, so testify if there is another trial, he is the key to the case. At trial, the other people involved didn't testify against her. The key to this case is that detective's testimony. If that detective is undermined the way that it seems that he can be. And the appellate court lists incident after incident in his past which would raise questions about trusting his account, no recording of that confession. It's just his word against hearse. So if that's the best that they have, I'm surprised prosecutors are moving forward with another case. Because they're going to be able to -- the defense is going to be able to undermine the detective's testimony. This detective has been fighting testifying. That's right. He's got -- there's an investigate of him now from the feds. So he was effectively saying I shouldn't have to testify. It seems he will have to testify, which means that at least prosecutors have something, but I can't imagine a conviction.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.