Daniel Holtzclaw. Could he be innocent?

Chris_Halkides said:
"Following his testimony Monday, renowned exoneration attorney Kathleen Zellner tweeted about her client saying in part, 'Today Daniel Holtzclaw forcefully, fearlessly and courageously testified in his lengthy deposition that he is an innocent man wrongfully convicted. He did not take the 5th - he confronted his accusers and made a compelling case that he is innocent.'" NewsOK
Among Kathleen Zellner's former clients is Ryan Ferguson.
Click to expand...

"Forcefully, fearlessly, and courageously" gave self serving testimony in a civil case. Wow. Open the cell door.

("Forcefully" is an interesting word choice given the crime at question. Just strikes me that the idea that using force of personality to bulldoze consent/dissent comes up now and again in rape cases)

So brave in waiving his 5th amendment right in a civil case at a time when the criminal case is in a posture (post appeal) where the burden of proof is on him so the 5th amendment is mostly useless. Only the truly innocent would do something like that.
 
Suddenly said:
"Forcefully, fearlessly, and courageously" gave self serving testimony in a civil case. Wow. Open the cell door.

("Forcefully" is an interesting word choice given the crime at question. Just strikes me that the idea that using force of personality to bulldoze consent/dissent comes up now and again in rape cases)

So brave in waiving his 5th amendment right in a civil case at a time when the criminal case is in a posture (post appeal) where the burden of proof is on him so the 5th amendment is mostly useless. Only the truly innocent would do something like that.
Click to expand...
Not sure if this a pro innocence post or not, maybe you could elaborate?
 
Samson said:
Not sure if this a pro innocence post or not, maybe you could elaborate?
Click to expand...

It is an anti-BS post. That claim was some big time jibberish.

As far as being under oath... it seems clear that this post conviction lawyer is having him use the civil case deposition to both play on public opinion and to get something under oath to help with pushing whatever cognizable ground she is going to wind up pursuing.

( Probably a Brady theory that the cops hid or didn't turn over something. Actual innocence as a legal claim is best avoided because it is harder to prove and the ground itself hasn't been firmly established in law, even though the courts are moving that way. Better to use Brady and then use evidence of innocence as part of showing the prejudice caused by the Brady violation and also for use as to swaying public opinion.)

She might even manage to get a court to say this deposition is fine and can be used in the habeas corpus proceeding. That lets her avoid his being cross-examined by a prosecutor. I'm not up on Oklahoma habeas corpus law. During that deposition he would have been crossed by a civil attorney only looking to establish liability and would be uninterested in asking questions that would be not helpful to establish liability but helpful to someone claiming innocence sort of a free ride.

I give the lawyer an A for tactical awareness and a B in public opinion shading because most people aren't going to realize just how inane that "courageous" stuff is.
 
The prosecution discounted DNA transfer, contrary to what DNA scientists know.

"As Wright State University biology professor and president of Forensic Bioinformatics, Dr. Dan Krane, a leading DNA expert, emphasized to me, indirect “transfer is a well documented and real possibility.” Yet, no testing was conducted anywhere else on the pants to rule out this phenomenon of secondary or even tertiary transfer due to casual interaction such as a handshake or other indirect contact. (Holtzclaw had searched A.G.’s purse.) Nor were the pants fluoresced or tested for other body fluids.
"Furthermore, prosecutors failed to note the presence of at least three other sources of DNA on Holtzclaw’s pants, including an unknown male’s — a glaring omission now being raised on appeal that further bolsters the innocuous transfer theory. Prosecutor Gayland Gieger sneered at the transfer DNA phenomenon in closing arguments, again in direct contradiction to the State’s own crime lab expert, who acknowledged under oath the possibility of secondary transfer and its extensive documentation in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

Michelle Malkin has been covering this case from some time. I do not happen to agree with her politics, but that is irrelevant. She has interviewed several experts, including Suzanna Ryan, Brent Turvey, and Dan Krane, a professor at Wright State and the head of a DNA profiling company.
 
Peter Gill

“The misuse of DNA evidence in Mr. Holtzclaw’s trial – and the failure of defense counsel to challenge it – went to the heart of the case and deprived Mr. Holtzclaw of a fair trial,” the report states. “We are concerned that forensic science mistakes were made during collection, analysis, and testimony about the DNA evidence from the fly of Mr. Holtzclaw’s uniform pants, with prosecutorial misconduct violating Mr. Holtzclaw’s rights to due process. Trial defense counsel did not effectively reveal or address these errors, in violation of the Sixth Amendment requirement for effective counsel, causing the DNA evidence to be extremely prejudicial even though it had little probative value because it could be explained by non-intimate DNA indirect transfer.” Conservative Review

One of the authors of the report is Professor Peter Gill, one of Alec Jeffryes' coauthors on the 1985 paper in Nature, a paper that was among the very first written on DNA profiling.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
“The misuse of DNA evidence in Mr. Holtzclaw’s trial – and the failure of defense counsel to challenge it – went to the heart of the case and deprived Mr. Holtzclaw of a fair trial,” the report states. “We are concerned that forensic science mistakes were made during collection, analysis, and testimony about the DNA evidence from the fly of Mr. Holtzclaw’s uniform pants, with prosecutorial misconduct violating Mr. Holtzclaw’s rights to due process. Trial defense counsel did not effectively reveal or address these errors, in violation of the Sixth Amendment requirement for effective counsel, causing the DNA evidence to be extremely prejudicial even though it had little probative value because it could be explained by non-intimate DNA indirect transfer.” Conservative Review

One of the authors of the report is Professor Peter Gill, one of Alec Jeffryes' coauthors on the 1985 paper in Nature, a paper that was among the very first written on DNA profiling.
Click to expand...

Er, the argument is that the <ahem> 'intimate DNA' got there by 'indirect transfer'?
 
sub-source DNA

The DNA in question is sub-source, meaning that there is no fluid or tissue that can be associated with it. As the authors of the report indicated, secondary and tertiary transfers of DNA are well documented.
 
more information on Peter Gill

After spending many years at the Forensic Science Service, Peter Gill became professor of forensic genetics at the University of Oslo. He was the chair of the DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics, and he has published more than 180 peer-reviewed papers. John Butler, the author of a respected textbook on DNA profiling, wrote, “In my opinion, over the past three decades no one has done more to advance forensic DNA analysis and interpretation than Peter Gill.”
 
Chris_Halkides said:
For those who wish to learn about DNA transfer, forensic serology, and why the source of the DNA is important (issues relevant to the present case), Suzanna Ryan's blog has some good articles. Peter Gill's book, Misleading DNA Evidence is also quite useful.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting blog. I think without being informed, many people would tend to assume that advances in technology make DNA evidence more reliable. IIUC, the increased sensitivity of testing means DNA evidence can have less probative value than in the past (even when not the result of laboratory contamination).

Not explaining those issues properly to a jury would be a recipe for disaster given how much weight juries place on DNA evidence.
 
some problems with going low

Elaedith said:
That is an interesting blog. I think without being informed, many people would tend to assume that advances in technology make DNA evidence more reliable. IIUC, the increased sensitivity of testing means DNA evidence can have less probative value than in the past (even when not the result of laboratory contamination).

Not explaining those issues properly to a jury would be a recipe for disaster given how much weight juries place on DNA evidence.
Click to expand...
Let me comment in a general way first, and if I have time later, I will come back to the specific issues at play in the Holtzclaw case. The smaller amounts of DNA that can now be detected versus (let us say) 25 years ago have more than one potential problem. One is that it might not be possible to associate a tissue or fluid source for this small amount of DNA. As Peter Gill has cogently argued, the test for DNA is different from a test for blood or semen. DNA without a known source ("sub-source" DNA) has less evidentiary value. In addition there is the issue that you mentioned, of laboratory contamination or other innocent transfer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom