TSJ Thread

[aaeismacgychel]

SIGH, I need to correct myself once again. The penultimate paragraph of the TSJ motion seems to say that the profiles were not developed, and that because they were not developed, we do not know if the "foreign" DNA was male or female. At this point I am not sure I understand the point of the motion at all. TSJ says both that samples containing such low ng/uL amounts cannot be reliably profiled, and that the samples should be excluded from evidence because they failed to conduct that unreliable profile.

What am I missing?

So I am not a lawyer and this is certainly conjecture, but as someone who has been a juror multiple times and a foreman once, sometimes jurors can get stuck in the weeds when there's confusing or misleading testimony and I think Kansas' DNA expert could indeed fit that bill and TSJ'S defense team may look at them as someone best to be avoided.

Reason I say that is that I'd assume Kansas' forensic expert would state that they found trace amounts of male DNA, that this is "typical" for these type of touch cases, that there often is no smoking gun in these circumstances, and that in their experience, this does help to affirm the accusers testimony and does not preclude TSJ from committing said assault. Now the expert in reality is saying absolutely nothing, but it is misleading and it may actually play to some jurors, especially jurors who may be bringing their own biases or even racism the courtroom.

Whether you as a dependent can get it out there that there are trace amounts of male DNA but none yours, it may not be all that different than making sure no DNA is discussed in the trial making it a very flimsy he said she said case. That's my thoughts as to maybe why they're going this route

 

[1m4tr]

If TSJ had those six games back, do you think the Illini would still have ended up playing UConn when they did?

 

[skyIdub]

I am a Forensic DNA analyst for a living.........

IANAFDNAA......BANANAFANNAFOFANNA....FEE FI FOFANNA....


Also.....I realize this is serious adult stuff....but me reading the descriptive terminology...

 

[2qtslow]

The accuser's friend stated "she and [accuser] had just gotten their first drink, but had not consumed much of it."

That could just mean first drink at the Jayhawk, or first drink of the evening. Would be helpful to clarify.

Agreed. It could mean that, or it could mean what I said. I don't think we have much clarity on this to date. I am not sure it is all that important unless there is some evidence she was falling down drunk and unable to recall her surroundings. Otherwise, just how much she drank while underage is no defense at all to a rape charge.

 

[2qtslow]

So I am not a lawyer and this is certainly conjecture, but as someone who has been a juror multiple times and a foreman once, sometimes jurors can get stuck in the weeds when there's confusing or misleading testimony and I think Kansas' DNA expert could indeed fit that bill and TSJ'S defense team may look at them as someone best to be avoided.

Reason I say that is that I'd assume Kansas' forensic expert would state that they found trace amounts of male DNA, that this is "typical" for these type of touch cases, that there often is no smoking gun in these circumstances, and that in their experience, this does help to affirm the accusers testimony and does not preclude TSJ from committing said assault. Now the expert in reality is saying absolutely nothing, but it is misleading and it may actually play to some jurors, especially jurors who may be bringing their own biases or even racism the courtroom.

Whether you as a dependent can get it out there that there are trace amounts of male DNA but none yours, it may not be all that different than making sure no DNA is discussed in the trial making it a very flimsy he said she said case. That's my thoughts as to maybe why they're going this route

Oh, you make some really good points here. While I am (or at least was) a lawyer, I regret that I have never served on a jury. When I tell the court I have worked for the DoJ and have done private defense work, I always get excused without being told which side asked me to go away. Both, for all I knew. Maybe retirement will be different, and I will finally make a panel.

 

[FAR Penthouse]

@FAR Penthouse thouse - attachments have been loaded into the board. We anxiously await your comments!

What I've read supports my earlier conjecture back on page 1 of this thread about a "junk science" interpretation of the results. Kind of reminds me Ted Graham's case out of Taylorville that got a DUI blood draw result banned because they used an alcohol prep-pad to disinfect the site of the draw. Illinois Administrative Rules regarding blood draws in DUI's specifically stated that alcohol prep-pads were not to be used. SO for future cases they changed the administrative rule and eliminated that language, substituting that it be done in a medically reasonable manner. Problem was they didn't really fix it because the manufacturer of the pads instructions still stated they shouldn't be used for DUI blood draws , and when you don't follow their instructions it's tough to say what you did was medically reasonable. I think they finally got it fixed by using a prep-pad that didn't contain alcohol. DNA has now been around too long to argue it should be excluded under Frye, but the methodology and conclusions you draw can be subject to the same types of critiques that it wasn't scientifically reasonable to draw a conclusion when the manufacturer of what you're using in your tests says you can get false results under a certain threshold. On what his defense team is trying to bar, after reading the full motion I agree with NickSmith's conclusion.

 

[JFGsCoffeeMug]

Is this what you're looking for?

Thanks. Finally got a look at the entire motion.

It's pretty simple. TSJ's attorneys are challenging both the validity of the DNA testing (that it wasn't done according to the recommended specifications of that particular type of kit) and the State's expert's opinions based upon those DNA testing results (opinions reflected in the prepared expert report and those anticipated at trial). If the Court agrees that the DNA testing wasn't done properly, then those results can be kept out as unreliable under Daubert. Similarly, if the State's expert's reliance on said DNA testing or their own methodology is questionable, the report can be kept out and/or the expert can be excluded as an expert witness.

 

[NCIllini10]

Obviously, it isn't official, but I have read and seen everything talked about and posted so far in this thread... I agree that it's mostly pointing to at least a dismissal of charges at some point with full exoneration on the table as well. With that being said, I felt the need to talk about Terrence some. When the news of charges originally broke, I was shocked. I do not know Terrence well, but have met him, and follow the program very closely. At no point did I ever internally think he actually did what he was accused of, I believed him to be smarter than that. He knew what was at stake, his future, his entire life. However, externally I made the personal decision to not tweet/post/mention his name in a positive (or negative light) because of my respect for actual victims of sexual assault and abuse. If I did ever have anything to say about him, I would just use his jersey number to get my point across.

Now, I want to scream this out loud. Terrence Shannon Jr. is the greatest Illini of my generation (I was born in 95). He is better than Brian Cook, he is better than Frank, he is better than D-Will and Dee Brown (who I loved, obviously, based on my profile picture.) He was better than Brandon Paul, Demetri McCamey, and even better than Kofi and Ayo. Don't get that twisted with importance to the program, but he was also very important to the program.

He was boo'd, he was called a rapist, the crowds chanted no means no! every time he went to the line, and FOX and ESPN purposefully turned up crowd mics and announcers stopped talking to let them be heard clearer, and they were wrong. The kid did nothing but played hard and handled it all like a pro, even though he wasn't a pro yet, and under all that pressure: the nasty mistreatment, the slander of his name, and the hate, he still almost led us to the Natty.

I wanted to give TSJ his flowers. His jersey should be hung in the rafters of the Assembly Hall. Terrence Shannon Junior, Illinois legend. ILL

Whether or not he was the greatest Illini of the last 30 years is debatable. There are definitely arguments to be made on both sides. However, as for the rest of your post, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. He is an incredibly soft spoken, humble guy, who lets his game do the talking. He is definitely one of my favorites of all time. I wish nothing but the best for him, and I hate that he had to go through all the hate.

 

[nicksmith4three]

I really wish I knew what the KBI protocols were for their reporting. The protocols are based on their internal validation. The KBI's internal validation sets the limit of detection for the Quant kit. Not what is suggested by the manufacturer. The manufacturer does not validate to the level of a caseworking lab.

Furthermore, the lab is accredited and subject to audits all the time from outside agencies that pour over their validations and protocols and make sure they are doing things appropriately.

 

[BfosterL]

He could sue the alleged victim for malicious prosecution. In theory he could sue the prosecutor as well but that's a much higher burden since they enjoy more immunity in these situations and TSJ would basically have to show that they went far beyond the scope of their duties. This usually only happens when it's proof they either fabricated evidence or withheld evidence showing a full exoneration but went forth with charges anyway.

To me, this wouldn't be an avenue I would recommend unless there is clear and convincing evidence where the victim knowingly fabricated facts. This would just keep him further exposed to relitigating the issue altogether with the alleged victim at least trying to show it was possible he was a perpetrator.

The allege victim didn't prosecute, she reported the incident to police, and they took it from there. She did not go on social media accusing TSJ of malicious acts, etc. I don't believe TSJ did anything, but that doesn't mean she doesn't really believe he was a person who did this. With no physical evidence it is one person's word versus the other. Benefits TSJ's case and her if she was sued.

In many states, someone wrongly convicted and imprisoned cannot receive compensation from the state even if there is some funny business going on with prosecution.

 

[BfosterL]

I confess I wondered the same thing. DNA tests were taken, and while they do not prove TSJ innocent, the KBI report strikes me as being quite honest in admitting that the results were totally inconclusive.

And while "slut-shaming" is absolutely forbidden at trial, if the report does come in to evidence and it shows that it was at least possible that there were as many as three men in and around her pants in the prior 72 hours or so (I think 72 hours is about as long as DNA can be taken on these facts, but I have not looked it up), a deliberating jury could very well engage in some "slut-shaming" as part of their deliberation. And that could very well lead them to conclude that reasonable doubt was present. Of course, the jury instructions could warn them not to engage in "slut-shaming" but it seems to me that doing that just calls even more attention to the problem.

I am a retired lawyer, and I did not do much criminal work when I was active, so don't put too much weight on my opinion. When the TSJ thread was active previously, at least a couple of lawyers who appeared to know their stuff chimed in. I hope they will return. NickSmith4three may prove the forum's most valuable resource of all in making sense of all this.

3 males DNA around her pants or on her buttocks or other places certainly doesn't mean she had any sexual relations with these men. To assume that is what it is from is absurd. Anyone in a crowded night club most likely will have others DNA. Hug someone, shake a hand, etc... wipe yourself after going to restroom, boom.

 

[NarrowJ]

What I've read supports my earlier conjecture back on page 1 of this thread about a "junk science" interpretation of the results. Kind of reminds me Ted Graham's case out of Taylorville that got a DUI blood draw result banned because they used an alcohol prep-pad to disinfect the site of the draw. Illinois Administrative Rules regarding blood draws in DUI's specifically stated that alcohol prep-pads were not to be used. SO for future cases they changed the administrative rule and eliminated that language, substituting that it be done in a medically reasonable manner. Problem was they didn't really fix it because the manufacturer of the pads instructions still stated they shouldn't be used for DUI blood draws , and when you don't follow their instructions it's tough to say what you did was medically reasonable. I think they finally got it fixed by using a prep-pad that didn't contain alcohol. DNA has now been around too long to argue it should be excluded under Frye, but the methodology and conclusions you draw can be subject to the same types of critiques that it wasn't scientifically reasonable to draw a conclusion when the manufacturer of what you're using in your tests says you can get false results under a certain threshold. On what his defense team is trying to bar, after reading the full motion I agree with NickSmith's conclusion.

Wild to see Ted Graham's name on here. Guy absolutely saved my life, no joke.

 

[alaskaillini]

As a lawyer, I have always been excluded. But years ago the wife of a lawyer colleague of mine had the opportunity to serve on a jury - with the Chief Justice of the State of Alaska Supreme Court. I think both lawyers must have been afraid to use a preemptory challenge on him.

 

[IlliniFan42]

I would suspect the defense is concerned that the county has a history of using an expert witness to go far beyond their purview. In the Albert Wilson case, it was Dr. John Spiridigliozzi, a psychologist. In the document this discussion is based around, Shannon's defense lays out the prosecution's plan- they'll bring in a DNA expert who will state that male DNA was found. If Shannon had Wilson's defense lawyer (which thankfully he doesn't), his lawyer would nod up and down and Shannon would be found guilty.

 

[oldman]

I assume the Kansas rules of evidence require the court to weigh the prejudicial effect versus the probative value of the DNA evidence. Even assuming the Kansas testing processes, which apparently deviate from the manufacturer's, have been sufficiently evaluated to withstand the Dauber challenge, the amount of conjecture in this discussion highlights why the court should exclude the evidence.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Wild to see Ted Graham's name on here. Guy absolutely saved my life, no joke.

Mmmmmm…. life saving Teddy Grahams!

 

[mrh vet]

What I've read supports my earlier conjecture back on page 1 of this thread about a "junk science" interpretation of the results. Kind of reminds me Ted Graham's case out of Taylorville that got a DUI blood draw result banned because they used an alcohol prep-pad to disinfect the site of the draw. Illinois Administrative Rules regarding blood draws in DUI's specifically stated that alcohol prep-pads were not to be used. SO for future cases they changed the administrative rule and eliminated that language, substituting that it be done in a medically reasonable manner. Problem was they didn't really fix it because the manufacturer of the pads instructions still stated they shouldn't be used for DUI blood draws , and when you don't follow their instructions it's tough to say what you did was medically reasonable. I think they finally got it fixed by using a prep-pad that didn't contain alcohol. DNA has now been around too long to argue it should be excluded under Frye, but the methodology and conclusions you draw can be subject to the same types of critiques that it wasn't scientifically reasonable to draw a conclusion when the manufacturer of what you're using in your tests says you can get false results under a certain threshold. On what his defense team is trying to bar, after reading the full motion I agree with NickSmith's conclusion.

40 years ago I tried a dui-death case and got bac results suppressed based on an alcohol swab being used before the blood draw. They actually did a test in open court in CA years ago where the deputy da was the test subject and the results were materially different. If you wait and let the swab evaporate it will not effect the results and if you use a gas chromatograph it can distinguish between ethyl alcohol (booze) and isopropyl alcohol (disinfectant) Anyway Shannon being found innocent at a trial based on reasonable doubt seems highly certain the problem is the upcoming draft and I doubt anyone spends a first round pick with that uncertainty. DNA results seem to say this will be strictly a credibility case with little other evidence. Makes no sense to ruin someone's life on credibility it calls for common sense and prosecutorial discretion something I fear is lacking. The charges need to get dismissed, plea to a misdemeanor or get a finding of no probable cause before the draft

 

[Illini in Italy]

I had a criminal law professor back in college who summarized circumstantial evidence and the roles of the attorneys on both sides of the courtroom well enough to stick with me for many decades:

All evidence in every case has holes in a figurative line that can be drawn from the crime to the defendant. It is the prosecution's job to make those holes as small as possible so there can be no doubt in the jury's mind that the defendant is guilty. It is the defense attorney's job to make those holes so large that any jury would conclude that there is sufficient reasonable doubt and there was way the defendant committed the offense. It might be an overly simplistic model, but it always kept things straight in my mind.

IANAL, I worked in the law enforcement field early in my career, and saw this concept in action on military court martials where I was a member of the panel.

 

[Illini Obsessed]

He was surrounded by basketball players and she's a freshman community college student who misidentified Justin Harmon as a KU player. She picked a tall guy who got unlucky that his hair would be the easiest to remember and then she scoured the KU and Illini rosters looking for a matching haircut.

Ding, ding, ding....we have a winner!!!

 

[Illini Obsessed]

He was surrounded by basketball players and she's a freshman community college student who misidentified Justin Harmon as a KU player. She picked a tall guy who got unlucky that his hair would be the easiest to remember and then she scoured the KU and Illini rosters looking for a matching haircut.

Ding,ding,ding....we have a winner!

 

[FreshlySqueezed]

This is likely not true for campus bars. In Champaign you could be 18 and be allowed in the campus bars.

This isn't quite accurate. From 2000-2004, at least, Urbana was 18 and Champaign was 19. And I've been to most Big Ten campuses and only Iowa and Illinois allowed people under the age of 21 into bars.

 

[Battle89]

This isn't quite accurate. From 2000-2004, at least, Urbana was 18 and Champaign was 19. And I've been to most Big Ten campuses and only Iowa and Illinois allowed people under the age of 21 into bars.

Same in the late 80s. Freshman kept Urbana Thunderbird’s open long after its expiration date.

 

[SescIllini]

Legal question regarding DNA, why would the defense ask to remove the DNA since TSJ genetic material wasn't identified amongst the males genetic material. I would think the defense would say, you took DNA and you found male DNA..... but it wasn't my male client.

 

[2qtslow]

Legal question regarding DNA, why would the defense ask to remove the DNA since TSJ genetic material wasn't identified amongst the males genetic material. I would think the defense would say, you took DNA and you found male DNA..... but it wasn't my male client.

Because the sample size was too small to tell if it was or was not TSJs DNA. The state might argue it at least corroborates her story. She said he put his hand in her panties, and they found male DNA in those panties. Had they found no male DNA at all, I think TSJ would argue that suggests no man's hands were in her panties that night; i.e., that she has a real credibility problem.

We don't really know what the KBI report says. We only know what TSJ's lawyers and hired experts have to say about that report. For me, at least the TSJ and expert statements are not models of clarity.

 

[IllinoisssssssVarsity]

Because the sample size was too small to tell if it was or was not TSJs DNA. The state might argue it at least corroborates her story. She said he put his hand in her panties, and they found male DNA in those panties. Had they found no male DNA at all, I think TSJ would argue that suggests no man's hands were in her panties that night; i.e., that she has a real credibility problem.

We don't really know what the KBI report says. We only know what TSJ's lawyers and hired experts have to say about that report. For me, at least the TSJ and expert statements are not models of clarity.

I would also think you’d want it thrown out in the unfortunate event this case lasts for a ridiculously long time, and technology improves to the point that even smaller dna samples can positively identify someone.

I’m not saying tsj is guilty or innocent by saying that, just seems like technology in this area seems to improve pretty rapidly, so it seems like a smart move.