Other lawyers may feel differently, but you absolutely assess your client's perceived credibility when considering whether to put him on the stand. Your personal opinion about his "guilt" doesn't really matter. I'm just speculating, but the fact that TSJ has likely received media training and is comfortable speaking in a public forum was probably a factor in being willing to put him up there.
TSJ Thread
What is your source for these two "tests"? I thought there was one set of tests, but both the prosecution and defense have witnesses (experts) who could testify about the one set of tests.
I have the impression there is one set of DNA evidence with two interpretations.
The DNA found in the underwear apparently might be an undetermined male? The prosecution might try to imply it could be Shannon's.
Yeah I don't believe there are two sets. There is the Kansas labs results and then the defense experts report and interpretation on the Kansas results. 1 test...2 interpretations. One interpretation (kansas) based on laboratory validations and one (defense) based what? Their own rules? An I am not specifically talking about the male quantity below the manufacturer recommended values. I am talking about them interpretting ystr mixtures that it's my hunch the Kansas lab would not interpret based on their protocols.
Yes, you’re correct. I should’ve have said there were differing analyses (prosecution expert vs defense expert) of the one test. It is the testimony of prosecution’s expert that the defense wishes to exclude, presumably to stop any inference that the unidentified male DNA could possibly be TSJ’s.
I'm also going to throw this out there because it is relevant, not making judgements, but there may be certain traits of the accuser's that might be viewed poorly by some members of a jury, that point in a similar direction that the one sample of DNA evidence showing three males while ruling out Shannon points to.
I am a lawyer, though I don't do a lot of criminal work. This is a saying I've heard in the law biz several times, and while I'll concede it's a bit simplistic (and maybe a trifle cynical) I also think there's some truth to it. As I said there are a lot of exceptions and I am not giving any legal advice to TSJ. But there are reasons why Shannon might opt for a bench trial.
1. Juries are less predictable than judges. If I'm innocent (and I'm inclined to think TSJ is) then I want fewer random factors.
2. A judge has more experience with lawyers and is more likely to distinguish legitimate arguments about the law or the facts from table-pounding and grandstanding. If I'm innocent, I'm figuring it's the prosecution who is going to be doing most of the table pounding.
3. If I'm TSJ I'm not shooting for a hung jury, I want Not Guilty. I don't want the prosecution to have the option of retrying the case. I wouldn't assume that the prosecution would drop this if there's a jung jury. And with a jury there's always the risk that there's one or two jurors with an axe to grind against out-of-staters or athletes or men in general or whatever. If I'm TSJ I want this thing over with.
4. I might be more willing to trust one individual if I know his or her track record. A judge is more of a known quantity. You're more likely to know about any biases and you can get advice from other attorneys about how to present your case -- what to emphasize and what to avoid. You may even have worked with the judge before and have a bit of a rapport.
5. There's research out there showing that bench trials have a higher acquittal rate than juries.
Again, TSJ has his own legal team and if they opt for a jury they probably have good strategic reasons. I'm certainly not concluding that he must be guilty.
From my understanding of the statements by the defense along with the released filing, it appears that there was technically 5 different swabs (tests) that were performed, and the difference is the analysis/interpretation of those tests. This difference appears to be that the defense is saying that the DNA recovered was well below the established threshold for what would qualify as a legally significant or enterable amount of evidence and that none of what was recovered identifies the defendant. As such, the defense is saying that any dna evidence results should be inadmissible as should any testimony of an expert witness for the State presenting this as evidence of likelihood of sexual assault taking place. The State/DA has made no official response but we'll find out what the result of this is in the preliminary hearing.
The following is conjecture, but it very much sounds like TSJ's lawyers are indicating that there was no DNA evidence found that specifically identifies TSJ, and that the State's expert witness is intending to use the presence of trace amounts of male DNA as giving more significant credence to the alleged victim's testimony that she was touched/assaulted (i.e. an expert witness saying that male DNA was present it just wasn't a large enough sample to conclusively indicate TSJ per legal standards). And if that is indeed the case, I do think the defense has a very relevant reason for trying to get this thrown out before the trial, as that would be an incredibly misleading testimony as it would make it sound that TSJ's DNA was present but it just wasn't enough to be conclusive, versus the more accurate testimony of "nothing of scientific significance per testing standards was found". But again, the defense is the only side doing any talking right now, so we'll find out what the State actually has soon enough.
Yes, I believe the defense wants to be able to throw out the results from the underwear because it's below manufacturer threshold. They want to be able to interpret and exclude TSJ from the results that they have and lastly I would assume they want the results or lack of male DNA results from the vaginal area.
In the federal system and every state of which I’m aware, the prosecution has to consent to a bench trial in a criminal case.
I have yet to see any competent evidence that DNA from three men was found upon the person or clothing of the alleged victim. I think that claim was just bad reporting by someone.
The interpretation is that the DNA could have been from X number of people, not that it was from X number of different people.
Last edited:
In 1.3, I thought "at least" means they had to be unique individuals, not 3 samples from the same individual.
Except that they also seem to say those same samples might not contain any DNA at all given the minute size of the samples. The writing is not a model of clarity, either.
I don't believe they're challenging the presence of DNA, but the usability of what is present due to the miniscule volume. 1.3 exonerates Shannon but 1.4, due to being too small, cannot eliminate him and would be the key piece by the prosecution to state he could be one of the two males in that sample.
At least means that the mixture looks like there are 3 males present but we can never be 100% sure with an unknown evidence sample so it is more conservative to say "at least"
Could it simply be noise in the test process? You know better than the rest of us just how microscopic these samples are.
No, if they are following their validation based on their instruments and kits, then they know at what level something can be considered noise and what is a real dna peak. The analysis software will be set to the level that does not label any of the "noise"
And the threshold would be several standard deviations above what the highest noise observed in their validation. So if anything they are not seeing real dna peaks vs having noise be labeled as a dna peak
I assume this trial will go on the date that is set because maybe there is some external pressure to get it done. Higher profile or whatever, not because they are trying to get it done before the draft.
It would not surprise me in the least if it got continued or set back. I basically ignore my first subpoenas for a case. They almost never go the first time they get scheduled. I was supposed to testify next Monday in a sexual assault case. They had a status hearing today and it got pushed back until September. I've had courts pushed back literally years before they go to trial.
It would not surprise me in the least if it got continued or set back. I basically ignore my first subpoenas for a case. They almost never go the first time they get scheduled. I was supposed to testify next Monday in a sexual assault case. They had a status hearing today and it got pushed back until September. I've had courts pushed back literally years before they go to trial.
Last edited:
I noticed that the Daubert hearing hasn't happened yet. Could that be handled in the preliminary meeting scheduled for the end of the month or must it be a separate date?
Out of my area of expertise, I am just a scientist and have never been a part of a daubert.
The accuser having 3 males DNA certainly does NOT mean she had sexual relations with any. It should not reflect on her at all. In a crowded nightclub most will have others DNA around all over them. Hug someone, hand brushes against them, etc. wipe yourself after going to the bathroom and you have your DNA.
