The Circus-Like Trial
Daniel’s jury heard protesters chanting “give him life” during testimony, shared a hallway with the crowd on the way in and out, and was refused sequestration until deliberations. The Court of Criminal Appeals said none of that prejudiced him. UNCUFF thinks it did.
The jury could hear protesters chanting "give him life."
During testimony, protesters outside the courthouse chanted Give him life.
Defense counsel told Judge Timothy Henderson that the noise made it difficult to hear the witness, and Henderson acknowledged that the chants could be heard clearly inside. Trial Tr. 2303–06.
Voir dire turned repeatedly to Ferguson and Baltimore.
Inside the courtroom, voir dire repeatedly turned to Ferguson, Baltimore, and rioting surrounding other police cases. Defense counsel objected that the questioning was getting "dangerously close to societal alarm" and could leave jurors with the impression that an acquittal might bring the same kind of unrest to Oklahoma City. He told the court he could see jurors nodding as the subject was discussed. Trial Tr. 286–90.
Jurors shared the hallway with the crowd and media.
Jurors had to use the same hallway as the crowd and media covering the trial. Defense counsel told the court it was "literally getting nuts out there." During one break, the hallway reportedly held more than 100 people while media interviews were conducted. The prosecutor acknowledged that it was "very, very crowded" and full of activity. Trial Tr. 1530–32.
The jury also used the public restrooms and elevators off the same hallway, leaving jurors in that common area during breaks. The court tried to confine interviews to a roped-off area, still within sight of jurors, but the disruptions continued. Trial Tr. 1531–36, 2317, 4315.
A protester shouted "racist jury" in front of two jurors.
By the end of trial, the pressure was no longer directed only at Daniel. During a break on the tenth day, a protester in the hallway shouted "racist cop" and "racist jury" in front of two jurors. Trial Tr. 2315–18; Holtzclaw v. State, 2019 OK CR 17, 448 P.3d 1134, ¶ 31.
The court declined to sequester the jury.
As the protests intensified, the defense asked Judge Henderson to sequester the jury because of "all the protesting and yelling and screaming." The request was denied. Henderson instead instructed jurors to disregard the outside influences. Trial Tr. 2316–21. He took other steps as the trial went on: a deputy in the hallway at every break, the media cordoned away from the jurors' stairwell and elevators, jurors released first at recesses with the floor cleared behind them, and permission to wait in the courtroom until a recess ended. Holtzclaw v. State, 2019 OK CR 17, 448 P.3d 1134, ¶¶ 26–27, 31.
Sequestration came hours into deliberations, after every exposure described above. Trial Tr. 4315.
The Court of Criminal Appeals found no prejudice.
Randall T. Coyne and J. Christian Adams sought leave to file an amicus brief arguing that the timing of the chants suggested a message directed toward the jury. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied leave on March 31, 2017, so the brief was never accepted as an amicus filing. Order Denying Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, Holtzclaw v. State, No. F-2016-62 (Okla. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2017); Trial Tr. 2303–06, 2318.
Coyne and Adams argued that protesters had a right to speak but not a right to direct advocacy toward jurors deciding a criminal case. Their proposed brief urged measures such as moving the demonstrations, relocating the proceedings, or sequestering the jury so that the advocacy would not reach the fact-finders.
The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Daniel’s claim on direct appeal. It counted sixty-six admonitions to the jury, listed the trial judge’s protective measures, found no evidence that a juror had been approached or improperly influenced, and noted that the defense had not requested a change of venue or a different courtroom. The court also treated the split verdict — eighteen convictions and eighteen acquittals — as evidence that jurors followed the instructions and considered the counts separately. Holtzclaw v. State, 2019 OK CR 17, ¶¶ 23–33.
UNCUFF disagrees with that conclusion. The measures Henderson imposed were substantial, but they did not prevent the two most serious documented exposures: punishment chants audible during testimony, and a protester shouting "racist jury" in front of two jurors. In our view, those incidents warranted sequestering the jury for the remainder of the trial.
Explore the rest of the case.
Daniel Holtzclaw: case summary
A summary of the whole case: the investigation, the DNA, the accusers, the trial, and where things stand.
The DNAHow the State Distorted the DNA Evidence
A trace of DNA, less than a car door handle leaves, and no stain. The prosecutor called it “fact” that it came from a rape.
The analystThe Analyst In Her Own Words
The State’s only forensic witness, on video: what she looked for, what she didn’t test, what she told the prosecutor, and what her opinions rested on.
The emailsEvidence Destruction
The analyst’s email account was deleted while the appeal was pending. What the State later recovered began after the trial was over.
The searchHow the State Manufactured Accusers
Nine of thirteen accusers were found by police, who opened with a “tip” that didn’t exist. Thirty-some other women said nothing happened.
Accuser evidenceWhat Police Never Checked
Missing recordings and what the objective records actually showed, once each woman had made her allegation.
Case studyTerri Morris
How Morris's allegation changed, how police selected May 8, and what the AVL records do and do not show.
The first accuserJannie Ligons
The June 18 allegation, the unrecorded first interview, and the negative forensic test results.
Case studySherry Ellis
How police found Ellis, the description that did not match Daniel, and her later testimony that she had never seen him before trial.
Case studyKala Lyles
Twenty or thirty minutes through the fly, hours before the pants were seized. Her DNA wasn’t there, and the patrol car’s records leave about eleven minutes.
The fly“I Don’t Know How He Did It.”
Jannie Ligons said it at trial. Eight of the nine women who alleged rape or oral sodomy placed the act through the fly of pants that stayed on. Under the uniform, Daniel wore compression shorts with no fly. Getting past them would take work. Nobody has ever explained how he was able to extricate himself with so little time and effort.
Guilt by associationOne Accuser’s DNA Carried Twelve Others
The only physical evidence belonged to one accuser. All thirteen were tried together, and jurors later said the DNA got deliberations moving when they doubted some of the others.
The manWho Daniel Was
A rookie his supervisors called eager and liked by all, whose phone and work computer held nothing incriminating, and who sat for two hours with the detectives accusing him and urged them to test his DNA.
Help fund the work.
UNCUFF funds investigation, expert review, records work, post-conviction litigation, and telling the stories of wrongfully convicted people to the public.