CROOKED OKLAMHOMA "JUSTICE" FINALLY PAID OUT

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A man who spent 15 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit has settled with the city for $4 million over botched testimony by a police chemist. The City Council approved a resolution Tuesday admitting no liability in the settlement of a federal lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Todd Pierce, who was released from prison in 2001 based on DNA testing.



The testing showed sperm and hairs taken from the scene of a rape at an apartment complex could not have been his. The police chemist, Joyce Gilchrist [above], testified in 1986 that hair left by the rapist was "microscopically consistent" with Pierce's hair. Gilchrist was fired in 2001 after investigations of her work in a number of cases. An FBI report found that Gilchrist misidentified hair and fibers in at least six criminal cases and gave testimony that went beyond what her science showed. Gilchrist's attorney, Melvin Hall, did not immediately return phone messages Wednesday.

Pierce's attorney, Clark Brewster, also did not immediately return phone message for comment Wednesday. Councilman Pete White said the settlement was good for taxpayers and also fair to Pierce. "The city could have been hit for much more," White said. "This guy was wronged, there's no two ways about it. He had no record at all. He was completely clean. He was an innocent man."

Report here

Background on the Pierce case:

The Jeffrey Todd Pierce case began on May 8, 1985 when a woman temporarily residing in Oklahoma City was raped. Events involved and the actions of various parties involved were detailed in a Daily Oklahoman news report dated 5/06/01 and titled, Report expected to clear convict

On May 8, 1985, she was leaving to go to work when she noticed a man looking at her who quickly disappeared into the bushes. She thought the man was holding a yard tool, so she assumed he worked at the apartment complex.

When she returned to her apartment about noon, she discovered a window had been broken and the apartment was in disarray. Her attacker appeared from another room, threatening her with a knife and overpowering her.

The victim thought her attacker was the same man she had seen outside her apartment earlier that day. Pierce was a groundskeeper at the apartment complex and working the day of the attack.

Up to this point the details of the incident as reported in the referenced article would suggest that the apartment groundskeeper was a likely suspect. However, the following casts grievous doubts:

The patrol officer who first responded that day pointed out Pierce to the victim while she was sitting in the squad car. He asked her if there was any possibility Pierce was the attacker. She replied, "I don't think so."

Keep that "I don't think so." in mind as you read the remainder of this web page

A detective wrote in a police report two months later that it was his "personal feeling" that the rapist was a maintenance man or groundskeeper.

Pierce, who had no prior criminal history, was arrested 10 months after the attack when the victim did identify him from a photo line-up as the rapist.

On the day of the attack when asked if Mr. Pierce was the attacker, the victim stated "I don't think so.". Two months later a police detective's "personal feeling" dictated it was a maintenance man or groundskeeper and eight months later still the victim decides she was wrong originally and it was Mr. Pierce that raped her. The referenced news report went on to indicate

Pierce, then 24, was tried in October 1986 before DNA analysis technology existed. He was identified as the assailant by the victim, who told jurors, "I will never forget his face." Pierce had two witnesses who said he was at lunch with them when the rape occurred.

How does one get from "I don't think so." to "I will never forget his face." without "help", lots of help? And just what party or parties supplied that help? Further quoting that Daily Oklahoman report

Gilchrist testified at the trial that 28 scalp hairs and three pubic hairs from the crime scene were all "microscopically consistent" with Pierce's hair. Jurors were told Gilchrist spent six days making the hair comparisons.

Prosecutor Barry Albert drove home the importance of the hair evidence in closing arguments, telling jurors the odds would be "totally astronomical" for Gilchrist to have made a mistake.

When Mr. Pierce's appeals attorney pointed out to the Oklahoma Appeals Court that Gilchrist had refused the trial judge's order to turn hair samples over to an independent lab for testing, the Oklahoma Appeals Court ruled that Gilchrist absolutely violated that order but refused to order a new trial. The court said the defense had an "equal obligation" to make sure the order was obeyed.

A conviction which in hindsight resulted in the following comment from Mr. Roy D. Orr, one of the Pierce jurors:

"I feel like I was part of a scam. The evidence wasn't correct and we counted on the police department and forensic specialists to be honest and truthful, and that wasn't the case".

"I feel like everyone was done an injustice, especially Jeffrey. He was very young. His wife was very young and they had little babies. Where would he have been if this wouldn't have happened?"

On August 29th, 2001 both the Tulsa World and the Daily Oklahoman carried reports of an announcement from Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation revealing the evidence used to falsely convict Jeffrey Todd Pierce matches the DNA profile of a prison inmate now serving 45 years for rape and robbery. The fact that the statute of limitations has expired on the crime for which Mr. Pierce was falsely convicted likely means the real culprit will likely never be charged with the crime for which Mr. Pierce spent 15 years in prison.

Report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)