DNA as Evidence

DARRIN LYNN PICKENS, Plaintiff, v. STEVE KUNZWEILER, District Attorney for Tulsa County; DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, Defendants. 15-CV-504-JHP-PJC. (2015).

Darrin Pickens was convicted of robbery with a firearm after previously being convicted of several other felonies such as, shooting with the intent to kill, assault with the intent to kill, and first degree murder.

Pickens filled for several petitions under the post-conviction relief act. All of Picken’s petitions were unsuccessful. After his unsuccessful petitions, Pickens requested for post-conviction DNA testing in 2014. The request was initially denied because Pickens did not have the affidavit, consequently, was not able to have DNA testing. Later that year, Pickens filed for a second motion. The court also denied the second motion requesting DNA testing. Picken’s appealed and in May 2015, a procedural bar was imposed.

In later August 2015, Picken’s filed a civil rights complaint. He claimed that investigators collected many items that may contain DNA during the investigation and the DA’s office withheld those DNA results from him. So Picken’s is requesting the evidence be retested using new technology. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice in late April of 2016. While DNA testing was never re-performed with new technology, the results should have been made clear, if tests were ever performed in the first place.

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oklahoma/okndce/ 4:2015cv00504/39398/12

Forensic Summary by Marissa Felinczak 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s