PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It looks like the Michael Ryan case will be a good case to follow in the spirit of The Charles Smith Blog. The following two stories explain why. In the first (earlier) story, Gaston Gazette Reporter reporter Paul Woolverton reports on Ryan's application to the North Carolina Court of Appeal for a new trial on the following basis: "Is Michael Patrick Ryan a cold-blooded killer who robbed and murdered a Mount Holly man in 2007? Or is Ryan an innocent man wrongly convicted and sent to death row because a co-defendant lied, the prosecution presented a misleading DNA report, and because he had incompetent lawyers who failed to present evidence that would have shown his innocence?" In the second story - a post on "Forensic Resources" a publication of the North Carolina Office of Indigent Services, we zoom ahead in time to the granting of a new trial in this death penalty case for several reasons including the defense’s failure to present expert testimony during trial - and the fact that prosecution’s DNA examiner “failed to follow scientific protocol and included scientifically invalid interpretations of DNA samples.”
FIRST STORY: "Once on death row, Gaston murder suspect wants new trial," by reporter Paul Woolverton, published by The Gaston Gazette on August 28, 2019.
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The prosecution presented misleading DNA evidence from the stamps to the jury, Massengale and Ozer said. DNA testing could not determine if Ryan’s DNA was on the stolen stamps that were found in the shirt on the road, they said. However, the prosecution presented a confusing chart about the DNA results that would mislead a layperson into thinking that Ryan’s DNA was on the Joe Louis stamps, they said. Massengale and Ozer said Ryan’s lawyers failed to get a DNA expert to counter the DNA chart and failed effectively to cross-examine the state’s DNA expert. Further, one of the lawyers acknowledged he had not studied DNA since high school in the 1980s, they said. Babb argued that DNA evidence was not central to the case, that there was overwhelming evidence to convict Ryan without it. Further, she said, “exclusion does not mean someone doesn’t touch an object.” Many factors could affect DNA evidence, such as the environmental — they were outside — and how many times the object is handled."
-----------------------------------------------------------
GIST "Is Michael Patrick Ryan a cold-blooded killer who robbed and murdered a Mount Holly man in 2007? Or is Ryan an innocent man wrongly convicted and sent to death row because a co-defendant lied, the prosecution presented a misleading DNA report, and because he had incompetent lawyers who failed to present evidence that would have shown his innocence? The N.C. Supreme Court heard arguments on these points on Tuesday. The court is deciding whether to uphold a judge’s February 2017 decision in Gaston County Superior Court that granted Ryan a new trial. Ryan was released from prison following the judge’s ruling, and remains in Gaston County Jail awaiting a new trial. The Gaston Gazette has previously reported that in 2010 Ryan wanted to be sentenced to death because he thought the death sentence would give him more opportunities to appeal his case. If Ryan gets a new trial, it would be his third. The first trial was in 2009. It ended with a hung jury that voted 4-4-4, with four in favor of first-degree murder, four in favor of second-degree murder and four in favor of acquittal. Ryan was convicted and sentenced to death at a retrial in 2010. According to the filings in this case and prior news accounts:
• David Farrar was shot to death at his home in Mount Holly on March 20, 2007. He was 66.
• Money, collectibles, coins and other items were taken from Farrar’s house. These included commemorative stamps of boxer Joe Louis and baseball players Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.
• In March 2007, Ryan was in the process of moving from New Jersey to North Carolina with his daughter, then age 12.
• The prosecution contends that Ryan and another man, Wes Adair, committed the crime. The state’s case alleges they attempted to blackmail Farrar with photos of him with young women and then threatened Farrar with a baseball bat and robbed him.
The prosecution case says Farrar reached toward his pocket where he kept his gun, and Ryan reached in, took the gun, shot Farrar multiple times and made Adair shoot his body.
• The defense team says Ryan had nothing to do with the crime. It contends that Ryan was across town with his daughter to enroll her in middle school.
In exchange for his testimony, Adair pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and is serving a sentence of up to 16 years, five months. He is projected to get out of prison in April 2021. Assistant Attorney General Mary Carla Babb said there was plenty of evidence to convict Ryan. This includes Adair’s testimony that he and Ryan went to Farrar’s house to blackmail him, and they then shot Farrar and stole his property, she said. The state’s case also includes a woman’s testimony that Ryan confessed the murder to her, plus other information and findings to corroborate the state’s version of the events. A key piece of evidence that the prosecution and defense are arguing over are a shirt that the prosecution says belonged to Ryan. It had a skull-and-crossbones logo and the phrase “I am a sick boy” written on it, according to Babb’s filing. It was found in a street and had Farrar’s stolen stamps in it. Defense lawyers William Massengale and Marilyn Ozer argued in their brief and to the court that the prosecution witnesses had been involved in drug sales and were unreliable. They say Ryan’s lawyers severely erred by failing to put Ryan’s daughter on the stand to testify at the second trial that she was with him at the middle school and then on a roadside with Ryan when his truck broke down near the school. They say Ryan’s lawyers failed to get cell phone records of a call between the daughter and Ryan’s fiancee when the truck was broken down. Cell phone records can show a person’s location at a specific time. A brief says one of the lawyers said later he thought the jury at the first trial didn’t believe the daughter’s testimony, so he did not use her at the second trial. The prosecution presented misleading DNA evidence from the stamps to the jury, Massengale and Ozer said. DNA testing could not determine if Ryan’s DNA was on the stolen stamps that were found in the shirt on the road, they said. However, the prosecution presented a confusing chart about the DNA results that would mislead a layperson into thinking that Ryan’s DNA was on the Joe Louis stamps, they said. Massengale and Ozer said Ryan’s lawyers failed to get a DNA expert to counter the DNA chart and failed effectively to cross-examine the state’s DNA expert. Further, one of the lawyers acknowledged he had not studied DNA since high school in the 1980s, they said. Babb argued that DNA evidence was not central to the case, that there was overwhelming evidence to convict Ryan without it. Further, she said, “exclusion does not mean someone doesn’t touch an object.” Many factors could affect DNA evidence, such as the environmental — they were outside — and how many times the object is handled."
The entire story can be read at:
• Money, collectibles, coins and other items were taken from Farrar’s house. These included commemorative stamps of boxer Joe Louis and baseball players Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.
• The prosecution contends that Ryan and another man, Wes Adair, committed the crime. The state’s case alleges they attempted to blackmail Farrar with photos of him with young women and then threatened Farrar with a baseball bat and robbed him.
The prosecution case says Farrar reached toward his pocket where he kept his gun, and Ryan reached in, took the gun, shot Farrar multiple times and made Adair shoot his body.
• The defense team says Ryan had nothing to do with the crime. It contends that Ryan was across town with his daughter to enroll her in middle school.
In exchange for his testimony, Adair pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and is serving a sentence of up to 16 years, five months. He is projected to get out of prison in April 2021. Assistant Attorney General Mary Carla Babb said there was plenty of evidence to convict Ryan. This includes Adair’s testimony that he and Ryan went to Farrar’s house to blackmail him, and they then shot Farrar and stole his property, she said. The state’s case also includes a woman’s testimony that Ryan confessed the murder to her, plus other information and findings to corroborate the state’s version of the events. A key piece of evidence that the prosecution and defense are arguing over are a shirt that the prosecution says belonged to Ryan. It had a skull-and-crossbones logo and the phrase “I am a sick boy” written on it, according to Babb’s filing. It was found in a street and had Farrar’s stolen stamps in it. Defense lawyers William Massengale and Marilyn Ozer argued in their brief and to the court that the prosecution witnesses had been involved in drug sales and were unreliable. They say Ryan’s lawyers severely erred by failing to put Ryan’s daughter on the stand to testify at the second trial that she was with him at the middle school and then on a roadside with Ryan when his truck broke down near the school. They say Ryan’s lawyers failed to get cell phone records of a call between the daughter and Ryan’s fiancee when the truck was broken down. Cell phone records can show a person’s location at a specific time. A brief says one of the lawyers said later he thought the jury at the first trial didn’t believe the daughter’s testimony, so he did not use her at the second trial. The prosecution presented misleading DNA evidence from the stamps to the jury, Massengale and Ozer said. DNA testing could not determine if Ryan’s DNA was on the stolen stamps that were found in the shirt on the road, they said. However, the prosecution presented a confusing chart about the DNA results that would mislead a layperson into thinking that Ryan’s DNA was on the Joe Louis stamps, they said. Massengale and Ozer said Ryan’s lawyers failed to get a DNA expert to counter the DNA chart and failed effectively to cross-examine the state’s DNA expert. Further, one of the lawyers acknowledged he had not studied DNA since high school in the 1980s, they said. Babb argued that DNA evidence was not central to the case, that there was overwhelming evidence to convict Ryan without it. Further, she said, “exclusion does not mean someone doesn’t touch an object.” Many factors could affect DNA evidence, such as the environmental — they were outside — and how many times the object is handled."
The entire story can be read at:
--------------------------------------------------------
SECOND STORY: "Granting of new trial in capital case with unreliable DNA evidence affirmed," posted on 'Forensic Resources' an excellent Blog published by The North Carolina office of Indigent Services, on October 7, 2019.
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Additionally, and the subject of this blog post, the Court cited the defense’s failure to present expert testimony during trial and that the prosecution’s DNA examiner “failed to follow scientific protocol and included scientifically invalid interpretations of DNA samples.” (p. 11). The above led to the Superior Court to find that the defendant was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. During the Motion for Appropriate Relief evidentiary hearing, the defense called upon two expert witnesses in addition to the original DNA examiner. The Court found that the SBI agent performing the DNA analysis “… used scientifically incorrect interpretation of the samples in forming her opinions that were offered at trial” and that the protocols used by the analyst “are no longer accepted by experts in the field of DNA analysis.” (p. 3). Furthermore, the Court referred to the subjectivity of DNA interpretation and found that the agent’s subjective interpretations “fell below and were inconsistent with scientifically acceptable standards” (p. 4). The Court found that “if accepted guidelines for interpretation had been followed, the defendant Ryan would have been excluded as a contributor” whereas the state’s expert had testified that the defendant could not be excluded as a contributor of DNA to some of the items of evidence."
----------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
