Former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Ken Holtzclaw was convicted last month of 18 counts involving allegations that he sexually assaulted severalwomen while on duty. The jury, who found him guilty of 18 counts but acquitted him of 18 others, recommended sentences ranging from 5 to 30 years forcrimes including rape, forcible sodomy, and sexual battery. The jury recommended that he be ordered to serve all sentences consecutively, sending theformer police officer to prison for 236 years.
Yesterday, Oklahoma County District Judge Timothy Henderson formally sentenced Holtzclaw in agreement with the jury recommendations:
The judge ordered each sentence to run consecutively, rather than concurrently--making the sentence the equivalent of 236 years.
Only one day prior to sentencing, an attorney for the defendant requested a new trial on the grounds that his client was deprived of his constitutionalright to a fair trial. He requested, at the very least, that an evidentiary hearing be held to determine whether or not the prosecution withheld discoveryfrom the defense.
The attorney argues that the prosecution failed to present information that there were multiple accusers who were quickly discredited as liars "looking for their piece of the pie." The defense argues that this information was not provided to them by the prosecution, as required, but rather revealed through the social mediaposts of a detective on the case. Furthermore, the defense argues that a juror claims he spoke with the judge and detectives after the jury reacheda verdict, and was told that there was "other stuff that wasn't actually in evidence that confirmed what was going on."
He claims that a detective on the case said there was DNA evidence from multiple women in Holtzclaw's squad car and on his clothing, but a prosecutionwitness testified that there was only DNA evidence linking Holtzclaw to one assault.
The attorney argued that whether evidence supported the prosecution (DNA from multiple accusers) or the defense (numerous false accusers), the jury hada right to hear all evidence, and that the alleged prosecution errors place the credibility of the state's case in question.
A judge has not yet ruled in relation to the request for a new trial or evidentiary hearing.
