Terrence Shannon Jr. consoles teammate Max Williams at the end of the Illlini’s 77-52 loss to UConn in March’s Elite Eight game in Boston.
To pitch a ‘My Turn’ guest column, email jdalessio@news-gazette.com.
To submit a letter to the editor, click here.
Want to purchase today’s print edition? Here’s a map of single-copy locations.
Sign up for our daily newsletter here
CHAMPAIGN — Attorneys for Terrence Shannon Jr. on Wednesday filed a motion for a hearing to exclude the testimony and reports from Kansas Bureau of Investigation forensic scientist Jennifer Hewitt.
The motion, which includes a request for a hearing on the matter prior to a trial, calls for a “Daubert” inquiry by the court. That involves “expert testimony” the defense argues should be excluded because it does not meet scientific standards.
The motion also states that “even assuming what was found was, in fact, ‘male DNA’ there is no evidence that it is a match to Terrence Shannon.”
Shannon, who earned back-to-back first-team All-Big Ten honors the past two seasons for the Illinois men’s basketball team, was arrested in late December on a charge of rape in Lawrence, Kan., related to an alleged incident in early September. A preliminary hearing in the case is scheduled for May 10 in Douglas County (Kan.) District Court.
The motion from Shannon’s legal counsel, Tom and Tricia Bath of Bath & Edmonds in Leawood, Kan., questions the admissibility of Hewitt’s testimony and reports in regard to the SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) examination that was conducted the day after the alleged incident.
The examination included the collection of swabs from numerous locations on the complaining witness’ body and clothing. Police later collected a mouth swab from Shannon for DNA comparison.
“The State provided Mr. Shannon with a KBI report indicating that ‘male DNA’ was located on swabs from (the complainant’s) underwear,” the motion reads. “The defense anticipates that the State will seek to admit this report to corroborate (the complainant’s) claim that Mr. Shannon digitally penetrated her vagina as she stood near him in the bar. Essentially, suggesting that because (the complainant) claims Mr. Shannon, a male, touched her vagina, the fact that there is ‘male DNA’ on her underwear lends credibility to her claim. However, other — confirmed — scientific evidence belies any such suggestion by the state.”
Shannon’s defense team does not claim in the motion that the methods used to review the findings of the SANE examination were not valid or reliable. It’s the interpretation of the data that is being called into question with a claim that calling it “male DNA” or “DNA” in general is invalid.
“Doing so contravenes the instructions for the equipment used by the KBI in that the results they seek to call ‘DNA’ are below the readable range of the kit, may not be reproducible, are highly variable and may be the result of background noise from the instrument or background DNA in the sample,” the motion reads. “It also contravenes what the KBI has acknowledged as valid science that instructs the quantitation levels as low as those found in the underwear may not accurately reflect the presence of DNA.”
The latest motion in Shannon’s case notes, per the initial KBI report, that an examination of the vaginal and external genital swabs revealed no male DNA. Swabs taken from the complainant’s underwear — both inside and outside of the crotch — included an insufficient amount of male DNA and were not selected for further testing.
“The KBI did not (or was unable to) scientifically confirm the presence of ‘male DNA,’” the motion reads. “Further, the KBI report did not indicate whether the ‘male DNA’ is the same on the two underwear swabs or whether it could be from more than one male. Even assuming what was found was, in fact, ‘male DNA,’ there is no evidence that it is a match to Terrence Shannon.”
Evidential discovery from the state of Kansas included just the KBI report. Shannon’s defense counsel subpoenaed bench notes and testing documents from the KBI — both of which were reviewed by their own expert witness, Stephanie Beine, of Forensic Advising LLC, in Wentzville, Mo.
Other swabs taken from the complainant’s buttocks and inner thigh did reveal a quantity of male DNA that was confirmed by Y-STR (male-specific DNA typing/profiling). In the report submitted by Beine and included by Shannon’s legal team in the motion it is noted the buttocks swab included the presence of DNA from at least three different males.
Shannon was excluded as a contributor to the partial, mixed profile. The material on the inner thigh swab was consistent with a mixture of DNA from at least two males, but the profile was not suitable for comparison.
The defense team argued its review of the bench notes and testing documents reveal the state did not engage in repeat quantitation to determine if the values of material found on the underwear swabs are reproducible or in further Y-STR testing to establish the presence of male DNA.
“The failure to do further testing to confirm the presence of ‘male DNA’ should prevent the State from definitively reporting that the same was present in the underwear swabs as that is not a scientifically valid statement,” the motion reads. “Such a statement in the KBI report or in testimony from their expert would be based on insufficient data and unreliable application of reliable scientific principles. Under Daubert, the report as written and any testimony suggesting the definitive presence of ‘male DNA’ in the underwear swabs should be excluded.”
