Carla Raines was presented to the jury to bolster the State’s “pattern” theory, yet her testimony collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, omissions, and admitted coaching. Although charged as Count 2 (Procuring Lewd Exhibition), the jury acquitted Daniel—an outcome that reflects the absence of credible evidence and the manufactured nature of her narrative.

​

Raines never initiated a report. She denied being victimized repeatedly until detectives pressured her, and the timeline she ultimately offered was supplied by the prosecution—not remembered by her.

​

1. Seven Prior Denials Before the Story Shifted

​

Before she was recruited as an accuser, Raines flatly rejected the idea that she was a victim.

​

• In her recorded interview, Det. Gregory asked whether she had ever had inappropriate contact with an officer or been compelled to expose herself. Raines responded “no” or “uh-uh” seven separate times.
   

• None of these denials appeared in Det. Gregory’s official police report.
   

• At trial, confronted with the recording, Raines claimed she did not remember denying the allegation—despite the audio making clear that she did.

​

These omissions are classic markers of investigative manipulation and selective reporting.

​

2. A Date Supplied by the State, Not Recalled by the Witness

​

Raines could not identify when anything occurred because she did not remember any such incident. The prosecution supplied the date.

​

• Original Claim: She told police the event took place in the summer of 2013 at around 10 pm and that “it wasn’t cold.”
   

• Trial Testimony: She instead testified the date was March 14, 2014. The temperature was in the low 50s.
   

• Under-Oath Admission: Asked why she changed the date, she testified: “When I was in contact with the DA, they let me know.”
   

This was not a memory—it was a correction from the prosecutor’s office.

​

The defense then established the fatal fact: Holtzclaw had contact with Raines only in July 2013, and he was not involved with her in March 2014. The prosecution-assigned date was chronologically impossible.

​

3. She Identified a Different Officer

​

Raines’s description of her alleged perpetrator excluded Holtzclaw entirely.

​

• She told Det. Gregory the only officer who had ever behaved inappropriately toward her was a “black cop” who had exposed himself years earlier.
   

• She described the man as having “brown skin” or “tanned skin,” and testified she “can’t really say if he was Caucasian or Mexican.”
   

• Despite this, Det. Gregory testified at Holtzclaw’s bond hearing that Raines had described Holtzclaw “just to a T,” a statement flatly contradicted by his own interview recording.
   

This was not misrecollection—it was misrepresentation.

​

4. Coercive and Suggestive Interviewing

​

The investigative record shows that Raines was steered into identifying Holtzclaw.

​

• Det. Gregory ignored Raines’s report about the black officer.
   

• Instead, he told her he had a “tip” that she was a victim, that there were “several victims,” and that the suspect was “a pretty bad guy.”
   

• Only after this prompting did Raines change her account to say an officer pressured her to expose her breasts.

​

This is classic contamination: once the detective provided the narrative frame, Raines conformed her story to it.

​

5. False Testimony About Her Civil Lawsuit

​

Raines’s credibility further deteriorated under questions about her financial motivations.

​

• At trial, she denied filing a civil lawsuit and denied knowing attorney Mark Hammons.
   

• She claimed “I didn’t know” that a lawsuit had been filed.
   

• In reality, a civil suit had been filed in her name against Holtzclaw and the City of Oklahoma City.
   

A witness who denies her own lawsuit is not a reliable historian of events.

​

BOTTOM LINE

​

Carla Raines was not a reliable witness; she was the product of a suggestive and outcome-driven investigation.

​

• She denied being a victim seven times before detectives redirected her narrative.

• She described a completely different officer, not Holtzclaw.

• She testified to a date supplied by the District Attorney, not by her own memory.

• She gave false testimony about her civil lawsuit, concealing her financial interest.

​

Her testimony should never have been presented to a jury. It served only to inflate the appearance of a “pattern” by relying on a witness whose story had to be revised, coached, and reconstructed to make the charge fit.

​

​