FACES OF THE CASE

Count date:  6/18/2014 (Identified 6/18/2014)

Charges:

• Count 15 – Procuring Lewd Exhibition (Guilty – 5 years)

• Count 16 – Forcible Oral Sodomy (Guilty – 16 years)

Count Date:  5/8/2014

Charges:

• Count 12 – Forcible Oral Sodomy (Not Guilty)

• Count 35 – Procuring Lewd Exhibition (Not Guilty)

• Count 36 – Procuring Lewd Exhibition (Not Guilty)

Count Date:  5/7/2014 (Identified 7/24/2014)

Charges:

​​

• Count 10 – Forcible Oral Sodomy (Guilty – 16 years)

• Count 11 – Rape in the First Degree (Guilty – 30 years)

• Count 33 – Sexual Battery (Guilty – 8 years)

• Count 34 – Sexual Battery (Guilty – 8 years)

Count dates:  2/27/2014 (Count 1), 3/25/2014 (Counts 3, 4, 5), 3/26/2014 (Count 6)

Charges:

• Count 1 – Sexual Battery (Guilty – 8 years)

• Count 4 – Procuring Lewd Exhibition (Guilty – 5 years)

• Count 5 – Procuring Lewd Exhibition (Guilty – 5 years)

• Count 3 – Burglary in the First Degree (Not Guilty)

• Count 6 – Stalking (Not Guilty)

Count Dates: 12/20/2013 (Counts 21-25) & 1/9/2014 and 1/31/2014 (Count 26)

​

Charges:

• Count 21 – Sexual Battery (Not Guilty)

• Count 22 – Sexual Battery (Not Guilty)

• Count 23 – Sexual Battery (Not Guilty)

• Count 24 – Forcible Oral Sodomy (Not Guilty)

• Count 25 – Rape in the Second Degree by Instrumentation (Not Guilty)

• Count 26 – Indecent Exposure (Not Guilty)

Count Date:  4/24/2014

Charges: 

• Count 8 – Forcible Oral Sodomy (Guilty – 20 years)

• Count 9 – Rape in the First Degree (Not Guilty)

Count Date:  4/25/2014 (Identified 10/13/2014)

Charges:

• Count 29 – Rape in the First Degree (Guilty – 30 years)

Count Date:  3/14/2014 (Identified 8/15/2014)

• Charges: Count 2 – Procuring Lewd Exhibition (Not Guilty)

Count Date:  6/18/2014 (identified 7/23/2014; interviewed 9/16/2014)

Charges:

• Count 17 – Forcible Oral Sodomy (Not Guilty)

• Count 18 – Procuring Lewd Exhibition (Not Guilty)

• Count 19 – Procuring Lewd Exhibition (Not Guilty)

• Count 20 – Rape in the First Degree (Not Guilty)

Count Date:  6/17/2014 (Identified 10/3/2014)

Charges:

• Count 30 – Sexual Battery (Guilty – 8 years)

• Count 31 – Rape in the Second Degree by Instrumentation (Guilty – 12 years)

• Count 32 – Rape in First Degree (Guilty – 30 years)

Count Date:  4/14/2014 (identified 8/13/2014)

Charges:

​

• Count 7 – Sexual Battery (Not Guilty)

Count Date:  5/21/2014 (Identified 10/2/2014)

Charges:

• Count 27 – Forcible Oral Sodomy (Guilty – 16 years)

• Count 28 – Rape in the First Degree (Guilty – 30 years)

Count Date:  5/26/2014 (Identified 8/14/2014)

Charges: 

• Count 13 – Sexual Battery (Guilty – 8 years)

• Count 14 – Sexual Battery (Guilty – 8 years)

• Former Oklahoma City police officer who served his community before becoming the subject of one of the most controversial criminal prosecutions in Oklahoma history

• Maintains his innocence and has consistently denied all allegations, from the initial investigation through trial, appeals, and the present day, never changing his account

• Voluntarily cooperated with Detectives sitting for a recorded two-hour interrogation without requesting an attorney, offered to take polygraph and provided DNA swabs

• Now serving a 263-year sentence while continuing to seek justice, as new evidence, sworn testimony, expert reviews, and unresolved forensic and procedural concerns fuel ongoing calls for transparency, review, and reform.

• Served as Chief of the Oklahoma City Police Department during the investigation and prosecution of Daniel Holtzclaw, placing him in a position of ultimate leadership responsibility over departmental policies, investigative practices, and internal accountability at the time.

• Publicly stood by the department’s handling of the investigation, expressing confidence in detectives and internal procedures as the case expanded rapidly from a single allegation into a multi-accuser prosecution.

• Did not initiate or publicly announce an independent internal review of investigative methods, identification procedures, or forensic handling related to the case.

• Remained silent or deferential to prosecutorial outcomes post-conviction, leaving unresolved questions about departmental responsibility and transparency.

• Created the list of only black females to question​; later that list was determined to be 'destroyed'

• Determined to not show line up to Ligons because there was a chance she would not choose Holtzclaw

• Approved the falsified report documenting the fabricated “search” for Terri Morris

• Approved the deceptive report concealing why the Ligons photo lineup was prepared and then suppressed.

• Approved the report omitting Shardayreon Hill’s statement that Daniel did not rape her.

• Approved the report omitting Carla Raines’ repeated denials (7 times) that a police officer sexually assaulted her.

• Approved the report omitting Sherry Ellis’ description that her attacker was, "short and black"; darker-skinned than her. 

• Admitted she believed Accuser Jannie Ligons before interviewing Daniel 

• Did not record several interviews with the accuser. Claimed "Never crossed my mind" to record the interview in a hospital, claimed she did not think an accuser would answer the door, claimed to not know how to how to record on her iPhone, claimed it malfunctioned

• Admitted she does not know what "Exculpatory" meant 

• Promoted to Homicides 

• Wife, Father-In-Law, Mother-In-Law, Brother-In-Law worked for Oklahoma City Police Department at the time of investigation and Trial

• Did not include critical facts and statements in multiple police reports

  • Did not include in police report accuser Carla Raines stated 7 times that she was NEVER touched

  • Did not include in police report accuser Shardayreon Hill's asking, "Is this good evidence, even if he didn't rape nobody"

• Approached women during investigation, "We have a tip you were sexually assaulted by a police officer"

• Claimed cell phone malfunctioned while with Detective Kim Davis interviewing Syrita Bowen

​

​

• Mother-In-Law of Lead Detective Rocky Gregory

• Served as a forensic analyst associated with the Oklahoma City Police Department crime laboratory

• Admitted under oath that she participated in destruction of evidence and setting it on fire

• Her admissions prompted broader questions about forensic integrity, including whether potentially exculpatory material may have been destroyed and whether standard evidence-preservation protocols were followed in cases she touched.

• Became a focal point of post-conviction review efforts, as her sworn testimony is cited by advocates and experts as grounds for independent investigation, transparency, and review of forensic practices impacting Daniel Holtzclaw’s conviction and other cases.

​

• Present during the 2-Day Secret Hearings

• The trial judge had previously worked at the same law firm as District Attorney David Prater

• Presided Over Closed, Non-Public Hearings:
  The judge oversaw two-day hearings that were conducted outside the presence of the public, proceedings that have been described as secret or sealed, limiting transparency and public oversight 

• The judge later admitted to having sexual relationships with multiple assistant district attorneys

• These admissions raised serious questions about professional judgment, ethical boundaries, and the integrity of decisions made while presiding over criminal cases

• As a result of these ethical violations, the judge lost his law license and is barred from practicing law until 2028

• Served as the Oklahoma County District Attorney at the time of Daniel Holtzclaw’s prosecution 

• Approved and advanced a multi-accuser prosecution, consolidating numerous allegations into a single trial under a pattern-based theory, despite the absence of corroborating physical or DNA evidence for most claims.

• Defended the conviction publicly following trial and sentencing, maintaining confidence in the verdict despite later-raised concerns involving investigative practices, forensic handling, and witness reliability.

• Did not initiate an independent reinvestigation or transparency review of the case while in office, even as new evidence, sworn deposition testimony, and expert criticisms emerged post-conviction.

​

• Benjamin Munda is a criminal defense attorney who has been actively involved in post-conviction advocacy related to the Daniel Holtzclaw case.

• He has worked to identify and present legal and constitutional concerns, including issues related to evidence handling, investigative practices, and due process.

• Munda has played a role in bringing renewed legal attention to unresolved questions surrounding the conviction through filings, review efforts, and advocacy.

• His involvement reflects a broader effort to ensure meaningful post-conviction review when serious questions exist about the integrity of a prosecution.

• Through his work, Munda has emphasized the importance of accountability, transparency, and adherence to constitutional protections within the criminal justice system.

• Kathleen Zellner is a nationally recognized post-conviction attorney known for uncovering wrongful convictions across the United States.

• Her legal work has focused on independent review of evidence, including forensic analysis, witness credibility, and investigative practices in contested convictions.

• In connection with the Daniel Holtzclaw case, her review helped elevate concerns about forensic reliability, investigative conduct, and due process protections.

• Zellner’s involvement brought national attention and heightened scrutiny to issues within the case that warranted independent examination.

• Her work underscores the importance of rigorous post-conviction advocacy when serious questions arise about the integrity of a criminal conviction.