Dana Holland

• Alibi
• Third Party Guilt

● Defense argued that another man – who was wearing the same cloth and hair style as the defendant – was the actual perpetrator.

“Q: Were you ever — did you ever participate in any of the events that [the victim] testified to here in court this afternoon? A: No, I didn’t. Q: Did you have anything whatsoever to do with the incident that [the victim] testified to? A: No, I didn’t.”

• Eyewitness
• Forensic Evidence

• Serology

• Error
• Not Disclosed

There was no testimony by an analyst at trial, however, the analyst submitted a report claiming that the material was insufficient for DNA testing, which it was not even at the time,

• Intraracial Identificaiton
• Victim

• Showup

Yes ● Suggestive lineup – defendant was only person wearing prison pants ● Victim not told attacker might not be in line-up ● Suggestive remarks ● Show-up in second case, conducted properly, shortly after incident

Victim had been told “if there was anybody arrested matching the description she gave on the original report, that she would be asked to view a lineup.” Officer then told victim prior to lineup that they had a suspect who was arrested and who had her identification. Officer noted that at the lineup “I believe Mr. Holland was wearing a full prison uniform,” although he claimed that a table blocked some of that from view.

Yes ● Initial non-identification

“A. They asked me is this the man that raped me. Q. And when they asked you that, what did you say? A. I hesitated and then I said no.” She then “started to cry some more” and “I identified the defendant.”