Prosecutors Refusal to Test DNA Evidence Forces Oklahoma Death-Sentenced Prisoner Set for Execution to File Federal Lawsuit

On October 4, 2023, Phillip Hancock, an Oklahoma death-sen­tenced pris­on­er sched­uled for exe­cu­tion on November 30, filed a Section 1983 law­suit in fed­er­al court request­ing the release of phys­i­cal evi­dence for DNA test­ing to sup­port his long-main­tained claim of self-defense. The State has repeat­ed­ly opposed his efforts to test the evi­dence and Oklahoma state courts have also repeat­ed­ly denied his requests. 

“Biological evi­dence in the State’s cus­tody would cor­rob­o­rate Hancock’s account while refut­ing the State’s the­o­ry of the case. But that evi­dence has nev­er been test­ed. How can Oklahoma exe­cute Phil with­out let­ting us test this evi­dence that could prove it hap­pened just the way he has always said?” said Shawn Nolan, one of Mr. Hancock’s attorneys.

Mr. Hancock was con­vict­ed of killing Robert Jett and James Lynch, known mem­bers of a vio­lent motor­cy­cle gang. On April 26, 2001, Mr. Hancock was lured to the home of Mr. Jett, who had been paid by Kathy Quick, Mr. Hancock’s ex-girl­friend, to attack him. Mr. Jett, who was high on metham­phet­a­mines and armed, threat­ened Mr. Hancock with a met­al bar and ordered him inside a cage, in which he had pre­vi­ous­ly tor­tured peo­ple and drugged women pri­or to rap­ing them. Mr. Jett struck Mr. Hancock with the met­al bar, and Mr. Lynch held Mr. Hancock in a choke­hold. Mr. Hancock main­tains that he man­aged to grab the gun Mr. Jett had tucked in his pants and shoot both Mr. Jett and Mr. Lynch, then fled the scene, scared to vis­it the hos­pi­tal or police in case of retal­i­a­tion from the motor­cy­cle gang. At tri­al, pros­e­cu­tors dis­put­ed Mr. Lynch’s involve­ment in the attack and alleged that Mr. Hancock shot Mr. Lynch for no reason. 

According to his cur­rent legal team, Mr. Hancock’s tri­al coun­sel ​“crip­pled” his self-defense claim by fail­ing to thor­ough­ly inves­ti­gate and rebut the prosecution’s nar­ra­tive, present evi­dence about the vio­lent gang mem­ber­ship of the vic­tims, ade­quate­ly ques­tion the only eye­wit­ness, and inform the jury that Mr. Hancock’s ex-girl­friend had paid the vic­tim to attack him. Trial coun­sel also failed to pro­vide any evi­dence about Mr. Hancock’s emo­tion­al, phys­i­cal, and sex­u­al abuse dur­ing child­hood and ado­les­cence, and the effect these expe­ri­ences had on his men­tal health and reac­tion to per­ceived threats. After learn­ing some of this infor­ma­tion, the jury foreper­son signed a state­ment express­ing doubt in her ver­dict and express­ing a desire to ​“step for­ward and even attend a clemen­cy or appeal hearing.”

In a state­ment sub­mit­ted with the law­suit, foren­sic sci­en­tist Lauren Schile said ​“Physical evi­dence, includ­ing Mr. Lynch’s fin­ger­nails, the vic­tims’ cloth­ing, Mr. Jett’s wal­let, and Ms. Tarp’s let­ter, was col­lect­ed and could cor­rob­o­rate Mr. Hancock’s account of the events, but it has nev­er been DNA tested.”