My Experience as a Juror on a Cold Case Rape Trial
10 min read
I was selected to be a juror on a cold case rape from August of 1992. The victim had just graduated college and was staying with her mom over the summer while she waited for her own apartment to be made ready.
The prosecution alleged Maurice L. Muhammad entered through a first floor bedroom window around 2 a.m. on August 31st, 1992 and raped the victim, threatening her with a gun if she didn't comply.
Muhammad was charged with three felonies. I can't link to the court cases directly as the system doesn't seem to provide that as an option, but the case number is CR24F02424-00. You can search it from the Online Case Information System 2.0 if you're so inclined. If you search by case number and select Richmond City Circuit Court from the court dropdown, you'll find it.
- Rape
- Burglary while armed with a deadly weapon
- Use of a firearm in the commission of a felony
This case was made possible by the Virginia Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI), a grant-funded program through the Virginia Attorney General's office that has funded the retesting of thousands of rape kits from decades past. The victim's kit was collected in 1992 but never tested. In 1992, DNA testing required a known sample to compare against, and there were no searchable databases yet. When the kit was finally retested under SAKI, the DNA matched Muhammad.
Day One #
As I explained in my jury duty post, we had a very long first day as we went through the jury selection process. Two people testified starting at around 4 p.m. on the first day.
The Victim #
The first person called by the prosecution was the victim. Her testimony was pretty raw and I felt awful on her behalf. She was testifying to the fact that she was raped, but there wasn't anything in her testimony that linked the rape to Muhammad. She didn't have much recall about specifics, which is understandable as it was a traumatic event and it happened over 30 years ago.
She testified she left her first floor window open because it was August in Richmond, VA and they did not have AC. She said she woke up and someone was standing beside her bed. She testified the intruder patted his side, and she took that to mean he had a gun. She then testified he raped her. I believe what happened to the victim met the legal definition of rape.
Examining Physician #
The key piece of evidence in this case was the PERK (Physical Evidence Recovery Kit), Virginia's term for what is commonly called a rape kit. The examining physician collected a vaginal cervical swab from the victim, which contained male DNA. In 1992 there was nothing to compare the DNA against because there were no suspects. Decades later, retested under SAKI, it matched Muhammad when the DNA sample was run against the DNA database.
The doctor was able to testify that she collected the swab. She didn't have any personal recollection, but she was able to testify that the paperwork and signature from the 1992 documents were hers.
Day Two #
The second day was a very long day. We were there for about 11 hours and all the witnesses kind of run together in my head now as I sit here to recollect my experience.
The ER Nurse #
The ER nurse testified that she helped the attending physician collect the PERK. The doctor did the internal swab, and the nurse helped pack everything into the kit and also helped collect other pieces like external swabs.
This is where a major part of the defense team's strategy rested. The paperwork from 1992 seemed to indicate that only two swabs were collected and stored from the kit. Later observations at the various steps seemed to indicate there were four swabs. The defense's conjecture was that we can't be sure envelopes didn't get mixed up over the past 30-plus years, given how long it's been and how often the kit was moved and processed by different people over the years.
The Detective from 1992 #
The detective from 1992 wasn't a very good witness. She didn't bring her glasses and was having a hard time reading the records they were asking her to testify to. The judge ended up loaning his readers to her, but they didn't seem strong enough. She had no personal recollection of the case, but according to the paperwork and her testimony, she was the person who collected the PERK from the ER and took it to the lab for testing.
This was important for the prosecution because it speaks to the chain of custody.
The Evidence Room Manager #
This was the person who runs the police evidence warehouse system. She testified to processes and paperwork. Her testimony was there for chain of custody, I think.
The Experts #
There were several expert witnesses who testified. They were mostly testifying about the process and the science behind all of it. The experts included a forensic nurse and a forensic scientist, and they were mostly speaking to the procedures and science of forensics.
To a person, the experts came across as great witnesses. They were all highly credentialed and qualified, well spoken, articulate, and obviously real experts in their respective fields.
The Lab Techs #
There were many people involved in both processing and testing the kit from 1992 and the people who retested it starting in 2022. No one really had any personal recollection of doing any of this work, but everything is documented, so the techs were mostly testifying that the paperwork had their signature and speaking to the processes and how the chain of custody worked.
The defense made a point to highlight how complex the process is and how many steps are involved. They showed that some testing happens in batches. For example, at a certain step in the process, six different samples were run at the same time as our case. The implication was that there's an opportunity for cross contamination.
The two lab people who made the biggest impression on me were Ms. Friese from DLI and Ms. Cooley from the Virginia lab. They seemed really smart and knowledgeable.
Det. M. Anhstrom #
Det. Anhstrom was the detective who got the case once the PERK was retested as part of the SAKI initiative. He came across as a good witness. He was gruff, no nonsense, and matter of fact. Combined with his imposing physical presence, he makes an impression. I would enjoy watching a TV show or reading a book with a character based on him.
He testified to the chain of custody, as he was the person who retrieved the PERK from the evidence location and sent it to the lab for retesting.
Day Three #
We were expecting to wrap up on the third day. The prosecution recalled three witnesses to ask follow-up questions, but then we were excused while the lawyers and judge took care of some pre-closing business.
After lunch, we heard closing arguments from the lawyers, received our instructions from the judge, and were asked to begin our deliberations.
This is when they unsealed the two alternate jurors selected at the beginning of the trial and dismissed them. This was really abrupt. We'd just spent the majority of three days with these people, getting to know them, and they just left. We didn't get a chance to say goodbye or good luck or anything.
Deliberations #
The prosecution's case was based entirely on the DNA from the PERK collected in 1992. The prosecution introduced no other evidence, the victim did not identify the perpetrator, and no fingerprints were introduced. No other testimony or evidence about Muhammad was introduced at all.
The defense did its best to introduce reasonable doubt. It has been over 30 years since the PERK was collected. The evidence was handled by many different people. There were several mistakes in the paperwork at multiple stages. The defense argued that since mistakes were documented with the handling of the DNA evidence, and since the current investigation didn't test and compare the victim's DNA to the DNA from the kit, we can't be sure that Muhammad's DNA came from the PERK collected in 1992.
Ultimately, we did not think the doubt introduced by the defense rose to the level of reasonable doubt. I personally didn't think it was reasonable to conclude that the police and labs positively matched Muhammad's DNA but that it somehow came from a different case. Because that's the only explanation that would make any sort of sense.
We voted and all agreed the prosecution proved the DNA from the kit belonged to Muhammad and that it was the same DNA recovered during the PERK collection in 1992. While the defense did introduce some doubt, it wasn't reasonable doubt. We found him guilty on the rape charge.
We voted and all agreed the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Muhammad was armed with a firearm. The only evidence introduced was the victim's testimony that she felt the perpetrator pat his side to imply he had a gun. The victim's testimony was spotty and her recollection of events wasn't very strong, as she often answered "I don't recall" when asked about details. We found him not guilty on the gun charges.
We voted and all agreed that if we found Muhammad guilty of rape, then he must by extension also be guilty of the burglary charge.
Final Thoughts #
Going through this experience as a juror felt important and I took my duty very seriously. I felt the other jurors did as well. We carefully examined the evidence and considered the testimony. We tried to steelman the defense's assertions to see if we could find our way to reasonable doubt, but we just couldn't. I truly felt the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the DNA from the PERK collected in 1992 belonged to Muhammad.
The Judge #
The judge for our case was the Hon. Tracy W. J. Thorne-Begland. I was struck by how patient he seemed in explaining all the rules and details. He had an air of authority and calmness without ever seeming flustered or frustrated. I think he runs a very tight ship.
The Prosecution #
I've been unable to locate the prosecuting attorneys from online resources. That makes sense because I imagine there is some risk to them if people want to cause them harm. My failure to name them here is purely because I can't find them online, and I never made a note of their names in my trial notes.
My impression is that they were well prepared and worked well together. They were professional and courteous. I did notice a few unguarded moments from the attorney who was asking most of the questions. When there was an objection, the attorneys would approach the bench and whisper to the judge. I noticed this mostly at the end of the second day. While she was listening to the defense's objections, her feelings were all over her face. She needed someone to give her a nudge to remind her to fix her face.
The same attorney also had a habit of asking long, compound questions with qualifying statements, and I sometimes lost the thread of what she was asking.
During closing arguments, she would point at Mr. Muhammad repeatedly, and it just felt contrived and theatrical. It made me uncomfortable, but maybe that's a me thing.
The Defense #
The defense attorneys were Samantha Mier and Julia Snyder. They also seemed well prepared and worked well together. Mier did opening arguments and was very attentive in observing the jury. Snyder did almost all the cross examinations and the closing arguments.
During the trial, we had no idea they were public defenders until the very last day, when Det. Anhstrom mentioned he opened the evidence box for the 'public defenders'. Even then, it wasn't clear that these attorneys were the public defenders.
Maybe I'm projecting here, but public defenders are often portrayed in movies and TV as under qualified, overworked people who are barely able to represent their clients. That was not the impression these attorneys gave. I genuinely thought they were private attorneys.
After the trial, I did some searching and discovered that Muhammad had previous charges and was listed on the sex offender registry. Based on my searching, I'm nearly positive he was already incarcerated at the time of the trial. That never came up during the trial, and I assume the defense worked hard to keep it from biasing the jury. The only small clue we had was that Mr. Muhammad was wearing white gym socks with his suit. In retrospect, that seemed like a tell.
In conclusion, I honestly feel that Muhammad got a fair trial. What stays with me is how impactful the rape kits are. Evidence collected over 30 years ago, carefully preserved through decades of moves and transfers and hands, ultimately led to the identification and conviction of a rapist.
