TORY LANEZ SEEKS JUSTICE THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS: A CASE OF MISSING EVIDENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

In his latest legal battle, Tory Lanez has filed a writ of habeas corpus to vacate his sentence, presenting a complex case that brings to light significant constitutional concerns. The rapper and his legal team argue that fundamental rights under the Fourteenth and First Amendments were compromised in his conviction, resulting in a flawed trial and ultimately an unjust sentence. Lanez’s legal arguments center around missing evidence, questionable forensic practices, and the inability to further examine critical physical evidence—all of which, he argues, undermined his right to a fair trial. In this article, I will highlight the main issues raised in Tory’s writ of habeas corpus.

Central to Lanez’s petition is the claim that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated. The defense argues that key pieces of evidence, specifically the firearm and bullet fragments, are lost and were never properly handled by the prosecution. This evidence was both material and potentially exculpatory, meaning it could have helped prove Lanez’s innocence or, at the very least, introduce doubt regarding his guilt.

The absence of this evidence has prevented Lanez from conducting further forensic testing that might support his claim of innocence. Without access to the original firearm and fragments, Lanez’s team cannot examine DNA or fingerprint evidence—a critical avenue of defense. Notably, although DNA was recovered from the gun, the weapon itself was never entered into evidence; instead, only a photograph of it was presented. This procedural lapse has left Lanez without the means to verify whether his DNA or fingerprints are indeed linked to the weapon.

The case’s complexity deepens with the testimony regarding Kelsey Harris, another individual present at the scene and reportedly the only other person with gunshot residue (GSR) on her hands. According to forensic expert Randy Zepeda, LAPD investigators failed to obtain DNA from Harris, despite her proximity to the incident. Zepeda testified that one of the DNA profiles recovered from the weapon was that of an unidentified female, a revelation that Lanez’s team argues should have been explored further. This omission, they contend, left a gap in the prosecution’s evidence that could have altered the outcome of the trial.

First Amendment Concerns: Impairment of the Right to Redress

Lanez’s writ also invokes the First Amendment, asserting that his right to seek redress for grievances has been impeded. Without access to the missing firearm, Lanez argues, he is unable to pursue further claims of innocence or challenge the forensic findings effectively. The inability to analyze the original evidence, conduct DNA testing, or produce witnesses for forensic rebuttals means his avenues for redress are severely restricted.

Questionable Forensic Practices: DNA Evidence and Reliability

Forensic expert Richard Eikelenboom, called by Lanez’s defense, raised concerns about the quality of DNA evidence. Eikelenboom noted that the DNA profile from the weapon was unreliable due to procedural issues in the testing process. He explained that the profile exhibited imbalances and artifacts, which could lead to errors and contamination. Additionally, Lanez’s defense argues that the Los Angeles County crime lab did not use best practices when handling and analyzing the DNA samples, increasing the risk of inaccuracies in the forensic conclusions presented in court.

Insufficient Evidence to Sustain a Guilty Verdict

Lanez’s legal team argues that the evidence presented at trial was inherently conflicting. With new revelations about missing evidence, unreliable forensic practices, and the inability to pursue further testing, Lanez’s petition underscores the DA’s failure to preserve and present critical material evidence. This failure, the defense contends, ultimately denied Lanez a fair trial, violating his constitutional rights and casting significant doubt on the validity of the guilty verdict.

What Tory Lanez’s Case Could Mean for the Justice System

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Unite the People Inc. (@unitethepeopleusa)

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Unite the People Inc. (@unitethepeopleusa)