Megan Thee Stallion's lawyer disputes Tory Lanez's claim that gun is 'missing'
Megan Thee Stallion’s lawyer says the gun Tory Lanez used to shoot her in 2020 is with the Los Angeles Police Department and available for DNA testing.
Megan Thee Stallion’s lawyer says the gun Tory Lanez used to shoot her in 2020 is with the Los Angeles Police Department and available for DNA testing, despite his lawyers claiming otherwise in a new appellate filing.
Alex Spiro said he confirmed the gun is not missing after he read an appellate petition from Lanez’s lawyers that says prosecutors’ “failure to produce and preserve evidence” means his 10-year prison sentence should be vacated.
Both the gun and its ammunition magazine are “there and available,” and any statement otherwise is false, Spiro said in an interview on Monday.
A petition filed last week with California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal says Lanez, legal name Daystar Peterson, “cannot file any claim of innocence, as he is unable to conduct further testing since the firearm and bullet fragments are missing.”
“By failing to preserve the material and exculpatory evidence, the People have infringed on the Petitioner’s right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to seek redress of Petitioner’s grievances through the judicial process,” according to the filing from Crystal Morgan and Michael Hayden, attorneys for the nonprofit legal services group Unite the People, for which Lanez is a donor and board member.
The bullet fragments that doctors removed from Megan’s feet weren’t evidence in trial, but an assistant surgeon testified about operating on Megan. Prosecutors didn’t bring the firearm to court, but jurors saw photos of it.
Lanez’s own DNA expert testified to the same results as the prosecution’s expert, which was that Lanez could neither be included or excluded as a contributor to DNA on the gun, and he was excluded as a contributor to DNA on the gun’s magazine. Lanez’s own expert supported the testimony but added he would expect anyone who fired a gun five times to leave clearly identifiable DNA behind.
One person contributed 90 percent of the sample, which provided enough for a Los Angeles police criminologist to determine the person must be a male. It also was enough to compare it with Lanez’s DNA sample and exclude him as the male who contributed that specific DNA.
But the three other discernible types of DNA accounted for just 5 percent, 3 percent and 2 percent of the sample, so the criminologist testified he couldn’t determine the gender of the contributors, nor was there enough to compare with Lanez’s DNA sample. Thus, it’s impossible to determine if Lanez was or wasn’t a contributor to either of the three.
Investigators never took a DNA sample from Harris or Lanez’s driver, Jauquan Smith.
Lanez’s trial defense, however, argued Harris was the shooter, not Smith, who never testified. Based on the DNA sample on the gun, Harris would be excluded from the male DNA that accounted for 90 percent of the profile and likely would be in the same situation as Lanez regarding the other three profiles of 5 percent, 3 percent and 2 percent: Neither included or excluded.
Lanez has alleged that DNA evidence played a key role in his convictions, but during trial, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Alexander Bott characterized the evidence against Lanez as “a bucket of evidence” and he specifically “stated that he was not using the DNA results as evidence in that bucket.”
The appellate court said Friday it will consider the petition with Lanez’s main appeal and another petition about a post-trial declaration from his driver. They told the California Attorney General’s Office, which defends state criminal convictions on appeal, to reply by Nov. 20.
After the order was filed, Unite the People posted on Instagram that the appellate court “JUST ‘ACCEPTED TORY LANEZ ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM!”
The inaccurate post led to more misinformation from hip-hop blogs and commentators, and it occurred while Megan was beginning to promote new album.
Spiro said Monday he plans to “take action” against bloggers who continue to spread false information, and he questioned why a nonprofit legal services group such as Unite the People is working on Lanez’s case.
“There are lots of people in jail that need help who tell the truth and who are innocent and deserve to be freed,” said Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP in New York City. “I’d rather they spend their time on that than nonsense like this.”
Morgan did not reply to a request for comment on Monday afternoon.
If the court vacates his sentence, which is unlikely, Lanez will not be released from prison; rather, his case would return to Los Angeles County Superior Court for another sentencing.
The new petition was filed on Oct. 23, after Lanez’s appeal and his other petition had been fully briefed and as they are awaiting action by the appellate court.
It’s unclear why Lanez’s lawyers waited until a year after they filed his opening brief to pursue a finding of actual innocence. But the appellate litigation so far offers a clue about what’s going on, and it goes back to Lanez’s first petition that argues a new statement from his driver who didn’t testify is new evidence that warrants a new trial.
The Attorney General’s Office responded in July that the new statement is not new evidence because Lanez’s lawyer knew about it during trial but still chose not to have the driver testify.
The discussion occurred during a sealed chambers meeting, and Morgan did not know of the statements when she filed her petition alleging the driver’s declaration is new evidence. Deputy Attorney General Michael C. Keller moved to unseal the transcript while preparing his responding brief, which he filed in July.
In her Oct. 21 reply, Morgan said she “inquired into the possibility of Smith” but “was not informed that he had been interviewed regarding said testimony.”
“In the alternative, if the court finds that this evidence does not constitute ‘new evidence’ … Petitioner avers that this was a further example of the ineffective assistance of counsel that Petitioner received, as raised further in his opening brief on direct appeal,” Morgan wrote.
Morgan will have the option of replying to the state’s response to her new petition once it’s filed on Nov. 20. The 2nd District Court of Appeal will then schedule argument.
Court documents:
Oct. 23, 2024: 2nd writ petition
Oct. 23, 2024: Lanez’s reply to state’s response to 1st habeas petition
July 26, 2024: State’s response to Lanez’s 1st habeas petition
Dec. 12, 2023: Lanez’s 1st habeas petition
Previous coverage:
State says Tory Lanez knew how his driver would testify but chose not to call him
Rapper Daystar “Tory Lanez” Peterson knew how his driver would testify in his trial for shooting Megan Thee Stallion and chose not to call him as a witness after his lawyer told a judge the testimony w…
Thank you for supporting my independent legal affairs journalism. Your paid subscriptions make my work possible. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, please consider purchasing a subscription through Substack. You also can support me through Venmo (MeghannCuniff), CashApp ($MeghannCuniff) and Zelle (meghanncuniff@gmail.com). Thank you!