Three weeks before his trial on 11 felony charges of routinely raping his pre-pubescent stepdaughter for years, Kristopher Henriqson, who is representing himself, appeared in court this afternoon to reargue motions he’d lost before, and a few new ones. He went back to the Flagler County jail with nothing to show for the afternoon’s arguments despite raising troubling questions.
Henriqson, 48, a twice-convicted federal and state felon, has been at the jail without bond since his arrest last February. He faces two capital felony charges, a life felony charge and seven first-degree felony charges. He turned down a plea deal to serve 45 years, likely because it amounted to a life term. If convicted, his chance of avoiding a life term is close to nil. He had a falling out with Assistant Public Defender Spencer O’Neal, who remains on standby to provide advice, though the two men have never been seen talking in court.
Among the half dozen motions Henriqson argued today was his claim that the report of the DNA analysis of a swab from the victim’s chest and abdomen, allegedly of semen or other bodily fluids Henriqson left there after his last assault before the girl reported it, is incorrectly written. He wanted the court to order it rewritten.
“The report was worded in such a way as to make it appear that ‘sperm cell DNA’ had been found on the victim’s abdomen,” he argued in his written motion. “While the defendant’s DNA had been found on the victim’s abdomen, that DNA had nothing to do with sperm cells. The victim had claimed that the defendant had ejaculated on the victim’s abdomen. It would be expected that the defendant’s DNA would be found in multiple locations on the victim’s torso, including her arms, shoulders, hands and the like, as the victim and the defendant often hugged, and the victim often wore the defendant’s clothes. In fact, she is wearing the defendant’s sweatpants when these samples were taken, as can be evidenced in her CPT interview video.” (CPT is the acronym for Child Protection Team, one of whose therapists interviewed the victim after she reported the assaults.)
He objected to the way the report split as “epithelial cell fraction” and “sperm cell fraction.” He quotes the report noting that the epithelial cell fraction was inconclusive, and that “a partial DNA profile consistent with a male contributor was obtained from [the sperm cell fraction]. This DNA profile matches the DNA profile from Kristopher Henriqson.” He finds the difference between the two samples “prejudicial,” as he anticipates the prosecution will focus on the sperm fraction alone. He considers the evidence “misleading” and incomplete.
His motion quoted a footnote in the DNA report: “the presence of DNA in the ‘sperm cell fraction’ does not confirm the presence of seminal material or the type of cells from which the DNA originated.”
Assistant State Attorney Melissa Clark repeated what she had said at a previous hearing: “Again, I don’t think he understands the science.”
Henriqson had touched on a matter of science that has been the focus of recent research on DNA evidence. While samples are always split between sperm and epithelial fractions, a 2018 paper in a forensic science journal concluded that “if the same male DNA profile is represented more prominently in the sperm fraction versus the epithelial fraction, the analyst should not fall into the intuitive trap of inferring the presence of spermatozoa in the sample. Instead, enrichment calculations must be based on the measured quantity of male and total DNA in each fraction and not the male:female DNA ratios observed in the DNA profiles.”
Henriqson’s concern, in other words, may not be hollow or entirely uninformed, though only an expert witness might have explained how. The only expert witnesses on DNA analysis are the prosecution’s.
“I don’t have the authority to order anyone to rewrite their reports,” the judge told Henriqson.
Alternately, Henriqson wanted the DNA evidence suppressed. “This motion is legally insufficient for the court to suppress the evidence,” the judge said, but she gave him a small victory: he could argue his points about the DNA analysis and cross-examine witnesses about it.
In a more bizarre turn, Henriqson also wanted the court to initiate a criminal investigation into witness tampering. He was referring to a defense witness, Rhiannon Gross, who secretly recorded the victim allegedly saying incriminating things about her own veracity. Henriqson wants to use the recording to impeach the victim–to show her to be a liar. The prosecution successfully argued that the recording is both illegal and inadmissible in court. Henriqson now is claiming that Gross was “approached by an unknown person and told that she and the defendant’s former public defender, Mr. [Spencer] O’Neal, are facing felony charges and up to a 30-year sentence.” Gross has since not answered Henriqson’s calls.
Illegally recording someone in Florida is a third-degree felony with a maximum penalty of five years in prison, not 30. O’Neal, according to Henriqson, had himself told Gross that the recording had to be destroyed.
“I don’t have the authority to initiate a criminal investigation,” the judge told him, denying the motion. She also denied a motion to rehear Henriqson’s claim that the recording may be used for impeachment purposes. It is not clear, however, whether Henriqson will have the leeway to question the alleged victim about the recording, since she is aware of it. He does intend to cross-examine the victim. He had sought at one point to depose her, but never brought the matter up again after the court said it would set very strict parameters for that.
A motion to grant his status as an indigent defendant, enabling him to have some expenses paid, was granted.
His decision to represent himself despite the gravity of the charges, the complexity of the case and its legal parameters, especially regarding rules of evidence in which he appears to be drowning, and an experienced, court-appointed lawyer standing by to help, has baffled the judge, who has attempted every time she has seen him in court to walk him off that ledge. But Henriqson doesn’t like O’Neal. Nichols won’t appoint another public defender in his place. And Henriqson, whether because he is deluding himself or because he has reserves of legal skills he has yet to show, again said today he would represent himself at trial. He can change his mind at any point, even mid-trial. O’Neal will be standing by throughout.
The trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 9.
JimboXYZ says
Well, right or wrong, at least he has exhausted every legal tactic from every possible angle to get evidence dismissed ? Maybe or maybe not, the assigned defense does the same for challenging the science of it all ? Science has been known to be unable to conclusively prove or disprove a lot of things on planet Earth ? Maybe that public defender lays down nicely for the prosecution to take the “L” on this case ? Win or lose at least he controlled his own destiny/fate for the matter ? He was screwed going into it, the plea deal wasn’t anything really favorable to plead guilty for. So here he is defending himself. Anyone is pretty much a spectator to this case for the news reports. Kinda like the unrest in Minnesota or Oregon over ICE, it might as well be some breaking news about finding life or water on Mars ?
Karl says
If you don’t have millions of dollars for attorneys or to buy a pardon then self representation is likely better than the public defender . Murikkka! Still haven’t released those files yet…