Defense attorneys for a man who has been granted a new trial in a 10-year-old rape case will continue to fight today in Hamilton County Criminal Court to get the most crucial piece of evidence thrown out.
At issue is a pair of pantyhose worn by the elderly victim. The Tennessee Supreme Court found last year that the manner in which the pantyhose was introduced as evidence at the 2004 trial of Kacy Dewayne Cannon justified a new trial.
Authorities maintain Mr. Cannon randomly attacked and raped the victim in 1999 when he saw her sitting on her front porch. He asked her for a glass of water, followed her inside and raped her, authorities said.
A Hamilton County jury convicted Mr. Cannon in 2004, but by that time the victim was in her late 80s, had developed dementia and had no recollection of the attack.
As a result, she could not testify that she had been wearing the pantyhose, which she took off at a hospital. The prosecution relied on testimony from a nurse and a detective to link the pantyhose to the victim and also to testify about what she told them about the rape.
The state Supreme Court said in its ruling that such a move was a mistake, calling it improper for prosecutors to have presented hearsay testimony as well as a pair of pantyhose that could not definitively be linked to the victim.
Hamilton County assistant district attorney Boyd Patterson has acknowledged in past court hearings that without the pantyhose it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute the case again.
Mr. Patterson said Friday the case still has not been scheduled for a retrial pending a final ruling on the pantyhose.
Still, in an apparent victory for the prosecution, Hamilton County Criminal Court Judge Rebecca Stern in March ruled that the pantyhose could be presented at the second trial in light of recently discovered evidence confirming the victim’s DNA on the pantyhose.
According to prosecutors, such evidence wasn’t produced at the first trial simply because they were not aware of its existence.
The defense has argued the prosecution still “cannot establish a proper chain of custody for the pantyhose.”
