Editor's Update: Lance Shockley was pronounced dead at 6:13 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2025, following a lethal injection at the state prison in Bonne Terre.
On Oct. 14, 2025, Missouri is set to execute Lance Shockley by lethal injection. The circumstantial evidence is compelling, but comprehensive DNA testing wasn’t done—and the courts have decided that it never will be.
In 2005, Sergeant Carl Graham was investigating Shockley's role in a fatal drunk driving accident. Graham was killed by a rifle shot. Shockley (28) was charged with the murder. There were no eyewitness or physical evidence—no DNA, fingerprints, blood or murder weapon.
Shockley's trial started on March 20, 2009. The jury found him guilty but deadlocked on the penalty—life or death. The trial judge sentenced him to death. Shockley's many appeals have been rejected by the Missouri and U.S. Supreme Courts.
On May 20, 2025, Shockley requested post-conviction DNA testing of 10 evidence items. A crime scene cigarette butt. Paper and plastic shotshell wadding. Latent fingerprints and a cell phone. Touch DNA or mixtures found on these items would have been uninterpretable in 2009, but they could prove potentially exculpatory today.
On July 11, 2025, the Carter County (Missouri) president judge denied Shockley's post-conviction DNA testing motion. He rejected the appellant's Databank, Confession, and Redundancy DNA "theories." His judgment gave two reasons:
I. There wasn't "a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been changed by the discovery of DNA from another person."
II. That "touch DNA analysis was reasonably available to him at the time of trial."
Four forensic science amicus curiae briefs respectfully disagreed:
- Forensic DNA analyst Meghan Clement
- The Innocence Network and the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences
- Six forensic DNA scientists, including Dr. Ruth Ballard and Tiffany Roy
- My own affidavit, which I summarize here.
I. Why new DNA evidence could have changed the trial outcome
Once reliable DNA evidence enters a courtroom, one cannot predict what a jury will decide. The physical evidence can completely change a case outcome. Cybergenetics' TrueAllele® interpretation service has done this hundreds of times. Accurate and objective computer modeling revives a crime lab's weak "inconclusive" or "uninterpretable" DNA results to provide a far more complete and reliable data analysis.
For prosecutors, this means inculpatory physical evidence that can place a defendant at a crime scene. For defendants, this means exculpatory physical evidence can show their DNA wasn't at the scene—or that someone else's DNA was there.
Pennsylvania v. Joshua Huber Case Example
In an Allegheny County (Pennsylvania) double homicide, the prosecutor asked Cybergenetics to examine DNA evidence data. The local crime lab couldn't draw conclusions from complex DNA mixtures. Using the same STR data, TrueAllele placed defendant Joshua Huber and the victims DNA on various items. The prosecutor gave the defense our results. Huber's lawyers saw how the new DNA could support struggle and self-defense, rather than premeditated murder. They retained Cybergenetics; I testified at trial. Both sides argued their case using the TrueAllele analysis. The jury acquitted Huber of first-degree homicide.
Texas v. Lydell Grant Case Example
Lydell Grant was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Aaron Scheerhoorn based on faulty DNA evidence. Seven years later, TrueAllele scientific analysis of the same fingernail STR data excluded Grant—and developed a DNA profile for a likely suspect. The new profile was run through CODIS. The database search identified Jermarico Carter, who was living in Georgia. When confronted by the Houston police, Carter confessed. Grant was later released from prison and fully exonerated.
This case highlights the power of newly discovered DNA evidence for two of Shockley's theories. A database search could identify the true perpetrator, and the perpetrator may confess when confronted with irrefutable DNA evidence. That's exactly what happened with the TrueAllele mixture re-analysis in Grant's wrongful conviction.
Indiana v. Darryl Pinkins and Roosevelt Glenn Case Example
Darryl Pinkins and Roosevelt Glenn were convicted based on faulty forensic evidence. Between them, they served 40 years in prison for a crime they did not commit. The post-conviction court wanted DNA evidence showing the two men weren't there, and the five unknown people who were. Traditional DNA mixture analysis failed. Cybergenetics’ pro bono reanalysis of the same jacket and sweater semen stain DNA data produced informative TrueAllele results. As a result, Pinkins was released from prison. Both men were fully exonerated.
The case highlights Shockley's redundancy theory. More powerful TrueAllele mixture analysis uncovered five unknown people, three of whom were brothers. This unexpected relatedness—DNA redundancy across different people—helped prove Pinkins and Glenn's actual innocence.
II. Effective touch DNA analysis was not reasonably available at the time
Touch DNA is biological evidence that has small amounts of DNA, or mixtures of two or more people. In 2009, traditional methods of interpreting small amounts or mixed DNA were largely uninformative. The available data interpretation methods would give an incorrect match statistic or no answer at all, and couldn't statistically exclude suspects.
DNA testing has two parts, (i) laboratory data generation, and (ii) subsequent interpretation of the data. The STR laboratory experiment is only the first half of the analysis process. After STR data is generated, it must then be accurately interpreted. No matter how good the STR data, a failed interpretation method will not generate useful DNA match information. Effective interpretation of touch DNA data was not reasonably available at the time.
Traditional STR data interpretation is qualitative. It applies data thresholds that discard quantitative information; it doesn't consider alternative explanations. At the time of the trial, available STR interpretation failed to accurately solve touch DNA.
In 2009, Cybergenetics' TrueAllele technology was the only effective touch DNA STR data interpretation method. Effective touch DNA STR data interpretation must use all the quantitative data. A validated probability model is needed to accurately model the STR laboratory process. In 2009, the only such validated probability model was Cybergenetics' continuous probabilistic genotyping (PG) TrueAllele technology.
In Pennsylvania v. Kevin Foley, a state trooper was accused of killing dentist John Yelenic. In February 2009, after a Frye hearing, TrueAllele was admitted as reliable evidence. I testified at trial about the victim's 7% fingernail mixture and the 189 billion match statistic to Foley (the FBI's CPI statistic was 13 thousand). Foley was the first time any continuous PG method had ever been used in a court of law, anywhere in the world.
On Friday, March 20, 2009, the Pennsylvania jury convicted trooper Foley of Yelenic's murder. Shockley's trial started in Missouri the next business day, on Monday, March 23, 2009. Shockley's lawyers would not have known about TrueAllele for touch DNA and mixtures.
Conclusion
In January 2020 I flew back across the Atlantic to a Georgia courtroom. I testified how TrueAllele had successfully resolved hundreds of touch DNA handgun mixtures, but such technology was unavailable to Jimmy Meders in 1989. Meders was denied DNA testing. Days later, hours before his execution, the state commuted his sentence from death to life.
The Missouri DNA testing ruling rejected Shockley's databank and confession theories as "mere hope and speculation." However, both of those scenarios occurred in combination in Texas v. Lydell Grant, leading to Grant's post-conviction exoneration.
Shockley's redundancy theory "failed to convince the court" to grant DNA testing. Yet, redundant DNA often forms persuasive evidence for prosecution and defense—as it did in the Indiana v. Pinkins and Glenn post-conviction exonerations.
It is in the state's interest to allow DNA testing. Forensic science might confirm Shockley's guilt and quell the public outcry against his execution. Or, it could find new DNA evidence that stays the wrongful executioner's hand.
DNA matters. Society submits uncertain samples for DNA testing. Computers consider millions of possibilities, weighing probability and deriving scientific truth. The data decides who left their DNA and who did not.
But there is no uncertainty in the Courts of Missouri. On October 14, pentobarbital will course through Lance Shockley’s veins. And as he departs, so too will the vain hope of DNA truth.
About the author
DNA Matters, an exclusive Forensic column, discusses cases that have been aided by the power of computer software in DNA analysis. It is authored by Dr. Mark Perlin, Ph.D., M.D., Ph.D., chief scientist, executive and founder at Cybergenetics. Twenty five years ago, Perlin invented TrueAllele® probabilistic genotyping for automated human identification from DNA mixtures. His company helped identify victim remains in the World Trade Center disaster, has worked for prosecution and defense in over a thousand cases, and has helped exonerate over ten innocent men. He was a Scholar in Residence at Duquesne University’s Forensic Science and Law program, and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. © Mark Perlin 2025