Kevin Herrick Wrongful Conviction, Kevin is Next

Unidentified Fingerprints: A Question of Justice

This case raises significant questions regarding the handling and reporting of fingerprint evidence, specifically concerning Kevin's trial.

Initial Recovery of Fingerprint Evidence Officer Joiner recovered nine (9) partial latent fingerprints of sufficient comparison value from the crime scene. These were found at the following locations:

• Two (2) prints from the exterior side of the master bedroom doorknob.
• Six (6) prints, including a partial palm print, from the sliding glass door.
• One (1) print from the exterior side of the second bedroom doorknob.

Conflicting Fingerprint Analysis and Discrepancies The analysis of these fingerprints by Largo Police Officer Barone revealed significant inconsistencies:

• May 23, 1990: Officer Barone determined that "all six (6) fingerprints from the sliding glass door were not similar to Kevin"; in other words, they did not match Kevin.
• June 5, 1990 (Fifteen days later): After a closed door meeting with the prosecution, lead investigator, and victims, Officer Barone reported that all four (4) prints from the sliding glass door matched John Doe.
• Both of the victims testified that the assailant was the only one to touch the sliding glass door and that John Doe himself did not touch the sliding door during the incident. This raises questions about how John Doe 's prints appeared in the blood smears on the glass door preserved for testing.

Unaccounted Prints: The sources highlight that two (2) prints from the sliding glass door that do not match John Doe or Kevin are unaccounted for. Furthermore, the two (2) prints from the master bedroom doorknob and the one (1) print from the second bedroom doorknob were also not accounted for.

Concerns Regarding Police Conduct and Trial Proceedings Several issues surfaced concerning the police investigation and the trial:

• Despite the official reports, both victims confirmed that police had told them the fingerprints on the door matched Kevin, and they still believed this to be true at trial.
• The prosecution stated during the trial that all fingerprints matched John Doe and that Kevin simply did not leave any behind. However, this was a "misleading nonfactual statement" because not all fingerprints were accounted for.
• The internal fingerprint analysis was performed by Largo Police, not a forensic specialist.
• This is the same Largo Police who previously told Jane Doe and John Doe that the fingerprints did match Kevin.

Considering the "inherent conflict of the Largo Police and their episodes of misconduct, independent fingerprint examinations should have been performed.

Notably, Kevin’s trial attorney, Ed Lienster, did not investigate, challenge, or present any fingerprint evidence during the trial.

Unanswered Questions in Forensic Hair Analysis:

Forensic evidence, particularly hair analysis, plays a crucial role in criminal investigations. However, the case involving Kevin Herrick highlights significant questions regarding the use and omission of such evidence.

Initial Forensic Analysis and Surprising Findings: In this case, head and pubic hair samples were collected from Kevin Herrick, John Doe, and Jane Doe. These samples were sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for forensic comparison against hair evidence found at the crime scene, specifically from John and Jane's bedsheets.

• On June 29, 1990, the FDLE report concluded that the microanalysis of the hairs obtained from the bedsheets did not match Kevin Herrick.
• Crucially, the FDLE analysis also determined that some of the hair samples collected did not match Jane Doe or John Doe either.
• This physical evidence strongly suggested that someone else was present in that bed.

Evidence Omitted from Trial and Subsequent Efforts: Despite these significant findings, this critical physical evidence was not discussed at all during the trial. 

• When Kevin Herrick questioned his defense attorney, Mr. Lienster, he was informed that the FDLE fiber analysis was inconclusive.

In 2007, The Innocence Project became involved, representing Kevin Herrick in post-conviction proceedings. 

• Their primary objective was to have the DNA tested from the hairs recovered from the victim’s bedsheets. The specific purpose of this DNA testing was to identify the actual assailant in the case.

However, the pursuit of this crucial DNA evidence faced an unexpected setback:

• The motion for post-conviction DNA testing was inexplicably denied.
• Due to this denial, The Innocence Project had no alternative but to conclude their representation of Kevin Herrick.
• In 2025, after multiple requests over more than 30 years, the Largo Police admitted that they destroyed the evidence in 1992.

Kevin's trial attorney, Ed Leinster, was concurrently representing a client in an appeal arguing that DNA should not be admissible. He could not ethically argue that DNA should be admitted in Kevin's case. 

This case raises serious questions about the handling of forensic evidence and the pursuit of justice when key information remains unexamined.

 A Critical Discrepancy

Evidence collected from Kevin's room included a pair of jeans with a black belt and a bronze-colored buckle. This seemingly minor detail reveals a significant discrepancy when compared with other official records and testimony.

Key Discrepancy Points:

• Absence in Reports: There is no mention of a large belt buckle in the Largo Police reports or the forensic reports.
• Kevin's Ownership: Significantly, Kevin never owned a large belt buckle.
• The Belt Obtained: The belt obtained by the police was a standard belt.
• Jane Doe's Testimony: This standard belt does not match Jane's testimony.

Crucial Identification: Jane Doe identified her assailant, Kevin, based on a large belt buckle, which is described as one of the only consistent form of identification not dependent on Largo police or John Doe.

Evidence Withheld: Despite its importance, the evidence of the standard belt – and by extension, the absence of the large buckle – was never introduced at trial.

This discrepancy is crucial because the large belt buckle, which Kevin never possessed, was a consistent element in Jane Doe's identification of him as her assailant. The fact that this critical piece of evidence, which contradicts Jane's description, was not presented at trial raises significant questions.

The Impact of Misinformation: 

Misinformation about critical evidence significantly influenced how the victim testimony was presented during trial. This specific case highlights a discrepancy between initial police reports, later findings, and the subsequent impact on witness accounts.

• Initial Police Report: Police reports indicated that jeans recovered from Kevin's bedroom "appeared to have blood stains on them". This initial observation created the impression that bloody evidence linked to Kevin had been found.
• Actual Findings: However, subsequent investigation revealed that the stains on Kevin's jeans were not blood at all, but rather "from construction adhesives from work". This directly contradicted the initial impression conveyed in the police report.
• Other Blood Evidence: It is important to note that the only actual blood evidence collected in this case was found smeared on the sliding glass door at John Doe and Jane Doe’s apartment and on John’s clothing. All of this blood evidence was confirmed to match John’s blood type “O”.

Influence on Victim Testimony

Despite the true nature of the stains on Kevin's jeans, the misinformation had a direct and significant impact on the victim's testimony:

• Both victims testified at trial that the police had informed them that "bloody clothes were recovered from Kevin’s bedroom".
• Continued Belief: Crucially, the sources indicate that the victims "still believed it to be true" when they provided their testimony. This demonstrates how the initial communication from law enforcement, even if based on an inaccurate preliminary assessment, can profoundly shape a witness's understanding and presentation of facts in court. The victims' belief in the presence of "bloody clothes" directly influenced what they stated under oath.

The police report also states that a small lock blade knife and a gun were found tucked under the mattress in Kevin’s room.

• While the police report states that the knife appeared to have dried blood on it, this also turned out to be inaccurate speculation for which the victims were told by police and yet the victims still believed to be true at trial.
• It also does not appear that the knife was forensically compared to the wounds John Doe sustained. How do we even know this is the knife that stabbed John Doe?
• It also does not make sense that Kevin would choose to bring a puny knife to commit this crime when he had a gun available. Why not bring the gun instead?