Eight reasons why Tory Lanez is Asking for a New Trial

By Alex A. Alonso for Streetgangs.Com | April 30, 2023

LOS ANGELES – On March 29, 2023 Daystar Peterson’s (Tory Lanez) attorney, Matthew Barhoma filed an 80-page motion requesting a rare new trial. Peterson was convicted last December on all three felony counts including, assault with a firearm, negligent discharge of a firearm and illegal possession of a firearm related to a shooting in 2020 that injured rapper, Megan “Megan Thee Stallion” Pete.

The illegal possession of concealed firearm in a vehicle (PC 25400) carries a sentence of 16 months, two years or a maximum of three years. The discharging of a firearm with gross negligence (PC 246.3) carries the same range of sentences as the previous offense. The most serious charge, assault with a firearm (PC 245) causing great bodily injury, carries either six months, two, three or four years sentence that must be served in the California State prison system.

In addition to the three felony convictions, the jury also found true two gun enhancements exposing Peterson to a maximum sentence of 22-years in state prison.

Peterson’s legal team is looking for a retrial that can be granted if they can convince a judge there was prosecutorial misconduct, jury misconduct, a court error, insufficient evidence, new evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, or a change in the law. Judge David Herriford may grant a retrial after if he considers any of the following issues raised violated Peterson’s Constitutional Rights.

(1) Prosecution added the third count of negligent discharging of a firearm with gross negligence without prior notice during the early stages of the trial and Peterson is arguing that this was both “unfair” and harassing.

(2) Peterson is arguing that his right to counsel was impacted when his original attorney, Shawn Holly, stepped away from defending the case. The prosecution alleged that a bribe from Tory Lanez to Kelsey Harris was facilitated through attorney Shawn Holly. Holly informed prosector Kathy Ta that was untrue, but the alleged bribe came up during the trial when Kelsey Harris testified that Tory was making offers and that his attorney [Shawn Holly] told him to word it a specific way. So even though the prosecution acknowledged that Holly was not part of any bribe, the prosecution suggested it during trial.

-(3) The DNA evidence on the gun was inconclusive, and the defense is arguing that the prosecution should not be able to claim that it’s possible Peterson’s DNA is on the gun. The defense believes that the inconclusive results of the DNA evidence should not allow the prosecution to argue that it’s still possible Peterson’s DNA could be on the gun. The DNA should only be introduced if it makes a conclusive identification.

-(4) Peterson objects to introducing the shirtless photo for the purposes of pointing out the firearm tattooed on his chest, which is a violation of artistic expression law. When Officer Cabral was testifying about GSR tests, three photos, Kelsey Harris, Jaquon Smith and Daystar Peterson were introduced. When EJ Culberson was testifying about whether he ever seen Peterson talk about guns or see a gun, prosecutor Ta showed him that same shirtless photo to show the jury the rifle tattoo. Peterson is arguing that the prosecution manipulated the meaning the the gun tattoo, and made into a symbol of criminality.

-(5a) Peterson claims that the late introduction of evidence pertaining to the Instagram comment was a Brady violation which states that there should be pre-trial disclosure of evidence regarding statements made by the defendant, at least 30 days prior to trial. In addition to the late discover, (5b) the defense is claiming that Peterson did not make that Instagram comment, that Kelsey didn’t shoot Megan, and that it was a guy named Joshua Farias. The State did not authenticate Peterson’s Instagram account as required in previous cases and therefore that post cannot be trusted . Lastly, (5c) LAPD Detective Eberhert testifying about the comment relied on hearsay a “Sanchez” violation, meaning, did the detective really know if Peterson made that post? Since the detective opined on it, relying on hearsay, represents a “Sanchez” violation.

-(6) The prosecution threatened to introduce rap lyrics and videos if Peterson decided to testify, a violation of the artistic expression law. Because the prosecution threatened to go into lyrics and a video of him chopping horse legs, he decided not to testify, and was not able to tell his side of the story according to the defense.

-(7) Peterson is arguing that mentioning a previous gun arrest from Florida biased the jury. His arrest record came up when Megan testified that Tory said after the shooting, “don’t tell, I am on probation, I got caught with a gun” but it turns out that Peterson was NOT on probation and had no gun conviction. But the prosecution was able to bring up an uncharged 2017 gun offense in Florida to explain what Megan was referring to. Although LAPD Detective Stogner testified that Tory did not have any convictions and the 2017 case resulted in diversion, the defense is arguing that Megan’s testimony already did the damage to Peterson’s reputation regarding any criminal past contributing to an unfair trial.

-(8) Kelsey Harris invoked her 5^th Amendment right from testifying, but when offered immunity in exchange for her testimony, Peterson is arguing that she faltered and that allowed the audio of her September 2022 interview with prosecutors to be played. (8a)The defense was never issued a transcript of the interview prior to trial. The (8b) defense also believes that this statement should not have been admitted because it did not allow the defendant to confront his accuser.

The prosecution responded to Peterson’s 80-page and on April 10 the merits of these points was supposed to be argued. In front of a full court room that had been waiting for 30 minutes, the brief hearing on Monday April 10 was reschedule for April 17. Defense attorneys for Peterson expressed that they wanted to file an additional motion further delaying the sentencing of Peterson. So when Peterson was back in court, Judge Herriford scheduled May 8 for Peterson’s attorneys to argue their case for retrial.

Attorney Matthew Barhoma wanted to schedule two more additional days for arguments, May 9 and 10, but Judge Herriford said let’s stick to May 8. Before this hearing was over, prosecutor Kathy Ta told the judge, that we need to get to the sentencing and that we have given the defense much latitude to file their supplemental motions. The Judge responded that we will take all that up on May 8.

---

You can listen to Alex Alonso every week on the Streets & Scholars podcast