On December 28, 1982, a 29-year-old woman was jogging along the Kanawha River front in Charleston, West Virginia, when a man wearing a hooded jacket approached from the opposite direction. The man pushed her down a hill and dragged her to a storm sewer where he raped her. The attacker ejaculated on her face and fled.
The woman, identified as C.M., lost her glasses during the attack. She ran to a nearby house and sought help. Police were called and she was taken to a hospital, where evidence from the rape was collected. The examining physician collected a rape kit, swabbed her face, and collected her clothing as evidence. After preparing slides from the collected substances , examination of the facial slides revealed the presence of a sizable amount of spermatozoa. The physician sent the slides to the Charleston Area Medical Center and discarded the unused fluids.
C.M. described her attacker as 17 to 19 years old, clean shaven and blonde-headed.
After an off-duty FBI agent reported that 27-year-old Larry Holden resembled a man the agent saw near the scene of the attack, the police put Holden’s photograph, along with a blurred photograph of his identical twin brother, into a photographic lineup. There were five photographs in all and three of the men had beards.
In March 1983, C.M. became agitated while looking at Holdren’s picture and selected him as her attacker. On March 10, 1983, Holdren was charged with six counts of first-degree sexual assault.
In March 1984, prior to his trial, Holdren was notified of the existence of the laboratory slides. Holdren was allowed to have the semen specimens submitted for DNA testing to determine if he could be excluded as the contributor. The tests were unsuccessful because the staining process used by the original examining physician had rendered the specimens unsuitable for testing.
Holden went to trial in Kanawha County Circuit Court in July 1984. C.M. identified Holden as her attacker. The FBI agent testified that he saw Holden in the area of the attack that day.
Sabrina Midkiff, an analyst at the West Virginia Department of Public Safety, testified about two pubic hairs that were recovered from the rape kit. She testified that she was unable to do a hair comparison because “there was insufficient quantity of known hairs.”
At that point, the defense then arranged for hair samples from the victim, the victim’s husband, and Holdren to be sent to Midkiff.
After the prosecution rested its case, the defense recalled Midkiff, and she testified that one of the hairs was consistent with the victim’s hair and inconsistent with Holdren’s hair. She said the victim’s husband was excluded as the source of the second hair, which showed “similarities and dissimilarities” with the “microscopic characteristics” of both the victim’s and Holdren’s hair. As a result, Midkiff testified that “no conclusion could be reached [as] to the origination that hair.”
However, during cross-examination by the prosecutor, Midkiff confirmed that she could not say Holdren was excluded as being the source of that unknown hair.
Holdren testified that at the time of the crime he was at his mother’s home taking a nap. His mother, his sister and his twin brother all testified that he was there taking a nap.
On July 31, 1984, the jury convicted Holdren of all six counts of first-degree sexual assault. Judge A. Andrew MacQueen sentenced him to 30 to 60 years in prison.
In March 1986, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld his convictions and sentence.
Pursuant to a state habeas court order filed on April 17, 1990, Holdren was allowed to have DNA testing performed on two unidentified pubic hairs removed from the victim when the rape kit was taken. One hair was reported to be “most consistent with the victim, but is also consistent with [Holdren].” The other hair was said to be “very similar” to the victim. A more extensive test was performed on that hair because it had a portion of the root remaining. This test identified the victim as a potential source, but more importantly, it excluded Holdren as the source.
Because this contradicted the trial testimony, Holdren petitioned for a new trial. The petition was denied in 1994.
In 1997, the prosecution agreed to allow another examination of the remaining evidence. The evidence was sent to Forensic Science Associates, a DNA laboratory in Richmond, California.
In June 1999, the laboratory reported that spermatozoa had been found, mixed with epithelial cells, on the sweatshirt. The epithelial cells, once tested, matched the victim. The spermatozoa produced a DNA profile that excluded Holdren.
On June 10, 1999, the prosecution agreed to enter a joint order with Holden’s defense team to vacate his convictions. He was released that day.
On January 4, 2000, the prosecution dismissed the case.
Holdren was awarded $1,650,000 in compensation by the West Virginia legislature. He filed a lawsuit against the Charleston Area Medical Center, alleging it mishandled the slides. The lawsuit was settled for $1,000,000.
– Maurice Possley
Posting Date: 08-29-2011
Last Update Date: 02-17-2026
