A federal court has denied the United States government's request to take a deposition in the case against John Raymond Conner, III, who faces multiple charges, including first-degree sexual abuse while armed. The ruling, issued by Judge Loren L. AliKhan on July 24, 2026, means that the government will have to find other ways to present key evidence in the upcoming trial, which is scheduled for October 26, 2026.
The decision affects the prosecution's strategy as they sought to preserve the testimony of a critical witness, Oluwakemi Sowemimo, a scientist from Bode Technology. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the defendant's rights are upheld, particularly the right to confront witnesses against him.
The case arises from a superseding indictment that charges Conner with eighteen offenses, including first-degree sexual abuse, kidnapping, and failure to register as a sex offender. The charges stem from allegations of a violent sexual assault involving DNA evidence linking Conner to the crime. The government argued that Sowemimo's testimony was necessary to establish the chain of custody for DNA evidence collected from the alleged victim's sexual assault kit.
Conner's defense team has consistently maintained that the government has not sufficiently demonstrated the need for a deposition under the legal standards set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15. This rule allows for depositions only under exceptional circumstances, which the court found lacking in this case.
The United States contended that Sowemimo's testimony was material because she conducted DNA testing that revealed the presence of both the alleged victim's and Conner's DNA. However, the court concluded that the government failed to adequately explain how her absence would impact the trial's outcome. Judge AliKhan noted that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence linking Sowemimo’s testimony to critical issues at trial.
“The United States has failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting a Rule 15 deposition,” the court ruled.
Additionally, the government argued that Sowemimo's return to Nigeria made her unavailable for trial, citing ongoing visa restrictions for Nigerian nationals. However, the court found that the government did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood that she would be unable to testify. The ruling highlighted that the government had not verified Sowemimo’s immigration status or provided details about her employment, which could affect her ability to return to the United States.
Judge AliKhan emphasized the importance of the defendant's rights in the decision, stating that the government must provide clear evidence of a witness's unavailability and the materiality of their testimony. The court noted that the prosecution's arguments were based on speculation rather than concrete facts.
The ruling has significant implications for the upcoming trial. Without Sowemimo's testimony, the prosecution may face challenges in presenting DNA evidence, which is crucial to their case against Conner. The court's decision reinforces the need for the government to ensure that all witnesses are available to testify and that the defendant's rights are protected throughout the legal process.
Looking ahead, the government has the option to refile their motion for a deposition if they can provide additional evidence that meets the court's standards. This ruling highlights the ongoing complexities of legal proceedings in serious criminal cases and the balance that courts must maintain between prosecuting crimes and protecting defendants' rights.
As the trial date approaches, both sides will need to prepare their strategies carefully. The outcome of this case could have lasting effects on the legal landscape surrounding sexual abuse cases and the handling of DNA evidence in court.