Chris Wright’s constitutional right to a fair trial was compromised in a number of ways. Key evidence was withheld or extremely delayed, recordings were altered, and at least one witness appeared to have perjured herself.
The jury voted to convict based on the evidence that prosecutor Josh Player categorized and summed up at the end of Chris’s trial: “What has to be true for Wright not to be the shooter? Has to be another man who looks like Wright, sounds like Wright, has the same DNA type as Wright, using a cell phone purchase by Wright, who meets a person connected to Wright, and shoots him with Wright’s gun.”
Prosecution’s Claim
Defense | Chris Wright’s Response
Eyewitness Identification
“Looks like Chris Wright.” Lee Carlson was the State’s very first witness in Chris’s 2010 murder trial. Lee identified the shooter out of a photo array (apparently the third photo array that the he was shown, even though police provided documentation for only the last of the photo array presentations), and he did this with “80 to 90 percent certainty.” Later, when Lee saw Chris Wright in court, he said, “I’m 100 percent sure that that’s the guy I saw kill Ken Dolezsar.”
Counter Argument: How long did Lee observe the shooter directly? Not long. In fact, Lee saw only the side of shooter’s face — and he saw it at a glimpse. That’s the verb Lee consistently used: glimpse. Lee only glimpsed the side of the shooter’s face.
But the district court and appellate judges embellished that time significantly, whether intentionally or not. The district court judge wrote: “The eyewitness […] observed the two men about three to four minutes before the shooting. He observed them as close as six to seven feet in front of his vehicle where the men continued to argue for another ten to fifteen seconds then the shooting occurred.”
And the appellate judge wrote: “…[The] Eyewitness observed the shooter and Victim for about three to four minutes before the shooting and then observed them as close as six to seven feet in front of his vehicle for another ten to fifteen seconds….”
Lee never said that he observed the shooter and Ken Dolezsar for “three to four minutes.” In fact, he only ever claimed to have gotten a “glimpse” of the side of the shooter’s face. There’s a world of difference between “a glimpse” and “three to four minutes.”
Lee never got a good look at the shooter’s face. But he felt that both men “… appeared to be Eastern European,” and that they had Eastern European-type noses. Regarding eye color, Lee said in that interview: “You know, I can’t tell eye color, but [the shooter’s] eyes seem to be more bulgy like the other guy’s, um, actually I should’ve paid more attention.” [YouTube Interview Part I], [YouTube Interview Part II], [See Transcript]
Here’s what happened: Lee pulled into the parking lot just before 7:00 a.m., parked, and then, moments later, Ken and the killer came up alongside the passenger side of Lee’s car — Ken was walking backwards with his hands up in a gesture of conciliation or importuning, and the killer was advancing on him. The killer cornered Ken in front of Lee’s car, pulled out a gun, and fatally shot Ken five times. Lee, who was still sitting in his car, ducked down behind his steering wheel as soon as the shooting started. Then the killer fled in Ken’s car. This all happened very quickly. The shooter and Ken were in front of Lee’s vehicle — like literally in front of Lee’s car and he was watching them through his windshield — for only “around ten seconds, maybe fifteen at the most.” Moreover, the shooter had his back to Lee for nearly the entire time, which is why Lee caught only a “glimpse of the side of the shooter’s face, once.”
To sum up, eyewitness identification errors are “one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions.” And that’s certainly the case here.
But identification was only part of Lee’s testimony. Other key elements in Lee’s testimony support Chris Wright’s innocence: (1) The shooter looked to be of Slavic or Eastern European descent. Chris is very clearly of Nordic descent — you see this in the “Nordic fold” over his eyes, which is to say, the fold of skin that covers the inner corner of his eyes. (2) The shooter spoke with an Eastern European accent. Lee was very familiar with this kind of accent because he had a friend from the former Soviet Union. Ken Dolezsar, though of clear Slavic descent, was from Canada, and he did not speak with a Slavic accent. Chris Wright also does not speak with a Slavic accent; he was born and raised in Utah. This therefore leaves the shooter as the one speaking with a Slavic accent, which further excluded Chris from the crime scene. (3) The killer pulled a gun from his right jacket pocket and, with his right hand, shot Ken Dolezsar. Chris Wright is left-handed — in his ex-wife’s words, “profoundly left-handed.” And the killer was clearly right-handed.
DNA Evidence
“Same DNA type”: Prosecutor Player in his closing said, “The Defendant’s DNA is located in the driver’s-side door handle of that car that drives away from the scene. One out of 546 people selected at random. …There is [sic] also inconclusive results for other parts that are specific to the driver’s side of that car. Inconclusive means that the Defendant cannot be excluded. But there is not enough material to put a statistic to it. Yet, Defendant in his interview claims that he never drove that car. But the DNA is found in the driver’s side door handle area.”
Counter argument:Prosecutor Player spoke two untruths here and made one misrepresentation:
One misrepresentation: “There is [sic] also inconclusive results for other parts that are specific to the driver’s side of that car. Inconclusive means the defendant cannot be excluded.” Highly misleading. Chris was fully excluded from the two areas in the Navigator that any driver would’ve had to touch: the steering wheel and the driver seat: There is a full profile of an unknown male on the steering wheel, and the size of it dwarfs Ken Dolezsar’s own DNA on his own steering wheel. Dr. Greg Hampikian, an internationally known DNA analyst — the expert who helped free Amanda Knox — corroborated this finding. That DNA profile on the steering wheel belongs to the killer. Prosecutor Player completely omits that fact, and it’s not hard to guess why. [See Report]
First untruth: “One out of 546 people selected at random.” That’s one out of every Caucasian males selected at random, which is a set of about two million people. Those aren’t good numbers. And the prosecutor even admits as much: “So why don’t we have better figures for the DNA in this case?” His rhetorical answer to his own rhetorical Q is to imply that Chris somehow hid the rest of his DNA from investigators. In other words, Player is claiming that the lack of evidence is somehow proof of the defendant’s perfidy, which is the opposite of our justice system’s vaunted presumption of “innocence until proven guilty.”
Second untruth: “Yet, Defendant in his interview claims that he never drove that car.” That’s not true. Chris did in fact claim in his interview that he’d driven Ken’s car approximately three weeks before the shooting (at Ken’s insistence, Chris drove him from SLC to his Park City development for a tour). Therefore, it’s un-surprising that investigators claimed to have found trace amounts of Chris’s DNA on the driver’s side armrest. Yet even that finding is highly suspect, given that three separate DNA analysts said that the DNA sample was degraded enough that they couldn’t responsibly draw a conclusion — in other words, that the sample hadn’t cleared the stochastic threshold. And all of this ignores the killer’s full DNA profile on the steering wheel, which, again, Chris was excluded from.
Moreover, police investigators obtained fingerprints from Ken’s Navigator. Chris was excluded from those prints. [See Report] Thus, by both DNA and fingerprint evidence, we know that Chris was not in Ken’s Navigator that morning, and this means he wasn’t present at the scene, which ultimately means that he did not fatally shoot Ken Dolezsar.
Add to this Chris’s (now-ex-) wife’s alibi testimony (which she still stands by, seventeen years later) that Chris was with her on the morning of the murder, and this is how we know that Lee Carlson did not in fact see Chris on the morning of Ken’s murder. DNA evidence contradicts Lee’s identification. Alibi testimony contradicts Lee’s identification. Fingerprint evidence contradicts Lee Carlson’s eyewitness identification testimony.
But it doesn’t contradict Lee’s eyewitness testimony — i.e., everything else he experienced and saw that morning.
And one of the most important things Lee testified to was that the shooter had a Slavic (or Russian) accent. As you’ll see, it made perfect sense that Ken’s murderer would have a Russian accent.
Cell-Phone Records
Disposable-phone calls arranging the breakfast meeting were traced to Wright’s locations and linked to his known numbers.
Chris Wright maintains that the prosecution’s reliance on cell-phone records to place him at the scene of Ken Dolezsar’s murder is flawed and misleading. He asserts that the tower data only show general proximity, not precise location, and that the prepaid phone in question could have been used by someone else. Wright further contends that his defense team was not provided full access to the phone records or analysis before trial, preventing them from independently verifying or challenging the prosecution’s interpretation. He argues that, as a result, the cell-phone evidence does not reliably place him at the scene and should not be considered conclusive.
Voicemail Voice Match
An AT&T disposable phone (a so-called “burner phone”) was used to arrange the breakfast meeting where Ken was murdered. Per prosecutor Player, “[T]hree calls from the prepaid cell phone that Wright bought were made to the victim in the 24 hours before the shooting. First call is from Robert who wants to meet with the victim. People familiar with his voice recognize the voice as Wright’s and the last call is 30 minutes before the killing. The caller Robert — so what does that mean? It means the caller Robert arranged the meeting with the victim and that the caller sounds a lot like Wright.”
Counter Argument: Chris Wright’s family and friends all agree that Robert’s voice wasn’t Chris Wright’s. Viewers of the Dateline episode on Chris’s case agree that Robert’s voice wasn’t Chris’s. Even the prosecutor Josh Player himself admitted that Chris’s voice in 2010 didn’t sound the same as his voice in 2008 — which is a really odd thing for Player to have said. Chris’s voice hadn’t changed, and Player conceded that, which, again, is very weird. Why would Player claim that Chris’s voice had changed, and in the same breath say that it hadn’t changed? The very simply explanation is that (a) Chris’s voice didn’t sound the same as Robert’s voice in the voicemail, and (b) Chris’s voice was, in reality, the same in 2008 as it was in 2010 (and as it is today). Why did Chris Wright purchase the phone? Ken Dolezsar asked him to. He asked it as a favor, but it was also an implied condition of Dolezsar’s investing in Chris’s development. Dolezsar told Chris that he needed the phone to give to a highly valuable contact. Both Ken and that contact were in extreme danger, and they both needed to ensure that they could securely communicate. Chris bought the phone and then gave it to David Novak, who presumably then gave it to Ken’s contact.
Ballistics
A shell casing recovered from Wright’s home matched the caliber and markings of casings from the murder scene.
Chris Wright contends that the prosecution’s ballistics evidence, which purportedly links a shell casing from his residence to the casings found at the crime scene, is unreliable. He maintains that the shell casing in question was never recovered during the initial evidence collection at his residence and only surfaced later in the evidence locker after further examination of the gun case, discovered by a single individual. Wright argues that this violates proper evidence-handling protocols and raises questions about chain-of-custody integrity. He also asserts that the testing methods used were limited and that no independent forensic analysis was available to the defense before trial. Wright emphasizes that alternative explanations exist, such as the presence of similar firearms in the community, and maintains that, given these procedural and scientific concerns, the ballistics evidence cannot conclusively tie him to the murder.
Firearm Purchase
Wright bought or replaced a handgun shortly after the murder, which prosecutors argued showed an effort to replace the weapon used.
Chris Wright contends that the prosecution’s claim—that he bought or replaced a firearm shortly after the murder to replace the alleged murder weapon—is misleading and speculative. He maintains that the firearm referenced was lost earlier when he and his wife went to the shooting range, as she testified at trial, and that there is no evidence he used it in the crime. Wright also notes that another individual, David Novak, lived in the same complex and had access to firearms in Wright’s residence, raising the possibility that someone else could have used or handled the gun. He emphasizes that his defense team was not provided complete documentation of the purchase records prior to trial, limiting their ability to verify or contextualize the transaction. Wright argues that the firearm evidence does not prove his involvement in the murder and should not be considered indicative of guilt.
Financial Motive
Wright faced pressing financial issues and expected a large loan from Dolezsar that prosecutors said Dolezsar refused to provide.
Chris Wright disputes the prosecution’s claim that he had a financial motive to murder Ken Dolezsar. He contends that the documents and testimony cited at trial—such as promissory notes or alleged loan expectations—were either misinterpreted or taken out of context. Wright maintains that there is no credible evidence he stood to gain financially from Dolezsar’s death and that the prosecution’s argument is purely speculative. He further argues that focusing on alleged financial motives distracts from the lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime.
Disguise and Flight
Wright allegedly donned a wig or disguise, shot Dolezsar, and fled in the victim’s SUV, later abandoning it nearby.
Chris Wright contends that the prosecution’s claim—that his DNA was found inside Dolezsar’s SUV—is incorrect and misleading. Independent expert analysis now indicates that his DNA does not appear anywhere in the vehicle, and instead, there is a substantial amount of DNA from an unknown individual. Wright argues that, because the shooter would have been the last person in the vehicle, this unknown DNA effectively rules him out as a suspect. He also maintains that the defense was not provided timely access to all DNA reports and analyses before trial, limiting their ability to investigate or challenge the findings. Wright asserts that this new evidence fundamentally undermines the prosecution’s argument that he was physically present in the SUV during or after the shooting.
Why the Defense Believes Ken Dolezsar Was Murdered
Chris Wright’s defense argues that the investigation into Ken Dolezsar’s murder failed to properly explore the most likely motives and suspects. They maintain that the police and prosecution targeted Wright from the start and neglected to investigate numerous alternative suspects with stronger motives.
Key points raised by the defense include:
-
David Novak:
Novak was a business associate of Dolezsar’s who owed him $1.6 million, due a month after the murder, which was never paid. The defense argues that Novak had a financial motive to eliminate Dolezsar and was the individual meeting with Dolezsar the morning he was killed. Novak also had connections to organized crime, including the Russian mafia, matching the eyewitness’s description of the shooter with a Russian accent. Notably, Novak fled Salt Lake City shortly after the murder, yet police never fully investigated him—no search of his apartment, office, or computers, and no DNA or fingerprints were collected. -
The Mower Family:
Dee Mower, Dolezsar’s widow, told police that her ex-husband and two sons had motives to harm Dolezsar. Evidence suggested that Darick Mower may have made a death threat, and that the family could have had ties to criminal activity. Despite this, police and prosecutors did not conduct a full investigation into the Mowers. -
Other Alternative Suspects:
The defense points to other individuals flagged by Dee Mower, including David Simpson and an individual named “Robert,” as potential suspects who were never seriously investigated. -
Investigation Failures:
The defense contends that the police and prosecution’s failure to follow up on these leads and examine alternative suspects amounted to destruction of evidence and prevented a thorough, unbiased investigation.
According to Wright’s team, these overlooked leads suggest that Dolezsar was killed to send a message to Dee Mower and her family, rather than for any financial gain on Wright’s part, and that Wright was wrongly accused while the true perpetrator(s) went largely unexamined.