Several men broke into the New Orleans residence of Rebe Espadron in a home invasion robbery and killed five people. Smith was convicted on the basis of only one witness. Larry Boatner, one of the survivors, identified him from a picture spread and was the sole witness against Smith at trial. But prior to trial the prosecution failed to provide the defense with a number of Boatner’s statements, in some of which he said that he could not identify the killers. Since the statements could have been used at trial to impeach Boatner there iss no question that the statements are exculpatory. The Court also found the statements material since “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” When there is only one witness, his credibility is crucial to the prosecution and the failure to provide Brady evidence for impeachment can make a major difference.

The sad part is that New Orleans prosecutors have a long history of violating Brady. They have been called on this before but they continue to violate the law. They don’t seem to learn

One issue not raised in the Supreme Court decision is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Here you have only one eyewitness who’s statements are all over the book. At one point he says he did not see the faces of the murderer. At another point he says he could not recognize the murderers. And at a third point, while he is on the witness stand he states he is absolutely positive that the defendant is the murderer. As we have pointed out in the past eyewitness testimony is the number one cause of DNA post conviction exonorations. Over 75 per cent of those exonorated by the Innocence Project have been convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony.

Among the items Skinner wants tested are ” vaginal swabs from Busby contained in a rape kit; clippings from her fingernails; two knives, one found on Busby’s front porch and the second found in a plastic bag in the living room; a dish towel; and blood and hairs from a jacket found next to Busby’s body.” The Texas Attorney General argues that there is so much evidence against Skinner that even if the items had been tested before the trial and the DNA tests were negative Skinner would still have been convicted. After the murder Skinner was found at a friend’s house four blocks from the murder. There was a trail of blood from the murder scene to the friend’s house. The authorities claim that Skinner’s hands were cut with the same knife used to stab Busby’s sons. DNA tests on items already tested implicate Skinner. But as the foreman of the jury stated in a letter to the Dallas Morning News, “Since the trial, I and many of my fellow jurors have grown increasingly concerned that key pieces of DNA evidence from the crime scene remain untested,” the foreman, Danny Stewart, wrote. “Either the tests confirm Skinner’s guilt or prove his innocence and prevent the state from making an irreversible mistake. There is simply no downside.”

Share/Save

Last week the District Court of Appeals found the Act to violate the Fourth Amendment in that it does not required individualized suspicion or probable cause approved by a judge. Individualized suspicion is needed prior to any search of the body for a criminal investigation.

But the State argued that the DNA testing was not being done for a criminal investigation. Rather the purpose of the testing was for identification purposes. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. To determine if a search is reasonable the courts use the totality of the circumstances test under which they balance the needs of government against the privacy interest of the individual.

But in balancing the needs the court found that in as far at the State’s needs for identification versus the individual’s privacy rights, the individual wins. A fingerprint analysis using the FBI’s computers in Washington D. C. can be done in ten minutes while it takes on an average 31 days to develop a DNA profile. The electoral advertising for Proposition 69 all emphasized DNA’s use as an investigative tool, not its use for identification. The state’s regulations for the taking of DNA all require that identification of the arrestee occur prior to submitting the DNA sample. In fact they require that fingerprints be submitted along with the DNA sample.

On the other hand while it is easy to take a DNA sample to do so is quite invasive. The state gains a tremendous amount of information about the individual besides the identification of the individual. It may be possible using the DNA sample to determine what illnesses the person has and perhaps even the propensity of the person to commit violent acts. None of this is necessary for identification but it invades the privacy rights of the person without a prior court finding of probable cause. As a result of the balancing test the Court found the DNA testing of individuals arrested for a felony, but for whom there has been no finding of probable cause unconstitutional.

Share/Save

Jeffs, who fired his lawyers and is representing himself let go with a 55 minute rant when the prosecutor attempted to place into evidence a list of Jeffs’ wives. ¹ He objected to his religion being put on trial and he continued to interrupt the trial with claims that the court was violating his religion. During the defense case he put on one witness–a member of his church who he questioned for four hours about church doctrine until the judge forced Jeffs to end his examination finding that witness’ testimony was not relevant.

Well none of Jeffs’ antics helped him. Among the evidence was a picture of him passionately kissing a 12 year old, DNA evidence that he fathered a child by a 14 year old, and an audio recording of him raping the 12 year old. He was given 30 minutes for closing. Most of the time he stood mute before the court, interrupting his silence, only to say, “I’m at peace.” He was found guilty. At sentencing he faces up to 119 years. In Texas the jury decides the sentence. Immediately after he was found guilty a sentencing hearing began. The prosecution expects to put on two days of testimony. I do not know whether Jeffs plans to put on witnesses. According to the prosecutor the evidence in the sentencing phase will show that Jeffs had 78 illegal wives, including 24 underage wives, that he either performed or had been involved in 67 illegal underage marriages, that he participated in more than 500 bigamous marriages, that he had illegal sex ²with six different people and he participated in the breaking up of 300 families “by splitting up marriages or reassigning ‘wives,’ sometimes to himself.”

Share/Save

A writ of habeas corpus (literally: “you are to have the body” is a request to release a person from custody or confinement. But a request to test the DNA samples does not automatically result in a release from custody. It may be counterproductive in that it may help to prove guilt or it may be ambivalent. Thus since the request for DNA testing does not in and of itself result in the release of the body a Section 1983 action is appropriate.

As in the case we looked at yesterday, the decision is not one on the merits it only allows Henry Skinner to file an action. He still has to prove his case.

Share/Save

Prior to the trial no DNA test was done on the strand. During the trial a forensic expert testified that the strand of hair could have belonged to Jones and that it could not have belonged to the victim. But the recently completed DNA analysis indicates not only that the strand did not come from Jones but it may have belonged to the victim.

The only other evidence against Jones was the testimony of an accomplice. The accomplice, Timothy Jordan, has since recanted his testimony. At trial Jordan, who did not enter the store but who planned the robbery and may have provided the gun testified that Jones told him that he had killed the store owner. Accomplice testimony is inherently unreliable. They tend to exaggerate the role of others and minimize their own role in order to obtain a lesser sentence.

The test does not exonerate Jones but it does cast doubt upon his conviction. Texas law takes into account the unreliability of co-defendant testimony by requiring some corroborating evidence. At Jones’ trial the strand of hair served as the only corroborating evidence. Without it there would not have been sufficient evidence to convict him. Furthermore we do not know what the jury would have done without the incorrect testimony of the forensic expert. If a DNA test would have been done they could not convicted or executed him without other corroborating evidence.

Share/Save

The exonerations occurred despite the fact that Bivens and Dixon confessed to the crime and plead guilty. There is evidence that they were coerced into pleading guilty by the police. They testified against Larry Ruffin who went to trial and was found guilty. At trial they changed their testimony and admitted that none of them raped and killed Patterson. According to the Innocence Project which pushed for the exoneration of the 259 DNA exonerations since 1989, 63 involved confessions and 19 involved guilty pleas.

Share/Save

that a state prisoner is entitled to habeas corpus relief if a federal judge finds that “upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

This week in E. K. McDaniel v.Troy Brown the Court stated that Federal Courts can only grant a writ of habeas corpus if no rational trier of the fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the record at trial without excluding unreliable evidence or evidence wrongly admitted.

Troy Brown was convicted of raping a nine year old girl and sentenced to life in prison. A significant portion of the evidence at trial consisted of the testimony of an expert regarding DNA samples. The expert made two major mistakes. First she committed the “prosecutor’s fallacy.” The “prosecutor’s fallacy” “is the assumption that the random match probability is the same as the probability that the defendant was not the source of the DNA sample.” This erroneously allows the prosecutor or the expert to say that the odds that another person randomly chosen has the same DNA is the same as the odds of the accused being innocent.

Troy Brown has three brother. Two of them, like Troy live near him and the victim in Nevada. The second error made by the expert was to overestimate the chances of one of his brothers having the same DNA as found in the victim. She estimated that the odds of two brothers sharing the same DNA is 1 in 6500. The actual odds of two brothers having the same DNA is 1 in 263 and the odds of two out of four brothers having the same DNA is 1 in 66.

The Supreme Court said that the habeas could only be granted based upon the testimony at trial even if the evidence was unreliable or erroneous. But in any case even if the correct evidence had been submitted a reasonable jury could have convicted Brown. There was sufficient corroborating evidence when looked at it using only the evidence most favorable to the prosecutor which is the standard in post trial appeals where a jury has convicted the defendant.

The defendant also raised a due process claim challenging the reliability of the trial DNA evidence. But since that issue was ont raised at trial or on direct appeal the Supreme Court refused to hear it.

Share/Save

The ACLU has sued the state to forbid the enforcement of Proposition 69 which required the taking of a DNA sample from everyone arrested on a felony charge. Prior to the passage of Proposition 69 only those convicted of a sex crime or a serious felony were required to provide DNA samples. The ACLU moved for an order pending the resolution of the suit requiring the state not to enforce the proposition. The ACLU claimed that taking of DNA samples on everyone who is arrested on a felony instead of limiting the samples to those who committed crimes that can be detected by DNA testing. The Fourth Amendment allows only reasonable searches and the ACLU is arguing that the taking of a DNA sample from one’s mouth is a search and that it is unreasonable to take a saliva sample from someone who is not convicted of a crime or from someone charged with a crime where a DNA sample could not help prove guilt or innocence.

But Judge Brewer ruled that DNA is a tool used to identify people such as finger prints and therefore it is not unreasonable to take a sample. As a result he held that the ACLU is unlikely to win its suit. Therefore he denied the request for a temporary order prohibiting enforcement of the proposition while the suit is pending.

Share/Save

At trial there was evidence that the defendant followed a nine year old girl into the apartment house of a friend in Queens and sexually assaulted her in 1993. She was unable to identify him. In 2002 OCME submitted the rape kit to a private licensed laboratory, Bode. It matched the DNA of Brown who had been arrested on unrelated charges in Maryland. An analyst from OCME then compared the two samples. At trial she introduced several reports and graphs developed by Bode in its comparison of the DNA.

The Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz ruled that affidavits prepared by a forensic chemist were testimonial under Crawford. Citing Crawford, Melendez-Diaz stated

“Various formulations of this core class of testimonial statements exist: ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent–that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially; extrajudicial statements … contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions; statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.”

The Court in Melendez-Diaz had little trouble finding that the chemist’s affidavits were testimonial and that their admission violated the Confrontation Clause.

The New York Court of Appeals attempts to differentiate the DNA reports from the chemist’s reports in Melendez-Diaz by saying that the chemist in Melendez-Diaz drew the conclusion that the item tested was cocaine while the reports in Brown did not draw any conclusions. It was the analyst from OCME who testified who drew the conclusions that Brown’s DNA matched that taken from the victim. But the Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz rejected the respondent’s claim that the chemist’s personal appearance was not necessary because it was the “result of neutral, scientific testing.” The New York Court is making the same claim and it should not hold up under the Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz.

The affidavits in Melendez-Diaz are under oath whereas the reports in Brown are not under oath. Some might argue that this makes the Brown reports less testimonial. But it also makes them less reliable and more in need of cross examination. Furthermore they were made for the purpose of litigation and in expectation that they would be introduced into evidence. As such their testimonial nature should not be questioned.

Share/Save