Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00684-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILBER JENNINGS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

JILL L. BROWN, Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-91-684-OWW-P

Death Penalty Case

Order Granting Respondent’s

Second Motion to Expand the

Record

This matter comes before the court pursuant to Respondent Jill L. Brown’s (“the

State”) second motion to expand the record, filed August 18, 2003, seeking to expand

the record with a declaration from Delia Frausto-Heredia, a senior criminologist with

the California Department of Justice’s Fresno Regional Labratory, who performed DNA

analysis on samples from Petitioner Wilber Jennings (“Jennings”) and victim Linda

Johnson. Ms. Frausto-Heredia declares that the DNA analysis reveals that Jennings

shares the same DNA profile as found on Ms. Johnson’s vaginal swab. Jennings was

granted discovery in order to oppose the State’s motion on January 12, 2004. Jennings’

opposition to the State’s motion was filed June 14, 2004, and the State’s reply was filed

September 10, 2004.

Habeas Rule 7 grants a district court the discretion to expand the record with

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 260 Filed 05/06/05 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

91dp684.oexpandrec.wpd 2

additional materials which are relevant to the petition. Rule 7(a) of Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. The rule is intended to help district courts "clarify the relevant

facts." Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 258 (1986). The court may order the record

expanded either in place of, or in addition to, holding an evidentiary hearing. See

Advisory Committee Note to Habeas Rule 7; Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969).

Admission of scientific testimony or evidence requires the court to initially

determine whether scientific testimony is being offered which will assist the

understanding or determination of a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 104(a). If so, it may be

admitted if it is based on sufficient facts or data, it is the product of reliable principals

and methods, and those principals and methods have been reliably applied to the facts

of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579,

589, 592-93 (1993) (scientific testimony or evidence must be both relevant and reliable to

be admitted). The party offering the testimony must objectively demonstrate, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the chosen scientific method was reliable and

faithfully followed. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1318 n.11

(9th Cir. 1995); Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 176 (1987).

Jennings challenges the credibility of the DNA testing, under the requirements

for admission of scientific evidence from Daubert, and Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 703, that the

evidence must be both relevant and reliable. Jennings argues the State has failed to

meet its burden since the evidence presented is based on insufficient data and the

testing was done by unreliable methods and principals. Jennings argues that the

proposed DNA evidence is inadmissible because the vaginal swab tested was

compromised long ago due to packaging of the swab with a leaking blood sample from

Jennings, or due to cross-contamination during handling. Jennings’ expert asserts that

blood dust can seep through small cracks in envelopes and spread, and that small

amounts of contaminates can cause a false positive match due to the extreme sensitivity

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 260 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

91dp684.oexpandrec.wpd 3

of current DNA testing methods.

Jennings’ expert also points to the way in which the testing was done as

compromising the integrity and validity of the results. The swab and Jennings’ blood

sample were both examined on the same day, with no notation as to which occurred

first. Also, the tests to determine the quantity of DNA were done the same day, and

Jennings’ blood sample was handled before the swab, which is against recommended

procedures and the DOJ’s own policies. Since there is no sample left to retest, Jennings

contends the DNA evidence must be excluded.

Jennings points to evidence in the DOJ’s notes which indicate the swab was

contaminated and improperly handled prior to its arrival at the DOJ in November, 2002. 

Examinations of the swab in 1984 and 1985 revealed no evidence of sperm or sperm

fragments, and indicated that some of the evidence had been improperly handled. See

Petitioner’s Exs. K, B, and C. Jennings’ expert opines that the swab was either badly

degraded or mishandled so the sample is compromised, or that the swab was switched

with a penile swab taken from Jennings. Petitioner’s Ex. A (noting that the DOJ testing

did not reveal epithelial cells in the vaginal swab, but that those cells are found in high

concentrations in vaginal secretions).

Jennings concludes that because the proposed test results are neither valid nor

reliable, the evidence is not probative or relevant. Jennings asserts the State’s second

motion to expand the record should be denied, or alternatively, that an evidentiary

hearing be held to determine the reliability of the DNA evidence.

The State filed a reply to Jennings’ opposition September 10, 2004. The State

asserts they have met the requirements of Daubert and that the testing was performed

according to established methods and principals. The State contends the DNA evidence

meets the standards for admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because reliable

procedures were faithfully applied to an uncontaminated sample which yielded reliable

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 260 Filed 05/06/05 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

91dp684.oexpandrec.wpd 4

results.

The State argues the vaginal swab, although degraded, was not contaminated, so

the DNA test results are reliable. The State asserts the chain of custody evidence shows

that the tested swab belonged to the victim Linda Johnson. See Respondent’s Exs. D and

C. The State asserts improper handling caused degradation of the swab, which

explained the inability to confirm the presence of semen on the swab, but did not

compromise the DNA test results. See Respondent’s Exs. A and B. Ms. Frausto-Heredia

explains the degradation and the passage of time resulted in the lack of epithelial cells,

as well as the prior failure to determine the presence of semen, since neither are as

robust or stable as sperm cells. Respondent’s Ex. A, ¶ 20.

The State contends there is no evidence the swab was contaminated by other

evidence. There was no evidence of leakage from Jennings’ blood sample on either the

packaging of Jennings’ sample or on the envelope containing the tube with the vaginal

swab. See Respondent’s Ex. A, ¶ 21. Ms. Frausto-Heredia details the steps taken during

the DNA testing, specifically addressing Jennings’ objections based on crosscontamination. See Respondent’s Ex. A, ¶¶ 8-19, 21, 24-26, 29. The State concludes that

no contamination occurred and that sufficient controls were implemented to detect any

contamination.

The State contends Ms. Frausto-Heredia faithfully followed proper testing

procedures, so the DNA test results are reliable. Ms. Frausto-Heredia explains that per

her practice, the swab was opened before the blood sample, the extractions were

performed at different times, and the bench paper and gloves were exchanged between

the samples, as well as the utensils disposed of or disinfected and flamed. Ms. FraustoHeredia also asserts that no contamination was revealed on the blanks and controls

which were used. Respondent’s Ex. A, ¶ 24.

The State asserts that although no vaginal swab, extract from the swab, or

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 260 Filed 05/06/05 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

91dp684.oexpandrec.wpd 5

amplified extract remains to be retested, other sources of DNA are available for

retesting. The State argues Jennings’ theories explaining how his DNA could have been

detected on the vaginal swab are not valid. There is no evidence that a penile swab was

ever taken from Jennings in this case. Respondent’s Ex. A, ¶ 30. The genetic profile was

obtained from sperm cells which were observed microscopically and could not have

come from blood dust. Id. at ¶ 31. There is no evidence the vaginal swab was

contaminated by contact with another victim’s sample. Id. at ¶ 32. Finally, improper

handling and/or storage degrades a sample, which produces no results, but cannot

create DNA on a swab. Id. at ¶ 33.

 The State concludes an evidentiary hearing is not necessary as the reliability of

the DNA evidence is established. The State requests that Jennings’ request for an

evidentiary hearing be denied, and the motion to expand the record granted.

Jennings was convicted of the first degree murders of Linda Johnson, Olga

Cannon, and Jacqueline Fraizer, and the second degree murder of Karen Robinson. He

was also convicted of numerous felonies against those and three other victims,

including forcible sexual assaults, robberies, arsons, and kidnapping for robbery. The

jury sustained eight special circumstance allegations: that Johnson, Cannon, and Frazier

were killed in the course of a robbery, that Johnson and Cannon were killed in the

course of a rape, and three findings of multiple murder. The California Supreme Court

vacated two multiple-murder special circumstances and otherwise affirmed the guilt

and penalty judgments. People v. Jennings, 53 Cal. 3d 334 (1991).

Jennings claims there is insufficient evidence to show he committed all four

murders, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present

available exculpatory evidence. The State’s DNA evidence is relevant to refuting this

claim. However, it has not yet been determined whether Jennings’ claim of factual

innocence presents a right to relief on habeas.

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 260 Filed 05/06/05 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

91dp684.oexpandrec.wpd 6

The State’s motion to expand the record is GRANTED. Resolution of the

reliability of the DNA evidence is deferred until after Jennings’ motion for an

evidentiary hearing is decided.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

b64h1h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 260 Filed 05/06/05 Page 6 of 6