# Petition for Discretionary Review No. PD-1564-14 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS 

# LESTER RAY GUY

Petitioner

v. The State of Texas Respondent On Appeal In Case Number D1DC 10-302548 From the 331 District Court of Travis County

TH 

## The Hon. David Crain, Presiding Judge Third Court of Appeals No. 03-12-00466-CR

Submitted by: The Law Offices of Ariel Payan 1012 Rio Grande Austin, Texas 78701 Tel. 512/478-3900 Fax: 512/472-4102 Ariel Payan State Bar No. 00794430 Court-Appointed Attorney for Petitioner Oral Argument Requested PD-1564-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 2/26/2015 12:32:54 PM Accepted 2/26/2015 4:28:05 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK

## i 

## T a ble o f C o nte nts
C e r t i f i c a t e o f P a rt i e s ....................................................... ii I n d e x o f A u th o r i t i e s ....................................................... iii S t a t e m e n tR e g a r d i n g O r a lA r g u m e n t
......................................... iv S t a t e m e n to f

th e C a s e ..................................................... iv G r o u n d s f

o rR e v i e w ........................................................ v 1 ) C a n a n e x p e r t d is c o u n t p a r t o f a te s t a s u n s o u n d , w h ile re l y i ng o n a no t her pa rt of t he sa m e test , w hen there a r e no s t an d ard s b y w h i ch h e c an b e h el d acc ou n t ab l e?
................... 2 2) The ap p el l at e c ou rt er re d fi n d i n g t h at t h e t es t re l i ed u p on m et t he standa rds o f

D a uber t / K el l y f

o r r el i a bi l i t y a nd ad m i s s i b i l i t y. .................................................. 8

P r a y e r .................................................................. 11 C e r t i f i c a t e o f D e l i v e ry ..................................................... 11

## ii 

## C er t i fi cat e of Par t i es P ursua ntt o R ul e 6 8 , R ul es of A p p el l a t e P roced ure (“ T ex. R
. A p p . P ro. ” ), the f ol l ow i ng i s a c omp l et e l i st of the na mes a nd a d d re ss es of a l l p a rt i es t o the tri a lc ourt ’s f i na ljud gment

a n d th e i rc o u n s e l i n th e tr i a l c o u r t , a s w e ll a s a p p e lla t e c o u n s e l. Pet i t i on er L est erR a yGuy TD CJ

- I D N o . 297393 C l em en ts U n it 9601 S pu r591 A m ar i l l o , TX 79102 A p p e lla t e C o u n s e l: P D R C o u n s e l: A r i e lP ay an 1012 Ri o G r an de A u s t i n , Te x as 78701 T r i a l C o u n s e l: A r i e lP ay an J on E va ns
S t at e of Texas R osema ryL ehmb er g P
. O
. Bo x 1748 A u s t i n , TX 78767

A p p e lla t e C o u n s e l: Sc ot tT a l l i a f

erro State P rosecuti ng A t t orne y L i sa C
. M c M i nn T r i a l C o u n s e l: J i m Y oung M a ttFo ye
Tri al Ju d ge H onorab l e D a vi d C rain, 3 3 1 p re sid i ng.

## iii 

## I n d ex of Aut h ori t i es
Fed er al C as es : D aube r tv . M e rr e l lD o w P h arm s . , I n c. , 509 U
. S
. 579 ( 1993)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 7 , 8

Texas C as es : Jo r dan v . S t at e , 928 S
. W. 2d 550, 554–55 ( Te x . Cr
. A pp. 1996)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Ke l l yv . S t at e , 824 S
. W. 2d 568, 572- 73 ( Te x . Cr
. A pp. 1992)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 7 , 8 Re yn o l ds v . S t at e , 204 S
. W. 3d 386, 390 ( Te x . Cr
. A pp. 2006)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Wi l l i am s v . S t at e , 937 S
. W. 2d 479, 483 ( Te x . Cr
. A pp. 1996)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

## iv 

## St a t em ent R eg a rdi ng O ra l A rg um ent O ral A rgume nti s R e q u est ed a nd w oul d a ss i st the C ourti n d ecid i ng thi s novel c o n f l u e n c e o f s c ie n ti f ic e v id e n c e a n d o u rc r im in a ll a w s .

St a t em ent of

t he C a se P ursua ntt o T ex. R
. A p p . P ro. 6 8
. 4 (d ), the f ol l ow i ng i s a b ri ef

gene ral state m e n t of

the

c a se: P et i t i oner , L este r R a yGuy , w a s c ha rge d b yi nd i c tmentw i th the of f ense of ca pi t a l murd er, a fe l o n y , i n Cau s e N o . D 1D C 10- 302548 i n th e 331 D i s tr i ct rd 

## Co u r to f Tr av i s Co u n ty , Te x as . H e w as co n v i ct e d i n s ai d ca u s e an d w as s e n te n c e d to l if

e . T h e C o u r t o f

A p p e a l s a f

f ir m e d th e d e c is io n b e l o w .

S t at emen t of Proc ed u ralH i s t ory P ursua ntt o T ex. R
. A p p . P ro. 6 8
. 1 (d ), P et i t i onerw oul d show the f ol l ow i ng: Th e Th i r d Co u r to f A ppe al s de n i e d P e t i t i o n e r ’ s appe alo n O ct o be r22, 2014. M o t i o n fo rr e h e ar i n g an d r e co n s i de r at i o n w as fi l e d an d de n i e d o n D e ce m be r11, 2014. T he T hi rd C ourtof

A p p eal s ha s d e c id ed a n i mp ort a ntq uest i on of state a nd f e d e r a ll a w th a t h a s n o t b e e n , b u t s h o u l d b e , s e tt l e d b y th is C o u r t. T h e T h ir d C o u r t o f

A p p e a l s h a s m is a p p l ie d a s ta tu te in d e c id in g th is c a s e .

## v 

## G rou n d s for Rev i ew P u r s u a n tt o T e x . R
. A p p . P r o . 6 8
. 4 ( f ) , th e f o llo w i n g a r e th e r e a s o n s th i s p e t i t i o n s h o u ld b e he a rd 1) C an an exp er t d i s cou n t p art of a t es t as u n s ou n d , w h i l e r el yi n g on an ot h er p a r t o f th e s a m e te s t, w h e n th e r e a r e n o s ta n d a r d s b y w h ic h h e c a n b e h e ld acc ou n t ab l e? 2 ) T he a ppella t e c o urt err ed f i ndi ng t ha t t he test re l i ed upo n m et t he s t an d ard s of D au b er t /K el l y for r el i ab i l i t y an d ad m i s s i b i l i t y.

## 1 

# Pet i t i on f

orD i s cr et i ona ry R evi ew

N o . P D
- 1564- 14 IN T HE C O U R T O F C R IM IN A L A P P E A LS

OF T E XA S 

# LESTER RAYGUY P et i t i oner

v. The S t at e of Texas R esp ond ent O n A ppe alI n Cas e N u m be rD 1D C 10- 302548 Fro m th e 3 3 1 D is tric t C o u rt o f T ra v is C o u n ty TH 

## T he H on. D a vi d C rain, P re sid i ng J ud ge Th i r d Co u r to f App e a l s No
. 03

- 12

- 00 46 6- CR

T O T H E H O N O R A B L E J U D G E S O F T H E C O U R T O F C R I M IN A L A P P E A L S: CO M ES N O W, L e s t e rRayG u y , P e t i t i o n e ri n th e abo v e s ty l e d an d numb ere d ca u s e , by

a n d th ro u g h A rie lP a ya n , his u n d er s ig n ed a tto r n e y o f re c o rd , a n d re s p ec tf

u l l y f il es th is

“ P e t i t i o n fo rD i s cr e t i o n aryRe v i e w , ” fi l e d pu r s u an tt o Te x . R. A pp. P r o . 68.

## 2 

## A rg um ent 1) C an an exp er t d i s cou n t p art of a t es t as u n s ou n d , w h i l e re l yi n g on an ot h er p a r t o f th e s a m e te s t, w h e n th e r e a r e n o s ta n d a r d s b y w h ic h h e c a n b e h e ld acc ou n t ab l e?

T he State ’s exp ert s t est i f i ed tha t the D N A t est used i n thi s c a se w er e ef f ecti ve, re l i a b l e,
a n d w id el y u s ed , es p ec ia l l y in c a s es w h er e D N A h a s d eg ra d ed o r is o f l o w q u a n tity, d es p ite
th e fac t th at i t t ar g e t s o n l y e i g h t o f th e fi ft e e n l o ci t ar g e t i n g by th e r e g u l ar S TR t e s t
. T he State ’s exp ert s a l so t est i f i ed tha t thi s t est ha d notb ee n va l i d a t ed b ythe l a b tha tc ond uc t ed the

a na l y sis, a nd they c oul d not sa yw ha tthe mi ni mum stand a rd s w er e f or an a p p re c i a b l e r eturn,
or w ha tstand a rd s ha d t o b e f ol l ow ed w hen, a s ha p p ene d he r e , there w a s a n i ss ue r egard i ng
o n e o f th e l o c i. T h e te s t c o n d u c ted w a s c o n s is ten t w ith A p p el l a n t in s ev en l o c i, a t th e e ig h th
th e S t at e ’ s e x pe r t s di s co u n t e d th e i rfi n di n g s . A ppe l l an t di d n o t m at ch at th i s l o ca t i o n an d h ad itb e e n in c l u d e d A p p e l l a n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n e x c l u d e d a s a s u s p e c t. T he t estused ha d notb ee n va l i d a t ed through the l a b ’s ow n i nt erna lt est i ng re gi me. T he

va l i d a t i on ha d b egun ove r a y ear p ri or t o A p p el l a nt ’s tri a l , b ut a t the t i me of tri a lthe St a t e’ s exp er ts te s tif

i ed tha tthe val i d a t i on re p ortw a s s t i l longoi ng. W i thoutthe comp l et i on of the stud yther e w a s no s t a nd a rd b y w hi c h the State ’s exp ert c oul d d i sc ountthe r eturn at the non

c o n f o rm in g l o c i.

## 3



## A tr i al court ' s r e sp on si b i l i ty i s t o d e t e rmi ne w he the r p r off e r e d sci e nt i f

i c e vi d e nce is

s u f f ic ie n tly re l ia b l e a n d r e l e v a n t t o a s s i s t t h e j u ry. S e e , D a u b e rt v . M e rr e l lD o w P h a rm s ., I nc . , 5 0 9 U
. S. 5 7 9 (1 9 9 3 ); K el l yv. State , 8 2 4 S. W
. 2 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 2 -7 3 (T ex. C r. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). T he

a p p el l a t e c ourt ’s d uty i s t o a c t a s a d ue p rocess sa f eguard ensuri ng onl y the r a t i ona l i tyof the j u ry i n r e v i e w i n g th e e v i de n ce pr e s e n t e d. Wi l l i am s v . S t at e , 937 S
. W. 2d 4 7 9 , 483 ( T e x .C r .A p p . 1 9 9 6 )

. Th e i n s t an tca s e i n v o l v e s th e r ape an d m u r de r o f H az e l I v y i n 1978. A n au t o ps yw as d one and s l id es w er e d eve l op ed f rom or a l , a na la nd tw o va gi na lsw a b s. T hese sl i d es w er e d y ed a nd p l a c ed und ergl a ss , then st ore d i n the coroners of f i c e i n a n unre f

ri ger a t ed b ox f

or tw en ty tw o yea rs , un tilc o l l ec ted b y A u s tin P o l ic e. (R .R . V o l . 3 , p g . 1 3 ). In 2 0 0 1 D P S d id

a t estof the V a gi na 1 sl i d e, a nd got a re turn a t 3 l oc i

. (R

. R
. V ol

. 3 , p g. 1 5 ). F urthert est i ng

w a s n o t d o n e u n ti l2 0 0 8 b y O r c h id C e l l m a rk

. T he St at e c a l l e d H um a N asi r , a D N A f or e nsi c a nal y statO r chi d C e l l mark i n D al l as. Na s i rt e s t i fi e d t h ats h e wa s h i r e d t o t e s tDN A s a m p l e s u s i n g a n e w t e s t i n g p r o t o c o lk n o wn as mi ni F i l e r - ST R
. ( R
. R
. V ol

. 7 , p g. 3 0 5 )

. W he r e as P r ofi l e rand I d e nt i f i l e rST R t e stk i t s t e st 1 5 l oci , and r e q ui r e a l arg e rge ne t i c sa mpl e t o t e st , mi ni F i l e r - S T R l oo k s on l yat8 of t he se
s a m e l o c i, p l u s th e a m el o g in in (s ex m a rk er ) a n d re q u ire s a m u c h s m a l l era m o u n t o f g en etic

ma t er i a lt o c re a t e a return. (R

. R
. V ol

. 7 , p g. 1 3 8 ). T he F B I a nd C O D I S d a t a b a ses a re b a sed up on the 1 5 ST R l oc i , a nd re q ui re a nyw her e f rom 1 3 t o 1 5 l oc i a ta mi ni mum t o run a s earc h. (R

. R
. V ol

. 7 , p g. 3 1 1 ). O rchid b egan te sti ng mi ni F i l erb a c k i n 2 0 0 8 a nd b egan d oi ng

## 4



## f eas a b i l i tya nd va l i d a t i on stud i es on the p rod uc t a ttha tt i me. (R

. R
. V ol

. 7 , p g. 1 4 1 ). T he mi ni F i l erma nuf

a c ture r had va l i d a t ed thei r t estk i tf or 5 0 0 p i c ograms , a s a n op t i mum a mount of gene t i c ma t er i a l

. (R

. R
. V ol

. 7 , p g. 1 6 0 ). T he manuf a c ture r val i d a ted a f

ul lvol ume
re a c t i on a t2 5 mi c ro l i t er s of gene t i c ma t er i a l

. I d

. A tthe t i me of tri a lO rchid w a s s t i l ld oi ng stud i es on the p rod uc t
. O rchid ha d c omp l et ed a stocha sti c thre shol d stud yi n 2 0 1 1 , stud y i ng th e a l l el ic d ro p o u t in s m a l lo r d eg ra d ed s a m p l es . (R .R . V o l . 7 , p g . 1 4 3 ). T h es e s to c h a s tic

s tu d i e s w e r e d o n e w i th 2 5 0 p i c o g r a m s o f g e n e t i c m a t e r i a l a s a t e s t i n g s t a n d a r d

. ( R
. R
. V o l. 7 , pg . 157- 158)

. Th e y h ad al s o i n t e rn al l y v al i dat e d u s i n g h al f th e 25 m i cr o l i t er vol ume

r e q ui r e d b ythe manu f

ac tur e rof mi ni F i l e r . ( R
. R
. V ol

. 7 , p g. 1 6 1 )

. W he n the t e sti n thi s ca se

w a s run, O rchid ha d notc omp l et ed the va l i d a t i on of thi s stocha sti c stud y , a nd a tthe t i me of tria l , N a s ir w a s s til lw o rk in g w ith t h e la b d i r e c to r to try a n d d ete rm in e w h a t th e s to c h a s tic
thre shol d shoul d b e w hen re vi ew i ng re sul t s. (R

. R
. V ol

. 7 , p g. 1 4 9 ). N a sirt est i f i ed tha tthey had d on e a study on the p e ak he i gh t r at i o f or mi ni F i l e r and d e t e rmi ne d i t t o b e 1 0 0 R FU ’ s, b u tth e O r c h i d la b d i r e c t o rh a d w a n t e d t o d o a d d i t i o n a l s tu d i e s a f t e r r e v i e w i n g i t
. ( R
. R
. V o l. 7 , p g. 1 5 0 -1 5 1 ). A l l of these i nt erna lva l i d a t i on stud i es, t o a l l ow the comp a nyt o p rocess a nd
te s t b e l o w th e m a n u f

a c tu r e r s r e c o m m e n d e d te s t p r o to c o l s , a r e n o t p e e rr e v ie w e d in a n y w a y, theya re not p ub l i shed nor ver i f i ed b y a ny one not w ork i ng f or the c omp a ny . (R

. R
. V ol

. 7 , p g. 1 6 1 ). D r. L a ure nc e M uel l er , P rof essor a tU ni ver sityof

C a l i f orni a a tI rvi ne, w a s c a l l ed b ythe d ef en s e to tes tif

y re g a rd in g th e D N A tes tin g in th is c a s e. (R .R . V o l . 8 , p g . 1 0 1 ). M u el l erd id

## 5



## nota gre e w i th the ana l y sis re ga rd i ng the al l el i c d rop out of the F GA a l l el e. (R

. R
. V ol

. 8 , p g. 1 0 6 -7 ). M uel l ert est i f

i ed tha tthi s s a mp l e w a s a mp l i f i ed a nd t est ed tw i c e, a nd i n b oth the F GA show ed onl ya 1 9
. I d

. I n normal ST R t est i ng a homozy got e r eturn i s us ua l l yi nd i c a t ed b ya hi ghertha n normal p e a k h e ig h t c omp a re d t o the r estof the sa mp l e. (R

. R
. V ol

. 8 , p g. 106)

. Th atde t e rm i n at i o n ca n n o tbe m ad e so si m pl yi n a m i n i F i l e rt e s t , be ca u s e th e pe ak hei g h t s v ary s o m u ch w i th i n a s i n g l e s ampl e s o tr adi t i o n al s t o ch as t i c m o de l i n g i s not

e f f e c ti v e . Id

. I n a d d i t i on, M uel l erstate d tha t ther e a re a l ot of a l l el i c d rop outstud i es ongoi ng t o try
a nd a nsw erthi s exa c tq uest i on of how f re q uent th e d r op outoc c urs i n mi ni F i l ert est i ng of d e gr ad e d samp l e s. ( R
. R
. V ol

. 8 , p g. 1 0 7 )

. T he se t e st s w ou l d b e mo ot i f a sc i e nt i stcoul d , just l ook a tthe d a t a a nd c a st outa l oc i b e c a u s e it d i d notma t c h a sus p ect sa mp l e. I d

. M uel l er t est i f i ed tha tthe ge ner a l l y a c c ep t ed stocha sti c thre shol d f or D N A l a b s i s 1 0 0 R F U ’s, the sa me
s t a n da r d th a tNas i rt e s t i fi e d a bo u tfo rOr c h i d. ( R. R. Vo l

. 8, pg . 10 8)

. Th i s m e a n s th a ti f a pe ak h e i g h ti s abo v e th i s th r e s h o l d a l ab ca n fe e lco n fi de n tth atth e yh av e a v i abl e r e tu rn at th atl o ci , a nd th atth e yh av e a v e ryl o w ch an ce o f al l e l i c dr o po u t , w h e r e as be l o w th at stocha sti c thre shol d a l l el i c d rop out i s muc h more l i k el ya nd b ecomes a b i ggerc onc ern i n the te s ti n g . ( R .R . V o l . 8 , p g . 1 0 9 )

. M u e l l e rt e s t i fi e d th atth i s i s s u e i s cr i t i ca lfo rth e j u ryt o u n de r s t an d be ca u s e i f th e r e w as

n o a l l e l i c dr o po u tth e n Appe l l a n ti s e x c l u de d a s t h e c o n tr i bu t o ro f th e s u s pe c tDN A. ( R. R. V o l

. 8, pg . 113)

. M u e l l e rs ai d th at th e w ayan e x pe r tde t e rm i n e s w h e th e ro rn o tdr o po u th as

## 6



## oc c urr ed i s to l ook t o the e l ectr op her ogram read i ngs. I f y ou l ook a t the r eturns a nd i tshow s
some re turn at a p a rt i c ul a r l oc a t i on then y ou ma yha ve al l el i c d rop ou t. I d

. B ut , a s he
t est i f i ed , i f y ou ha ve as w a s s how n her e a veryni c e p eak , 3 5 7 R FU ’ s , a t1 9 a nd then y ou d o n ’ ts e e a n yr e tu rn , a ta ll, a t th e 2 3 a lle le lo c a t i o n , n o t e v e n a h i n ta tth e 2 0 t o 5 0 R F U s c a le
th e n y o u know y o u do n ’ th av e an yi n di ca t i o n o f al l e l i c dr o po u t
. ( R. R. V o l

. 8, pg . 113- 114 & 1 1 6

- 1 1 7 )

. M u e l l e rth e n co m par e d th e D P S l ab r e tu rn s o n th e v ag i n a 1 s ampl e do n e bac k i n 2001,

a t th e FG A l o c a tio n to O rc h id ’s re tu rn s o n th e v a g in a 2 s l id e a t th e s a m e l o c i . B o th l a b s , in

s e par at e t e s t s ats e par at e t i m e s h ad a 19 r e tu rn at th e F G A l o ci , n e i th e r i n di ca t e d an al l e l e at 2 3
. (R

. R
. V ol

. 8 , p g. 1 1 7 ). M uel l erre vi ew ed the r a w d a ta a nd el ectr op her ograms f rom the D P S 2001 D N A t e s to n v ag i n a s l i de 1. M u e l l e rt e s t i fi e d th atth e r e w e r e s o m e i rr e g u l a ri t i es
o n th e e p i th e li a l c e ll f

r a c t i o n t e s t s , a n d th e D P S a n a ly s tn o t e d th i s a n d d i s c o u n t e d th e E c e ll f rac t i on D N A t est i ng. (R

. R
. V ol

. 8 , p g. 1 1 9 ). W hen D P S c ond uc t ed the D N A t est i ng on the sp e rm cel l f

r a c tion no such n ot e s w e r e mad e and the r e turns g e ne r at e d r e sul t s, w hi ch D P S, A P D an d O r ch i d u s e d i n th e i r i n v e s t i g at i o n . I d. Th e D P S r e s u l t s s h o w e d o n l y a 19 at t he F GA l oc a t i on a nd the l a b summiz ed tha t the sus p ect w a s a homozy got e a t F GA ( 1 9 , 1 9 ). ( R .R . V o l . 8 , p g . 1 1 9

- 1 2 0 )

. M u e l l e rth e n di s cu s s e d an o th e r l o ci fr o m th e D P S r e po r t
. Th e D P S r e po r ts h o w e d th at the vagina 1 sl i d e at D 2 1 re tur n e d a l l e l e s a tp osit i on 2 9 , 3 0
. (R

. R
. V ol

. 8 , p g. 1 2 0 ). A p p el l a n t’s D 2 1 l o c i is 3 0 , 3 1 . I d . A re tu rn w h ic h w o u l d ex c l u d e A p p el l a n t a s a s u s p ec t.

## 7



## M u el l erd is c u s s ed t h e o n g o in g re s ea rc h is s u es w ith a l l el ic d ro p o u t in th e s c ien tif ic

c o m m u n ity. (R .R . V o l . 8 , p g . 1 2 8 et s eq .). M u lle r t e s t if ied th a t if

you h a v e to l o o k a t a d ef end a nt t o d et ermi ne w hethera l l el i c d rop outha s oc c urr ed , a s w a s d one he re , then y ou a re
no l o n g e rdo i n g s c i e n c e , y o u a r e a dj u s t i n g y o u rr e s u l t s t o m e e ty o u rs u s pe c tpr o fi l e . ( R. R. V o l . 8 , p g . 1 2 8 ). S c ien tis ts a re a l s o w o rk in g o n h o w to in c l u d e th is a l l el ic d ro p o u t p ro b a b il ity i n t o th e m ath e m at i ca lca l cu l at i o n s s o as t o g i v e be t t e r , m o r e ac cu r at e an d tru th fu lr e s u l t s . I d. Sc i ent i f i c t est i monymust b e b o th r e l ia b l e and re l evant i n help i ng the juryre a c h a

c o n c l u s io n in a c a s e . K e l l y, 8 2 4 S
. W
. 2 d a t 5 7 2 ; s e e D a u b e r t, 5 0 9 U .S . 5 7 9 . U n d e rK e l l y,
sc i ent i f i c evi d ence must me etthre e c r it e r ia to b e cons i d er ed suf f i c i ent l yre l i a b l e as t o b e of help t o a jury : (1 ) the und er l y i ng sc i ent i f i c theorymust b e val i d ; (2 ) the t echniq ue ap p l y i ng the theorymust b e val i d ; a nd (3 ) the t echniq ue mustha ve b ee n p rop er l ya p p l i ed on the

occa si on i n que st i on . R e yno l d s v. St at e , 2 0 4 S. W
. 3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 0 ( T e x. C r . A p p . 2 0 0 6 )

. T he t e st used her e b yO rchid d i d notmee tthese cri t er i a . V a l i d i tyis a c ore re q ui re mentof D a u b er t/K el l y, a n d th o s e in ter n a lv a l id ity tes ts w h ic h w o u l d a l l o w th e l a b to tes tif y a b o u t a

r e d u c e d a n d d e g r a d e d s a m p l e s iz e h a d n o t b e e n c o m p l e te d

. T h e a p p e l l a te c o u r t f

a iled to a p p ly th e p r o p e rs ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w in th is c a s e . In hol d i ng tha tthe juryw a s f re e t o b el i eve w homeve r theyw a nt ed , a s muc h or as l i t t l e, the

a p p el l a t e courtf

a i l ed t o hol d the st a t e, a s p rop onentof the e vi d ence

## 8



## 2 ) T he a ppel l a t e c o urt err ed f i ndi ng t ha t t he test re l i ed upo n m et t he s t an d ard s of D au b er t /K el l y for r el i ab i l i t y an d ad m i s s i b i l i t y. A tria lc o u rt's re s p o n s ib il ity un d erT ex a s R u l e o f C rim in a lE v id en c e 7 0 2 is to d e t e rmi ne w he the rp r off e r e d sci e nt i f

i c ev i d e nce i s suff

i ci e nt l yr e l i ab l e and r e l e vant t o assi st the jury

. See, e. g. , D a ub ert v . M erre l lD ow P ha rms. , I nc . , 5 0 9 U
. S. 5 7 9 (1 9 9 3 ); K el l yv. S t at e , 824 S
. W. 2d 568, 572- 73 ( Te x . Cr
. A p p. 1992) ; Jo r dan v . S t at e , 928 S
. W. 2d 550, 5 5 4

– 5 5 (T ex. C r. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). T he p rop onentof the sc i ent i f

i c evi d ence b ears the b urd en of d em o n s tra tin g b y c l ea r a n d c o n v in c in g ev id en c e th a t th e e v id en c e is re l ia b l e. T h is is

a c c o m p l is h ed b y s h o w in g : (1 ) th e v a l id ity o f th e u n d er l ying s c ien tif ic th eo ry; (2 ) th e v a l id ity of th e t e ch n i qu e appl y i n g th e th e o ry ; an d ( 3) pr o pe r appl i ca t i o n o f th e t e ch n i qu e on t he

o c c a s io n in q u e s ti o n . K e l l y, 8 2 4 S .W .2 d a t 5 7 3
. I n the i nst antca se , the d ef en s e c hal l e ng e d the ad mi ssi b i l i tyof t w o e xpert s opi ni on s. T he d ef ense cha l l enge d the a d mi ss i b i l i ty of the mi ni F i l erST R t est , through H uma N a sir , a nd th e o p in io n o f R a n a

j i t C h a k ra b o rty d ea l in g w ith th e s ta tis tic a la n a l ys is f ro m h is re p o rt. A p p e l l a n t a d o p ts th o s e s ec tio n s en titl ed O rc h id C el l m a rk T es t a n d D r. R a n a j it C h a k ra b o rty f r o m th e l e g a ls u f

f ic ie n c y p o in t o f

e rr o r , s up r a , f

o rth is p o in t o f

e rr o r . T he mi ni F i l ert estk i ta s va l i d a t ed b ythe ma nuf a c ture r re q ui re d more tha n thre e t i mes the mate ri a lused t o te s t in th is c a se. I n a d d i t i on, i tre q ui re d more tha n tw i c e the volume of
t e sti n g m at e r i alaft e rampl i fi ca t i o n as w as u s e d h e r e . Th e v al i dat i o n an d s tu di e s do n e by O rchid w er e notp ee r re vi ew ed , nor d o they c ont a i n a n errorrate d et ermi na t i on. I n a d d i t i on,

## 9



## O rchid ha d noteve n c omp l et ed thei r stocha sti c thre shol d stud yp ri or t o t est i ng or e ven p ri or t o tri a l

. W i thouta n ob

jec t i ve st oc ha sti c thre shol d i ti s l ef tent i re l yt o the ana l y st t o d et ermi ne

w het h e ro rn o ta l o ci r e tu rn i s v al i d. O r ch i d h ad i n i t i al l yde cl ar e d th atth r e s h o l d t o be 10 0 R FU ’s b u t h a d la terp u l l ed th a t th re s h o l d , b u t s til lc o n tin u ed to ru n th eirtes ts w ith o u t a

s t an dar d pr o t o co lfo ran al y z i n g th e i rr e s u l t s . N o th i n g e x e m pl i fi e s th i s prob l em b et t e rth an the i ss ue tha tw a s c re a t ed i n thi s c a se b ythe F GA l oc i

. I f the thre shol d w a s 1 0 0 R F U ’s then
th e F G A r e s u lti n th i s c a s e e x c lu d e s A p p e lla n ta s a s u s p e c tb e c a u s e i tw a s o v e rth a tth r e s h o ld

a n d th er e w a s n o o th ers ta n d a rd ize d in d ic a to r th a t w o u l d in d ic a te th a t th er e w a s a l l el ic d rop out(no p eak a ta l la tthe F GA 2 3 l oc a t i on). B utsince ther e i s no s t oc ha sti c thre shol d the S ta te ’ s e x p e r ts c o u l d ig n o r e th a t lo c i a n d th e r e b y in c l u d e A p p e l l a n t. C ha k rab orty ’s t est i monyd eals w i th these sa me i ss ues a nd hi s op i ni on i s a ga i n b a sed on the sa me l a c k of

va l i d a t ed stand a rd s in th e O r c h id te sts. T he St a t e e xp ert s d i sc ountthe

nee d f or a s t oc ha sti c thre shol d , y ettheyb oth re l yup on a nd d i sc uss a thre shol d f i nd i ng a s p a rt

o f m a k i n g th e i rd e t e rm i n a t i o n s th a tth e o th e r7 a lle le s a r e v a li d

. In d e e d , N a s i r ru n s a w h o le

sec ond t estb eca use the f i rstt estd i d notre turn r esul ta b ove ‘ the thre shol d ’ tha tshe then l a t er
sa y s s he d oesntha ve. (R

. R
. V ol

. 7 , p g. 1 5 4 ). C ha k rab orty ’s t est i monyi n a gre ei ng w i th a nd

re l ying up o n th e O rc h id re s u l ts is th er eb y ta rr ed w ith th e s a m e p ro b l em th e m a k es th e O rc h id

r e s u l ts f a l lb e l o w th e D a u b e r t s ta n d a r d f o rr e l ia b ility.

## 10



## A p p el l a ntw oul d re sp ectf ul l yre q uest tha tthi s C ourt f i nd tha tthe ap p el l a t e courtf a i l ed to u til ize th e p ro p ers ta n d a rd o f re v iew in a n a l yzin g th e a d m is s ib il ity o f th e m in iFil ertes ts in
thi s c a se.

## 11 

## Praye r W H E R E F O R E , P R E M I SE S C O N SI D E R E D , L E ST E R R A Y GU Y , P et i t i oneri n the a b ove sty l ed a nd numb er ed c a us e r e s p ectf ul l yp ray s that thi s C ourtgrant thi s P et i t i on f or D i sc re t i ona r y R evi ew , setthi s c a use f or or a la rgume ntso that thi s C ourtma ygrant anya nd al lr e l i e f t o w h i ch P e t i t i o n e ri s e n t i t l e d. Re s pe ct fu l l ys u bm i t t e d, AR I E L P AY AN A t t o rn e yatL aw 1012 Ri o G r an de A u s t i n , Te x as 78701 Te l

. 512/ 478- 3900 F ax : 512/ 472- 4102
b y : / s/ A ri elP a y a n A ri elPayan S t at e BarN o . 00794430 A t t orne yf

or P et i t i oner
C er t i fi cat e of Del i v er y T hi s is t o c ert i f

ytha ta true a nd c orr ect c op y of the a b ove a nd f ore goi ng “P et i t i on f

or D is c re tio n a ry R ev iew ” w a s h a n d -d el iv er ed , ma il ed p o s ta g e p re -p a id o r t r a n s m i t ted v ia t el ecop i er(

f ax ) to th e o f

f ic e o f th e D is tric t A tto rn ey o f T ra v is C o u n ty, T ex a s , a n d to th e S ta te P rosecuti ng A t t orne y ’s O f f i c e.
/ s A ri elP a y a n

A ri elPayan

## 12 

## C er t i fi cat e of Com p l i an ce I h e reb y c ert i fypu r s u an tt o T. R. A
. P
. 9. 4( i ) ( 3) , th e w o r d co u n tfo rth i s do cu m e n t , as d e te rm in e d b y th e w o r d p r o c e s s in g p r o g r a m is 2 2 7 9
. / s/ A ri elP a y a n A ri elPayan

## A P P E N D IXGuy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 20 15 T ho m s on R eu ters . No c l ai m to ori gi na l U .S . G ov ernm en t W orks

. 1 

## 1 2 01 4 W L 5 42 3 76 0 Onl yt he W es t l aw c i t at i o n i s c u r r ent l y av ai l ab l e. S EE T X R RAP RULE 47 . 2 F OR DES I G N ATI ON A N D SI G N IN G O F O P IN ION S. M EMORAND UM OPI N I ON D O N O T P U B L ISH Co u r t o f Appeal s o f

Tex as , Au s t i n.
Les t er RayG u y , Appel l ant

v. The S t at e o f

Tex as , Appel l ee N O. 03– 12 – 00 46 6– CR | Fi l ed: Oct o ber 22 ,

20 14

F R O M T H E D IS T R IC T C O U R T O F T R A V IS C O U N TY , 3 3 1 S T J U D I C I A L D I S TR I C T, N O. D

– 1

– D C

– 1 0

– 3 02 54 8, HO NORABL E DAV ID CRAI N, JUDGE PRESI DI NG A t t o r n e y s a n d L a w F i r ms Arie l P ay an , T he La w Of f i ce s of A r i el P a y a n, A u st i n, T X , f o rAp p ellant. M . S c o tt T aliaf

e rr o , Assi sta n t Distr ict Att o rn ey, A ust i n, T X, f

orA pp el l ee. B ef o r e Ju sti ce s P u ry e ar , Pe mber t on , a nd Fie ld

M EM ORA NDUM

OPI NION

D avid P u ry e ar , J ust i ce *1 L e ste r R ay G u y ap p e als h is c o n vic tio n o f c a p ital m u r d er f o rth e 1 9 7 8 r ape and as p h y xia tion o f an e ld erly w o ma n , H a z e l I v y . F o ro v e r t w e n t yy e a r s t h e c r i me went un s ol v ed, but begi nn i ng in 200 1 t he A ust i n Poli ce De pa r t ment ' s c ol d- ca s e uni t r eope ned t he i n v e s t i g a t i on, ev entua l l y s ubj ec t i ng s t or ed bi ol og i ca l e v i denc e f r om I vy ' s au to p syto D N A t estin g a n d f in d in g p r o b able cause t o cha r g e app el l a nt
. I n 20 12 , t he ca s e wa s t r i ed

to a ju ry , w h ic h f

o u n d ap p e llan t gu ilty

. T h e c o u rt sen ten ce d ap p ellant to li f e im p r iso n m en t, co n sec u tive to th e lif

e se n te n c e h e is c u rr e n tlyse rvin g f o r an unr el a t ed of

f ens e. Guy appea l s hi s conv i ct i on i n n i ne issue s. Fo rth e reason s that f o llow , w e af

f irm h is co n victio n a n d p u n ish m en t.

F act ual and P r ocedur al

B ackg r ound Si x t y - s i x - y ear - ol d I v ywa s f ound dea d i n herapa r t ment o n Se p tem b er 1 5 , 1 9 7 8
. At tr ia l, th e T ra v i s C o u n ty m e d ic al ex am in e r te stif ie d th at h e p e rf

o rm e d an au to p syo n I vy ' s b o d yan d d e te rm in e d th at sh e h ad bee n r aped a nd kille d bya s phy x i a t i on, pos s i bl yby sm o th erin g w ith a p i l l o w . T h e m ed ical exam in er a lso t es t i f i ed t ha t he ha d t a k en t wo s mea r s f r om I v y ' s v a g i na a nd a f f i x ed t hem t o l a bor a t ory s l i des f ore x a mi na t i on. 1 H e f o u n d sp erm o n th e slid es, sh ar ed h is f in d in gs w ith t h e pol i ce de pa r t ment , a nd s t or ed t he s l i des i n t he m e d i c al ex am in e r' s o f f ic e s. E vid e n c e sh o w e d th at s ev er a l i t em s of

phy s i ca l ev i dence wer e a l s o col l ect ed at th e c rim e sc e n e , in c lu d in g sh e e ts f ro m th e b e d w h e re I v ywa s f ound.

Alth o u gh ap p e llan t' s n am e su rf ac e d d u rin g in i t ial in vestiga tion o f th e crim e, n o ch ar ges w ere f iled a gai n st hi m a t th e t i me, a nd t he ca s e we nt uns ol v ed f orma ny y e ars. T h e vagin al slid e s r e m ain e d in th e m e d ic al ex a m i ner ' s of

f i ces , a nd t he ot her ph y s i c al ev i dence r ema i n e d i n t h e A u s t i n P o l i c e D e p a r t me n t ' s e v i d ence s t o r a g e r o o m. 2 I n 20 01 , t he c a s e wa s a s s i g ned to Ser g ea nt Scot t Eh l ert wi t h t he A ust i n Poli ce D e p artm e n t' s c o ld -case u n it. E h le rt te stif ie d at trial th at h e o b tain e d t h e v agin al slid e s f ro m th e m e d ic al ex a mi ner ' s of

f i ce a nd s ubmi t t ed one of t hem ( Va g i na 1) to th e D e p artm e n t o f

P u b l ic S af

e ty(D P S ) C rim e L ab fo rD N A t e s t i n g b u t t h a t t h e r e s u l t s p r o d u c e d o n l y a pa r t i a l DNA pr o f

il e f ort he s perm cont r i but or i ns uf f i ci entt o i den tif

yas us pec t
. Conce rned a bout p o ssib le d e p le tio n o f th e sam p le s, E h le rt tes tif ie d th at h e d e c id e d n o t to se e k f u rth e r D N A te stin g at th at t i m e.

I n 2 0 0 3 , ap p ellant agr ee d to m ee t with E h lertto d isc u ss t h e c ase . At th e tim e , ap p e llan t w as in c arce rated at th e T e xas D e p artm e n t o f C rim in al J ust i ce ( T DC J ) f

or a n un r el a t ed of

f ens e an d w as t r a n s p o rt e d t o A u s t i n f o rt h e m e e t i n g . A f

t e rt he me et i ng , E h l e r t t r a n s p o r t e d ap p e l l a n t b a c k t o TDCJGuy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 20 15 T ho m s on R eu ters . No c l ai m to ori gi na l U .S . G ov ernm en t W orks

. 2 

## 2 cus t odya nd pur cha s ed hi m a f a st- f o o d mea l on t he w ay . Ap p e llan t le f

t h is f ast-f o o d trash in E h le r t 's c ar, wh i ch Eh l ert l a t ercol l ect ed a nd s ub m i t t ed t o t he DPS C r im e L ab f

o rD N A a n al y sis.

*2 T he DP S l a b obt a i ned a pa r tial DNA pr of i l e f r om appel l a nt' s d r i nk i ng s t r a w a nd c ompa r ed i t wi t h t he D N A p ro f

ile f ro m th e V agin a 1 slid e . F ro m t h at co m p a r i s o n , D P S w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t ap p e l l a nt c o u ld n o t b e e xc lu d e d as th e c o n trib u to r o f th e sp e rm ce lls o n th e slid e . H o w eve r , th e D PS a n al y sis al so i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e “ r a n d o m m a t c h p r o b a b i l i t y” 3 th at an in d ivid u al o th e r th an ap p e llan t w as th e c o n trib u to r w as “ onl y 1 i n 75 f

or C a uca s i a ns , 1 i n 94 f orbl a ck s , a nd 1 in 5 3 f o rH isp anic s, ” an d th e in vestiga tion w as a gai n pa us ed.

Ehl ert t es t i f

i ed t ha t i n 2007 he l earned of a new DNA t es t c a l l ed “ mi ni

- ST R ” or“ m i ni

- Fi l er , ” whi ch he exp la in ed is m o r e se n sit ive th an a s t an d ar d D N A test beca use i t ca n ob t a i n DN A pr of i l es f r om ol d, deg r a ded sa m p les a n d verysm al l a m o u n ts of gen etic m at eria l. T h e c o ld

- case u n it su b m itt ed th e V agi n a 2 sli d e to O rch id C e llm ark, a p rivate lab in D alla s th at w as u til izin g th e n ew test. O r ch id C ellm ark' s m in i- ST R test r eturned a DNA pr of

i l e f o r th e s perm cont r i but ora nd compa r ed i t t o appel l a nt ' s DNA pr of i l e, obt a i ned f

r om b u c c al ( sa liva ) sw abs. 4 Or chi d C el l m a r k emp l oy ee H u m a N as ir , o n e o f

th e S ta te' s exp ert w itne sses, te stif ie d th at th e p ro b ab ility o f an in d ivid u al o th e r th an appel l a nt ma t chi ng t he Va g i na 2 pr of i l e we r e 1–i n–186 m ill io n Af

r ican

– Am ericans. 5 D r . R a n a j i t C h a k r a b o r t y, a s t a t i s t i ca l g ene t i ci s t wh o de v el oped s ome of t he te c h n o lo gie s u se d in D N A te stin g , a lso te stif ie d as an ex per t wi t nes s f

ort he St a t e. Dr
. C ha k r a bo r t yt es t i f i ed t ha t he r ev i ew ed Or chi d C el l ma r k ' s mi ni

- ST R pr ot ocol bo t h ge ner a l l y a nd a s app l i ed i n t hi s ca s e f ora ccur a cy a nd r el i a bi l i t ya nd de t ermi ned i t t o be s ound.

T h e m o st c o n te n t i o u s iss u e at tr ial an d o n ap p e al i nv ol v es Or chi d Cel l ma r k ' s i nt erpr et a t i on of t he m in i-S T R resu lts. T h e S tate ' s e xp e rts e xp l a i n e d th at DNA t es t i ng i nv ol v es t he g ene r a t i on of ag r aph k nown a s a n el ec t r opher og r a m, whi ch ma ps “ pea k s ” r ef l ec t i ng t he ex i s t ence of p a r t i cul a rDNA m a r k er s ( ca l l ed “alle le s” an d e ac h id e n tif ie d b y a n u m b e r) at p articu lar l oca t i ons ( l oci ) i n a DNA s t r a nd. I n mos t c a s es , a t a ny g i v en l ocus t her e ar e t wo a l l el es ( one cont r i but ed by t h e i n d i v i d u a l 's m o t h e ra n d a n o t h e rb yt h e i n d i v i d u a l 's f ath e r)

. 6 T wo di s t i nctpe a k s a t apa r t i cul a rl ocus on t he el ec t r opher og r a m s i g na l s t he pr es enc e of t wo di f f er ent a l l e l e s t h e r e , w h i c h i s re fe rr e d t o a s h e t e r o z yg o t i c . If th e in d ividu al r ec e i v ed id en tical a lleles f r o m b o th h is m o th e r an d f

ath e r, th at lo c u s is re ferre d to as h o m o z y go tic , an d o rd in arilyth e e le c tro p h e ro gram woul d r ef

l ec t onl yone pe a k a t t ha t l ocus . T he el ec trop h ero gr a m mea s ur es pea k s i n “ r el ative f l uor es ce nce uni t s ” ( R FU s ) , r ef l ec t i ng t he pr es enc e of pa r t i cul a ralle le s a nd t he a bse nce of ot her s a t ea ch stu d ie d lo c u s. T h e h e igh t an d lo c atio n o f th e R F U p e ak in d icates wh ich a lleles a r e p r ese n t a n d at w h ich lo ci, and l a bs c onduct i ng DNA t es t s ut i l i ze “ ca l l i ng t hr e s h o l d s . ” I f

a n RF U p e a k i s ab o v e t h e m i n i m um ca lli ng t hr es hol d, t he l a b “ ca l l s ” t ha t a l l el e f ort he t a r g et ed l ocu s a nd c ons i der s i t apa r t of t he DNA p r o f ile itis gen era ting.

*3 Na s i rt es t i f

i ed t ha t t he mi ni

- ST R t es t a na l y ze s e i g ht o f t h e f i f t e e n l o c i t h a t a r e a n a l y z e d i n s t a n d a r d S TR 7 testin g b u t th atth e tec h n o lo gyf o rb o th tests is basical ly th e s am e. Sh e f

u r th er t estif

ied th atth e m in i- ST R is commonl yus ed f

orde g r a ded DNA ( whe r e t he DNA h as b ro ke n d o w n in to sm alle r f ragm e n ts) o r f

o r ve ry lo w q u an titie s o f

D N A an d is m o re s e n s itiv e th an r eg ul a r S T R t es t i ng bec a use i t ca n a na l y ze s m a l l er D N A f ragm e n ts b yu si n g a d if f e ren t c h e m ic al co m p o sit io n in th e testin g p r o ce ss.

N a s i re x p l a i n e d t h a t i n a n a l y z i n g a n e l e c t r o p h e r o g r a m, a D N A p ro f

ile is c reate d , id e n tif

y in g w h ic h alle le s are p r e s e n t a t e a c h o f t h e t a r g e t e d l o c i a n d t h a t h e rl a b 's el ec t r o p h ero g r a m of

t he s perm i n t he Va g i na 2 s l i de i denti f i ed on l y on e s i g ni f

i ca nt pea k a t wha t i s r ef err ed t o a s th e “ FG A l ocus ”— a l l el e number19. 8 Va r i ous e xp e rts te stif

ie d th at in d ivid u a l lo c u s res u lts c an s om et i m es be i ncon cl usi v e. One r ea s on t heypr ovi ded is t h atw ith d egra d ed o rl o w - q u antityD N A sa m p les, w h ich w as th e c as e w ith th e V ag in a 2 sli d e, t h ere is a pos s i bi l i t yof

“ a l l el i c dr opout , ” mea ni ng t ha t one of t he t wo a l l el es pr es enta t apa r t i cul a rl ocus i s not r egistering o n th e e lec tr o p h ero gr am b ec ause o f it s deg r a da t i on o rl ow qua nt i t y . Howe v er , t he v a r i ous ex pert s e x pl a i ned t ha t a s i ng l e pea k a t a nyg i v en l ocus co u ld a lso signif

yth atth e l o c u s is h o m o zy go tic b e c au se , f

o r i n stan c e , th e in d ivid u al rec e ive d a “ 1 9 ” at th e lo cu s f

r o m h is m o th er and f

at h er, r esu lti n g in o n ly o n e RF U p e a k o n t h e e l e c t r o p h e r o g r a m.

Na s i rt es t i f

i ed t ha twi t h r es pec t t o t he FG A l ocus , s he co u ld n o t d ef

in iti velyd ete r m in e w h eth er t h e sin gleGuy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 20 15 T ho m s on R eu ters . No c l ai m to ori gi na l U .S . G ov ernm en t W orks

. 3 

## 3 R FU pe a k wa s due t o a l l el i c dr opout orbe caus e t he al lele at t h atlo cu s w as h o m o zy go tic. B ec ause N as ir coul d not conc l us i v el yma k e s uch a de t ermi na t i on, a nd b ec ause o f

h er exp erien ce a n d kn o w led ge th ata llelic dr opout c om m onl yoc cur s i n de g r a ded a nd lo w -q u an tityD N A sam p l e s , sh e d e te rm in e d th at app el lantc oul d not be e x cl uded a s t he donorof t he s perm ( bec a us e t he FG A a l l el e i dent i f ie d a “ 19, ” a nd appel l a nt ' s pr of

i l e a t t he FG A l ocus cont a i ns a“ 19” a nd a “ 23”)

. A cc or di ng l y , Na sir d id not i ncl ude t he FG A l o c u s i n h e rc a l c u l a t i o n o f ra n d o m m a t c h p r o b a b i l i t y. She t es t i f

i ed t hatbe caus e ex cl udi ng t he FG A l ocus f r o m h e rc a l c u l a t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n f e w e rl o c i m a t chi ng appel l a nt t o t he Va g i na 2 s perm DNA , he rc a l cul a t i ons w ere m o r e “co n serva tive” ( i. e., m o r e f avorab le to ap p e llan t) th an if sh e h ad in c lu d e d th e F G A lo c u s. D r. C h akr abo r tytestif

ied th ath e review ed N asir' s r esu lts a nd c oncurr ed wi t h her d eci s i on t o e x cl ude t he FG A lo cu s.

*4 D r . C h a k r a b o r t ya l s o t e s t i fi e d t h a t w h i l e N a s i r 's r a ndom ma t ch pr oba bi l i t yc a l cul a t i on wa s a cc ur a t e, he w as ab le to calcu la te an eve n m o r e acc u r at e p r o b ability bec a us e he ha d a cc es s t o popul a t i on da t a f orone of t he lo ci ta r gete d b yth e m in i- ST R test t o w h ich O rc h id C e llm ark d id n o t. U sin g th e ad d itio n al p o p u latio n d ata, Dr
. C h ak r a bor t yt es t i f

i ed t ha t t he pr oba bi l i t yt ha t t he s per m contr i bu t orwa s a n A f r i ca n– A m er i ca n un r el a t ed t o appel l a nt we r e 1–i n–2. 2 bi l l i on. He t es t i f i ed t ha t t he e n tire w o rld p o p u latio n at th e tim e o f th e h o m ic id e w as o n lyclo se to two b ill io n . D r . C h akr abo r tya lso pr ovi ded wh a t he des cr i bed a s a“ m or e c on s erv a t i v e” p r o b abilitycalcu la tion , d u e to th e f act th atin sta tis tics, whe n apa r t i cul a rDNA pr o f i l e i s i n f

a ctpr es enti n a c e rtain p o p u latio n , th e re is a greate r ch an c e th at an o th e r in d ivid u al w ill e xh ib it th at s a m e p ro f ile

. D r. C h akrab o rty te st if

ie d t h at u si n g t h is “m o re conserv a t i v e” app r oa ch, t he od ds of f i nd i ng ano t her Af ric an

– Am e ric an w ith th e sam e se ve n -lo c i p ro f ile as appel l a nt we r e 1–i n–1. 08 bi l l i on.

I s s u es on ap pe al A ppel l a nt f

i r s t c ha l l eng es t he s uf f ic ie ncyof

t he e vid e n c e to su p p o rt h is c o n vic tio n . W h e n rev ie w in g an ev i dent i a ry - s uf

f i ci enc yi s s ue, we m u st c ons i dera l l of t he ev i dence i n t he l i g ht m ostf a v or abl e t o t he v er di ct a nd th e n det erm i ne whet her , ba s ed on t ha t ev i dence a nd r ea s on a bl e i nf

er ences t her ef

r om , a nyr a t i on a l t r i er o f f act c oul d ha v e f

ound t he es s ent i a l e l eme nt s of t he c rim e b e y o n d a re as o n ab le d o u b t. See Jacks on v. V i r gi ni a, 443 U. S. 307 ( 1979) ; C l ayt o n v. St at e, 235 S. W
. 3d 772, 778 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2007)

. T h is stan d ard acco u n ts f

o rth e f actf in d er' s d u tyto r eso lve co n f licts i n th e te stim o n y , to w e igh th e e vid e n c e , a n d to d raw r easo n able in f

eren ce s f r o m b as ic f

acts to u lti m at e f

acts. C l ayt on, 235 S. W
. 3d a t 778
. Ourr ev i ew of “ a l l of t he ev i denc e” i ncl udes evi denc e t ha t wa s pr oper l ya nd im p r o p erlya d m itt ed , a n d w h en th e rec o r d su p p o r ts conf l i ct i ng i nf

er ences , w e pr es um e t ha t t he f a ct f i nd er re so lv e d th e c o n f

li c ts in f av o r o f th e p ro s e c u t io n . I

d. D i r e c t a n d c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a r e t r e a t e d e q u a l l y, and cir cu m sta n tia l evid en ce a lo n e c an b e su f f icien t t o e st ab li sh gu il t. I

d.

A ppel l a nt ma k es t wo ma i n a r g ument s cha l l eng i ng t he s uf f i ci enc yof

th e ev i denc e t o s uppor t t he v er di ct : ( 1) t he mi ni

- ST R t es t t ha t Or chi d C el l ma r kpe r f or med, a nd o n w h ich th e S ta t e r elied a lm o st exclu sivelyin estab lis h in g ap p ellant' s gu i l t , w as in val id b ec ause it u sed o n lyseve n lo ci to estab lis h th e sp erm D N A p r o f ile and ( 2 ) th e D N A test on th e V agi n a 1 sli d e o r iginally p erf o r m ed b y D PS em p lo y ee G ary M o lina co n clu sively e xc lu d e d ap p e llan t as th e p e rp e trato r.
W ith re s p e ct to th e m in i- ST R test, va r io u s exp erts as serted th atth e test is ef f ec tive, r eliable , a n d w i d ely us ed, esp ec ial l yi n c a s es whe r e DNA ha s de g r a ded or i s o f l o w q u antity , d esp ite th e f act t h atitta r gets o n ly ei g ht of t he f i f t een l oci t a r g et ed byt he regul a rST R t es t
. Na s i ra nd Dr

. Cha k r a bor t ye x pl a i ned t he p h en o m en o n o f

a llelic d r o p o u t a n d w h y u s e o f o n ly s ev en of t he ei g ht t a r g et ed l oci a nd e x cl us i on of t he F G A lo c u s in th e ir statistic al an aly se s w as an app r op r i a t e a nd conse r v a t i v e app r oa ch i n t hi s ca s e, whe r e t her e we r e s t r ong i ndi ca t or s t ha t a l l el i c dr opout h ad o cc u rr ed

. D r . C h akr abo r tyr evie w ed O r ch id C e l l m a r k 's e l e c t r o p h e r o g r a m s , c o n fi r m e d N a s i r 's i nt erpr et a t i on of

t he r es ul t s , a nd pr ovi ded f u rth er statist ic al an aly sis. D r. C h akrab o rty also e xp lain e d th at a h o m o gzy go tic FG A loc u s is u n l ikelyin th is ca se ba s ed on t he r el a t i v e pea k he i g ht s of t he ot herl oci a nd b ec ause th e c h anc e o f

th atlo cu s b ein g h o m o zy go tic is o n lysixt ee n p erce n t d u e to th e m any a lleles p o ssible t her e. Ap p e llan t' s e xp e rt w itn e ss, D r. L au ren c e M u e lle r, te stif ie d th at b e c au se th e re w as n o w ay to c o n f irm th at al lelic d r o p o u t in d ee d o cc u rr ed at th e FG A l o c u s , it wa s poss i bl e t ha t t he l ocus wa s hom ozy g ot i c, whic h woul d ha v e conc l us i v e l y e x c l uded appel l a nt f

r om bei ng t he s perm cont r i but or . D r . M uel l ers ug g es t ed t ha t t heGuy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 20 15 T ho m s on R eu ters . No c l ai m to ori gi na l U .S . G ov ernm en t W orks

. 4 

## 4 pr o ba bi l i t yof

a l l el i c dr opout oc curr i ng a t t he FG A l o cus c oul d be e s t i ma t ed a nd a dded i nt o t he c al c u latio n s p e rf

o rm e d b yD r. C h akrab o rtyan d N asir, and h e c r iti ciz ed th eir analy s e s f o rn o t so d o in g b u t, r at h er, s i m p lyexc lu d in g th e lo cu s f r o m th eir ca l cul a t i ons . Howe v er , Dr
. M uel l erof f er ed no a l t erna t i v e s t a t i s t i ca l a na l y s i s r ef l ec t i ng a l l el i c- dr opout pr ob a bi l i t yf

ort he m i ni

- ST R te st s per f or m ed her e, m e rel yn o tin g th at so m e rese arch e rs in E u ro p e h ad r ec en tlyva lidated astud yf o r a s im ilarD N A test ki t th atp r o vid ed “ r easo n ablygo o d ” p r ed ictio n s o f a llelic d r o p o u t r at es w h ile co n ce d in g th atd r o p o u t p r o b ability r a t es f ort he m i ni

- ST R t es t wer e not r ea di l ya v a i l a bl e.
*5 T he j urywa s f

r ee t o a s s i g n we i g ht t o t hes e v a r i ous ex pert opi ni o n s, a s i s s ues of c r edi bi l i t ya nd we i g ht of t he ev i denc e l i e ex cl us i v el ywi t hi n t he pr ov i nce of t he j u ry . See Brooks v. St at e, 3 2 3 S
. W. 3 d 8 9 3 , 9 1 1–13 ( T ex. C r i m. A pp. 2010) ( di r ec t
- appea l c our t s a r e not permi t t ed t o a cta s “ t hi r t een th j ur or ”)

. W e conc l ude th at th e rec o rd c o n tain s su f f ic ie n t e vid e n c e to su p p o rt appel l a nt ' s c onv i ct i on ba s ed on t he mi ni

- ST R t es t a nd i t s i nt erpr et a t i on.
W i t h r es pec t t o DP S empl oy ee M ol i na ' s Va g i na 1 DNA test, ap p ellant cites e vid en ce in t h e f o r m o f D ef en se Exhi bi t 1 ( a t a bl e g ener a t ed byM ol i na i nd i ca t i ng whi ch alle le s w e re p res e n t at e ac h lo c u s) id e n tif y in g alle le s at tw o lo c i (o n e o f

w h ic h w as t h e F G A) th at ar e i n c o n sist e n t w ith ap p e llan t' s D N A p ro f ile

. H o w e ve r, nei t herapp el l a nt nor t he St a t e s peci f i ca l l yquest i on ed M o lina ab o u t t h atexh ib it and it s a l l eg ed conc lu siven ess th at ap p e llan t c o u ld n o t h ave b e e n th e p e rp e trato r. An d , d esp ite D ef

en se E xh ib it 1 , M o lina sta ted a t l east t wi ce i n hi s t es t i monyt ha t appel l a nt , i n f a ct , c oul d not be ex cl uded as t he cont r i but orof t he s perm f

ound i ns i d e t h e v i c t i m . Mo r e o v e r , e v e ryo t h e rw i t n e s s w ho test i fied a b o u t the v a r i o u s D N A t e s t s p e rf o rm e d

— in c lu d in g ap p e lla n t' s o w n e xp e rt, D r. M uel l er

— s i mi l a r l y conc l uded t ha t appel l a nt c oul d not b e e xclu d ed b yvirtu e o f a n yo f th e test r esu lts , in clu d in g th e o r iginal M o lina test.

F u rth e rm o re, se ve ral w itn e sse s (in c lu d in g D r. M u e lle r) pr ovi ded a n ex pl a na t i on of t he a l l eg ed “ t wo - l oci mi s m a t c h ” b e t w e e n ap p e l l a n t ' s D N A a n d t h e D NA r ec o vered f

r o m th e V agi n a 1 sli d e th atth e ju ryco u ld h ave f o u n d c red ib le : b e c au se th e q u an tityo f b io lo gic al ma t er i a l t es t ed wa s bot h v erys ma l l a nd veryol d a nd d egra d ed , th ere w as li kely“a l l e l ic d r o p o u t” atth o se l oci , ma k i ng i t pos s i bl e th atot hera l l el es ( ma t chi ng appel l a nt ' s ) we r e pr es enta t t he l oci but s i mpl ynot r egistering o n th e e lec tr o p h e ro gr am s. 9 T o t he ex t ent t ha t De f ens e Ex hi bi t 1 c ont r a di ct s t he t es t i monyf r om seve r al o th er l i v e w itne sses, th e ju ryw as f r ee to di s r eg a r d t ha t e v i denc e, a nd we ma ynot s up p la nt t he ju ry ' s f ac t-fin d in g ro le w it h re sp e c t t o it s w e ig h t. See Mor e n o v . S t at e, 7 5 5 S.W
. 2 d 866, 867 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 1988) ( it is no t r evie w in g co u r t' s d u ty to d isre gard , realig n , o r w e igh e vid e n c e ). W e h o ld th at t h e e v i d e n c e w a s s u ff i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t ap p e l l a n t 's convi ct i on a nd , a ccor di ngl y , ove rrul e hi s f i r s t i s s ue. Ap p e llan t' s se c o n d issu e ar gu e s th at th e trial co u rt err ed i n de ny i ng hi s mot i on t o s uppr es s e v i denc e i n t he f or m of t he dr i n king s t r a w t ha t he l ef t be hi nd i n t he pol i ce c a r . W e r ev i ew a t r i a l c our t ' s rul i ng on amot i on t o s uppr es s e v i denc e f

orabu se o f

di s cr et i on, v i ew i ng t h e fa c t s i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fa v o r a b l e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t 's d e c is io n . S h e

p h er d v. St at e, 273 S
. W
. 3d 681, 684 ( T ex . C r i m . A pp. 2008) . W e gi ve “al m ostt o tal def er ence” t o t he t r i a l cour t ' s e xp r es s ori m pl i ed d ete r m in at io n o f

h ist o r ical f

acts an d r evie w d e n o vo it s app licat io n o f t h e la w o f sear ch a n d seizu r e to th o se f ac ts
. I d.

*6 Ap p ellant ar gu es th ath e h ad a l eg iti m at e exp ec ta tion o f

p r iva cy in h is DN A a n d th atth e S ta te vio la ted th is b yseizin g h is f as t- f o o d tr as h w itho u t h is c o n se n t. See V

i l l arr ealv. St at e, 935 S
. W
. 2d 134, 138 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 1996) ( en ba nc) (b u r d en of e s t a bl i s hi ng le giti m ate e xp e c tatio n o f p rivac yrest s o n d e f

e n d an t). Howe v er , t he t r i a l c our t c oul d r ea s ona bl y h a v e f ound t ha t app el l a nt ha d no l eg i t i m a t e e x pect a t i on of pr i v a cy i n t hi s i nst a nce beca use he wa s i nca r cer a t ed a t t he t i m e, and p r iso n e rs h ave gr eatlyd im in ish ed p r iva cy r igh ts and n o leg i tim at e e xp ec ta tion th atth eir D N A w ill re m ai n p riv at e . See Ol es v. St at e, 993 S. W
. 2d 103, 108 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 1999) ( l ow er ed ex pect a t i on of pr i v a cy e x i s t s i n ar re s t an d d e t ai n m e n t s i t u at i o n s ); P ol l ard v. St at e, 392 S
. W
. 3d 785, 797 ( T ex . A pp.

— W a co 2012, pet
. r ef ' d) (“ [C ]o lle c tio n o f

D N A f ro m p riso n e rs h as b e e n fo u n d t o b e r e a s o n a b l e i n l i g h t o f a n i n m a t e 's di mi ni s hed pr i v a cyr i g ht s , t he mi ni ma l i nt rus i on in vo lved , and th e legitim at e go vern m en t i n terest i n u s i n g D N A t o i n v e s t i g at e c ri m e .” ); see a lso T e x . G o v 't C ode § 411. 148 ( s pec i f i ca l l y a ut hor i zi ng col l ec t i on of D N A f ro m p ri s o n e rs ); Vela sq u ez v . W o o ds, 329 F
. 3d 420, 421 ( 5t h Ci r . 2003) ( col l ect i on of DNA s a m pl es f r om f el ons does not v i ol a t e Fourt h A mendment )

. Not o n lyw as ap p ellant in car ce r at ed and th eref o r e lawf u llyGuy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 20 15 T ho m s on R eu ters . No c l ai m to ori gi na l U .S . G ov ernm en t W orks

. 5 

## 5 in p o lic e c u sto d yat a ll rel e van t tim e s, b u t also th e re wa s no phy s i ca l i nt rus i o n in v ol v ed i n obt a i ni ng appel l a nt ' s DNA f

r om t he f a s t
- f ood t r a s h.

T he t r i a l cour t coul d a ls o h av e r ea s on a bl yconcl ud ed t ha t appel l a nt aba ndoned t he t r a s h a nd t her eby ha d no le g it im at e e x p e c ta ti o n o f p riv ac yth e re in

. See C om erv. St at e, 754 S
. W
. 2d 656, 659 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 1986) ( en ba nc) ( op. on r eh' g ) ( def endant mus t i nt end t o aba ndon pr opert y a nd mus t f

r ee l yde ci de t o aba ndon i t , a nd dec i s i on t o aba ndon mus t not mer el y be di r ec t r es ul t of p o l i c e m i s c o n d u c t ); Ha w ki ns v. St at e, 758 S
. W
. 2d 255, 257 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 1988) ( g e n e r a l rul e i s t ha t when p o lice take p o ssessio n o f aban d o n ed p r o p erty , th ere is n o s e i z u re u n d e r F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t ); P ol l ar d, 392 S. W
. 3d a t 797–98 ( whe r e def endant l ef

t s poon a nd c up behi n d in d et ox c el l , he di d not de mons t r a t e g enui ne in te n tio n to ke e p D N A p rivate an d th e ref o re ab an d o n e d it). 10 T h e tr ia l co u r t d id n o t ab u s e it s d iscretion in d en y in g app ellant' s m o tion to s u p p r ess, a nd we ov errul e hi s s econd i s s ue.

I n h is th ird issu e , ap p e ll a n t a r g u e s th at th e trial co u rt err ed i n de ny i ng hi s s pee dy

- t r i a l mot i on. T he r i g ht t o a “ s pee dy ” t r i a l a tt a che s onc e a pe r s on i s a rr es t ed or c h arge d w ith an o ff

e n se , an d m o tio n s c h alle n gin g an i nf r i ngement o f t hi s r i g ht a r e a na l y zed und ert he Ba r ker t es t , whi ch i s a ba l a nci ng t es t i n whi ch t he conduc t of b o t h t h e S t a t e a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t a r e w e i g hed a nd w h ich m u st f

ir st be tr iggered b yad elayth atis u n re as o n ab le e n o u g h t o be “p r esum p ti v e ly p re ju d ic ia l.” See Bar ke r v. Wi ngo, 407 U. S. 514, 530–31 ( 1972) ; C an t u v . S ta t e, 253 S
. W
. 3d 273, 280–81 ( T ex . C r i m . A pp. 2008)

. T h e f o u r m ain f

ac to rs c o n sid e red i n d e te rm in in g w h e th e r asp e e d y -tria l v i ol a t i on ha s oc curr ed a r e: ( 1) t he l eng t h of d el a y , ( 2) t he r ea s on f

or t he del a y , ( 3) t he def

endant ' s a s s ert i on of hi s r i g ht t o as pee dyt r i a l , a nd ( 4) pr ej udi ce t o t he d e f e n d an t re su lt in g f

ro m th e d e la y . See Sh aw v. St at e, 117 S. W
. 3d 883, 888–89 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2003)

. I f t he r i g ht ha s bee n v i ol a t ed, t he r eme dyi s di s mi s s a l of t he ch ar gin g in stru m en t with p rej u d ice ; b ec ause th is i s a r a di ca l r em edy , “ cour t s m ust app ly t he Ba r ker b al anc in g t est w ith c o m m o n sen se an d sen sit ivit yto ens u r e t ha t c ha r g es a r e di s mi s s ed onl ywhe n t he ev i dence s ho ws t ha t adef enda nt ' s a ct ua l a nd a s s e rt ed i nt er es t i n a s peedyt r i al h as been i nf r i nged. ” C ant u, 253 S
. W
. 3d a t 281
. T he appel l a t e court appl i es a n a bus e- of

- di s cr et i on s t a n d a r d o f re v i e w fo rt h e fac t u a l c o m p o n e n t s o f a ru lin g o n a sp e e d y -tria l m o tio n an d a d e n o vo stan d ard o f re v ie w f o r th e le g al c o m p o n e n ts
. I d. a t 282
. R ev i ew o f th e in d ividu al Ba r kerf a c t o r s n e c e s s a r i l yi n v olv es f a ctde t ermi na t i ons a nd leg a l c oncl us i ons , but t he b al an c in g te st as a w h o le is p u re ly a le g al q u e st io n . I d. T he appel l a t e court mus t uphol d t he t r i a l c our t ' s rul i ng i f i t i s s uppor t ed by t he r ec or d a nd i s c orr ec t unde rt he ap p li c ab le law

. S h a w, 117 S
. W
. 3d a t 889
.
*7 T he f i r s t f a ct or , l eng t h of

de l a y , i s mea s ur ed f

r om t he t i me t he def

endant i s a rr es t ed orf

or ma l l ya cc us ed, a nd del a y app r oa chi ng on e y ea ri s s uf f i ci ent t o t r i g g er a sp e e d y -tri al in q u i ry . I d. H ere, a p r o b able cau se a f f i da v i t wa s i s s ued f

orapp el l a nt ' s a rr es t on D ece m ber 1 3 , 2 0 1 0 , an d th e trial b e gan o n M ay2 9 , 2 0 1 2 , an in terva l o f

a lm o st eigh tee n m o n t h s. T h is de la ym ee ts th e “p res u m p tive lyp rej u d ic ial” thr e sh o ld an d th e ref o re tri g g e rs in q u iry in to th e th re e o th e r f ac to rs . See i d. T h is f a ct ori t s el f

a l s o we i g hs s l i g ht l yi n f a v o r o f appel l a nt bec a us e t he del a ys t r et che s s omewha t be y ond t he m in im u m o f ab o u t a y e ar n e e d e d to trigge r j u d ic ial e x am in at io n o f

th e c la im

. See i d.

W ith res p e c t to th e reaso n f o r th e d e lay , a n e u tral r ea s on s uc h a s ove r cr ow ded cou r t s orneg l i g ence s houl d not be g i v en s i g ni f i cant we i g ht a g a i n s t t he g overnm ent , a nd av a l i d r ea s on s ho ul d no t be wei g hed aga in st t h e go vern m en t a t a ll. S ta te v. M u n o z, 991 S. W
. 2d 818, 822 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 1999)

. A t t he hear i ng o n ap p e llan t' s m o tio n , th e S tate asse rte d th at th e d e lay w as d u e to ac ro w d ed d o cke t i n T r avi s C o u n tya n d to t he cha l l enge s of

pr ose cut i ng an of

f ens e t ha t occur r ed in th e d ist ant p as t. T h ere w as n o evid en ce o f d elib era te a t t empt s byt he St a t e t o de l a yt he t r i a l

. W e conc l ude t ha t t hi s f

a ct ora t m o st we i g hs s l i g ht l yi n f a v orof app ellant.

R eg a r di ng t he t hi r d f

a ct or , t he def

endant ' s a s s ert i on of h is r igh t t o asp ee d ytr ia l, ap p ellant m ade n o a ttem p t t o a s s ert t ha t r i g ht unt i l he f i l ed hi s mot i on t o di s mi s s on De ce mber20, 201 1 , ov eray eara f t erhe wa s c ha r g ed. T he t r i a l beg a n i n M a y201 2, a nd app el l a nt di d no t s eek a h ear in g o n h is m o tion u n til th e f ir st pretr ia l h ear in g in Ap ril 20 12 , ove rt hr ee m on t hs a f t erhe f i l ed i t
. Such d elay s in asser ting a r igh t t o asp ee d ytr ia l “m ak e [ ] it d if f ic u lt f o r ad e f e n d an t to p rev ail o n a sp e e d ytrial cl a i m . ” S h a w, 117 S. W
. 3d a t 890
. “T h is is s o b ec ause a d e f e n d a n t 's f

ailu re to m ake a tim e lyd e m an d f o r aGuy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 20 15 T ho m s on R eu ters . No c l ai m to ori gi na l U .S . G ov ernm en t W orks

. 6 

## 6 sp ee d ytr ia l i n d i c at e s st r o n glyth ath e d id n o t r eally wa nt one a nd t ha t he wa s not pr ej udi ce d bynot ha v i ng on e. ” I d. T h is f acto rw eigh s m o d era telyto h eavilyin th e S tate ' s f

avo r.
Fi na l l y , t he f

our t h f a ct or

— pr ej udi ce t o t he d ef en d ant— d o es n o t we igh in ap p ellant's f av o ra t a ll a nd i s , a t bes t , neut r a l

. T he pr ej ud i ce m ustbe a s s es s ed in li gh t o f

th e i n terests th atth e sp ee d y - tr ia l r igh t i s d e sig n e d to p ro te c t: (1 ) p rev e n tin g o p p res siv e p ret rial i ncar ce r a t i on, ( 2) mi ni mi zi ng a nx i et ya nd c once rn of t he a cc us ed, a nd ( 3) li mi t i ng t he pos s i bi l i t yt ha t t he def ens e wi l l be i mpa i r ed, wi t h t hi s l a s t s ubf a ct orbe i ng t h e m o sts er i o u s. I

d. He r e, appel l a nt wa s not p rej u d ic e d w ith resp e c t to th e f irs t i n t e r e st, as h e w as a l r ea dyi n pr i s on f

or a n unr el a t ed of

f ens e a t a l l r el ev a nt tim e s. H e also o f

f e red n o e vid e n c e th at th e d e lay caus ed hi m a nyunus ua l a nx i et yorc once rn be y ond t he l ev el n o r ma l l ya s s oci a t ed wi t h be i ng c ha r g ed wi t h a f e lo n yse x u al c rim e . I

d. F i na l l y , appel l a nt of f er ed no e vid e n c e th at h is ab ilityto d e fen d h im se lf w as adve r selya f

f ec ted b yth e ap p r o xim at e e igh tee n - m o n th d e l a y.
W eigh in g a ll f

o u r o f t h ese f

acto r s toge th er, w e h o ld t ha t t hei rba l a nce d we i g ht i s a g a i ns t f i ndi ng a v i ol a t i on o f ap p e llan t' s righ t to a sp e e d ytrial an d th at th e trial co u r t di d not e rri n de ny i ng hi s mot i on t o di s mi s s t he i nd i ct m ent
. W e ov errul e app el l a nt ' s t hi r d i s s ue. Ap p ellant n ext al lege s that he w as d en ied h is co n sti tu tion al r igh t t o “ d u e p r o ce ss” w h en , p r io rto v oi rdi r e, t he di s t r i ct cl erk pr ov i ded t he St a t e wi t h j ur or q u estio n n ai r es th atco n ta in ed gr eater d em o gr aph ic in f o r m at io n th an th o se p r o vid ed to d ef en se c o u n s el. Sp ec if icall y , th e State r ec eive d ven ir e m em b ers ' f u ll r esid en tia l a d d r esse s, w h ile ap p ellant r ec eive d o n ly th e ir zip c o d e s. Also , th e S tate rec e ive d ve n ire member s ' s oci a l s ec u r it ynumber s a nd da t es of bi r t h, whi l e appel l a nt r ec ei v ed onl yt hei ra g es . A ppel l a nt di s cov er edth i s q u e s t i onna i r e di s cr epancya t t he hear i ng du r i n g wh i ch t he pa r t i es a nd t he C ou r t di s cus s ed v eni r e- m em bers t r i k es a nd j ur ycom po s i t i on . He a r g ues th atth e d iscrep anc yga ve th e S ta te an “u n f ai r advan ta ge” d u r in g vo ird ir e an d vio la ted h is r igh t t o due pr oce s s , whi ch r equi r es a “ r ea s ona bl yl ev el pl a y i ng f ie ld ” b e tw e e n th e d e f

e n se an d p ro se c u ti o n at t ria l. See De F r eec e v . St at e, 84 8 S
. W
. 2d 150, 159 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 1993) ( en ba nc) ( appl y i ng pr i nci pl e of “le ve l p lay in g f

ie ld ” to ap p o in tm e n t o f n e u tral p sy c h iatrist to assist d e f e n d an t w ith in san ityd e f e n se ). W i t hout t hi s a ddi t i ona l de mog r aphi c i nf or ma t i on, app ellant co m p la in s, h is co u n sel w as u n able to a dequa t el ypr epar e t o ques t i on t he v eni r e member s a nd ru n c rim i n al b ac kg ro u n d c h e c ks o n th e m . T h e trial co u r t o verru led ap p e l l an t ' s o b j e c t i o n t o th is d iscrep anc ya f

ter d ete r m i n in g th ath e f ai led to d e mo n s t r a t e a n yh a r m.
*8 A pp el l a nt a r g ues t ha t t he qu es t i on na i r e di s cr epa ncy c o n s ti tu te s a c o n st it u ti o n al e rro r, s ee T ex . R
. A pp . P. 4 4 .2 (a) , but he ci t es no a ut ho r i t ys up po rti ng s uch cont ent i on. W e conc l ude t ha t t he err or , i f a ny , wa s not cons t i t ut i ona l a nd i s s ubj ec t t o r ev i ew onl yf ore rr or af f e c ti n g a s u b s t a n ti al rig h t. See i d. ( b ) ( w e m u st d isre gard an ye rr o r n o t af f e c tin g a su b stan tial righ t). W e c o n clu d e so f

o rtwo r easo n s.
Fi r s t , r eg a r di ng t he undi s cl os ed home a ddr es s es of t he v eni r e member s , appel l a nt c oul d s i mpl y ha v e a s k ed t he member s dur i ng v oi rdi r e t o pr ov i de t hei ra ddr es s es or ot her wi s e i denti f

y t he pa r t i cul a r pa r t of t ow n i n wh i ch t heyr es i ded, t o t he extent t ha t he t rul yde eme d t he in f o r m at io n r ele vant o rcru cial to th e in f o r m ed exe r cise o f his p er em p t o rys t r i kes. See Go nzal es v. St at e, 3 S.W
. 3 d 9 1 5 , 9 1 7 ( T ex.C r im

. Ap p . 1999) (ju ry q u estio n n ai r es d o n o t r elieve co u n sel o f d u tyto elicit p e rt i n e n t i n f

o rm at i o n d u ri n g v o i r d i re ); Murphy v. St at e, 2 2 9 S.W
. 3 d 3 3 4 , 3 3 8 ( T ex.App
. — Am ar ill o 2 0 0 6, pe t
. r ef

' d) ( p u rp o se o f

ju r o rq u estio n n ai r es is t o sa ve t i me bypr ov i di ng ba s i c i nf orma t i on t ha t w ould ot herwi s e be ob t a i ned byor a l que s t i ons )

. “ ‘ Di l i g ent co u n sel’ w ill n o t r elyo n w r itt en q u estio n n ai r es to su p p ly an yin f

o rm at io n th at c o u n se l d e e m s m at e ria l.” G o n za les, 3 S. W
. 3d a t 917
. A l t houg h appel l a nt em p h as ize s the im p o rt an ce o f th e d em o gr aph ic i n f o r m a t i o n r e v e a l e d b yt h e v e n i r e m e m b e r s ' h om e add r esse s, “ it w as ap p ar en tlyn o t i m p o r ta n t en o u gh to se e k th e sam e i n fo r m atio n ” b yaskin g th e ve n ire m e m b e rs d ir e c tl yf

o r it

. Murphy, 229 S
. W
. 3d a t 338
. M o reo ve r, th e rec o rd sh o w s t h a t d e f e n se c o u n se l w as not de ni ed t he oppor t uni t yt o i nqui r e of t he v eni r e on a nym a t t ert ha t wo ul d ha v e been i ncl ud ed i n a wr i t t en ques t i onna i r e ort ha t he wa s l i mi t ed i n t he a mount of t i me pe r m itte d to c onductv oi rdi r e. T he f a ctt ha t t he St a t e ha d a cc es s t o t he v eni r e member s ' a ddr es s es pr i or to vo ird ir e d id n o t e x c u se ap p ellant f r o m h is du tyto elicit th atsa m e in f

o r m at i o n i f

h e tru lyd ee m ed it m at eria l.Guy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 20 15 T ho m s on R eu ters . No c l ai m to ori gi na l U .S . G ov ernm en t W orks

. 7 

## 7 Se condl y , a s t o appel l a nt ' s a l l eg ed i na bi l i t yt o run cr i mi na l ba ckgr ound c hec k s be caus e he wa s not pr ov i ded v eni r e member s ' s oci a l s ec ur i t ynumber s a nd da t es of bi r t h, t he St a t e di d run ba ck g r ound c hec k s a nd o f f ered to p r o vid e app ellant su ch in f o r m at io n , as w ell a s t he ot hermi s s i ng da t a , a t t he hear i ng whe n appel l a nt f irst le arn e d ab o u t an d o bje c te d to th e q u e stio n n aire di s cr epancy . Howe v er , appel l a n t di d not a cc eptt he State' s o f

f er t o view th e in f

o r m at io n o ro th erw ise p u rsu e th e m atte r, su c h as se e kin g ad d itio n al vo ir d ire t i me. F ur t hermor e, appel l a nt ha s not es t a bl i s hed t ha t he w o u ld h ave e xe rci se d an yp articu l ar p e rem p to ry cha l l enge di f

f er ent l y i f t he per s on a l i nf or m a t i o n h ad been dis cl ose d t o him ea r l i erort ha t he wa s ot her wi s e, i n f a ct , ha r med.

O n th is re c o rd , w e h o ld th at th e trial co u r t d id n o t e rr in d ete r m in in g th at th e q u estio n n ai r e d iscrep anc ies d id not unf a i r l y“ t ip ” th e pl a y i ng f i el d i n t he St a t e' s f

a v or an d th a t a nyerr ora t t r i bu t a bl e t o t he t r i a l court r e s u l t i n g fr o m t h e d i s c r e p a n c yd i d n o t a ff e c t ap p e l l a n t 's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e o v e rru l e ap p e l l a n t 's f ou r t h i s s ue. Ap p e llan t asse rts in h is f if th i s s u e th at th e trial co u rt im p r o p erlyd en ied h is Bats on c h a l l e n g e t o t h e S t a t e 's p erem p to rystr ikes o f tw o Af r ican

– Am erican ju r o r s. See Ba ts on v. K ent ucky, 476 U. S. 79, 89 ( 1986) ( r ace-b as ed ju ry str ikes d en y d ef en d ant r i g h t to j u d g m e n t b yo n e' s p ee r s)

. A Bats on c ha l l eng e t o a per empt o r y st r i k e cons i s t s of t hr ee s t eps : ( 1) t he o p p o n en t o f

th e s t r ike m u st estab lis h ap r im a- f acie s howi ng of

r a ci a l di s cr i mi na t i on, ( 2) t he pr oponentof t he s t r i k e mus t a r t i cul a t e a r ac e- neut r a l e x pl a na t i on, and ( 3 ) th e tr ia l co u r t m u st de cid e w h eth er t h e p arty o p p o sin g th e strike h as p ro ve d p u rp o se f u l ra c ial d is c rim in at io n . Grantv. St at e, 325 S. W
. 3d 655 , 657 ( T ex . C r i m. A p p . 2 010)

. In r e v i e w i n g at r i a l c o u r t 's ru lin g o n a Bats on ch al len ge, t h e ap p ellat e c o u r t m u st rev ie w th e rec o rd in th e ligh t m o st f avo rab le to th e trial co u r t' s ru lin g an d n o t d istu rb th e ru ling u n less itis c le arl ye rro n e o u s. Youn g v. St at e, 283 S
. W
. 3d 854, 866 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2009)

. Su ch aru ling is n o t clear ly e rro n e o u s i f

it is su p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd

. V argas v. St at e, 838 S
. W
. 2d 552, 554 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 1992) ( en b an c ).

*9 B ec ause th e S ta te o f f ered it s r easo n s f

o rth e str ikes, t he pr i ma - f

a ci e- ca s e i nqui ryi s moot , a nd we mov e on to w h eth er th e r easo n s o f f ered ar e in f

act r ace-n eu tr al

. J o h n so n v . St at e, 68 S
. W
. 3d 644, 649

( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2002)

. W i t h r es pect t o b o t h s t ruck j ur or s , N u mb e r s 1 8 an d 1 9 , t h e r e c o r d d e mo n s t r a t es t ha t t h e St a t e pr ovi ded t he cour t wi t h a cr edi bl e, r ace-n eu tr al exp la n at io n : th e ju r o r s h ad sta ted o n th eir q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t t h e y h a d n e v e rb e e n a c c u s e d o f a cr i m e, but i n t he cour s e of t he St a t e' s quest i on i ng t hem i n v oi rdi r e, i t t urned out t ha t t he two j ur or s ha d not a nswer ed t ho s e ques tions t rut hf ul l y . T he St a t e s t ruck a t h i r d , n o n - A f

r i c a n - A me r i c a n j u r o rf

o rt h i s v e rys a me r ea s on. T he t r i a l c our t f ou n d t he St a t e' s r ea s on f or s t r i k i ng t he j ur or s t o be non- di s cr i mi na t ory , a nd we f in d su ch ru ling su p p o r ted b y th e rec o r d a n d n o t clear ly e rr on e ou s . F urt he r mor e , app e l l a ntdi d n otme e t his b u r d e n o n t h e t h i r d s t e p

— t o p r o v e t h a t t h e S t a t e 's r ace-n eu tr al exp l an at io n w as in co rr ec t o rth atitw as a p re te x t f o r d is c r i m in at io n . I

d. a t 650
. W e o verru le app el l a nt ' s f

i f t h i s s ue.

I n h is six th issu e , ap p e llan t ar gu e s th at lo c al law e n f o rce m e n t d e stro y e d p h y sic al ev id e n c e p rio r to trial t ha t woul d h a v e ex oner a t ed hi m. S pec i f i ca l l y , he co m p la in s ab o u t va r io u s it e m s, in clu d in g b ed sh ee ts a nd ha i r s , th at h a d gone m i s s i ng i n t he deca des s i nce th e o f f en se. Ap p ellant as serts th atth e S ta te “a cte d in b a d f a i t h” byde s t r oy i ng t he e v i de nc e orf a i l i ng to “t r ack d o w n o reve n tryto lo c at e ” t h e las t p erso n in ch ar ge o f it. T h e State r esp o n d s that ap p ellant f ai led to p r ese r ve th is i ssu e an d th at , in any case, h e h as f ai led to es t a bl i s h t ha t t he pol i ce a ct ed wi t h ba d f a i t h i n r el a t i on t o t he m i s s i ng e v i dence. W e a g r ee.
A ppel l a nt di d not s ee k di s mi s s a l of t he i ndi ct ment on d u e - p r o c e s s g r o u n d s o ro t h e rw i s e o bj e c t o rp r e s ent th is i ssu e to th e tr ia l co u r t a n d o b ta in a n a d verse ru ling. H e h as , th eref

o r e, w ai ved th e issu e an d can n o t p r o p erly rai se i t f o r th e f irs t t im e o n ap p e al

. See T ex . R
. A pp . P. 3 3 .1 (a) ; Yaz dchi v. St at e, 428 S. W
. 3 d 831, 844 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2014) ( f ai lu r e to o bjec t m ayw ai ve ev en cons t i t ut i ona l err or s )

. Howe v er , ev en i f appel l a nt h ad n o t waived th is issue , w e w o u ld o verru le it b ec ause t her e wa s no evi dence t ha t t he m i s s i ng ev i dence ( wh i ch w as n eve rsu bjec ted to f o r en sic testin g) w o u l d h ave b e e n e xc u lp ato ryo r th at law e n f o rce m e n t ac te d in b ad f ai th

. See A riz ona v . Y oungbl ood, 488 U. S. 51, 56 ( 1988) (f o r e vid e n tiary m ate rial “ o f w h ic h n o m o re c an b e sa id th an th at it co u ld h ave b ee n su bjec ted to tests, t he r es ul t s of

whi ch mi g ht ha v e ex oner ate d t he def endant , ” f

a i l ur e t o pr es erv e s uch pot ent i a l l yu se f ul evid en ce d o es n o t co n sti tu te d en ia l o f d u e p ro ce ss unl es s c r i mi na l def

endant c a n s how ba d f

a i t h on pa r t ofGuy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 20 15 T ho m s on R eu ters . No c l ai m to ori gi na l U .S . G ov ernm en t W orks

. 8 

## 8 p o l i c e ); Ex p a r te N

a p p er, 322 S
. W
. 3d 202, 230 ( Te x . Cr i m . A pp. 2010) ( sa m e). Acc o r d in gly , we overrul e app el l a nt ' s s i x t h i s s ue. Ap p ellant n ext ar gu es th at th e tr ia l co u r t e rr e d in overrul i ng hi s m ot i on f or m i s t r i a l , wh i ch he f

i l ed a f t er l earni ng t ha t t wo j ur or s we r e pr es ent in a n e l ev a t or wh en a n a t t or n eyunco nn ect ed t o t hi s ca s e a s k ed appel l a nt ' s a t t orneyhow ma ny “ pr i or s ” appel l a nt ha d, a l l e g e d l y i n v i o l a t i o n o f a r t i cl e 36. 22 of t he C ode of C rim in al P ro c e d u re . See T ex.C o d e C r im

. Pro c. ar t. 36. 22 ( “No p erso n sh al l b e p erm itt ed to co n verse w ith a j ur orabo ut t he ca s e on t rial e xcept i n t he pr es ence a nd byt he permi s s i on of t he court
. ”)

. T hi s e l ev a t or i nt er a ct i on wa s i mm edi a t el y br oug ht t o t he a t t ent i on of t he t r i a l c our t , whi ch conduc t ed a he a r i ng o u t s i de t he pr es enc e of

t he j urybe f

o r e t he t r i a l r es umed. A t t he hear i ng , one of

t he t wo j ur or s i ndi ca t ed t ha t he ha d not hear d a nyof

t he a bov e- r ef

er enc ed i nt er act i on. T he ot herj ur ors t a t ed t ha t i mm edi a t el yupon he a r i ng t he qu es t i on , he bl ocke d his ea r s wi t h his ha nd s a nd t ur ned aw ayf ro m th e p e rso n sp e akin g. H e also in d ic ate d th at h e h ad n o t co m m u n icated a n yo f th is i n f o r m at io n to a nyof t he ot herj ur or s a nd t ha t t he el ev a t ori nt er a ct i on w o u ld n o t af

f e c t h is ab ilityto m ake a f air an d im p artial d e c isio n . T h e ju d ge in stru c te d b o th ju ro rs to d isre gard wha t , i f a ny t hi ng , t hey hear d i n t he el ev a t ora nd t o not r epea t it t o a nyot herj ur or , and both j ur or s i nd i ca t ed th atth ey w o u ld b e ab le to f o llow th ese in stru ctio n s. A p p e l l a n t t h e n f

i l e d am o t i o n f

o rm i s t r i a l , w h i c h t he t r i a l c our t de ni ed.

*10 M istrial is ap p ro p riate f o r o n ly“h igh lyp rej u d ic ial a n d i n c u r a b l e e rr o r s ,” a n d at r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a m o ti o n fo r m i s t r i a l is re vi e w e d u n d e r a n ab u se -o f -d is c re ti o n st an d ard

. Si mp s on v. S ta t e, 119 S. W
. 3d 262, 272 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2003)

. Bec a us e t he p r i m a ry g o a l o f a r t i cl e 36. 22 i s t o i ns ul a t e j ur or s f r om out s i de i nf

l uenc e, i f

av i o l a t i on i s s hown, t he ef f ect i v ene s s of

p o ssible r em ed ies w ill b e d ete r m in ed in p art b y w h e th e r t h e c o n ve rsatio n in f lu e n c e d th e ju ro r. O con v. Stat e , 284 S
. W
. 3d 880, 884 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2009) . A v i o l a t i o n o f a r t i cl e 36. 22 , o n ce p r o ven b yth e d ef en d ant, tr iggers a r eb u ttab le p res u m p tio n o f

in ju ryto th e acc u se d , an d a m istrial m ay b e w arran te d

. I

d. W hen det ermi ni ng whe t her the St a t e s uf f i ci ent l y r ebut t ed t he pr es umpt i on of ha r m, we vie w th e e vid e n c e in th e ligh t m o st f avo rab le to th e trial court ' s rul i ng a nd def

ert o t he t r i a l c our t ' s r es ol ut i on of hi s t or i ca l f

a ct s a nd i t s de t ermin ati ons c once rni ng c re d ib il it yan d d e m e an o r. I d. T he T ex a s Cour t of Cr i mi na l A ppea l s ha s hel d t ha t t he phr a s e “ t o c onv er s e wi t h a j ur or ” i n a r t i cl e 36. 22 does not e ncompa s s s t a t eme nt s ma de t o j ur or s t o whi ch t he ju ro r d o e s n o t re sp o n d

. See P al asot a v. St at e, 460 S. W
. 2d 137, 141 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 1970) ( bec a us e j ur or d id n o t res p o n d to rem arks o f u n id e n t i fi e d w o m an a s k i n g h o w ju ro rs co u ld “sle e p at n igh t” an d th at
“ da m ned j ur y ou g ht t o be s ho t bet ween t he ey es , ” s uch rem arks d id n o t c o n stitu te “c o n ve rsatio n ” u n d e r article 36. 22 ); s ee Ba dg et tv. St at e, N o . 0 4– 07 –00 3 6 4

– CR, 2 0 0 9 W L 1 4 2 3 2 4 , at* 1 1 ( T ex.App
. — San An to n io J a n. 21, 2009, pet
. r ef

' d) ( m em . o p . ) ( b ec ause ju r o rd id n o t res p o n d t o state m e n t m ad e b yu n id e n tif ie d m an wh o t ol d j ur ort ha t decea s ed v i ct i m ha d been “ r ea l ni ce y o u n g m an ,” n o “co n ve rsatio n ” h ad o c c u rr e d ). Sim ilar ly , w e c o n clu d e th atth e o n e u n r esp o n d ed

- to q u estio n abo u t h o w m any “prio r s” app ellant h ad d id n o t c o n stitu te “co n ve rsatio n ” u n d e r a r t i cl e 36. 22 , a nd t h e r e i s n o p r e s u mp t i o n o f h a r m.

Howe v er , e v en i f

t he el ev a t orc omm uni ca t i on c oul d be c o n s i d e red a “ c o n ve rsatio n ” u n d e r a r t i cl e 36. 22 , t he t r i a l c our t c oul d r ea s ona bl yha v e det ermi ned t ha t a ny p r esu m p tion o f

h arm w as r eb u tted b yth e ju r o r s' state m e n ts th at th e yc o u ld b e i m p artial an d d isre gard t h e r e m a r k , e s p e c i a l l yi n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e c o u r t 's i ns t ruct i on t o di s r eg a r d t he co mm enta nd not co m m u n ic ate itto o th er j u r o r s, w h ich w e m u st p re su m e th e ju ro rs f

o ll o w e d

. See Wa l do v. St at e, 746 S. W
. 2d 750, 752–53 ( T ex. C r i m. A pp. 1988) ; see a lso Wes brook v. St at e, 29 S
. W
. 3d 103, 115 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2000) ( i n m o s t i n s t a n c e s , t r i a l c o u r t 's i ns t ruct i on t o di s r eg a r d cur es err or )

. T he a l l eg ed err or her e wa s not “ hi g hl ypr ej udi ci a l a nd i ncur abl e, ” a nd we hol d t ha t t he t r i a l c our t ' s de ni a l of appel l a nt ' s mot i on f o rm ist r ia l was w ithin th e z o n e o f r easo n able di s a g r eement. W e ov errul e app el l a nt ' s s ev ent h i s s ue.

L a s t l y , ap p e l l a n t c o m p l a i n s a b o u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t 's adm issi o n o f

exp ert t e s tim o n yf

r o m D r . C h akr abo r ty an d N as ir

. Prior t o a d m issi o n o f th e e xp ert testim o n y, th e trial c o u rt h e ld a D a u b ert hear i ng , t he t r a ns cr i pt of w h i c h i s i n t h e ap p e l l a t e r e c o r d

. Be f o r e a d m i t t i ng e xp e rt te s t i m o n y , th e trial co u rt m u st b e satisf ie d th at th ree c o n d itio n s are m e t: (1 ) t h e w itn e ss q u alif ie s as an ex per t b y r ea s on of

herk no wl edge , s k i l l , ex per i ence, t r a i ni ng, oreduca t i on ( “ qu a l i f i ca t i on ”) ; ( 2) t he s ubj ect m atte r o f th e te stim o n yis an ap p ro p riate o n e f o r ex p e rt te s t i m o n y(“ rel iab ility ” ); an d (3 ) a d m ittin g th e e xp e rtGuy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 20 15 T ho m s on R eu ters . No c l ai m to ori gi na l U .S . G ov ernm en t W orks

. 9 

## 9 t es t i monywi l l a ctua l l ya s s i s t t he f a ct f i nderi n de ci di ng th e c as e (“re le v an c e ” ). Da vis v. St at e, 329 S. W
. 3d 798, 813 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2010) ; see a lso T ex . R
. Ev i d. 702
. A p p e l l a n t c h a l l e n g e s t h e s e c o n d c o n d i t i o n , r e l i a b i l i t y, o f th e e xp ert testim o n y . T h r ee cri t e ria m u st be m et to s how r el i a bi l i t yof

s ci ent i f

i c ev i denc e: ( 1) t he under l y i ng t heory i s v a l i d, ( 2) t he t ec hni que ap p ly i ng sa id th eo ryis val id , a n d ( 3 ) th e tec h n iq u e w as p r o p erly ap p li e d o n th e o c c as io n in q u e st io n . Bigon v. St at e, 252 S. W
. 3d 360, 367 ( T ex . C r i m. A pp. 2008)

. A t r i a l c o u r t 's ru ling o n t h e a d m issi b ili tyo f exp ert testim o n yis r evie w ed f

o rab u s e o f

d iscretion , a n d th atru ling m u st b e u p h eld if

itis w ithin th e z o n e o f r easo n able d is ag re e m e n t. I

d.

*11 R eg a r di ng Na s i r , app el l a nt a s s ert s t ha t her te stim o n yis u n rel iab le b e c au se : (1 ) O rch id C e llm ark us es l es s t ha n t he ma nuf a ctur er - r ec omm ende d a mount of g ene t i c ma t er i a l i n per f

or mi ng t he m i ni

- ST R t es t ; ( 2) th e valid atio n stu d ie s O rch id C e llm ark co m p le te d w e re not pe er r ev i ew ed; a nd ( 3) Or chi d Cel l ma r k ha d not co m p leted a“ sto ch as tic th r esh o ld ” stu d yf o ra llelic d r o p o u t a n d , th eref

o r e, Nasir ' s the o ryab o u t a lle l ic d r o p o u t was invalid an d im p r o p erlyap p l ied o n th is occ a s i on.
W i t h r es pec t t o appel l a nt ' s c ont ent i on about t he m anu f actu r er' s r ec o m m en d ed sa m p le size , N as ir t es t i f i ed a t t he D a u b erthe a r i ng t ha t a l th o u g h t he mi ni

- S TR m an u f

a c tu r eri dent i f

i es a n opt i mum r a ng e f

or s a mpl e s iz e, Or chi d Cel l ma r k ha d pe r f or med i t s own in tern al va lidation a n d s e n sit ivit ystud ies in 2 0 0 8 to det erm i ne t he s m a l l es t sam pl e s i zes f r om whic h t hey wer e abl e t o ob t a i n f

ul l DNA pr of

i l es . T he s a m pl e s i ze use d i n t hi s ca s e wa s consi s t ent wi t h t he s a m pl e s i zes use d i n t he v a l i da t i on s t ud i es . Na s i rf ur t he r e x pl a i ned t ha t t he ma nuf

a ctur er ' s r ec omm enda t i on wa s ba s ed on w h atis kn o w n a s a“ f

u ll vo lu m e r eactio n , ” b u t Orch id C e l l m a r k h a d i n t e rn a l l y v a l i d a t e d u s e o f t h e m i n i

- S TR kit u sin g a “h alf

vo lu m e reac tio n ,” m akin g its sim ilar app licat io n o f

th e m in i- ST R i n th is ca se ap p r o p r ia te a nd r el i a bl e.

Na s i ra ddr es s ed t he l a ckof out s i de p ee rr ev i ew by ex pl a i ni ng t ha t i n t he i ndus t ry , i ndepe ndent l a bs c a nnot p u b lis h va lidation stud ies b ec ause th e in f o r m at io n is p ro p rie tary . H o w e ve r, sh e f u rth e r ex p lain e d th at O rch id C e llm ark' s in te r n a l valid atio n stu d ie s w e re in d e p e n d e n tlyrev ie w e d b ytw o d if f e ren t age n c ie s th at ens ur ed t he l a b i s f

ol l owi ng t he g ui del i n es of t he na t i ona l DNA a dv i s oryboa r d. F i ndi n g t ha t t he

v a l i da t i on s wer e a cce pt a bl e, bo t h ou t s id e a g enci es accred ited O r ch id C e l l m ark w ith resp ec t t o it s m in i- ST R p r o to co ls.

An d f i n al l y, re g ar d i n g ap p e l l an t ' s c o m p l ai n t t h at O r ch id C ellm ark h ad f

ai led to co m p lete a st o ch as tic th r esh o ld s t udy 11 p r i ort o t es t i ng t he s a mpl es a t i s s ue her e, we conc l ude t h at Na s i rpr ov i ded s uf f i ci entt es t i mony ex pl a i ni ng how s uch a stu d y wa s not ne ce s s a ryf or appr opr i a t e us e of

t he mi ni

- ST R a nd appl i ca t i on of t he al lelic d r o p o u t t h eo ryo rf o rr eliabilityo f t h e test r es ul t s . S he e x pl a i ne d t ha t t he us e of as t oc ha st ic t hr es ho ld “ i s not aDNA a dv i s oryboa r d r equi r eme nt f orav a l i dation” a nd t ha t he rde ci s i on t o e x cl ude t he FG A loc u s w as , in f

act, a co n serva tive d ec isi o n d u e to t he pos s i bi l i t yof

a l le lic d r opout , whi ch i s ac omm on ph enom enon wi t h degr a ded a nd v erys m a l l quan ti t i es o f D N A a n d w ith th e d esign o f th e m in i- ST R test ki t i n pa r t i cul a r . W e conc l ude t ha t t he f or eg oi n g pr ov i ded a reaso n ab le b asis f

o r th e trial c o u rt to c o n c lu d e th at Na s i r ' s ex per t t es t i m on ywa s r el i a bl e. Ap p ellant r ai ses th e ve rysa m e issu es ab o u t r eliability co n ce rn in g D r . C h akr abo r ty ' s testi m o n y , sp ec if icall y c o m p lain in g ab o u t h is rel ian c e o n th e O rch id C e llm ark tes t s i n pr epar i ng hi s s t a t i s t i ca l a na l y s i s . Bec a u se app ellant r ai ses n o iss u es sp e c i f i c to D r . C h akr abo r ty th atd if f er f r o m th o se h e ra ises w i t h re s p ec t t o N as ir a nd Or chi d C el lm ark ' s us e of t he mi ni

- ST R t es t , we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e s e p a r a t e l y. 12 A c c o r d i n g l y, w e o verru le app ellant' s eigh th a n d n in th iss u es an d h o ld th atth e tr ia l co u r t d id n o t ab u se its d i s c re t i o n in a d m i t tin g th e e xp e rt tes tim o n yo f N asir a n d D r. C h a k r a b o r t y.

C ON C LU S I ON *12 F o r t h e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e o v e rru l e e a ch of appel l a nt ' s i s s ues a nd a f f i r m t he t r i a l c our t ' s j udg ment o f co n victio n a n d p u n ish m en t.Guy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 201 5 Thomson Reut er s. No cl ai m t o or i gi nal U. S

. Gov er nment W or k s. 10 

## 10 Footnot es 

## 1 T he two vagina l s lides ar e r eferenc ed herein (and in the r ec or d) as Vagina1 a n d V a g i n a 2
. T he examiner al s o t ook sam pl e s fr o m Ivy' s an u s, th ro at, an d mo u th , bu t th o sesam

pl e s are n o t re l ev an

t to th ei ssu e s o n

a ppe al be c au seth ey

were nots ub ject ed t o DNA t es t ing. 

## 2 Somet ime b efor e 2 0 0 1 , al l of the p hys ical evidence exce p t the medic al examiner' s s lides

—including s heet s , p illow s , and I vy ' s c l o thing

— went mi s s ing an d h a s n ev er b e en r e c o v er e d

. T h er e i s n o de f ini t iv e exp l an at i o n in th e r e c o r d f o r i ts di s a p p ear ance. 

## 3 In DNA ana ly s is , r andom mat ch p r ob ab ility c al culat es the l i k el ihood of s ele ct ing a r andom p ers on unrelat ed t o the s us p ect w ho coul d b e t

he s our ce of

the DNAp r of

il e in an evi dence s amp le. 

## 4 T he tr ia l c ourtdid notp ermitthe jury t o hear evidence ab out how or w hy b ucc al s wab s were ob t ai ned f r om ap p ellantfor the p ur p os e of c om p ar ing them t o the Va gina 2 p r of ile. T he r ec or d c ont ai ns a p r etr ia l ex hib itof the St at e, w hich was not ad mi tte d at tri al , in th e form o f a se arch war ra nt i ssu e d toobtain buc c al swabs f ro m a ppe l l an t a fter th eOrchi d

Ce l lmar k V a g in a 2 pro f i l ewa s r u n th r o ugh theD P S C OD I S data

ba sean d i denti f i e d a “h i t”in theper so n

o f a pp e l l ant. 

## 5 Ap p ellantis Afr ican–American. 

## 6 Exp ert s t es t if

ied thatin s ome circum s t ance s , there can b e mor e than two alleles ata p art icular locus , f or ex amp le if

the DNAs amp le is a

mix tur e of

mor e than on e p er s on ' s DNA o r in unco mmon s ituat io ns w

her e an in di vi du a l h a s r ece iv ed mor e than one allelefr om a p ar ent ata p ar t i cu l a rlocus , w

hich p henomenon is notexp ect ed t o oc cur atmor e than a handful o f loc i for any

given individ

ual. 

## 7 S TR

sta n d s f o r “s ho rt t ande m rep e at”an d c o rr e spon d s tothepa

rti cul ar n u m ber a ssi gn e d toan a l l e l e . A “19”at a par ti cul ar l o cu s, for exam

pl e , me an s th at th ere

are nin ete en re pe ats o f a tandem pair f

o u n d at th at l o cu s (tan dem

pa irs ar e either adenos ine and thy mine or guanine and cy

t os ine). S t at e witnes s es exp la ined thatalthough well ove r 9 9 % of human DNA is c om

mon t o all humans , each individua l's ent ir e DNA p r o f i l e i s unique. ST R

and mini-S T R

t es t ing spe c i fi c al ly targ et so meo f th ev ery fragments o f DNA

th at di ff er a mo ngin div i d

u al s: th el o c iw

h ere in th en u m ber o f sho rt ta n dem r epe ats vary . Wh en

c o m pi l ingdata

ba se s f o r thepu r po seo f c o m pu tingr an do m

mat c h p rob a

bi l i ty , sc i enti sts det er mine ho w many p er s on s w

it hi n agi ven k

no w n s am p l e have the var io us comb in at io ns of t and em r ep eat s ateach s tudied locus a n d as s ign a p r ob ab ility fore ach allelic com

b inat ion t o the lar ger C aucas ian, Af r ican–American, and H i spa ni cpopul ati o n s. 

## 8 Th er e c o r d

do e s no t exp l a in

thea cr o n y m “FG A ” o r

i denti f y w h at g en eti ctr a i t c o rr e l ate s w i th theF GA l o cu s. 

## 9 Noneof the ele ctr op herogr ams were admitt ed int o evidenc e, and Molina 's t ab le ( De f ens e Ex hib it1 ) was a s um mary of his int erp r et at ion of

the Vagina1 s p erm ele ctr op herogr am. Another DPS w itnes s , K imber ly Cl ement , al s o ana ly

zed the Vagina1 s p erm ele ctr op herogr am and gener at ed a dif f erent t ab le, int erp r et ing the r es ult s dif f erent ly and not ing thatthe alle le s atthe two chall eng e d lo c i inc lude d s ome un know n or “ inc onc lu s iv e ” alle le s and that , therefore , app e llan tc ould n o t beexc lude d

a s th ec o ntribu

to r. 

## 10 We r ejecta

p p ell ant ' s ar gumentthathe di d no t“ f r eely” decide t o a

b and on the tr a s h b y vi rtue of the of f icer s ' p r eme di t at ed de c is io n to ob t ain hi s DNA from the fas t -f

oo d me al. App e llan

t 's act io ns in abandoning his tras h were no tthe directre s ult o f p o l i cemi s co n d

ucta s co nt em

p l at ed b y C o m era n di t s p r o g eny . See Come r v. Sta te, 754 S
. W
. 2d 656, 659 (Tex. Crim . A

pp. 1988) ( en b anc) ( op . o n r eh' g) ( def endant ' s di s ca

rdi ng cont r a

b and wa s di r ect

r es ul tof unl awf uls ea r ch o f v ehi c l e ). 

## 11 Na s irexp la in ed thata “ s t ocha s t ic thr es ho ld ” can b e us ed t o det er

mine w hether a p ar t i c u l a r l o c us is homo zygo t ic. Al tho ugh at the t ime of tr ia l O r chi d C ell ma rk ha d no t yet comp let ed it s s tud y t o es t a b li s h the thr es ho ld

RF U a b ov e w hi ch the lab ca n co n f

i de ntly c onc lude thatthe alle le s ata part icul ar loc

us ar ehomozy

go t ic , shedi d te s t ify

thatatO rchid C ellmark's curr ent

p r ogr es s in the s t u dy, the la b was c ons idering p la cing the thr es hold atno le s s than 4 0 0 RF Us b ut l ike ly c l o ser to60 0 R F U s. Th eF GA

pe ak f o r theV a g in a

2 sl i dewa s 3 57 RF U s.Guy

v. St ate, N ot R eported in S.W .3d (2014 )

© 201 5 Thomson Reut er s. No cl ai m t o or i gi nal U. S

. Gov er nment W or k s. 11 

## 11 12 W e

no te that th etri a lc o u

rt ha d a lr e a d y c o n d ucte d its D au be rt

h e aringo f N asi r a nd rul ed t ha t h er te st imo n y was a d mi ssibl eb e fore it c ond

ucte d its D au be rt

he aring of D r. Chakrab orty . See So m ers v. Stat e, 368 S
. W
. 3d 528, 536 (Tex. Crim . A

pp. 2012) (val i di ty

o f underly ing sc i enti fi cth e o ry an d v al i di ty o f te ch ni qu ea pplyingth at th e o ry

c an be determin e d

th rough j udi c i al no ti c e ).
E nd o f Do cu ment © 2 0 1 5 Th omson R eu te rs. N o cl ai m to ori gin al U .S . Gov ern men t W orks.