Opinion ID: 2345721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion To Reopen Postconviction Proceeding

Text: On January 31, 2003, Arrington filed a Motion to Preserve Forensic Evidence and to Conduct DNA Analysis in the Circuit Court. Arrington requested that pursuant to CP Section 8-201 (2001, 2002 Supp.), the court grant his request to order that the blood stains cut from the sweat pants and a sample of the victim's blood be preserved and that the forensic evidence be released to the Serological Research Institute for DNA testing. The Circuit Court granted the order on April 18, 2003. On June 30, 2006, Arrington filed a Motion to Reopen Postconviction Proceeding and for New Trial pursuant to CP Section 8-201 (2001, 2006 Supp.) and Maryland Rule 4-331. This motion was based on the fact that newly discovered DNA testing results conclusively proved that the blood found on Arrington's seized clothing was not the victim's. Arrington claimed that he was entitled to a new trial because the bloodstain evidence misled the jury into believing that scientific evidence proved his guilt. Arrington also averred that critical exculpatory evidence was not presented to the jury either because Arrington's trial attorney was ineffective for failing to use the information or because the State failed to disclose the police records. Arrington's Points and Authorities in Support of his Motion for New Trial stated that the DNA test results were material because the eyewitness testimony was unreliable in this case and should generally be considered with caution. Arrington also argued that the bloodstain evidence was inaccurate and misled the jury, citing the following opening statement by the State: Now, there is more to this case, however, than just the eyewitnesses that you are going to hear from because there is also going to be what is called forensic evidence. And by that, let me specifically say what I mean. When the defendant was arrested several days later, he was wearing the same clothes that he was wearing the night that the killing occurred. And when he was arrested, the police in examining his clothing realized that there were what appeared to be dried bloodstains on his pants. And the police seized those pants and had them analyzed and compared to the victim's blood by someone from the crime laboratory. And the person from the crime laboratory will testify and tell you that that blood on the defendant's clothing is the same blood type as the blood that was the victim's blood. Arrington highlighted the question that the jury asked regarding the notations on the blood report, arguing that this question firmly establishe[d] that the jury used the incorrect and misleading bloodstain evidence as part of its deliberations and as a factor in its decision to convict because [t]he jury had no reason to even be concerned about the bloodstain evidence, much less ask a question about it, if the jurors accepted the eyewitness testimony as supporting guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Arrington also put forth a new ineffective assistance of counsel claim, alleging that his lawyer failed to make use of critical exculpatory evidence contained in various police reports. Arrington stated that [t]he most significant of the exculpatory reports is a handwritten statement from David Edwards, one of the victim's friends who participated in the fistfight. In his statement, Edwards wrote: When they started fighting I was standing there for a split second and that's when I saw the dude with the corn rows come across and try to stab Paul and I thought he missed. Arrington also cited his counsel's failure to present a police report dated July 14, 1994 that identified the Suspect as Stabber B/M 18-22 yr, 6'0, 160 corn rows, Black T-shirt some kind of black pants. Possible name of Boo or Ray. Hobart st. gang. Arrington argued that the testimony of Michelle Smith and Erica Smith was suspect because they mentioned the Hobart Stars gang in their testimony, but not in their statements to the police. Arrington contended that the absence of the Hobart Stars language from the police reports should have been used by trial counsel to impeach the Smiths by showing that at a time closer to the incident, they made no mention of hearing Arrington brag about a gang affiliation. Arrington also challenged Erica Smith's testimony on grounds that she discussed the case with other witnesses. Finally, Arrington cited his trial counsel's failure to cross-examine the State's expert regarding the percentage of the population that possesses the blood type or enzyme at issue in the case.