Opinion ID: 2813583
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: m. and spoke with Evans a few minutes later.

Text: - 5 - - 6 - No. 109 Evans testified that he saw defendant a few days after he saw a newspaper reference to the victim. As they walked on the street defendant pointed out the victim's car, which was parked where the police subsequently found it. When Evans asked defendant about the victim, defendant told Evans that he and Gifford engaged in sex with her. Afterwards, defendant and Gifford dropped her off, and then Gifford dropped off defendant. Later Gifford told defendant where he left the victim's car. Evans described the location where the victim was dropped off as where people that were doing the same thing they were doing. On cross-examination, Evans suggested that she had been left with others who were strung out on drugs. B. Discovery and Examination of the Victim's Body and Car At approximately 9:00 a.m. on November 29, 1995, the victim was found lying in the driveway of a house, clothed but barefoot, with her hands bound by a shoelace behind her back, and with a shoelace tied around her neck as a ligature. A sock was found inside her clothing near her buttocks. The police found the victim's car on November 30, 1995, near North Clinton Avenue, and discovered a pink sock inside, along with various baby items. The victim's hairs were found in the car as well as hair samples from both white and black individuals. The medical examiner testified that the victim died as - 6 - - 7 - No. 109 a result of asphyxia from ligature strangulation, with the approximate time of death between 11:30 p.m., on November 28, and 3:30 a.m the day she was discovered. The body had abrasions under the chin and around the neck. The medical examiner also found two dark-colored hairs near the victim's external genitalia, later identified not to be the victim's. Various physical evidence, including the hand and neck shoelace ligatures, vaginal swabs taken from the victim, a sperm sample taken on her panties, the two hairs, and an additional hair from the victim's mouth, were sent to an independent laboratory for further analysis. The results of the analysis were presented at trial through expert testimony. C. Forensic and DNA Evidence The People presented testimony of three forensic experts to discuss the DNA evidence collected during the police investigation. The evidence included samples from the crime scene and the victim, and buccal swabs from the victim's husband, defendant, Evans, Gifford, and Christopher and Fred Walker. One expert from the Monroe County Public Safety Laboratory, explained DNA and DNA profiles, how DNA profiles are developed, and how DNA testing and analysis are used to compare an individual's DNA profile with the DNA profile of evidence obtained at a crime scene. She explained that because less than one percent of human DNA is different, DNA analysis looks at - 7 - - 8 - No. 109 specific regions of DNA to identify where the DNA is different between individuals. In order to make comparisons, the analyst studies the different locations on DNA profiles to determine if the individual is a possible donor to the DNA from the crime scene. If there are differences on the locations, then the individual is excluded from the possible contributors to the DNA. She testified that in 1995 when she was an Assistant Forensic Chemist for Monroe County, she examined swabs taken from the victim, which contained semen and sperm. Then in 2006, in her position as a Forensic Biologist, she examined ligatures from the victim's hands and neck. The DNA profile from the neck ligature only matched the victim. The DNA from the hand ligature was so low-level that she did not report that data. Instead, she sent the swabs from the ligatures to a private laboratory for additional testing, specifically Y chromosome or YSTR DNA testing, and mitochondrial DNA testing. She also sent hairs collected from the victim's body, DNA extracts from the vaginal swab and the victim's panties, and the DNA samples from the victim, her husband, Evans, and the Walker brothers. On cross-examination, the expert testified that the DNA profiles from the hand and neck ligatures were mixtures of at least two contributors, but that the DNA was of such a low level, meaning that there was a small amount of DNA or that it was degraded, that she was unable to report back any comparisons. Given the quality of the DNA, she could not state whether there - 8 - - 9 - No. 109 were more than two contributors. She further explained the term transference as the process by which DNA transfers from one object to another, or from one person to an object. She explained that a match results when the profiles are the same at all the locations tested on the DNA, after comparing the DNA crime scene profiles to an individual's DNA profile. In contrast, the term not excluded is applied to mixtures of DNA. She clarified that when the result establishes that an individual is not excluded this means the data is of such quality that it is not strong enough to say it matches a particular person, but yet the data is also such that you cannot say that it is not them in that [DNA]. A second expert, the Assistant Lab Director and DNA Technical Manager for the Monroe County Public Safety Laboratory, testified that in 2002, and again in 2006, she performed a differential DNA extraction on the vaginal swab and semen stain from the victim's panties. Differential extraction is a method by which DNA is drawn from the biological material, and DNA from sperm cells is separated from the DNA in non-sperm cells. According to her test results, the sperm fraction on the vaginal swab contained a DNA mixture of at least two contributors, of which Gifford could not be excluded as a contributor, but the victim's husband, Evans, and the Walker brothers were excluded. The test also indicated that the semen stain from the panties contained a DNA mixture of at least four contributors, of - 9 - - 10 - No. 109 which the victim, her husband, and Gifford could not be excluded, but Evans and the Walker brothers were excluded. She also testified that her examination of certain vaginal slides from the victim's autopsy indicated recent sexual contact. The expert provided no testimony regarding defendant because she did not analyze his DNA, but rather sent his sample to the independent laboratory for further DNA testing. The third forensic expert was from the independent laboratory that conducted the YSTR DNA tests on the swabs and physical material sent from the Monroe County laboratory. She described YSTR DNA testing, explaining that it is used to isolate male DNA from male/female DNA mixtures. The expert testified that she compared the male DNA samples provided by Monroe County with the samples from the victim and her husband, defendant, Gifford, Evans, and the Walker brothers. The purpose of these tests was to show whether any of the men's DNA characteristics matched characteristics of the crime scene DNA. If there was a match, she could not exclude the male from the pool of contributors with the DNA characteristics identified through the YSTR DNA test. She explained that YSTR DNA testing is distinct from autosomal DNA testing, which permits a statistical determination that an individual's DNA matches the crime scene DNA, rather than a finding that someone cannot be excluded from the pool of possible contributors, who have some of the same DNA characteristics found on the victim DNA samples. - 10 - - 11 - No. 109 The expert testified that based on the results of the YSTR DNA analysis she could not exclude defendant and the victim's husband as contributors to the hand ligature sample; that the analysis of the vaginal swab could not exclude defendant or Gifford as contributors; and that the victim's husband, Gifford, and defendant could not be excluded as contributors to the sample taken from the panties. She also testified that the mitochondrial DNA testing of a black hair sample, recovered from the victim's genitalia, matched the mitochondrial sequence of the victim and Gifford. On cross-examination, the expert admitted that there was no statistical calculation drawn from the YSTR DNA testing, as can be done with autosomal DNA analysis, the more commonly familiar DNA testing.2 She explained there is simply no single profile in YSTR DNA testing, as there is in autosomal DNA analysis. Instead, YSTR DNA analyzes a mixture of more than one DNA profile. Asked specifically if she could quantify how many men other than the defendant, in the Rochester area or the trial courtroom, had the same combination of DNA characteristics indicated on the hand ligature, the expert said she could not. She testified that she could only provide information based on 2 In autosomal DNA testing, a profile derived from nuclear DNA is compared to another nuclear DNA profile to produce a statistical expression of the profile's rarity in certain human populations (Justice Ming W. Chin, et al., Forensic DNA Evidence: Science and the Law, ch. 5 [2015]). - 11 - - 12 - No. 109 persons for whom she had samples. Again, asked specifically by defense counsel, can you tell us with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that [defendant's] DNA is present on this hand ligature sample that you tested, she responded No, I cannot. All I can say is I can't exclude him. D. Closing Arguments During summation both the defense and the prosecution presented their respective views of the witnesses' testimony, and what it revealed about the timeline leading up to, and following, the victim's death. For her part, the prosecutor relied heavily on the DNA evidence, and argued that the DNA established that defendant raped and murdered the victim. She told the jury that the case could be decided based on common sense and science. She said that defendant and Gifford left their DNA all over the crime then turned her focus to what she argued was the one constant of the DNA analysis: that defendant was the only matching contributor across several DNA samples. In the course of summation, she described the DNA evidence as narrowing the number of contributors. She stated that there were two contributors and two contributors only, and the sperm fraction of the vaginal swab matched the YSTR/DNA profile of the defendant and . . . Gifford. She also stated that there were [t]wo contributors to the sperm found in [the victim's] vagina after she was tied up, the defendant and his - 12 - - 13 - No. 109 accomplice, [Gifford]. She also stated that the DNA is a mixture that cannot provide a statistical calculation, she stated repeatedly that defendant could not be excluded as a contributor to the mixture. In addition the prosecutor stated, The ligature on the hands, every single number that they were able to determine, and they were able to detect partial profile matches, is that of Howard Wright and [the victim's husband] . . . . We have no reasonable explanation for Howard Wright's DNA on that ligature that bound her hands . . . . We have [defendant's] sperm in [the victim's] vagina. We have [defendant's] sperm on [the victim's] underwear, and we have [defendant's] DNA profile included on the ligature that bound her hands together, the same identical ligature that is around her neck and strangled her to death. She argued that of the YSTR DNA profiles tested, defendant was the singular match to one of the most incriminating pieces of evidence, the ligature. [T]he only one that matches of the people that she was with that night, the only one who matches the DNA profile on the ligature is [defendant]. E. Defendant's Conviction and Appeal The jury found defendant guilty of second degree intentional murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and acquitted him of - 13 - - 14 - No. 109 felony murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) and rape (Penal Law § 125.35). The court sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life. In a 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division affirmed, with the majority rejecting defendant's claims that the evidence was legally insufficient and against the weight of the evidence. The court also concluded that defendant was not denied meaningful representation, and that his prosecutorial misconduct claim was unpreserved (115 AD3d 1257). The two dissenters would have exercised the court's interest-of-justice jurisdiction to review defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct committed during summation, and would have reversed on that ground. They further would have reversed on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds because counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's baseless transformation of evidence that defendant was in a group or class of people that could have contributed to the subject DNA samples to evidence that defendant was the sole possible contributor to those samples was so egregious and prejudicial that defendant did not receive a fair trial (id. at 1262). A justice of the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal (22 NY3d 1204 [2014]). We now reverse.