Opinion ID: 2074377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DNA Evidence Claim

Text: Under Title 11, § 4504(b) of the Delaware Code, the court may order a new trial if the defendant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable trier of fact, considering the evidence presented at trial, evidence that was available at trial but was not presented or was excluded, and the [DNA evidence] would have convicted. [10] The crux of Brookins' argument is that the evidence of what was believed to be his blood on the vase was the most important piece of evidence, from which the jurors could determine whether Brookins was present at the scene. Brookins argues that because it is clear that the testimony at trial that the blood on the vase was of [Brookins'] blood type was clearly erroneous[,] no reasonable juror could have convicted him.