Opinion ID: 2584547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Blood on the Pants Seized from the Automobile

Text: On cross-examination by petitioner's trial counsel, Anthony Robusto, Detective Terrio testified that he noticed trace amounts of blood on a pair of gray pants and a piece of vinyl that he discovered in the passenger compartment of the Monte Carlo automobile petitioner was standing next to when he was arrested. The prosecutor asked no questions about these items. During closing argument, defense counsel referred to the pants and the vinyl and stated: So what you have is a pair of gray pants that have blood on them . . . . You know that there are bloodstainsor they have some trace blood on them. You know there's a piece of vinyl with some trace blood on it. [¶] But you don't know anything about that blood, you know nothing about it, whether it was analyzed, whether it was compared, whether any of that was done. [¶] Wouldn't it be interesting if it had been analyzed and been consistent withthe way the gun was consistent withthe PGM type of [the victim]? Later, defense counsel returned to this theme, stating: You know that there is bloody pants in the car, gray pants. You know that those pants are not analyzed. You know that the vinyl is not analyzed. In her closing argument, the prosecutor agreed that there was no evidence that the blood on the pants belonged to the victim, stating: Now if the blood was consistent with that of the victim don't you think you would have known that? Petitioner alleged that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to present evidence that the blood on the gray pants had been analyzed and determined not to have come from the victim. Petitioner provided as an exhibit a report from Cellmark laboratory stating that DNA testing had been performed on the blood on the pants and on a sample of the victim's blood, which showed that the blood on the pants did not come from the victim. Petitioner claimed that effective counsel would have offered this evidence because [c]ounsel could have then argued that it was reasonable to assume that if the blood on the pants did not belong to [the victim] the blood on the gun did not belong to him either. At the reference hearing, Trial Counsel Anthony Robusto explained why he did not introduce the DNA evidence showing that the blood on the gray pants did not belong to the victim. In September of 1991, five months before trial commenced on March 2, 1992, petitioner spontaneously admitted to Robusto that he had shot and killed the victim. Robusto replied, You're kidding, petitioner said No, and Robusto terminated the conversation, saying I don't want to hear anymore. Petitioner had earlier admitted to Robusto, in May of 1991, prior to the preliminary hearing, that the gun seized from the Monte Carlo was his and he had lied about it because he was on parole and did not want to get tagged with the gun. Prior to trial, Robusto had obtained a copy of the Cellmark report stating that the blood on the gray pants found in the Monte Carlo did not match the DNA of the victim's blood. Because the blood on the gun had only been tested for blood type, which showed only that the victim was among 16 percent of the population with that blood type, Robusto agreed that, in theory, he could have argued that the blood on the gray pants, which did not belong to the victim, was also the source of the blood on the gun. But because petitioner had confessed to Robusto that he had shot and killed the victim, Robusto did everything he could to prevent the prosecution from testing that blood on the gun with DNA testing because he believe[d] the probability is that it's going to come back positive DNA for [the victim], which is only going to hurt my client . . . . (4) The referee concluded that Robusto's decision not to introduce the test results of the blood on the pants constitutes a reasonable tactical choice. We agree. As the referee stated: Robusto believed that if he signaled his intention to call witnesses to demonstrate that the blood on the pants was not that of the victim, the prosecution might not simply conduct PGM subtyping on the pants, but test the gun as well, and this time use DNA technology. Robusto had every reason to believe that this testing would virtually prove that the victim was the donor of the gun blood.