Opinion ID: 3064677
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refusal to Allow Cooper’s Experts to Assist in

Text: Choosing Portions of the T-shirt to Be Tested One of Cooper’s experts, Dr. Peter DeForest, repeatedly sought to participate in the process of examining the tan t- shirt and determining which parts of the t-shirt might be suitable for sampling. On August 4, 2004, Dr. DeForest filed a declaration noting that “new cuttings” of the t-shirt would be needed to perform the testing. He wrote, “[I]t is essential that the T shirt be inspected in person to select the areas to be sampled by cutting as well as those to serve as suitable control areas.” ER 4021. On September 4, he wrote a letter to the district court, stating that he was concerned about the testing protocol that had been developed. He wrote: This protocol was generated without significant input from me. I feel this protocol is flawed. I will not agree [to] do any sampling according to this protocol. It will not be possible to obtain any meaningful quantitative results using it. . . . . . . Once I have examined the shirt, I am willing to design an approach for review by another scientist or develop one in conjunction with a criminalist representing the prosecution. As I have been trying to explain for some time now, there needs to be a care- ful assessment of the shirt followed by a scientific consensus on the pre-extraction sampling. . . . 5460 COOPER v. BROWN The samples need to be taken in such a way that it is possible to relate any quantitative findings [of EDTA levels] to a specific amount of bloodstain. This is not possible with the protocol specified in the order. In addition, there is the possibility that a scientific consensus might be that sampling that would allow a meaningful result is simply not possible. In such a case, samples should not be taken. ER 4128-29. The response of the district court was to exclude Dr. DeForest. On September 7, three days after the date of Dr. DeForest’s letter, the district court ordered that the t-shirt be sent to Dr. Lewis Maddox of the Orchid Cellmark laboratory. Dr. Maddox’s laboratory is not associated with either Cooper or the State. The court directed Dr. Maddox and Gary Sims (or Sims’ designee) to prepare “Area 6G” of the t-shirt for testing, and to select other portions of the t-shirt for use as controls. ER 4151. Mr. Sims is Director of the California Department of Justice Laboratory. The court’s order did not allow a representative of Cooper to be present during the selection process. Dr. DeForest was prescient. Area 6G of the t-shirt (the area specified in the court’s order) was the area that had been originally tested for DNA. That earlier testing had confirmed Cooper’s blood was present in Area 6G. Upon close inspection by Dr. Maddox, Area 6G turned out to be unsuitable for further testing because there was no blood remaining in that area. The State notified the district court of this fact on September 13. That same day, Cooper’s lawyer wrote to the district court, “[M]ost importantly, Petitioner vigorously requests that an expert of his be allowed to inspect the T-shirt and be part of the selection and preparation process for the anti-coagulant [EDTA] testing.” ER 4205. At 5:30 p.m. that same day, the COOPER v. BROWN 5461 district court denied Cooper’s request to have a representative present during the selection and preparation process. The court wrote, “The court denies petitioner’s request to have his own observer present at the preparation of the T-shirt for the EDTA testing. The court acknowledges that the 6-G stain is not suitable for testing. The court orders Dr. Maddox, in consultation with Dr. Myers [Mr. Sims’ designee, the State’s representative], to select an appropriate stain area and prepare it for EDTA testing[.]” ER 4207. As a matter of due process, a court is required to allow both sides to participate when important decisions are made. Where, as here, serious objections were made to the manner of choosing and processing samples to be tested, the district court failed in its duty to provide a fundamentally fair process. ii. Refusal to Allow Testing of the Newly Chosen Sample for the Presence of Blood Dr. Maddox and Mr. Sims’ designee, Mr. Myers (the district court erroneously referred to him as Dr. Myers), chose an area of the t-shirt between stains labeled 6J and 6K as a replacement for Area 6G. In their view, this area was likely to contain Cooper’s blood. They therefore took their sample from this area. They then divided the sample into three pieces. They sent one of the pieces to the state-designated lab, sent one to Cooper’s designated lab, and retained the third piece at Dr. Maddox’s lab. However, no one tested the new sample (or any part of it) to determine if any of the three pieces actually contained blood. Cooper objected to the failure to test the newly chosen sample for blood. He specifically requested that it be tested to determine if it contained blood. The district court denied the request on the ground that Cooper had not previously requested testing of the sample for the presence of blood. See 4/22/05 RT 10-11, 57-58, 171-72; see also Dist. Ct., 510 F.3d 5462 COOPER v. BROWN at 935 n.16. The district court’s refusal to test the newly chosen sample for the presence of blood was wrong on two counts. First, the district court was wrong procedurally. It was unfair to fault Cooper for not having previously requested testing of the sample for blood. Up until September 13, Cooper reasonably assumed that the sample to be chosen for testing would come from the stain in Area 6G, which everyone believed contained Cooper’s blood. It was therefore unnecessary to request testing of a sample from Area 6G for the presence of blood. Such testing only became necessary when a new sample was chosen. After Area 6G was deemed unsuitable, even the State told the district court that additional testing of the new subject sample “would be required to determine whether Cooper’s blood is actually present in the stain.” ER 4194. Cooper had no reason specifically to request this additional testing after the State said that it was “required.” Second, and more important, the district court was wrong substantively. Because of the failure to test the new sample for the presence of blood, it was possible that, as intended by the protocol, all of the pieces of the new sample sent for EDTA testing had Cooper’s blood. But it was also possible that one or more of the pieces had none of his blood. This second possibility was greatly enhanced for the new sample, as compared to the old one from Area 6G. The new sample was adjacent to Area 6G, and therefore Dr. Maddox and Mr. Myers assumed that it contained Cooper’s blood. But it was unclear how far into the new sample Cooper’s blood extended (if indeed his blood extended into the new sample at all). Further, the new sample was both larger and more irregularly shaped than the old sample, making it even more likely that any blood on the sample was not evenly distributed throughout the entire sample. As I discuss below, these characteristics of the new sample may well account for the radical difference obtained by the COOPER v. BROWN 5463 two labs in testing their pieces of the sample. The Statedesignated lab found an extremely high level of EDTA in its piece. The Cooper-designated lab found an elevated but lower level of EDTA in its piece. This disparity could well have happened because the state-designated lab tested a piece that contained Cooper’s blood, and the Cooper-designated lab tested a piece that did not contain his blood, or contained considerably less of it. If the district court had permitted testing of the new sample for blood — and, specifically, Cooper’s blood — we would know the answer. iii. Refusal to Permit Inquiry into Why Vial VV-2, Which Should Have Contained Only Cooper’s Blood, Contained the DNA of Two or More People On August 1, 1983, two days after Cooper’s arrest, two SBCSD criminalists drew Cooper’s blood. They put that blood into a vial labeled VV-2. The vial contained the preservative EDTA. In 2004, during the court-ordered testing of the hairs Jessica clutched in her hand,3 the State made a mistake. It inadvertently sent a card containing blood from vial VV-2 to Dr. Terry Melton, the expert charged with testing the hairs. ER 3187. This was the first time since 1983 that any nonState personnel had been permitted to see or test blood from vial VV-2. Dr. Melton tested the blood from VV-2, unaware of the fact that the State had not intended to send it to her. Dr. Melton found that the blood from VV-2 contained the DNA of two or more people. This was a truly startling finding. On August 2, 2004, Dr. Melton informed the court of her finding. ER 5645. 3 I do not pursue the argument here, but there is ample reason to conclude that the district court also disregarded our directive by unduly limiting the mitochondrial DNA testing of the hairs in Jessica Ryen’s hand and by prematurely foreclosing the opportunity for further testing. 5464 COOPER v. BROWN Vial VV-2 originally contained only Cooper’s blood, and should have continued to contain only Cooper’s blood. The most logical explanation for the finding is that someone added another person’s blood to the vial. Why might that have been done? One explanation is that someone took some of Cooper’s blood out of the vial for some purpose (planting it on the t-shirt?), and wanted the vial to appear as full as it previously had been. In order to accomplish that, he or she had to add someone else’s blood to the vial to bring it back up to the proper level. On August 4, Cooper’s lawyer raised Dr. Melton’s discovery with the district court. Perhaps the court thought Cooper’s lawyer was speaking of DNA from the hairs. The court stated, “[W]e never expected that it was going to be Cooper.” 8/6/04 RT 138. Counsel replied, “[I]t is not the hairs that were sent that we’re talking about. It is the known sample that was sent, and that’s been contaminated. And there is a very serious issue about that.” Id. at 139. On September 10, Cooper moved for an evidentiary hearing, inter alia, “to determine the cause for the appearance of a ‘mixture’ of DNA in Petitioner’s blood sample also submitted to Dr. Melton.” He wrote: VV-2 is the blood sample collected from Petitioner at the time of his arrest[.] . . . [The] [b]lood sample should only have contained Petitioner’s DNA[.] . . . Dr. Melton’s report reveals that a mixture of DNA sources was detected in VV-2. . . . In light of prior evidence presented by Petitioner regarding tampering or contamination of biological evidence in this case, Dr. Melton’s findings regarding VV-2 are extremely alarming and mandate further inquiry. ER 4168. On February 3, 2005, the district court denied Cooper’s motion. It did not mention vial VV-2 in its order. COOPER v. BROWN 5465 On April 22, 2005, in final oral argument to the district court, Cooper’s counsel returned to the subject of the blood in vial VV-2. He said, “[W]ith regard to VV-2, I just want to be — make this clear. There seems to be a possible misunderstanding. VV-2, which is the sample that Doctor Melton tested and found a mixture in, it’s Petitioner’s blood sample. It is not a hair sample. I wasn’t sure if the Court was clear on that.” 4/22/05 RT 153. The court immediately interrupted, “And it’s consumed.” Id. Cooper’s counsel agreed that Dr. Melton had consumed the sample on the card she had been sent, but stated, “[T]hat doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t more VV-2 in San Bernardino or at the DOJ that could be tested.” Id. The State’s counsel then responded, “I can represent to the Court that VV-2 was completely consumed by Doctor Melton. Doctor Melton was shipped the remainder of this particular blood sample, and she consumed it, and it’s reflected in her report. So we don’t have any more of that particular reference sample.” Id. at 156. The State’s counsel seems to have meant to say (or at least to have meant the court to understand) that there was no blood remaining in vial VV-2. If that is what counsel meant to say, it was a startling statement. The State had never before said or even suggested such a thing. For example, when Cooper moved in September 2004 for an evidentiary hearing on how the DNA of two people came to be in vial VV-2, the State did not say or even suggest that vial VV-2 was empty. Nor had the State ever presented evidence to support such a statement. Nor had the district court relied on the fact that vial VV-2 was empty in denying Cooper’s motion for an evidentiary hearing. Cooper’s counsel told the district court that Dr. Melton’s finding that the DNA of two or more people was in the blood that came from vial VV-2 was “extremely alarming and mandate[d] further inquiry.” The district court refused to allow any investigation into the issue, even though the presence of additional DNA in vial VV-2 clearly pointed to evidence tampering by the State. 5466 COOPER v. BROWN iv. Refusal to Allow Access to the State-Designated Lab’s Raw Data and Notes Concerning Asserted Contamination Dr. Maddox of the Orchid Cellmark laboratory sent a total of ten samples to each of the two designated testing labs. Dr. Siuzdak was the tester designated by the State. Dr. Ballard was the tester designated by Cooper. Sample 1 was a piece of the t-shirt that had been chosen by Dr. Maddox and Mr. Myers as likely to contain Cooper’s blood. Samples 2-6 were taken from other parts of the t-shirt and were intended to serve as controls. Samples 7-10 were not taken from the t-shirt; they were also intended to serve as controls. As I will explain below, the EDTA results obtained by Dr. Siuzdak and Dr. Ballard are remarkably consistent for all of the samples except Sample 1 and Sample 8. Dr. Siuzdak found that his piece of Sample 1 (the sample supposedly containing Cooper’s blood) contained an extremely high level of EDTA, more than twice as high as any other sample. If Dr. Siuzdak’s piece of Sample 1 contained Cooper’s blood, and if his EDTA result is valid, this indicates that Cooper’s blood was planted on the t-shirt. By contrast, Dr. Ballard found that his piece of Sample 1 contained a somewhat elevated, but fairly low, level of EDTA. Dr. Siuzdak submitted his report, containing the high EDTA reading for Sample 1, to the district court on October 5, 2004. On October 27, without prior warning, Dr. Siuzdak withdrew his report. His fax to the court stated in its entirety: On Monday, October 5th I submitted a report on the Cooper samples tested for the presence of EDTA. I now believe that the samples tested were contaminated with EDTA in my laboratory and therefore must retract the report submitted. I deeply COOPER v. BROWN 5467 apologize for the inconvenience and confusion this report may have caused. ER 4464. Cooper moved to be allowed access to Dr. Siuzdak’s raw data and bench notes relevant to his testing of all the samples. ER 4465-82. The district court denied this access. ER 4751. Cooper has never been permitted to see Dr. Siuzdak’s raw data and bench notes, and has never been permitted to investigate the nature and possible significance of the purported contamination. Dr. Siuzdak has never been asked to provide an explanation for his conclusion that there was contamination in his lab. v. District Court Reliance on Faulty Controls As discussed in greater detail below, five supposed “control” samples were taken from the tan t-shirt. When the two laboratories tested these samples, everyone assumed that they contained no human material (and therefore no human DNA) and that they contained only a background level of EDTA. However, at least three of the five purported control samples taken from the t-shirt (Samples 2, 3, and 4) actually contained human DNA. ER 4659, 4669. The amount of DNA in these samples corresponds closely with an elevated level of EDTA in these same samples. The combined presence of DNA and elevated levels of EDTA strongly suggest that these samples contained preserved blood that had been planted on the t-shirt. Therefore, these “control” samples from the t-shirt were not, in fact, controls at all. Nonetheless, the district court assumed that these samples were valid controls. Because the district court assumed that Samples 2, 3 and 4 were valid controls, it concluded that the results of the DNA tests were invalid. See Dist. Ct., 510 F.3d at 939 (“The EDTA level in the subject stain is not elevated, but is instead lower than that of most of the control areas. As a result, the test 5468 COOPER v. BROWN refutes Petitioner’s tampering theory.” (emphasis added)); id. at 941 (“From the test data, the Court concludes that the level of EDTA in the subject stain is 110 nanograms. Comparing the EDTA level of the subject stain to that for the control specimens, the Court concludes that there is no reliable evidence of tampering.” (emphasis added)). But because the district court erred in assuming that these samples were valid controls, it erred in concluding that the results of the DNA tests were invalid. The only sample that could provide a baseline level of EDTA in the t-shirt, and could thus serve as a valid control, is Sample 6. It is the only sample from the t-shirt that contained no human DNA. Both Dr. Ballard and Dr. Siuzdak found only background levels of EDTA in Sample 6. The levels of EDTA found in Sample 6 by both Dr. Ballard and Dr. Siuzdak were far lower than the levels of EDTA found in any other sample taken from the t-shirt. (Recall that the district court found that “the levels of EDTA in the T-shirt were accurately measured” by Dr. Ballard. Dist. Ct., 510 F.3d at 941.) The virtual absence of EDTA in Sample 6 when compared with the elevated EDTA levels in Sample 1, particularly the portion of Sample 1 tested by Dr. Siuzdak, strongly suggests that Cooper’s blood was planted on the shirt. vi. Refusal to Allow Further Testing The district court refused to allow further EDTA testing after Dr. Ballard and Dr. Siuzdak made their reports, and after Dr. Siuzdak withdrew his report on the ground of asserted contamination. If the piece of Sample 1 tested by Dr. Siuzdak contained Cooper’s blood, as Dr. Maddox and Mr. Myers thought it did, and if Dr. Siuzdak’s finding of an extremely high level of EDTA in his piece of Sample 1 is valid, there is no question that Cooper’s blood was planted on the t-shirt. The district court refused to allow further testing despite the fact that Dr. Siuzdak and Dr. Ballard still have sufficient COOPER v. BROWN 5469 amounts of the samples provided to them to perform further testing. In light of the high level of EDTA detected by Dr. Siuzdak on his piece of Sample 1, and in light of the unexplored nature of Dr. Siuzdak’s belief that there was contamination in his laboratory, it was unreasonable not to pursue further testing.