Opinion ID: 2828654
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unreliable Evidence at Trial

Text: The Commonwealth does not object to Magistrate Judge Carlson’s assessment of the fire-science evidence presented at trial. He described it as follows. State Police Fire Marshal Thomas Jones testified that the fire was caused by arson based on two sources of evidence. First, he found patterns of deep charring, alligator charring (charring shaped like alligator skin), and crazed glass (finely fractured glass), all of which were consistent with a fire deliberately started with accelerant fluids. R&R at . Second, he found at least eight separate points of origin located throughout the cabin. According to the R&R, this was powerful evidence that someone intentionally started eight different fires in the cabin in rapid succession. Id. That one of the points was located at the cabin’s door “suggested that the arsonist had acted in a particularly calculated fashion, setting fire to the escape path in the cabin, and effectively entombing Ji Yun Lee within a wall of flames.” Id. at . Jones cited no other independent scientific evidence that arson caused the fire. Id. 14 Fire protection specialist Daniel Aston also testified on behalf of the Commonwealth. Relying on the same evidence discussed by Jones, Aston opined that the fire was set deliberately and with an accelerant. Id. He stated that the last fire was set at the front door of the cabin and that the arsonist “left the structure[] and probably lit [the cabin] from the outside at that point.” Id. Based on the then-dominant scientific theory that arson fires burn at higher levels of heat and intensity, Aston compared the estimated heat and energy of the actual fire with the heat and energy that would have been produced by a “normal” fire. Id. at . He claimed his calculations could “determine with precision both the amounts and types of accelerants” used to light the fire: “62 gallons of home heating fuel, mixed with 12.2 pounds . . . of gasoline or Coleman fuel.” Id. According to Magistrate Judge Carlson, Jones’s and Aston’s testimony “constituted the principal pillar of proof tying Lee to th[e] arson fire and the death of his daughter.” Id. Their testimony “was not directly supported by any other independent chemical testing[, as] the chemical analysis of the [eight] suspected fire origin sites did not reveal any sign of the more than 60 gallons of gas and fuel oil” that Aston estimated were used to set the fire. Id. The Commonwealth concedes that, due to scientific developments since Lee’s trial in 1990, the basis for all of this evidence is now invalid.
The Commonwealth also does not challenge Magistrate Judge Carlson’s assessment of the chromatography evidence presented at trial. According to the R&R, the fire-science evidence described above was bolstered by the testimony of State Police Chemist Thomas 15 Pacewicz, who conducted a gas chromatography of the shirt and pants worn by Lee on the night of the fire and of a burned jug and latex glove recovered from the wreckage. Id. Pacewicz found no evidence of accelerants at the eight origin sites identified by Jones and Aston, but testified that the chromatography analysis of the shirt, pants, and jug all revealed hydrocarbons that “ranged from C-7 to C-22.” Id. He also testified that these results were consistent with a mixture of gasoline, kerosene, Coleman fuel and fuel oils. Id. Pacewicz thus corroborated Aston’s testimony that this mix of chemicals was used to burn the cabin. Id. In its closing argument, the Commonwealth emphasized the mutually reinforcing link between the fire-science and chromatography evidence, which together showed that the fire was set by someone who intended to kill an occupant of the cabin and matched the mix of chemicals allegedly used to start it with the mix found on Lee’s clothes. Id. at . Magistrate Judge Carlson found, and the Commonwealth concedes, that subsequent scientific developments and retesting of surviving materials from the crime scene have undermined the reliability of Pacewicz’s testimony. Id. at –18. On appeal, the Commonwealth does not rely on his testimony to show “ample evidence of guilt.”