Opinion ID: 626552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion for DNA Testing and the Government's Response

Text: Returning once again to his claim that the murders for which he was convicted were in fact committed by Frank Gangi, Pitera on October 30, 2009, filed a motion in the District Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3600 to compel DNA testing of six items of physical evidence purportedly seized from Gangi, viz. a ski mask, scarf, suitcase,.22-caliber handgun, .357 Magnum, and.22-caliber rifle and scope. According to Pitera, a finding of DNA from one or all of the victims upon the items seized from Gangi would raise a reasonable probability that Gangi was the murderer. In his AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DNA TESTING, Pitera stated the following: At trial, I was found guilty of murdering three individuals, known as Burdi, Leone and Stern. However, I am completely innocent of these charges and I affirm under the penalty of perjury that I did not kill or participate in killing any of these individuals. The affidavit also includes a statement offering to provide a DNA sample for comparison purposes. In a Supporting Memorandum of Law, filed with his affidavit, Pitera asserted the following: In approximately 1998, Mr. Pitera had learned through a FOIA request that the FBI and the prosecuting office had possessed and failed to disclose critical physical evidence relevant to the murder offenses that Gangi had testified too [sic] during Mr. Pitera's trial. The undisclosed evidence consisted of a ski mask, scarf, soft-sided zippered suitcase, 22-caliber handgun, .357 Magnum, and a 22-caliber rifle & scope, all of which was confiscated during the government's investigation of LCN and found to be the property of cooperating witness Frank Gangi. In the same Memorandum, he contended that he me[t] every requirement of the [Innocence Protection] Act. Specifically, Pitera asserted that: the evidence sought to be tested was secured during the investigation of the alleged offenses; he did not waive his right to DNA testing at his 1992 trial; the evidence is in the possession of the government, and its condition has not been compromised; the scope of the proposed DNA testing is reasonable, conforms to scientifically sound methods, and is consistent with accepted forensic practices; his theory of defense is not inconsistent with an affirmative defense presented at trial and would establish his actual innocence; the identity of the true perpetrator was a critical issue during his trial; and DNA testing may produce new material evidence that would support his theory of defense and would raise a reasonable probability that he did not commit the alleged offenses. Responding to Pitera's motion by letter brief dated February 19, 2010, the government first argued that the evidence seized from Gangi that Pitera seeks to have tested does not appear to be in the possession of the government. In a section of the letter brief entitled The Evidence the Defendant Seeks To Test Cannot Be Located and Was Likely Destroyed, the government represented that it has been unable to locate the six items [Pitera] seeks to have tested, most of which appear never to have been in federal custody. The government referred to Pitera's motion as appear[ing] to indicate that the items he seeks to have tested were seized from Gangi and two co-defendants by the NYPD [New York City Police Department] during a burglary arrest more than two decades ago. According to the government, the NYPD file for the arrest has been sealed and therefore cannot be reviewed; the NYPD has advised that the.22-caliber rifle to which Pitera's motion referred was destroyed pursuant to its standard policy for evidence disposition; the government has been unable to locate NYPD vouchers for the other items described in the motion; and any such evidence in NYPD custody was likely destroyed many years ago. Although the government faulted Pitera for offering no basis for suggesting that five of the six items sought were transferred to federal custody, it did acknowledge Pitera's suggestion that the .357 magnum sought may have been transferred to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). However, according to the government, [a] check of ATF records... has failed to locate either the weapon or the file associated with it and pursuant to ATF policy, any such evidence would likely have been destroyed more than a decade ago. As pertains to the inventory of evidence in its own case against Pitera, the government asserted that two suitcases were returned to Pitera's sister; that numerous guns associated with the case have been destroyed; that it does maintain custody of two handguns and a rifle of the caliber described by the defendant; however, those firearms were not seized from Gangi and are not those that Pitera seeks to have tested. Further responding to Pitera's motion for DNA testing, the government contended that the DNA testing sought by Pitera would not raise a reasonable probability that he is innocent. Although Pitera claimed that the testing of the items sought would demonstrate that Gangi committed the murders and framed him by testifying against him, the government pointed out that Gangi participated with Pitera in a number of murders. Accordingly, the government argued that Gangi's testimony would not be undercut by the DNA evidence sought, especially in view of the overwhelming evidence against [Pitera]. Because the DNA evidence could not serve to exculpate Pitera, the government urged denial of the motion. In a reply brief filed in the District Court, Pitera argued that the government failed to authenticate the destruction of the items sought; that the testing would raise a reasonable probability of his innocence; and that the bad faith destruction of the evidence was a violation of due process.