Opinion ID: 3153639
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The DNA Retesting and Second Habeas Petition

Text: On July 1, 2010, the Petitioner, represented by current counsel, filed a Motion for Post-Conviction DNA Testing under West Virginia Code § 15-2B-14 (2014). The motion was granted, and by employing newly-developed testing methods, the examiners obtained a more detailed DNA profile from the crime scene.12 The Petitioner was again conclusively excluded as the primary sperm source. Moreover, the examiners also identified trace amounts of a second male sperm source, as Lieutenant Myers had discovered in 2002. The testing revealed that the second source was definitively not the Petitioner.13 Based upon the results of the new DNA testing that excluded the Petitioner as either a primary or secondary sperm contributor, the Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus. In December 2012, while the habeas petition was pending, the circuit court authorized a search of the CODIS database14 to determine whether the primary sperm source 12 The second round of DNA testing also identified DNA evidence on multiple items from Mrs. L.’s sexual assault kit and bedding, including items previously found to be negative for semen. 13 The very low level of DNA from the second source indicated the source was not an ejaculator and the sperm had probably been transferred to the penis of the single assailant prior to the assault. An independent DNA analyst who performed the new testing, Alan Keel, explained that while this phenomenon may seem unlikely, it is a recognized reality in the forensic DNA field and the relevant literature. He further indicated that the extremely low levels of DNA are inconsistent with what data would be expected to show if there had been a second male perpetrator. 14 CODIS is an acronym for Combined DNA Index System, an FBI database system containing DNA profiles contributed by federal, state, and local participating forensic 11 could be identified. The search revealed that the primary sperm source was Adam Bowers, a West Virginia prison inmate.15 Mr. Bowers was sixteen years old at the time of Mrs. L.’s sexual assault, lived a few blocks from Mrs. L., had a history of sexual violence, and had been Mrs. L.’s paper boy.16 Despite the new DNA testing results, excluding the Petitioner as any source of semen, the second application for habeas relief was denied subsequent to a July 2013 omnibus hearing. The circuit court reasoned: [T]his Court rejects the Petitioner’s claims that the recent DNA testing analysis and CODIS search results purportedly identifying an individual other than the Petitioner herein as the primary (and arguably sole) contributor of the male DNA found at the crime scene is evidence sufficient to; (a) raise a sufficiently substantive question as to the actual guilt; (b) prove in and of itself the Petitioner’s “actual innocence”; (c) show there presently being a “manifest injustice” imposed upon him by his present criminal convictions and related sentencing/incarceration; and/or (d) demonstrate a “manifest necessity” resulting all therefrom warranting this Court to grant laboratories. 15 The evidence is conflicting on the degree to which the Petitioner and Mr. Bowers may have been acquaintances. Mr. Bowers went to high school with the Petitioner’s younger sister. Both the Petitioner’s girlfriend and a friend testified that the Petitioner and Mr. Bowers had been together at the Petitioner’s mother’s home approximately one month prior to the sexual assault of Mrs. L. Although the girlfriend testified that the Petitioner and Mr. Bowers had engaged in car robberies together, she had previously told defense counsel that the Petitioner did not know Mr. Bowers. 16 Mr. Bowers was indicted for the sexual assault and robbery of Mrs. L. in January 2014, and was convicted of those crimes subsequent to a May 2015 jury verdict. 12 his requested Habeas relief and allow him to withdraw his prior guilty pleas and order them vacated. Notably, Lieutenant Myers agreed that the Petitioner could be conclusively excluded as both the primary and secondary contributor. However, the circuit court found that the DNA exclusions did “not . . . unequivocally determine whether or not [the Petitioner] was actually present [at the crime scene] and a participant in the various activities giving rise to the . . . criminal charges.” The Petitioner also presented new evidence that the prosecution was aware of the exculpatory nature of the DNA results as early as February 2002 during the course of Lieutenant Myers’ initial testing. The circuit court declined to grant relief on the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that new evidence proved the State’s suppression of DNA evidence prior to the entry of his guilty plea. The Petitioner now appeals the circuit court’s rejection of his request for habeas relief.