Opinion ID: 4574286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The DNA Evidence Instruction

Text: Blocker contends that the trial court erred when instructing the jury that the government was not required to present scientific evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints, in order to prove its case (the “no duty” instruction). During voir dire, the trial court explained to the venire that the court would “be instructing the jury that in a criminal trial there is no requirement that the [g]overnment present forensic or scientific evidence such as DNA or fingerprints in order for them to meet their burden. They still have the burden beyond a reasonable doubt.” Later, the trial court read to the empaneled jury the final instructions before closing arguments, again saying “[t]here is no requirement that the [g]overnment present forensic or scientific evidence, such as DNA evidence or fingerprints[,] in order to prove their case.” The court added that “[f]orensic evidence or the lack thereof is a factor that the jury may consider in making its determination.” 32 Blocker challenges both “no duty” instructions. 32 There is a dispute as to whether defense counsel preserved his objection to the trial court’s “no duty” voir dire instruction. We need not decide whether that objection was preserved, however, because we conclude that both of the trial court’s “no duty” instructions were harmless error, as explained below. 19 We agree that the trial court erred when including the “no duty” instruction during voir dire and in final instructions to the jury, because nothing the defense had done triggered any legitimate need for those instructions favorable to the government. The purpose of the “no duty” instruction is “to counter an inference,” unfairly favorable to the defense, that scientific evidence which “could have been — but was not — collected and presented to the jury” by the prosecution “would have undermined the government's case or been favorable to the defense.”33 Thus, for the corrective instruction to be relevant, “there must have been evidence that the police failed to gather available [forensic] evidence or defense argument to that effect.”34 Such evidence, unfavorable to the government, was not introduced here. Officer Johnson testified that the handgun had been sent for forensic testing. But instead of arguing that the police deliberately or negligently failed to test the gun for fingerprints or DNA, counsel’s closing argument for Blocker used the mere absence of fingerprint or DNA evidence to Blocker’s advantage. It focused the jury’s attention on “a gun that [the government had] no DNA match from, no fingerprint match, no other type of forensic evidence that puts the gun in Mr. 33 Wheeler v. United States, 930 A.2d 232, 238 (D.C. 2007). 34 Id. at 238; see also Brown v. United States, 881 A.2d 586, 594 (D.C. 2005). 20 Blocker's hand or against his skin.” Accordingly, without any claim of government deficiency, “there was no need for an instruction to counter an unfounded inference” of government neglect.35 Thus, by giving the “no duty” instruction — that the government had “no requirement [to] present forensic or scientific evidence” — the trial court ran the risk of confusing the jury by undermining the ultimate, overall instruction that “reasonable doubt” can be found “based upon the evidence or the lack of evidence in the case.”36 In doing so, the trial court erred. We conclude, however, that the error was harmless. Both while crossexamining Officer Johnson and later during closing argument, Blocker emphasized to the jury that the government did not produce forensic evidence tying Blocker to the handgun. These tactics supported Blocker’s main argument that the gun was not his. For that reason we are confident that the “no duty” instruction “did not undermine the defense[,] because defense counsel was able to argue that the lack of corroborative evidence weakened the government’s case.”37 Nor did the government compound the error in closing; it did not remind the jury that the 35 Wheeler, 930 A.2d at 239. 36 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 37 Brown, 881 A.2d at 595. 21 government had no duty to produce forensic evidence of Blocker’s guilt.38 Under these circumstances, the “no duty” instructions were unlikely to have “substantially swayed” the jury’s judgment of guilt.39 Therefore, the trial court’s error was harmless.