Opinion ID: 2267917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Redding v. State

Text: In Redding, the trial court denied the motion on the ground that the testing could not demonstrate Redding's innocence, because of insufficient evidence that the samples might contain any of the rapist's DNA: There is no evidence to suggest that Defendant ejaculated at any time during the first [rape], much less that he ejaculated in [the victim's] vagina. Furthermore, the victim testified that she immediately washed herself and changed clothes after Defendant left her home. She did not report to the police or seek any medical attention until the next day. Thus, requested testing would be meaningless. The Court finds nothing to suggest that DNA testing of the vaginal material taken after the first incident could show Defendant's innocence. In regard to the second incident, the victim testified that Defendant had just pulled down his pants and was trying to put his penis in her vagina when the police broke into the apartment and Defendant ran away. Thus there is no evidence of either vaginal penetration or ejaculation, although there is evidence of oral penetration.... As the Court sees it, this review of the evidence ends the inquiry. Based on the facts, performance of forensic DNA testing on either or both slides could not demonstrate Defendant's actual innocence, as required by § 4504(a). [29] Because Section 4504(a)(5) requires only that the requested test have the scientific potential to produce materially relevant evidence, doubts as to whether DNA will be found in a given sample should be resolved in favor of testing. In this case, however, it appears that Redding gave the trial court no evidence to establish the scientific potential that the samples would contain DNA. On appeal, Redding attached to his brief several publications and one affidavit suggesting that the samples likely would contain the rapist's DNA, even though the victim washed after the first attack and the rapist did not ejaculate in the victim's vagina during the second attack. Normally, and hereafter, a petitioner who fails to present scientific evidence necessary to support his or her claim in the trial court will be denied relief in this Court. Litigants who wait until they are appealing an adverse ruling before mustering all the support they can find for their position, run a substantial risk that their claims will be rejected as not fairly presented to the trial court. [30] Because this is a new statute, however, the interests of justice compel us to remand this matter to the trial court for consideration on an appropriately supported record.