Opinion ID: 2828654
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chromatography Evidence

Text: 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.”