Opinion ID: 4568309
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The defense’s physical evidence

Text: The defense’s physical evidence focused on Valentino’s boot. Mason, the firearms expert, described testing Valentino’s boot “for any indication that the bullet may have impacted the boot.” J.A. 358. Mason found “lead residue along the margins of the damage . . . indicative of a lead projectile such as a bullet or bullet fragment having impacted the boot.” J.A. 359. “The damage,” Mason explained, was “consistent with a slow-moving projectile or an unstable projectile striking the boot.” J.A. 359−60. He elaborated that whatever the lead object was it did not make a “direct impact” on the boot. J.A. 360, 362. And if the lead object was a bullet, “any impact on another object prior to impacting the boot would slow it down.” J.A. 360. For instance, “a bullet passing through a person’s leg striking bone would slow it down and that could be a possible reason why a bullet would . . . do this type of damage.” J.A. 360–61. But Mason’s testimony also cast doubt on the possibility of a ricochet damaging Valentino’s boot. On cross examination of Islam, defense counsel elicited testimony that Valentino was about eight feet away when he shot her. Mason explained that “bullets tend to travel in a straight line,” so it was unlikely that a bullet could pass through Islam’s leg and then rebound with sufficient energy to damage Valentino’s boot. J.A. 360–61. According to defense counsel, this meant that a ricochet could not have occurred under 12 Islam’s account. See J.A. 485 (“Mason . . . said with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that cannot happen. Her version, whatever else you think about her, can’t happen.”). 10 The defense also called Shiao-Mei Smith, an analyst at the Virginia Department of Forensic Science, who tested Valentino’s boots. First, Smith performed a blood indication test on the exterior of the boots to determine whether blood was present. It was—the indicator came back positive. Then, she tested a stain on the inside of Valentino’s boot for DNA. The DNA analysis showed a “mixture profile”—that is, evidence of more than one person’s DNA. J.A. 372. Although Islam and her boyfriend were excluded as contributors to the major profile in the mixture, Valentino could not be eliminated as the major profile contributor. Given this testimony’s context and results, the jury could reasonably infer that Valentino was the main contributor of DNA to the stain. See State v. Wright, 253 P.3d 838, 843–44 (Mont. 2011). But available testing methods prevented any definitive analysis of the minor profile. In other words, Smith’s analysis indicated that another person’s DNA was in the stain, but that person could not be identified. Smith also noted the limitations of her analysis. She explained that although she knew there was DNA on the stain, she could not tell when that DNA was deposited. Nor 10 Recall, however, that Islam testified that Valentino was not shot during the encounter. And, in any event, the prosecution disagreed with defense counsel’s argument. See J.A. 506 (“Mason told you that bullets sometimes hit hard objects like human bone and they break up. He said fragments can ricochet. Perhaps when he went to shoot her, a piece of the bullet flew back into his foot.”). 13 could Smith determine the source of the DNA—whether blood, “sweat or semen or any other number of substances that would contain a person’s DNA.” J.A. 376. Along with the bloody sock and Valentino’s boots, the defense introduced securitycamera footage from the hotel’s front desk. Valentino explained that Islam was shown on the security footage at around 2:04 A.M. He also testified that he was “60 to 70 percent” sure that another man in the security video was the man who later attacked him in Islam’s room. J.A. 263–64. Valentino claimed to have recognized him based on the man’s slim body shape, white shirt, the shape of his head, and the way he walked. During cross examinations of government witnesses, the defense tried to achieve two objectives. First, it sought to support Valentino’s story. So, for instance, on cross examination of Islam, the defense highlighted the two toothbrushes and deodorant sticks that she kept in her bathroom, implying that someone else was staying in the room. Similarly, on cross examination of one of Islam’s clients, the defense elicited the testimony that two men left the hotel after the gunshot but before the police arrived—one running out the side door to Valentino’s car and another walking out the front door. Second, the defense sought to paint a picture of a rushed investigation in which the state “was more interested in finding evidence to convict than in giving the full and fair investigation.” J.A. 491. So on cross examination of the state’s investigators, the defense called their decision-making into question. For instance, the defense highlighted the state’s choice to test the hole in Valentino’s boot for indicia of a gunshot rather than DNA. On the outside of the boot near a small hole, Smith performed a blood indication test, which came back positive. But since the 14 hole itself was so small, Mason and Smith explained, performing both tests would have been impossible. Conferring with detectives, Smith and Mason agreed to test the hole for gunshot indicia and inside the boot for DNA. In the defense’s view, this choice to test the hole for evidence of a gunshot, not DNA, strayed from the state’s obligation to conduct a full and fair investigation. J.A. 491; see also J.A. 490 (The detective “promised and committed to doing a full and fair investigation. . . . He made the call do we look for DNA on the exterior of the boot or do we look for gun powder residue. He’s trying to convict and not trying to give a full and fair investigation.”). Similarly, the defense emphasized the prosecution’s failure to test Valentino’s bloody sock for DNA. 11 As defense counsel explained, the detective “just threw [the socks] in his locker and left them there . . . he sure didn’t bother to take them down to the lab to be analyzed.” J.A. 490. This, counsel explained, was more evidence of the state’s poor investigation.