Opinion ID: 512659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Alabama Department of Toxicology in Criminal Investigation.

Text: 12 Q. Where are you located, Doctor. 13 A. At Auburn, Alabama. 14 Q. How long have you been with the department? 15 A. Approximately three years. 16 Q. What kind of degrees do you have, please, sir? 17 A. I have a B.S. in chemistry from Emory University. I have a Ph.D. from Auburn University. 18 Q. Over the past three years have you had an opportunity to work a machine or an examination called atomic absorption? 19 A. Yes, I have. 20 Q. Explain to the jury what that is please, sir. 21 A. This is a machine that analyzes for certain elements by atomizing the elements due to heat. In other words, what it does is simply vaporize the elements into a light path. Once the elements are in the light path they are picked up by a light path and the machine can analyze as to the amount present or the particular elements present based on the particular light beam that you put through it. 22 Q. Does this particular test also or will it, along with a number of other things, determine primer residues? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24    25 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not there was any primer residues on these swabs? 26 A. Yes, sir. 27 Q. What is that opinion? 28 A. My tests failed to reveal the presence of certain elements consistent with primer residues. 29 Q. Is that consistent with a person not having fired a recently fired weapon? 30 A. Yes, sir. 31 Chatom, 348 So.2d at 831-32. 32 The state proffered this predicate and expert opinion without any objection by Chatom's counsel. The failure to offer any objection on the part of Chatom's counsel occurred despite the fact that the prosecution failed to inform defense counsel of the existence of such test results prior to the commencement of trial as required by an order of the court mandating the production of any and all reports, examinations, tests, ballistics, or other material completed by the Department of Toxicology. See Trial Transcript at 7 (Order, Motion to Produce--Granted as to Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Denied as to Count 3). 33 After failing to object to the introduction of the credentials of the expert witness and the opinion proffered by Dr. McDuffie, Chatom's counsel cross-examined the expert as follows: 34 Q. Is this test infallible? 35 A. No, sir. 36 Q. Have you ever run such a test on Milo Sennett?A. I am not certain as to whether I have or not, sir. 37 Q. You know who I'm talking about Mr. Milo Sennett? 38 A. Yes, sir. 39 Q. What is the accuracy percentage of this machine, of this test, in the last survey that you've made? 40 A. I'm not certain, sir. On tests that I have run myself where I know a gun has been fired, is that what you're asking. I would guess, sir, it's in the neighborhood of 75 to 80 percent of the time. 41 Q. That is all? Seventy-five to eighty percent of the time? 42 A. Yes, sir. 43 Chatom, 348 So.2d at 832. 44 Following the cross-examination of Dr. McDuffie, Chatom's counsel made a motion to exclude the evidence introduced through McDuffie's testimony; the trial court reserved judgment on the motion. In response to McDuffie's testimony, Chatom's counsel recalled one of the state's witnesses, Mr. Milo Sennett, a state toxicologist, eliciting the following: 45 Q. ... have you ever heard of the atomic absorption test for primer residue? 46 A. Yes, I have. 47 Q. Are you familiar with the test? 48 A. I am. I know a little bit about it but I wouldn't say that I know a lot about it. 49 Q. In connection with your work have you ever undergone--in connection with your work in the Department of Toxicology have you ever undergone that test on yourself? 50 A. Yes, I have. 51 Q. And have you ever undergone that test with a 38 caliber pistol such as that? 52 A. I have fired several 38 caliber pistols. 53 Q. All right, and what--did you take a swab of some sort and ... 54 A. Some swabs were taken of my hands. 55 Q. All right, and were those in turn examined under the atomic absorption primer residue test? 56 A. They were. 57 Q. Did it come back affirmative or negative? 58 A. On one test that I know about the results came back there was not a significant level of residues on my hand. 59 Q. In other words, it was negative? 60 A. It was inconclusive. 61 Q. Which means did not tell whether you fired a gun or not? 62 A. That's correct. 63 Id. 64 At the conclusion of Sennett's testimony the court addressed Chatom's motion to exclude the results of the atomic absorption test through the following colloquy: 65 THE COURT: The only thing that has not been ruled upon is the question of the admissibility of the test performed by Dr. McDuffie. If you have any cases you want submit [sic] to me at this time you can go ahead. 66    67    68 MR. VALESKA [Assistant District Attorney]: Your Honor, I can cite to this Court, 50 A.L.R.3d 117, the neutron activation test that was admitted and in that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York held that, The Court noted that a strong showing of unreliability must be made in the trial court, and we submit that has not been made. We cite--there are numerous cases in here, Judge. This is another new type test they use to find bombs in mail ... 69 MR. ALONZO [Chatom's counsel]: Judge, this has nothing to do with putting something on a man's hand. This neutron activation, I don't know what that is. 70 MR. VALESKA: Well, you didn't know what the other one was either. 71 MR. ALONZO: That's right, and you haven't told us ... 72 (Mr. Alonzo and Mr. Valeska speak at once.)MR. VALESKA: We submit it to the Court for the Court's perusal if you wish. That's our authority. 73 (Cases submitted to the Court.) 74 THE COURT: Motion is denied. Gentlemen, you have about 30 minutes. 75 Id. at 832-33. 76 Following the evidence phase of the trial, the jury returned general verdicts of guilty to two counts of murder in the first degree. The trial judge sentenced Chatom to two life terms of imprisonment. 77 The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently overturned Chatom's conviction, remanding the case for a new trial. The court based its decision upon its finding that the trial court admitted the results of the atomic absorption test without a proper predicate. Chatom, 348 So.2d at 834. The court specifically found: 78 no testimony concerning the exact time the swabs were taken from Wilson's body. In addition there was no testimony indicating the lapse of time between the shooting or the taking of the swabs, and the time when Dr. McDuffie tested the swabs for gun residue. Needless to say, we are totally without knowledge as to what effect a delay would have on the accuracy of the test. In addition there is no testimony that the 75% to 85% figure would apply to a shotgun as opposed to a pistol where the muzzle is in close proximity to the hand. Thus, the accuracy of the test was not sufficiently established by the State. 79 Id. at 833. By so finding, the Alabama state court held that the trial court wrongly denied Chatom's motion to exclude the evidence of the atomic absorption test. Id. at 834. 80 On rehearing, the Court of Criminal Appeals, in a per curiam opinion, explicitly reiterated [f]irst, the conviction of appellant was not reversed due to insufficiency of the evidence.... [and] [s]econdly, reversal was due to the introduction into evidence of the atomic absorption test without a proper predicate. Id. at 837. 81 Upon the state's petition for certiorari, the Alabama Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found the atomic absorption test not to be per se inadmissible. Chatom, 348 So.2d at 842. Four Justices held that the state's predicate for the admission of the test, adduced without objection from Chatom's counsel, sufficiently established that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. Id. Justice Beatty, concurring specially, found that because Chatom's counsel made no objection to the introduction of the test results, he waived any objection to their admissibility even though the predicate, if challenged, may have been found to be deficient. Id. (Beatty, J., concurring specially). In light of the plurality of four justices and the special concurrence of Justice Beatty, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals overturning Chatom's conviction and remanded the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals. 82 On remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals, in a per curiam opinion, concluded that [s]ince [the atomic absorption test] is admissible by default, a jury question is presented. Chatom, 348 So.2d at 844. Finding the evidence of the atomic absorption test admissible based upon a procedural default, the court determined that a jury question existed and found that the jury had before it sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences which could be derived therefrom to support their verdict of guilty. Id. By so finding, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Chatom's conviction. Id. 83 Following the exhaustion of his direct appeal, Chatom filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis before the state trial court in April 1980. Chatom's original petition asserted ineffective assistance of counsel as grounds for relief. Following appointment of counsel to assist with the petition, the movant amended the petition on two occasions to conform with procedural requirements. After an evidentiary hearing before the original trial judge, at which Chatom's trial counsel and other witnesses testified, the original trial court judge denied Chatom's petition for a writ of error coram nobis. 84 On December 8, 1981, Chatom filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Subsequent to the appointment of counsel, the United States Magistrate for the Southern District of Alabama, recommended that the petition be denied based upon the state court record. Substitute counsel for Chatom filed objections to the recommendation and later sought and was granted leave to amend the original petition. The Magistrate recommended that the amended petition be denied based upon his previous recommendations and upon a finding that two of the petition's amended claims were procedurally barred under Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). 85 On August 31, 1987, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama entered an order denying the petitioner habeas corpus relief. This appeal from the order of the district court followed.