Opinion ID: 2056377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: The State's Theory Of The Case In Light Of DNA Evidence

Text: The State's theory here was that both Owens and Thompson raped Williar. The postconviction court found that the DNA evidence eliminates the possibility that the Petitioner had in fact raped the victim. But the court treated the burglary, the rape, and the murder as if they were separate and unrelated incidents. The three may or may not be intertwined based on the same evidence adduced at trial. The State could be viewed as arguing linkage to the jury, stating that [t]he people who broke the glass in the basement were the same people who came upstairs, forced themselves on her body on her bed and left the glass while they were doing it. Further, Dr. Smyth linked the rape with the murder by testifying that the age of the sperm found was consistent with having been deposited at or near the time of death. Because the DNA evidence indicated that the sperm was deposited by neither of them, the postconviction court on remand should consider whether this highly persuasive new evidence might have made a difference to the jury as to the rape and its dual service as a predicate felony for the felony murder charge. The DNA test of the blood on Thompson's pants also conflicts with the prosecution's theory of the case. The State asserted that the blood on the pants was the same blood type as the victim, and that it was the blood of Colleen Williar. This evidence provided strong support to the prosecution's theory that Thompson was in Williar's home and had participated in her murder. The DNA testing refuted this claim, and should be considered by the postconviction court on remand. The State also relied at trial on testimony from the State's criminalist, Mark Profili, that one of the standard pubic hairs from James Thompson matched one of the hairs found on the victim. The postconviction court considered this evidence important in declining to grant a new trial. In reexamining the new trial issue on remand, the postconviction court should weigh the reliability of hair comparison techniques as compared to DNA testing available now. Profili testified that he performed comparison microscopic examination of the pubic hairs. In conducting this comparison, he said, hairs are examined under a comparison microscope that allows them to be examined side-by-side. The hairs are then examined for microscopic properties including, inter alia, diameter of the hair, the pigment distribution which gives the hair its color, whether or not a material called medulla is present, holes, damage, and scales. Profili testified that the scientific basis of hair comparison is to look at those microscopic properties along the entire length of the hair and to find a region on the hair on one stage that matches the hair on the other stage, and when you have those matching we call that a match. If you can't find that region on the two hairs that match then it does not match. Profili acknowledged that DNA testing would have provided more accurate results than hair comparison, but said that it was not available to crime laboratories at the time of the trial. When Profili was asked, Don't the scientists, the technology existing today, agree [DNA fingerprinting and neutron activation analysis] are more advanced and better forms of hair comparison than simply looking at a microscope[,] he responded, Perhaps DNA[.] Profili went on to explain the benefits of DNA fingerprinting: [Profili]: DNA is the  it is an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid. It is the basis of the genetic code. It is what makes each cell in your body that particular cell and those cells in combination you. DNA makes each individual that individual and it is specific, it is only found in you unless you have an identical twin. It can be found in the bulbs of hair, the roots of hair. It can be found in blood. It can be found in any tissue.    [Thompson's Counsel]: So would it not be correct that if hair is subjected to DNA fingerprinting analysis you could prove positively just like fingerprints prove the uniqueness of that hair unless an identical twin was involved? [Profili]: If there is enough DNA material in that particular hair, yes. There can be little question that DNA analysis provides more accurate results than a microscopic comparison subject only to the discernment of the trained human eye. In a recent comprehensive law review article, Garrett and Neufeld mined the topic of DNA-related exonerations in which defendants had been convicted based upon scientific evidence. Regarding hair analysis, they explained: DNA testing of the mitochondria, or when the hair roots are present, of the nucleus, has now supplanted microscopic hair comparison in many cases. In six exonerees' cases, for example, the analyst identified hairs as consistent with the defendant at trial, but mitochondrial or other DNA analysis later determined that those same hairs originated from a person other than the convicted defendant. Brandon L. Garrett & Peter J. Neufeld, Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions, 95 VA. L.REV. 1, 51 (2009). Profili's expert testimony that the pubic hair found on the victim's body matched Thompson's hair was a key part of the State's rape case. The older scientific technique compared to the DNA evidence of Thompson's semen that was not introduced is a matter that the postconviction court may consider on remand.