Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner's Challenge to the DNA Evidence is Without Merit

Text: Petitioner attempts to undermine the post-conviction DNA testing results by claiming that Criminalist Dan Gregonis might have contaminated or tampered with the evidence. However, his unsupported assertion ignores the consistent DNA test results which were obtained from the hand-rolled cigarette butt found in the Ryen vehicle after its recovery in Long Beach (DOJ-5, crime lab item V-12) and from blood smears/spatters on the T-shirt (DOJ-6) found near the roadway linking the Ryen home to the nearest freeway. The DNA profiles obtained from these items (DOJ-5 and DOJ-6) match the corresponding portion of the full DNA profile obtained from A-41  major donor and Petitioner's DNA profile. All these items were in the custody of the San Diego Superior Court Exhibit Clerk from 1984 until 2001, when they were shipped directly to the DOJ Berkeley DNA Laboratory for analysis. Gregonis has had no contact since the time of trial with either the hand-rolled cigarette butt (DOJ-5, crime lab item V-12) or the portion of the T-shirt on which the blood smears matching Petitioner's DNA profile were obtained (Trial Ex. 169). Consistent DNA test results confirming Petitioner's guilt have been obtained from evidence Gregonis had no contact with in 1999, and as to which he has had no contact since the time of Petitioner's trial. The items, which have remained in the custody of the San Diego Superior Court Evidence Clerk, operate as an independent control on the DNA results obtained from the items that were in the custody of the Sheriff's Department. Criminalist Gregonis and others testified at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing held before Judge Kennedy of the California Superior Court on June 23, 2003.(92-CV-427, Third Supplemental NOL filed Jan. 23, 2004, Exs. 20, 23, Decl. and Mot. Test. of Dan Gregonis at 97, 99-107, 110-17, 122-23, 128-29, 131-33.) Judge Kennedy found at the conclusion of the hearing that Petitioner has not made any showing that law enforcement personnel tampered with or contaminated any evidence in this case. (92-CV-427, NOL filed Jan. 23, 2004, Ex. 6, Judge Kennedy Order dated July 2, 2003 at 10.) After reviewing the transcripts of Judge Kennedy's evidentiary hearing, his findings and conclusions, the parties' submissions and all relevant evidence, the Court finds no merit to Petitioner's challenge of the veracity of the DNA evidence. Moreover, EDTA testing ordered by this Court fails to show Petitioner's blood was planted on the T-shirt. Accordingly, the Court DENIES his claim of actual innocence. Petitioner is unable to meet his burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Even if he met the burden of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2), Petitioner's claim is denied on the merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Alternatively, Petitioner failed to show that in light of all the evidence, including new evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327-28, 115 S.Ct. 851. Further, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not met the stringent burden of Herrera, which requires an extraordinarily high showing of a truly persuasive demonstration of `actual innocence.' As detailed below, Petitioner fails his burden and the Court DENIES these claims under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2), and alternatively, under Schlup and under Herrera, and on the merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). As a result, the Court concludes that all claims in this successive petition are properly DENIED either under AEDPA, which requires among other things, a factual claim [ ] not discoverable through the exercise of due diligence that establishes by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense, or under Schlup, which requires a showing that it in light of all the evidence, including new evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.