Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Ninth Circuit's En Banc Decision Regarding Mitochondrial DNA Testing and EDTA Testing

Text: Petitioner's successive petition challenges the post-conviction DNA evidence of guilt by alleging that his blood was planted on a T-shirt, Trial Exhibit 169, and that further testing of hairs would reveal the assailant. Based on representations made by Petitioner regarding scientific testing capabilities, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel stated: In his brief to us, Cooper states, Through readily available mitochondrial testing of blond hairs found in one of the victim's hands, and testing for the presence of the preservative agent EDTA on a T-shirt[] the State belatedly claimed contained Mr. Cooper's blood, the question of Mr. Cooper's innocence can be answered once and for all. The district court may be in a position to resolve this case very quickly. As soon as Cooper's application is filed, it should promptly order that these two tests be performed in order to evaluate Cooper's claim of innocence. Cooper, 358 F.3d at 1124. Therefore, on February 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc decision that allowed Petitioner to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition in this Court. Cooper v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir.2004). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit stated that Petitioner's guilt may be resolved through two scientific tests: (1) mitochondrial DNA testing of hairs found on the victims, and (2) testing of the T-shirt for EDTA preservative. Id. at 1123-24. II. Mitochondrial DNA Testing Fails to Establish that the Hairs in the Hands of Jessica Ryen are from Other Potential Assailants The Court conducted mitochondrial DNA testing of hairs found in the hands of the victims pursuant to the Ninth Circuit order. After remand, the Court held a tutorial on April 2, 2004 regarding mitochondrial DNA and EDTA testing. Dr. Terry Melton, President and CEO of Mitotyping Technologies, LLC; Dr. Kevin Ballard, Director of Analytical Toxicology of National Medical Services; and Dr. Peter DeForest, [5] a criminalist, participated as Petitioner's experts. Dr. Eva Steinberger, Assistant Chief for New Programs at the California Department of Justice participated as Respondent's expert. (4/2/04 HRT.) On June 3-4, 2004, the Court held an evidentiary hearing where Dr. Edward Blake, Dr. John Thornton and Mr. Steven Myers testified regarding previous examination of the hair evidence for nuclear DNA testing in 2001. Dr. John Thornton was a criminalist who was Petitioner's expert at trial. Dr. Edward Blake was Petitioner's expert during the post-conviction DNA testing. Steven Myers is a Senior Criminalist at the California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services who was involved in the post-conviction DNA testing.
At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Blake and Mr. Myers testified regarding work conducted during the post-conviction DNA testing and forensic examination of the hair evidence. ( See 6/03/04 HRT 135-178; 6/4/04 HRT 28-111.) In connection with the hearing, Dr. Blake submitted a report detailing the previous forensic hair examination for post-conviction DNA testing. (04-CV-656, Dr. Blake's Report detailing Previous Examination and Current Evaluation of the Hair Evidence dated 6/04/04, Doc. No. 161 (Dr. Blake's Report).) In post-conviction DNA testing in 2001, the hair was examined by highly qualified scientists for suitability for nuclear DNA testing at the Department of Justice DNA Laboratory in Richmond, California. (Dr. Blake's Report at 2-18; 6/3/04 HRT 134-165; 6/4/04 HRT 31-91; 2 State Evidentiary Hr'g Reporters' Tr. (SEHRT) [6] 253-54.) The selection and documentation of biological specimens suitable for DNA testing, including hair, was done by Petitioner's expert, Dr. Blake, DOJ Laboratory Director Gary Sims, and Mr. Myers. (Dr. Blake's Report at 2-18; Joint DNA Testing Agreement, ¶ 2.10.) Dr. Blake and Mr. Myers looked at approximately 1,000 hairs visually and microscopically. (Dr. Blake's Report at 6-7; 6/3/04 HRT 140-41; 6/4/04 HRT 33-34; 2 SEHRT 275, 280.) All of the hairs were examined using a stereomicroscope. Selected hairs were mounted in order to be viewed under a compound microscope, which provides a higher magnification. (Dr. Blake's Report at 6-7; 6/3/04 HRT 157; 6/4/04 HRT 33-37; 2 SEHRT 278, 300.) There were only three hairs possessing anagen roots that were identified by Dr. Blake and Mr. Myers for nuclear DNA testing. [7] (Dr. Blake's Report at 7-17; 6/3/04 RT 140-41; 6/4/04 RT 33-37; 2 SEHRT 281.) These hairs were two human hairs collected from Doug Ryen's right hand and a human hair collected from Chris Hughes' arm. (Dr. Blake's Report at 17; see also 2 SEHRT 281.) The results of the DNA testing of the there hairs were unsuccessful because no DNA was detected. (Dr. Blake's Report at 17; 6/3/04 RT 148, 156.) Dr. Blake confirmed that the focus of the examination of the hair in 2001 was to identify, if possible, hairs recovered from the hands of the Ryen/Hughes victims that possessed the properties of hair forcefully removed from the skin that would be expected to be successful in a PCR based DNA analysis of nuclear genes. (10 Resp. Evidentiary Hr'g Ex. VV at 6; see Dr. Blake's Report at 7; 6/4/04 HRT 33-37.) Dr. Blake and Mr. Myers spent six days examining the hairs removed from the hands of the victims in an effort to find hairs with anagen roots. (6/3/04 HRT 157-158.) As Dr. Blake explained, during this forensic examination of the hair, Dr. Blake and Mr. Myers were looking for pulled hairs from the hands of the victims and the arm of Christopher Hughes so that they could potentially identify the assailant: For the fairly obvious reason that we were looking for here are hairs that may have come from the bad guy or guys. So cut or broken hairs don't fall into that category. (6/4/04 HRT 38.) The examination of the hairs in 2001 by Dr. Blake and Mr. Myers revealed only three anagen hairs. (Dr. Blake's Report at 17; 6/3/04 HRT 140-41; 6/04/04 HRT 34-37; 2 SEHRT 281.) As Dr. Blake's report detailing the previous examination and evaluation of the hair evidence explains, there is no evidence to support the theory that hairs were pulled from the assailant during the murders: Hairs jerked from the scalp are expected to posses anagen root structures and also frequently possess root sheath material at the hair root end. . . . The vast majority of the hairs associated with the hands of the Ryen/Hughes victims of either broken or cut human hairs or animal hairs. . . . Since the vast majority of the hairs associated with the hands of the Ryen/Hughes are either cut or broken human hairs or animal hairs, there is no evidence to support the assertion that these hairs were pulled from the scalp of an assailant or assailants. (Dr. Blake's Report at 17-18.) From the previous forensic examination of the hairs by Dr. Blake and Mr. Myers, three hairs possessing anagen roots were found and were tested for DNA extraction and analysis. No human DNA was recovered from these hairs. (Dr. Blake's Report at 17.)
At the tutorial, Dr. Terry Melton, Petitioner's mitochondrial DNA expert, testified that mitochondrial DNA testing is different from nuclear DNA testing. (4/2/04 HRT 19-25.) With nuclear DNA testing, it is possible to match with a high degree of specificity an unknown sample of nuclear DNA to a reference sample of nuclear DNA. This is because, except for twins, nuclear DNA is unique to the individual. (4/2/04 HRT 19.) In contrast, mitochondrial DNA found in the hair is inherited maternally and is shared by all maternal relatives. (4/2/04 HRT 19.) For this reason, mitochondrial DNA testing is not able to conclusively identify the source of the hairs, but rather serves as an exclusionary tool to rule out certain individuals as a possible donor of the hair: [Mitochondrial DNA is] inherited from the mother. And all siblings of that mother will have the same type. The mother will have the same type as her mother and her grandmother and so forth. So, the primary difference between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, when it applies to forensics, is that it is not a unique identifier. . . . It is a maternal lineage identifier. . . . (4/2/04 HRT 19-25.) [8] After considering the extensive post-conviction hair analysis done by Petitioner's expert and the testimony of Dr. Melton, Dr. Blake and Dr. Thornton, the Court ordered mitochondrial DNA testing. The Court authorized Petitioner's expert, Dr. Peter De Forest to select ten hairs that were recovered from Jessica's right and left hands and to select, as a control, one animal hair covered with blood from the hair evidence sent from the DOJ DNA Laboratory. ( See 6/4/04 Order Re Mitochondrial DNA Testing, 04-CV-656, Doc. No. 75.) In addition, the Court ordered testing of the two remaining hairs identified in the 2001 post-conviction DNA testing as having anagen roots, D-4A (one hair from the right hand of Doug Ryen), E-1A (one hair from the arm of Chris Hughes) and D-4C, [9] (one hair from the right hand of Doug Ryen). ( See 04-CV-656, Doc. No. 75, Order RE Mitochondrial DNA Testing, filed 6/4/04.) On August 2, 2004, Dr. Melton submitted a report regarding the results of the mitochondrial DNA testing. (04-CV-656, Doc. No. 155, Mitochondrial DNA Testing Report (Dr. Melton's Report).) According to the report, the hairs contained in Jessica Ryen's hands were either animal hairs or hairs from Jessica herself or from someone maternally related to her. (Dr. Melton's Report at 6-8.) Two of the ten hairs selected by Dr. DeForest, Petitioner's expert, were from domestic dogs. (Dr. Melton's Report at 3.) The results confirmed that Jessica Ryen, Peggy Ryen, and Josh Ryen and their maternal relatives could not be excluded as the donors of the tested hairs, including the hairs found in Jessica Ryen's hand. (Dr. Melton's Report at 6-8.) Six days of hair analysis in post-conviction DNA testing plus mitochondrial DNA testing of hairs have been conducted to address Petitioner's claim that a third-party assailant committed the crime. [10] This Court has responded fully to the concern expressed by the Ninth Circuit regarding mitochondrial DNA testing of the blond or light brown hair in Jessica's left hand. In fact, this Court allowed Petitioner to test hairs from both of Jessica's hands. The Court also permitted the testing of two hairs from Doug Ryen's right hand and one hair from Christopher Hughes. The testing failed to identify another assailant and confirmed that all tested hairs most likely came from one or more of the victims. This should not be surprising. The hairs adhered to the victims' bodies, including their hands, because there was a large amount of blood on the victims and a large amount of hair on the debris-ridden carpet. Also, the victims each sustained hatchet wounds to the head, causing clumps of cut hair to fall to the ground. Both animal and human hair were recovered from the hands of the victims. Just as with the animal hairs, the cut and shed human hairs adhered to the bloodied victims' hands because the victims came in contact with the carpet when they were dying on the floor. In this case, both the state and federal courts have thoroughly reviewed the evidence, making reasoned decisions that the evidence of Petitioner's guilt is overwhelming. The Court concludes that mitochondrial DNA testing has failed to show that someone other than Petitioner committed the murders.
Petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding counsel's failure to introduce photographic evidence regarding the hair evidence. Petitioner's claim does cannot satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2254 or § 2244(b). The examination of the hairs in 2001 by Dr. Blake and Mr. Myers revealed no pulled hairs, let alone clumps of pulled hairs, in the hands of the victims. (Dr. Blake's Report at 17-18; 6/3/04 HRT 140-41; 6/4/04 HRT 34-37.) Pursuant to this successive petition, the Court ordered mitochondrial DNA testing of hair evidence. The mitochondrial testing results show that Jessica Ryen, Peggy Ryen, and Josh Ryen and their maternal relatives cannot be excluded as the donors of the tested hairs, including the hairs found in Jessica Ryen's hand. (Dr. Melton's Report at 6-8.) Thus, Petitioner's clutching theory has no merit and is not a proper basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, the Court DENIES this claim on the merits and under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
This Court accords deference to the California Supreme Court decision denying Petitioner's claim on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The state court's denial of Petitioner's claim on the merits is not contrary to federal law as enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland and does not rest on an unreasonable determination of the facts within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). As both the California Supreme Court and this Court have already expressly found, Petitioner `received an extraordinarily vigorous and able defense.' Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 8 (quoting Cooper, 53 Cal.3d at 824, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865). Defense trial counsel's extensive educational background and prior litigation experience were developed in the evidentiary hearing before this Court in Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 8. Moreover, both this Court and the California Supreme Court found the combination of evidence of Petitioner's guilt to be overwhelming. Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 8 (quoting Cooper, 53 Cal.3d at 836, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865). Accordingly, the California Supreme Court's decision rejecting the merits of Petitioner's claim is not contrary to federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts, since defense counsel was not deficient, nor was Petitioner prejudiced by his attorney's failure to pursue an erroneous theory. This Court therefore DENIES this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
If Petitioner has previously adjudicated a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this Court, his pending claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). New factual grounds in support of a legal claim that has already been presented, i.e., ineffective assistance, are not sufficient to evade the mandatory dismissal requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See Babbitt, 177 F.3d at 746. Petitioner already complained about his defense trial counsel's performance in a myriad of claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his first habeas corpus petition, Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Suppl. Pet. at 63-147, all of which were denied on the merits by this Court. Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 7-33. The gravamen of the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is the same, regardless of whether Petitioner presents new and different legal arguments or different factual allegations. See Babbitt, 177 F.3d at 746. Petitioner made allegations about trial counsel unreasonably failing to advocate regarding forensic evidence. ( See Cooper I, Suppl. Pet. at 121-141.) The thrust of Petitioner's attack on his defense counsel's failure to advocate regarding the evidence of the hair in the victims' hands is the same here. The Court therefore DENIES this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner's claim is also DENIED because he could have presented the legal and factual basis of his claim previously with due diligence in the first petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). That hair was recovered from the victims' hands was a fact known to the defense before and throughout the trial. (Answer, Ex. 103 (defense trial file).) Hair evidence was collected from the victims during the autopsy and provided for examination to Petitioner's defense trial expert Dr. Thornton, then a practicing criminalist and forensic science professor. Assuming arguendo that Petitioner could demonstrate that the factual and legal basis of his claim could not have been discovered previously with due diligence, he would still be required to demonstrate that the facts underlying his claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found him guilty of the Ryen/Hughes murders. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner does not meet this standard. The guilt of Petitioner was demonstrated by overwhelming evidence at trial and reaffirmed through post-conviction DNA testing. Moreover, the mitochondrial DNA testing failed to substantiate his theory of another assailant. Accordingly, the Court DENIES his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.