Opinion ID: 2828654
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What Evidence Remains?

Text: The Commonwealth argues that three remaining sources of evidence provide the “ample” evidence needed. First, Monroe County Coroner Robert Allen and Forensic Pathologist Isidore Mihalikis concluded, based on the autopsy of Ji Yun’s body, that the cause and manner of death were conflagration and homicide, respectively. Allen testified that the body was found on the floor of the cabin a few feet from the bathroom door “in a fetal position,” App. I at 133, under 16 “a bunch of insulation . . . and other debris” that had fallen from the roof, id. at 116–17. Allen and Mihalikis testified that there were “minimal” or “tiny” “hemorrhages in the upper portion of [Ji Yun’s] neck,” id. at 138, 405, 408, 420, that suggested “strangulation, . . . suffocation, or any pressure in the neck,” id. at 408. They also found “minimal smoke deposits in the [victim’s] windpipe and . . . lungs” and a “slight elevation of [her] carbon monoxide levels.” Id. at 120, 405. They concluded that the hemorrhage, smoke deposits and elevated carbon monoxide were all consistent with Ji Yun being strangled before the fire was started. As Magistrate Judge Carlson noted, this inference was weak. R&R at . Allen and Mihalikis both acknowledged that the autopsy results were consistent with Ji Yun dying by a flashover7 rather than strangulation. App. I at 132–33, 406– 407. Mihalikis found no evidence of petechiae—tiny ruptures of the capillaries caused by increased blood pressure—that are present in “most strangulation cases.” Id. at 423. And Allen and Mihalikis’s determination that Ji Yun died by homicide was almost certainly colored by the now-debunked fire-science evidence. Second, the Commonwealth introduced testimony that in the hours and days after the fire Lee’s demeanor showed little sign of grief. Police Officer Leigh-Manuell, one of the first individuals on the scene, found Lee sitting across from 7 A flashover is a phenomenon that causes “a fire within a room to suddenly, spontaneously, and catastrophically engulf all flammable surfaces in th[e] room.” R&R at . At the time of the trial, fire scientists incorrectly believed that flashovers were rare and that they left a “signature at a fire scene which could be distinguished from the tell-tale signs of arson.” Id. 17 the fire on a bench with his luggage, appearing “nonchalant.” Id. at 20–21, 27. Volunteer firefighter David Farry said Lee looked “very depressed, as if he was probably mad at himself.” Id. at 56. High school senior David Pack described Lee as “calm.” Id. at 162. Fire Marshall Jones testified that the day after the fire Lee was “very attentive” to questions asked of him, and “at times he even joked and laughed during the questioning.” Id. at 256. Detective Bortz similarly described Lee as “calm.” Id. at 621. And when Lee’s wife arrived at the scene of the fire, she became visibly upset, and yet, according to Fire Marshall Jones, Lee “walked right by [her] like nothing happened.” Id. at 257. Third, the Commonwealth argues that there was evidence attacking the veracity of Lee’s account of what happened the night of the fire. Two firefighters on the scene testified that the fire started in the front of the cabin and then traveled to the back, id. at 40–41, 57–58, which conflicts with Lee’s testimony that when he walked out the front door the fire was in the back of the house. The Commonwealth also points to inconsistencies in six different accounts Lee gave of what happened the night of the fire. Commonwealth Br. at 36–37. The basic outlines remain the same across each account: Lee woke up in the middle of the night, smelled smoke, walked through the cabin looking for his daughter, went outside, came back in and left again. Id. Most of the “inconsistencies” identified by the Commonwealth are better characterized as minor details mentioned on some occasions and omitted on others. For example, Lee only sometimes identified specific rooms he checked when he reentered the house; only sometimes mentioned grabbing his luggage before leaving the cabin the second time; and only sometimes said that he slipped and fell on liquid after reentering the cabin. Id. Only two discrepancies could bear any significance at all. In at least 18 one account, Lee reentered the house twice; in others he reentered only once. And in at least one account, Lee saw flames before he left the house the first time; in four others, he saw flames only when he reentered the cabin. Id. The District Court characterized these discrepancies as “minor,” noting that they could be explained by errors in translation from Korean to English. R&R at .