Opinion ID: 2721696
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misrepresentation of the Evidence

Text: At trial, the state offered the testimony of two crime lab experts. The first testified that she performed a “presumptive test” on a box cutter Mr. Harrell allegedly used to threaten the victim during the crimes. Although this test indicated that substances on the box cutter might be blood, she did not run a test to confirm the presence of blood because the size of the sample was small and she wanted to preserve it for tests which would provide more detailed evidence. Id. From the remaining sample, the crime lab expert took four swabs and sent them for DNA testing by a second crime lab expert. The second expert testified that the tests revealed a large amount of the victim’s DNA on the box cutter. According to the expert, the volume of DNA found in the sample made it unlikely its source was perspiration accumulated by the victim holding the knife. Id. She testified it was more likely the stain was a bodily fluid such as blood, saliva, or vaginal fluid. -7- Mr. Harrell argues the prosecutor improperly misrepresented this testimony in opening statement and closing argument. The prosecutor did state during his opening that the crime lab expert “was able to identify that there was some blood on the [box cutter].” However, his closing argument does not misrepresent the evidence as it actually was presented at trial. In closing, the prosecutor discussed the tests run on the box cutter, explaining that the size of the stain on the end of it prevented the crime lab expert from doing “a whole lot of testing with it.” The prosecutor then made the statement Mr. Harrell challenges as misleading: that the crime lab expert “was able to develop a presumptive positive that the stain [on the end of the box cutter] was blood.” Although the prosecutor did not include the nuances of the first crime lab expert’s testimony about the need for a confirming test, his statement in the context of the closing as a whole is not misleading. The first crime lab expert testified she “performed a presumptive test” for blood on the stain at the end of the box cutter which yielded a positive result. She also explained a presumptive test can establish only that the stain might be blood. Although the prosecutor did not expressly state this qualification in his closing argument, he acknowledged in discussing the DNA results, that the stain on the end of the box cutter might also be saliva or vaginal fluid. To the extent there was any confusion on this issue, the defense effectively dealt with it in its closing by asking the jury to take a close look at the medical report, which “doesn’t say that this was presumptively blood. . . . It says a presumptive test indicated the possible presence of blood—possible presence.” Our review of the trial transcript does not support a conclusion that reasonable jurists would -8- debate whether the prosecutor’s challenged statements rendered the trial fundamentally unfair in violation of Mr. Harrell’s due process rights.3