Opinion ID: 2738560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion to Provide DNA Analysis

Text: The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in denying his second amended motion to provide DNA analysis for all those who were in contact with the crime scene. The defendant filed his initial motion on May 13, 2010, stating that the purpose of the request was to eliminate law enforcement, medical, and other personnel who were present at the crime scene from physical evidence at the scene that did not match the defendant or the victims. During a hearing, defense counsel informed the trial court that the motion was filed in response to a report from the FBI crime laboratory which stated that two Caucasian or Asian Mongoloid hairs that were discovered mixed in the blood on the buttocks and thigh region of Roberson’s body could not be identified as belonging to the defendant or the victims. The trial court ordered the State to determine those of Caucasian or Asian Mongoloid descent who had contact with the victim’s body in investigating the crime scene. During a subsequent hearing, the State informed the trial court that five individuals had direct contact with the victim’s body: the medical examiner, the medical examiner’s assistant, an emergency response officer, and two people from the private corpse removal service that the medical examiner’s office used to transport the victims’ bodies. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to require those five people to provide DNA samples for -10- comparison with the unidentified hairs, observing that it was unaware of any authority that would permit it to compel private citizens who were not suspected of a crime to provide DNA samples to the court for testing by a criminal defendant. The court also noted that even if DNA testing were to exclude those five individuals as contributors, such evidence would not, alone, exculpate the defendant. The trial court further noted that the defendant could request that those five people voluntarily provide a DNA sample and that defense counsel could, during trial: (1) question the State’s experts regarding the availability of DNA testing and their decision not to perform such tests in order to eliminate investigators and medical personnel as contributors of the hairs; (2) question law enforcement and medical witnesses regarding the protocols they followed in preserving the evidence and avoiding scene contamination; and (3) argue that the hairs possibly belonged to an unknown perpetrator or an additional perpetrator. The defendant also could employ his own expert to review and potentially refute the State’s findings upon a showing of particularized need for funding. Finally, the trial court prohibited the State from unfairly benefitting from its ruling by either claiming or inferring that the unidentified hairs conclusively belonged to one of those five individuals, or other individuals, who had entered the crime scene. The only inference that the trial court allowed the State to draw was that the hairs remained unidentified and could have been left by someone other than an unknown perpetrator. Shortly thereafter, the defendant filed amended motions in which he argued that the testing was necessary in order to protect his rights to confront witnesses, compulsory process of the law, and present a third party defense. The defendant asserted that the trial court could enter a protective order prohibiting disclosure of the testing absent court order. The trial court, however, once again denied the request. The defendant acknowledges there is no Tennessee precedent for court-ordered DNA testing of law enforcement and medical personnel. See, e.g., Bartlett v. Hamwi, 626 So. 2d 1040, 1042-43 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (upholding the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to obtain a hair sample from a prosecution witness based upon the absence of a rule or statute authorizing such discovery, as well as a consideration of the witness’s constitutional rights); State v. McKinney, 730 N.W.2d 74, 89-90 (Neb. 2007) (applying the analysis in Bartlett in upholding the denial of the defendant’s motion to obtain DNA samples from witnesses). The defendant argues, however, that such DNA testing is similar to law enforcement officers requesting “elimination fingerprints” when investigating a crime. We note, however, that in State v. Dailey, 273 S.W.3d 94, 97 (Tenn. 2009), the case upon which the defendant relies, the trial court did not order the fingerprinting, but individuals were instead asked to voluntarily provide elimination fingerprints. Id. -11- Moreover, the withdrawal of blood for testing “infringes an expectation of privacy” and is subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616 (1989); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 616 (Tenn. 2006). Although we recognize that it is possible to “extract DNA by applying a sticky patch to the skin on an individual’s forearm for a moment to acquire epidermal cells without puncturing the skin surface,” Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d at 619 (quotations omitted), DNA analysis performed after the collection of a biological specimen “is a separate and distinct search which ‘is potentially a far greater intrusion than the initial extraction of DNA, since the state analyzes DNA for information and maintains DNA records indefinitely.’” Id. (quoting Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 670 (2d Cir. 2005)). “[A] witness, who is not a suspect, defendant or victim, should have no less protection against bodily intrusion than defendants or suspects in criminal cases.” Bartlett, 626 So. 2d at 1042 (footnote omitted). While the present case involves the defendant’s request for evidence, a witness continues to be protected under the Fourth Amendment and the constitutional rights to privacy guaranteed by the United States Constitution. See id. at 104243. Thus, we must balance the constitutional rights of those third parties from whom the defendant sought to compel DNA samples against any rights that the defendant might have in presenting his defense. See McKinney, 730 N.W.2d at 90. In so doing, we agree with the trial court’s observation that the exclusion of the personnel who came into contact with Roberson’s body as the contributors of the hairs would not have exculpated the defendant, especially given the testimony at trial about the amount of traffic at the home during the five months in which Cecil lived there. After balancing these competing rights, we conclude that “[t]he circumstances presented here do not constitute a ‘rare instance’ where justice may require an invasion of a witness’ privacy rights or an invasion of [a third party’s] Fourth Amendment rights.” Bartlett, 626 So. 2d at 1043.