Opinion ID: 2222257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Improper Statement of DNA Evidence

Text: Roman Nose asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct in five respects. First, Roman Nose contends that the prosecutor suggested in closing argument that Roman Nose was the source of the DNA to the exclusion of all others in violation of our holding in Bloom. Specifically, Roman Nose challenges the following statements made by the prosecutor: Everywhere you look, everywhere you look it's the defendant's semen. Everywhere you look. The only place, the only place you see anyone else's semen identified in the unrefuted DNA evidence is right here in the vaginal swab where it indicates that the weaker identified by the expert is possibly Mr. Reiman's and the victim, a combination.
The defendant is the only source of the perineal swab. It's only the defendant. The blood and the semen identified on the boxer shorts, it's only the defendant. The blood is a mixture of the defendant and the victim.     What do we know about the presence of the semen? We know that there's only two, two possible contributors to that semen. Two. No other evidence here that there's any other contributor to that semen. None, zero. Two contributors: Andy Reiman and the defendant.     Who raped Jolene Stuedemann? Andy Reiman had consensual sex with his girlfriend that night. He told you that under oath on that witness stand.    That explains Andy Reiman. That's [sic] explains why his semen's in there. There's only one other contributor. Right there. You're looking at him. Andy Reiman didn't rape Jolene Stuedemann. You are led to the inescapable conclusion that she was raped by this man. Nobody else. There's no other contributor of that semen. Nobody. And we know, and we know that who raped her also killed her. One follows the other. They're inseparable. Who raped her killed her. In Bloom, we held that properly qualified DNA experts may, assuming adequate foundation, express an opinion that, to a reasonable scientific certainty, the defendant is (or is not) the source of DNA found at the crime scene. 516 N.W.2d at 168. We also concluded that the expert should not be allowed to say that defendant is the source to the exclusion of all others or to express an opinion as to the strength of the evidence. Id. The prosecutor's comments that nobody other than Roman Nose contributed to the semen and that it was only the defendant are close to being a statement that the DNA samples matched Roman Nose's to the exclusion of all others. However, when we concluded in Bloom that an expert should not be allowed to say that defendant is the source to the exclusion of all others, we were addressing expert testimony. 516 N.W.2d at 168. An expert's testimony would undoubtedly be viewed with greater credibility than a prosecutor's closing argument and therefore deserves closer attention. Moreover, we have stated that the prosecutor may present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, analyze and explain the evidence, and present all proper inferences to be drawn from the evidence. State v. Starkey, 516 N.W.2d 918, 927-28 (Minn.1994) (quoting State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 419 (Minn. 1980), and finding no prosecutorial misconduct when prosecutor in closing allegedly disparaged the role of defense counsel and asserted his opinion concerning the credibility of a witness). The record indicates that Schoenbauer testified that DNA testing on the semen found on the vaginal swabs indicated that the predominant DNA profile matched Roman Nose and that she could not eliminate Stuedemann or Reiman as possible contributors to the weaker DNA profile. Based on this testimony, the prosecutor's comments that the DNA results indicated that there were only two possible contributors to the semen found at the scene and that those contributors were Reiman and Roman Nose would not be considered misstatements. Further, the prosecutor did not make an improper inference by asserting that because the DNA profiles derived from the semen samples matched only Roman Nose and Reiman and the presence of Reiman's semen was explained by Reiman's testimony that he had consensual sex with Stuedemann earlier in the evening, the jury could infer that it had to have been Roman Nose who raped and killed Stuedemann. That was, in fact, the prosecution's theory of the case. Therefore, we hold that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct.