Court Opinion

ID: 9403320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 20:03:48.002897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.158577
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALAN BASS,                               §
                                         §
                                         §      No. 218, 2022
      Defendant Below, Appellant,        §
                                         §
                                         §      Court Below: Superior Court
      v.                                 §      of the State of Delaware
                                         §
                                         §
STATE OF DELAWARE,                       §      I.D. No. 83000508DI (N)
                                         §
                                         §
      Appellee.                          §
                                         §

                              Submitted: April 19, 2023
                              Decided:    June 20, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and TRAYNOR, Justices.

Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.

Patrick J. Collins, Esquire, Collins & Price, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant.

Brian Arban, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for
Appellee.

VALIHURA, Justice:
                                       I.     Introduction

       In June 1983, a Superior Court jury found Alan Bass (“Bass”) guilty of two counts

of Rape First Degree, three counts of Kidnapping First Degree, two counts of Robbery First

Degree, one count of Attempted Robbery First Degree, two counts of Burglary Second

Degree, and one count of Burglary Third Degree. The Superior Court sentenced Bass to

five consecutive life sentences plus 45 years in prison. Bass appealed. In September 1985,

this Court affirmed his convictions.1 The rapes, kidnappings, robberies, and burglaries

were committed in Wilmington and Claymont between November 1981 and August 1982.

       Before the instant postconviction motion on appeal, Bass filed six motions for

postconviction relief.2 All six motions were denied. After Bass’s six prior Rule 61

motions, on April 20, 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the United States

Department of Justice (“USDOJ”), the Innocence Project, and the National Association of

Criminal Defense Lawyers issued a joint statement (the “Joint Statement”) in which the

1
 Bass v. State, 505 A.2d 451, 1985 WL 188333 (Del. Sept. 20, 1985) (TABLE); App. to Opening
Br. at A699–708 (Order Denying Direct Appeal and Affirming Superior Court Judgment, Sept.
20, 1985) [hereinafter Denial of Direct Appeal].
2
  See Bass v. State, 561 A.2d 466, 1989 WL 47282 (Del. Apr. 5, 1989) (TABLE) (affirming denial
of first motion for postconviction relief); Bass v. State, 634 A.2d 938, 1993 WL 478076 (Del. Nov.
5, 1993) (TABLE) (affirming denial of second motion for postconviction relief); Bass v. State, 710
A.2d 217, 1998 WL 231270 (Del. May 1, 1998) (TABLE) (affirming denial of third motion for
postconviction relief); Bass v. State, 829 A.2d 935, 2003 WL 21810837 (Del. Aug. 4, 2003)
(TABLE) (affirming denial of fourth motion for postconviction relief); Bass v. State, 67 A.3d
1022, 2013 WL 2398580 (Del. May 31, 2013) (TABLE) (affirming denial of fifth motion for
postconviction relief). Bass took no appeal from the denial of his sixth motion for postconviction
relief. See State v. Bass, 2014 WL 4793005 (Del. Super. Sept. 26, 2014) (denial of sixth motion
for postconviction relief). Bass also unsuccessfully petitioned the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware for federal habeas relief. Bass v. Redman, C.A. 89-278, slip op. (D. Del.
June 19, 1990) (recommending denial of petition for federal habeas relief), adopted, (D. Del. Dec.
26, 1990) (ORDER), cert. of appealability denied, No. 91-3043, slip op. (3d Cir. Apr. 5, 1991).

                                                 2
FBI announced the results of a years-long investigation into whether trial testimony by FBI

forensic examiners contained erroneous statements regarding microscopic hair comparison

(“MHC”) analysis used in certain cases.3 It announced that in cases prior to December 31,

1999, 26 of 28 FBI MHC examiners testified erroneously, and “[i]n the 268 cases where

examiners provided testimony used to inculpate a defendant at trial, erroneous statements

were made in 257 (96 percent) of the cases.”4 In a June 2015 letter, the USDOJ/FBI

notified the Delaware Department of Justice (“Delaware DOJ”) that their joint review

determined that the testimony of the FBI forensic examiner who testified in Bass’s case,

Andrew Gary Podolak (“Podolak”), “included statements that exceeded the limits of

science.”5 Specifically, the USDOJ/FBI determined that Podolak stated or implied that the

evidentiary hair could be associated with a specific individual to the exclusion of all others.

          Following the USDOJ/FBI’s disclosure, Bass filed his seventh Rule 61 motion, with

assistance of appointed counsel, wherein he asserted claims of actual innocence as well as

two constitutional due process challenges under the 14th Amendment to the United States

Constitution. Bass sought a new trial or the dismissal of his indictment.

          As part of his seventh Rule 61 motion, Bass asserted that the USDOJ/FBI’s 2015

acknowledgment regarding the limitations of the MHC testimony constituted “new”

3
  App. to Opening Br. at A994–98 (“FBI Testimony on Microscopic Hair Analysis Contained
Errors in at Least 90 Percent of Cases in Ongoing Review,” dated Apr. 20, 2015) [hereinafter Joint
Statement].
4
    Id. at A996.
5
 Id. at A18 (Letter from Norman Wang, Special Counsel, U.S. DOJ, to Honorable Matt Denn,
Delaware Attorney General (June 25, 2015)) [hereinafter 2015 Letter]. The USDOJ/FBI took no
position regarding the materiality of the error in this case.

                                                3
evidence that creates a strong inference that he is actually innocent in fact of the charges

of which he was convicted.6           According to Bass, without this improperly admitted

testimony, the State’s remaining evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. As a

result, he asserted that the State’s use of this unreliable hair evidence violated his right to

a fair trial and that he is entitled to a new trial.

          Bass raised a second constitutional challenge after supplementing his initial Rule 61

motion.7 He asserted that the State’s failure to dismiss his indictment violated due process

and demonstrated disparate treatment in view of the Delaware Attorney General’s

dismissal of an indictment in another case involving hair comparison evidence.8

          Bass’s Rule 61 motion was referred to a Superior Court Commissioner pursuant to

10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(a)(5). The Commissioner issued

her Report and Recommendation (“Commissioner’s Report”) concluding that Bass’s Rule

61 motion should be denied.9 The Superior Court affirmed the denial.10 Bass appealed the

Superior Court’s judgment. Oral argument before this Court occurred on April 19, 2023.

6
    Id. at A868 (Motion for Postconviction Relief, dated Apr. 26, 2018).
7
 Id. at A1010–58 (Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Postconviction Relief, dated Nov.
23, 2020).
8
    The other case was State v. Daniels, ID No. 87002394DI.
9
    State v. Bass (Commissioner’s Report), 2021 WL 5984262, at *1 (Del. Super. Dec. 15, 2021).
10
     State v. Bass (Super. Ct. Op.), 2022 WL 2093956, at *1 (Del. Super. June 10, 2022).

                                                  4
                       II.     Factual and Procedural Background11

        A.    Facts

        Three separate incidents underlie Bass’s June 1983 convictions. Each occurred

between November 1981 and August 1982 in Wilmington and Claymont. The attacks,

which involved three separate women, occurred within a few miles of where Bass was

living in Delaware.

              1.      Attack on S.K. – November 1981

        The first attack occurred on November 10, 1981, about a mile from where Bass was

living in Delaware. At around 7:00 p.m., 20-year-old S.K. was finishing up her workday

at a Northern Wilmington law office. While S.K. was speaking to a friend on the phone, a

thin, well-dressed Black male entered the law office where she worked. He was wearing

surgical gloves and carried a bag.12 He rushed to her and stuck a sharp object, which police

later identified as a screwdriver, into her side. The man demanded that she not look at him,

hang up the phone, and give him the petty cash that was in her office drawer. After taking

the cash, the man ordered S.K. to call her friend back and tell the friend that she hung up

because someone came into the office who needed her assistance, but that she would call

back later. The man then went through S.K.’s purse and stole her watch, bracelet, and gold

ring.

11
   Unless otherwise noted, facts are taken from the Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at
*1–14, see App. to Opening Br. at A1238–58, and the Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *1–
8.
12
  S.K. testified that she viewed her assailant for “about a minute.” App. to Opening Br. at A135
(S.K. Trial Test. at 29:18).

                                               5
       After taking S.K.’s jewelry, the man locked the front door and led S.K. to a

conference room at the back of the law office. He again directed her not to look at him and

covered her face by pulling her sweater up over her head. He had her lie face down on the

floor, where he tied her feet with telephone wire he found in the office. He then directed

her to stand up and remove her underwear and pants. The assailant did the same. He then

made S.K. lie face up on the floor, with the sweater still blocking her view, and forced her

to help him penetrate her vaginally. He raped her for 20 to 30 seconds but had trouble

maintaining an erection. He did not ejaculate.

       After raping her, the assailant got dressed and allowed S.K. to do the same. While

she was putting on her clothes, S.K. caught a glimpse of her attacker’s face. The assailant

then stuck her in the side with the sharp object and ordered her to sit down while he tied

another secretary’s sweater around S.K.’s neck and put it in her mouth. He placed another

sweater found in the office over her head. Finally, he tied S.K.’s hands behind her back,

told her not to call the police, and left. Shortly after he left, S.K. untied herself and called

her boyfriend and her employer. The police arrived at the scene shortly after S.K.’s

boyfriend. They found a screwdriver in the conference room where S.K. had been tied up.

              2.      Attack on A.S. – July 1982

       Eight months later, on July 10, 1982, at around 9:30 a.m., 26-year-old A.S. was

beginning work alone in her office on the third floor of an insurance company in Claymont.

She looked up from her work when a well-dressed, thin Black man entered her office. She

viewed his face for 10 to 30 seconds before he ran to her and stuck a screwdriver in her

                                               6
side. He wore dark glasses and a cardigan sweater over his head, which covered the sides

of his face and his hair.

       The man forced A.S. to look at the floor and asked if she had any money. She

offered him her checks from her purse. Taking her purse, he emptied its contents on the

desk and then tore the strap off of her purse. The attacker then gagged A.S. by tying his

sweater over her head, making it so she could only see his shoes.

       The assailant then ordered A.S. to lead him around the office. After looking into

other offices and making A.S. point out nearby exits, the man led A.S. into a conference

room. He demanded her wedding and engagement rings, despite A.S.’s pleading for him

not to take them. The assailant refused, threatened to kill her, punched her, took the rings,

and then tied her hands and feet. He removed her underwear and pants and undressed

himself. The man proceeded to vaginally rape A.S. for 60 to 90 seconds but, similar to the

assailant in S.K.’s rape, had trouble maintaining an erection. He seemed frustrated, gave

up, and said “forget it.” He then redressed himself and A.S., retied A.S.’s hands and feet,

covered A.S. with a raincoat, and left the building. A.S. waited about an hour before fleeing

the office to a nearby restaurant, where she called the police and her husband.

       Eight days before the attack on A.S., on July 2, 1982, a robbery was committed at

the same insurance company in Claymont. The checkbook and dictating machine of A.S.’s

co-worker, William Stevens, were stolen from his desk. That same day, Bass’s long-time

friend, Loretta Schoell, cashed a forged check belonging to William Stevens. Bass had

given her the stolen check one or two hours beforehand. A dictating machine of the same

                                             7
make, model, and description as that stolen from Mr. Stevens’ office was found in Ms.

Schoell’s car.

                 3.   Attack on S.M. – August 1982

       About a month and a half later, on the morning of August 26, 1982, 30-year-old

S.M. was working alone in her North Wilmington office when she was suddenly

approached from behind by a man who covered her mouth. S.M. asked her assailant what

he wanted. He responded by telling S.M. to shut up and asking if she had any money. S.M.

said she had none.

       The man then forced S.M. into a windowless lab room and struck her on the head.

He became angry when S.M. tried to convince him the police were on the way to her office

because her purse had been stolen weeks earlier. The assailant accused S.M. of lying and

ordered her to kneel and to shut up. At some point during the assault, S.M. lost control of

her bladder and urinated on herself. Shortly afterward, S.M. heard her assailant leave the

room. He was in the office for a total of about three to five minutes. She then armed

herself with a metal object and called the police. S.M. never saw her assailant’s face.

       Six weeks before the attack, on July 16, 1982, S.M. attended a party in the same

office building where she was assaulted. She placed her purse, containing her wallet, under

her desk for the day. At some point later in the day, S.M. was returning from the restroom

when she passed by a tall, thin Black man with glasses in the hallway. After he passed, he

stopped, turned around, and looked at her. The man wore a blue shirt, a light jacket, and

pants. The next day, S.M. noticed that her wallet was missing, which contained her

                                             8
checkbook, money, and credit cards. Two of the stolen checks were later forged and cashed

by Bass’s friend, Ms. Schoell.

       B.     The Procedural Background

              1.      The Trial

       Bass’s trial began on May 31, 1983 and lasted four days. The State presented

evidence against Bass at trial, including, but not limited to, the assailant’s race, height,

build, voice, facial features, clothing, and shoes. The State elicited testimony from various

witnesses relating to the identification of the assailant and the similarities between the three

incidents. All three victims, as well as law enforcement, two eyewitnesses, and Bass’s

friend, Ms. Schoell, testified at trial. Two witnesses, including one of the victims,

positively identified Bass at trial as the assailant. Bass testified in his defense.

                   a. Victim Testimony

                    i. S.K.

       During her trial testimony, the first victim, S.K., described the physical attributes of

the man who attacked her and positively identified Bass as that man. She stated that the

attacker was a 20- to 30-year-old Black male with a dark complexion, somewhere between

5’8” to 5’10”, and slightly thin. She was not sure whether he had a mustache. He had a

deep, soft-spoken voice. She testified that the man wore a hat, dark sunglasses, a black

sports jacket, a white turtleneck, and dark dress pants.13

13
  S.K. testified that she did not remember the shoes her assailant wore. Id. at A136 (S.K. Trial
Test. at 30:9–10).

                                               9
          S.K. also testified about her opportunities to identify her attacker before trial. She

explained that she directed a composite photograph of her assailant, even undergoing

hypnosis to do so, but was never confident of the resulting sketch.14 She further testified

about an opportunity that she had to identify individuals that looked similar to her assailant

during a live lineup, and to identify Bass in a photographic lineup. In December 1981, the

detective investigating S.K.’s case presented her with a live lineup of six Black males.

Bass was not among them. S.K. rated one of the individuals as an “eight” on a scale from

one to 10 in resemblance to her attacker but did not positively identify any of the

individuals as her assailant. In October 1982, almost a year after her attack, the detective

investigating S.K.’s case presented her with a photographic lineup that included Bass. S.K.

did not identify Bass from that lineup.

          Finally, at trial in June 1983, approximately 19 months after her attack, S.K.

positively identified Bass. She confirmed on direct examination that she had no doubt in

her mind that Bass was her rapist and explained on redirect examination that she had been

previously unable to identify Bass as her assailant because she had not seen him in person,

and she did not think the photographs alone “really show[ed] it all.”15

                      ii. A.S.

          The second victim, A.S., also described the assailant at trial, whom she had an

opportunity to view for 10 to 30 seconds before he reached her. A.S. testified that her

14
     Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *5.
15
     Id. at *6.

                                                10
attacker was a thin Black male, with a medium complexion, between 5’11” and 6’0” tall,

in his early thirties, and having an older sounding voice. She thought he had a slender

build, a thin jaw line and hollow cheeks, with a thin growth of hair on his chin. She testified

that her assailant covered his head with a cardigan sweater and wore black-framed dark

plastic sunglasses with dark lenses, and possibly a short-sleeved shirt with dark polyester

pants. His shoes were medium gray slip-ons with a soft crepe sole. The State showed A.S.

the shoes they had obtained from Bass’s home at trial, but she did not identify the shoes as

those of her attacker. She stated that they resembled her attacker’s shoes in that they were

the same unusual gray color and were slip-ons, but they looked like leather instead of the

suede that she remembered from her attack.

       A.S. never positively identified Bass as her assailant either before trial or at trial.

Instead, A.S. testified about the composite sketch she helped the police to create of her

assailant. Like S.K., she was never satisfied with the sketch because it depicted her attacker

with a goatee,16 and her attacker’s cheeks were hollower than the sketch showed.

       A.S. had two opportunities to identify Bass in photographic lineups prior to trial —

in July 1982 and October 1982 — but never made a positive identification. Police

presented A.S. with the first lineup in the same month of her attack. It included a picture

of Bass from 1978. A.S. picked out two individuals as resembling her attacker, noting that

Bass’s photograph showed a man with a similar weight and facial structure as her attacker.

16
  A.S. testified that rather than a goatee, her attacker had “only a few scraggly hairs.” App. to
Opening Br. at A240 (A.S. Trial Test. at 134:21).

                                               11
         Police showed A.S. a second photographic lineup in October 1982, which included

a more recent photograph of Bass. Again, A.S. chose two photographs as picturing a man

resembling her attacker, but she noted that of the two, Bass’s photograph looked most like

him. Once A.S. stated that Bass’s photo looked most like her assailant, the detective told

her that he was the suspect. The detective did not conduct a third photographic lineup.17

         Although A.S. did not positively identify Bass as her assailant at trial, she stated

that Bass “resembles the person who attacked me.”18 She further stated that her attacker

was thinner than Bass and that he did not have a mustache. The State then elicited

testimony from law enforcement that Bass was 15 to 20 pounds heavier at the time of trial

than he was at the time of his arrest in November 1982. Bass did not object to A.S.’s in-

court identification testimony. However, Bass argued for suppression of the second-array

testimony for two reasons. First, none of the males in the first array appeared in the second

array except Bass. Second, after A.S.’s identification of Bass’s photograph, she was told

by the police officer that the individual that she had selected was suspected of attacking

her. The trial court denied the motion.19

17
   Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *8. The trial court admitted testimony and
evidence relating to the second out-of-court photo array over Bass’s objections. As discussed
below, Bass contended on direct appeal that the trial court erred in this admission. This Court
denied his claims of error.
18
     Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *3.
19
  The trial court found that Bass had failed to show that the procedure “was so unduly suggestive
as to violate the defendant’s due process rights.” App. to Opening Br. at A706 (Denial of Direct
Appeal at ¶ 13).

                                               12
                     iii. S.M.

          The final victim, S.M., never saw her assailant’s face and never positively identified

Bass. She testified at trial about the facts of her assault and the facts surrounding her stolen

checkbook. Although S.M. never saw the face of her attacker, she testified that the

assailant was between 5’10” and 6’0” tall with a slender build and long, thin black fingers.

He wore a blue shirt and had a calm voice.

          She also stated that on the day her checkbook was stolen, she passed a man in the

hallway on the way back from the restroom. The man was Black, tall and thin, and wore

glasses, a blue shirt, light jacket, and light pants.20 He stopped, turned around, and looked

at her.

                    b. Eyewitness Testimony

          The State elicited testimony from two eyewitnesses during trial, both of whom

testified as to the events surrounding S.M.’s attack. One of the eyewitnesses was Roger

Reynolds, a building manager in the office building where S.M. was assaulted. Mr.

Reynolds testified that, shortly after S.M. was attacked, he received a call from the police

and began looking around the building. During his search, he noticed a man located in a

bathroom stall in the men’s restroom, which was about 30 feet from S.M.’s office.

          Mr. Reynolds further testified that it appeared that while he was in the stall, the

man’s pants were up, he was not using the toilet, and his shoes were clearly visible. Mr.

Reynolds described the man as Black, having facial hair, about 6’0” tall, and wearing gray

20
  Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *8. She described his clothes as casual golf clothes. App.
to Opening Br. at A381 (S.M. Trial Test. at B127:5–8).

                                                13
suede shoes with a flat sole and heel. He confirmed at trial that the shoes obtained by the

State from Bass’s home “looked like the same shoes” as those worn by the man in the

bathroom stall. Although Mr. Reynolds admitted that he did not see the man’s entire face,

he selected an individual from a photo lineup based on the “definite formation” of the

man’s forehead. He selected a photo of Bass.

         The second eyewitness to testify at trial was Christine Shaw. Ms. Shaw testified

that on the morning that S.M. was assaulted, she passed a man in the hallway who was

exiting the office where the attack occurred. She viewed him for about one minute as they

walked down the hallway, during which he said “hello” as he passed her. She described

the man as a neatly dressed, tall, Black man, who was about 5’10” and 130 pounds. She

stated he was approximately 30-years-old with a “short to medium afro,” and was wearing

a blue shirt, blue tweed pants, and glasses. She told the police that the man was clean

shaven but at trial she could not definitively say whether he had a mustache.

         Ms. Shaw positively identified Bass in a photo lineup before trial. At trial, she

testified that when viewing the photo lineup, she recognized the picture of the man “as

soon as [she] saw the picture,” and did not have any doubt that she selected the correct

person.21 Ms. Shaw unequivocally identified Bass at trial.

                    c. Loretta Schoell’s Testimony

         After receiving immunity from the State, Bass’s long-time friend, Loretta Schoell,

testified about Bass. She testified that she had known Bass about 11 years, and that he was

21
     Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *4.

                                               14
“like a member of her family.”22 She stated that at the time of each of the assaults, from

October to December of 1981, and again from June to September of 1982, Bass lived with

her at Stoneybrook Apartments in Claymont.

           Ms. Schoell told the jury that during this time, Bass was unemployed and supported

himself by stealing checks and credit cards from office buildings. She testified that she

and Bass would target offices to commit thefts, including the offices where A.S. and S.M.

were attacked. When doing so, Bass would dress up as an office worker, i.e., in well-

pressed clothes, so as not to stand out. Specifically, Ms. Schoell stated that on July 16,

1982, the date of S.M.’s office party, Bass went inside S.M.’s office building while she

waited for him in the car. Bass returned to the car after approximately 20 minutes with

S.M.’s checks. Ms. Schoell then forged and cashed two of the checks, one at a Bank of

Delaware Branch and one, Check No. 950, at a Thriftway supermarket.23

           Relatedly, the jury heard testimony from A.S.’s co-worker, William Stevens, about

a stolen dictating machine, which was found in Ms. Schoell’s car and matched the

description of the one stolen from Mr. Stevens’ desk in his and A.S.’s shared office

building.24 Ms. Schoell testified that Bass gave her a stolen check from Mr. Stevens eight

days before A.S. was raped. Lastly, Ms. Schoell confirmed the same gray shoes shown to

A.S. and Mr. Reynolds belonged to Bass.25

22
     Id.
23
     Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *7.
24
     Id. at *6; App. to Opening Br. at A337 (William Stevens Trial Test. at B83:1–9).
25
     Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *5.

                                                 15
                    d. Bass’s Testimony

         Bass chose to exercise his constitutional right to testify at trial. He admitted to the

jury that he supported himself by going into office buildings to steal checks and other

valuables. He stated that, while committing the burglaries, he would never carry a weapon

so that if he were caught, he would not also face a weapons charge.26 He also stated that

when he committed the thefts, he would not speak to anyone unless he had to, and that he

never returned to those office buildings after he committed the thefts.27 As to the specific

incidents, Bass denied assaulting any of the victims and either denied or stated he could

not recall whether he had stolen any of their valuables. Finally, Bass confirmed that the

shoes shown to Ms. Schoell, A.S., and Mr. Stevens belonged to him, but stated that he

purchased them in September 1982.28

                    e. The MHC Evidence

         Police collected articles of clothing, pubic hair combings, and hair samples from

Bass, S.K., and A.S. The samples were sent to the FBI to undergo MHC analysis. FBI

Agent Podolak analyzed samples relating to the attacks on S.K. and A.S., and testified at

Bass’s trial as to his findings.29 He testified that his job as an MHC examiner was two-

fold: first, to determine “whether there are any hairs present on the items which are

26
     Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *4.
27
  Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *5. Further, Bass testified that he had only ever gone to
an office building to steal checks on weekdays. App. to Opening Br. at A552 (Alan Bass Trial
Test. at C150:2–8) [hereinafter A. Bass Trial Test. at __]. A.S. was attacked on a Saturday.
28
     App. to Opening Br. at A529–30 (A. Bass Trial Test. at C128:14–C129:13).
29
     Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *5.

                                               16
submitted” to him, and second, to “try to make an association between those hairs and the

particular individual.”30      He explained that: “The most important part of the hair

comparison is the arrangement of the characteristics in association with one another.”31

Thus, he likened the analysis to viewing a human face and stated: “It’s the arrangement of

the characteristics that we have in association with each other that gives a uniqueness to

the hair which then allows us to make an association of that hair to a particular

individual.”32

          He then told the jury about his findings as to the hairs collected from the attacks on

S.K. and A.S. There was no MHC evidence presented at trial as to S.M.

                       i.   As to S.K.

          Podolak testified that he found “dark brown pubic hairs of negroid origin” in the

pubic hair combings taken from S.K., and that those combings matched a sample of Bass’s

pubic hair.33 Specifically, Podolak testified: “I found dark brown pubic hairs of negroid

origin, which microscopically match in every observable characteristic the known pubic

hairs of Alan Bass.”34

30
  App. to Opening Br. at A28 (Andrew Podolak Direct Test. at C56:9–13) [hereinafter A. Podolak
Direct Test. at __]; accord Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *11.
31
  App. to Opening Br. at A34 (A. Podolak Direct Test. at C62:12–14); accord Commissioner’s
Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *11.
32
     App. to Opening Br. at A34–35 (A. Podolak Direct Test. at C62:22–C63:3).
33
     Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *11.
34
     Id.; accord App. to Opening Br. at A491 (A. Podolak Direct Test. at C80:8–11).

                                                17
                      ii.   As to A.S.

         Similarly, Podolak testified that he “found a dark brown head hair of negroid origin

[on A.S.’s clothing] which microscopically matched the known head hair sample of Alan

Bass in every observable microscopic characteristic.”35 He also compared pubic hair

combings taken from A.S. following her rape with pubic hair taken from Bass. He told the

jury: “I found a dark brown pubic hair of negroid origin which matched in every observable

microscopic characteristic the known pubic hairs of Alan Bass.”36

                     iii.   Cross-Examination of Podolak

         On cross-examination, Bass’s trial counsel elicited the following testimony from

Podolak:

         • Q: It’s also in the report – in the results of your examination, after you
           state that you made comparisons to the slide, you state in there,
           “Accordingly, it could have originated from Alan Bass or it could have
           originated from [S.K.] or it could have originated from [A.S.].” On the
           basis of your examinations, you are not able to positively state that, in
           fact, they were from Alan Bass or [S.K.] or [A.S.]. Is that correct?

         • A: That’s correct. Hair comparisons are not like fingerprints; they are
           not a hundred percent accurate.

         • Q: In fact, you put a disclaimer in here that states, “It’s pointed out that
           hair comparisons do not constitute a basis for absolute personal
           identification.” Isn’t that correct too?

         • A: That’s correct. I think the key word is “absolute.” 37

35
  Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *11; accord App. to Opening Br. at A501 (A.
Podolak Direct Test. at C90:15–18).
36
     App. to Opening Br. at A503 (A. Podolak Direct Test. at C92:1–3).
37
  Id. at A505–06 (Andrew Podolak Cross-Examination Test. at C94:20–C95:13) [hereinafter A.
Podolak Cross-Examination Test. at __].

                                                18
          • That Podolak can determine the race of the person a hair came from, or if
            the person “has mixed racial characteristics” but cannot tell the gender of
            the person the hair came from just from examining a hair.38

                      iv.   Redirect Examination of Podolak

          On redirect examination, the State elicited the following testimony from Podolak:

          • Podolak, over defense counsel’s objection, testified that “[b]eing an
            expert in the area of hair comparisons and hair itself, my opinion is that
            negroid hairs are much easier to identify and compare than caucasian or
            mongoloid hairs.”39

          • Podolak testified that microscopic hair comparisons do not constitute a
            basis for absolute personal identification, but over the years, “we have
            persisted in that hair comparisons are a very good means of identification,
            not a hundred percent, but a very good means of identification.”40

          • Podolak, over defense counsel’s objection, discussed a then-recent
            Minnesota academic study conducted to “determine the evidential value
            of hair comparisons. In other words, what percent of the time or what
            percentage of the time can an analyst say, when he takes a questioned
            hair, he can make an association to a particular individual.”41 He noted it
            was an “introductory study,” “not a complete study.”42 He described the
            study in which a hair examiners matched “questioned” hair samples with
            “known” hair samples 100% of the time. He stated that “the morphology
            of human head hairs is an individual characteristic of identity, and that
            they are -- this affirms that this is a good reliability or a very good ability
            of an analyst to take a questioned hair and match it to an individual in a
            crime situation.”43

          • Podolak stated that he had conducted “over three thousand hair
            comparisons so far,” and that he “ha[d] yet to find hairs from two different

38
     Id. at A506–07 (A. Podolak Cross-Examination Test. at C95:14–C96:23).
39
  Id. at A73 (Andrew Podolak Redirect Test. at C101:12–15) [hereinafter A. Podolak Redirect
Test. at __].
40
     Id. at A75 (A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C103:6–9).
41
     Id. at A508 (A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C104:9–16).
42
     Id. (A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C104:19–20).
43
     Id. at A508–10 (A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C106:5–12).

                                                 19
             individuals that [he could] not distinguish between their hair
             characteristics.”44

                      v.    Recross Examination of Podolak

          On recross examination, Bass’s trial counsel elicited the following testimony from

Podolak:

          • Podolak agreed that “you could have two samples from the same head
            and they would not be microscopically similar” because “[t]hat’s all part
            of the individual’s identity or the uniqueness of the individual’s hair.”45
            However, “each individual has a variation in the hairs on their head, but
            the variation between one hair and the other is very minute compared to
            the variation from one individual to another.”46

The State rested its case following Podolak’s testimony.47

                    f. The Verdict and Sentence

          On June 8, 1983, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Bass on all charges

including two counts of Rape First Degree, three counts of Kidnapping First Degree, two

counts of Robbery First Degree, one count of Attempted Robbery First Degree, two counts

of Burglary Second Degree, and one count of Burglary Third Degree. On January 24,

1984, the trial court sentenced Bass to five life sentences plus 45 years.48

44
     Id. at A510 (A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C106:20–22).
45
   Id. at A512 (Andrew Podolak Recross Test. at C108:1–7) [hereinafter A. Podolak Recross Test.
at __].
46
     Id. (A. Podolak Recross Test. at C108:17–19).
47
  Unfortunately, the transcripts of the opening statements and closing summations are unavailable
as these proceedings were never previously transcribed. Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL
5984262, at *3.
48
     App. to Opening Br. at A600–02 (Sentencing Order, dated Jan. 24, 1983).

                                                20
                 2.     Direct Appeal

         Bass appealed his conviction to this Court. On direct appeal, Bass challenged his

convictions involving S.K. and A.S. He challenged two evidentiary rulings. First, he

argued that the trial court reversibly erred in admitting the Minnesota study introduced

during Podolak’s redirect examination (the “Minnesota Study”), described above, because

(i) in the absence of proof of its general acceptance in the scientific community, it was

inadmissible under Frye v. United States,49 and (ii) the study’s conclusions were potentially

misleading simply by being the “initial study” of its kind, and, therefore, it was potentially

misleading and inadmissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 403.50 Second, he asserted

that the trial court committed reversible error in not suppressing, as unduly suggestive,

A.S.’s second out-of-court photo array identification of Bass.

         Denying Bass’s first claim, this Court found that Frye did not apply because

Podolak’s testimony did not depend on the study, and he drew only limited conclusions

from it. Further, Podolak had conceded on cross-examination and redirect examination

that MHCs were not without error or always accurate. Thus, this Court found no error or

abuse of discretion in the admission of the Minnesota Study.

49
  293 F. 1013 (D.C. 1923). Frye’s “general acceptance” test for determining the admissibility of
expert opinions was superseded by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence as noted in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587 (1993), which was decided a decade after
Bass’s trial. We adopted Daubert six years after that in M.G. Bancorporation v. Le Beau, 737
A.2d 513, 522 (Del. 1999) (stating that “[a]lthough this Court is not bound by the United States
Supreme Court’s interpretation of comparable rules of procedure or evidence, we hereby adopt the
holdings of Daubert and Carmichael as the correct interpretation of Delaware Rule of Evidence
702”) (referring to Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)).
50
     App. to Opening Br. at A701–02 (Denial of Direct Appeal at ¶ 5–6).

                                                21
           As to the trial court’s admission of A.S.’s second out-of-court photo array

identification of Bass, this Court noted that A.S. was unable to make a positive

identification of Bass as her assailant. Rather, she could only state that Bass resembled her

attacker. This Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the victim’s “less than

positive identification” testimony should be admitted, subject to the right of cross-

examination and to argument concerning the weight to be accorded the evidence by the

trier of fact.51

           We also rejected Bass’s “altered argument on appeal” that the second array

identification procedure was so unnecessarily suggestive as to violate his due process

rights.52 We stated that “[i]dentification testimony, to be admissible, need only be reliable

and need not be established to a certainty.”53 Further, “[i]dentification testimony that is

tentative is to be evaluated by the trier of fact as any other evidence.”54 “Whether there is

a substantial likelihood of misidentification turns on a consideration of the totality of the

evidence.”55 With those points in mind, this Court held:

           [A.S.’s] challenged testimony was remarkably consistent with her
           unchallenged in-court testimony eight months later. Since [A.S.’s]
           identification of defendant in the second array procedure was no more or less
           positive than her later in-court testimony, her out-of-court testimony cannot
51
     Id. at A706 (Denial of Direct Appeal at ¶ 13).
52
  Id. (Denial of Direct Appeal at ¶ 14). This Court observed that Bass’s remaining ground for
suggestiveness “could only have tainted a third photographic array and may explain the State’s
withdrawal of that evidence from the case.”). Id. at A707; see also Commissioner’s Report, 2021
WL 5984262 at *8 (finding that “[h]aving already told A.S. that Bass was the suspect, the detective
aborted the third photographic lineup”).
53
     Id. at A707 (Denial of Direct Appeal at ¶ 15) (citations omitted).
54
     Id. (citing United States v. Sublet, 644 F.2d 737, 742 (8th Cir. 1981)).
55
     Id.

                                                   22
          be said to have been unreliable in the sense of being likely to lead to
          misidentification of defendant at trial so as to deprive him of a fair trial.
          Finally, as previously noted, the State’s testimony linking defendant to the
          crimes involving [A.S.] was not limited to [A.S.’s] identification testimony.56

                 3.      Postconviction Motions

          Following the denial of his direct appeal, Bass filed six pro se motions for

postconviction relief under Rule 61.57             None of them asserted a claim regarding

microscopic hair evidence, and all were denied or dismissed, including the most recent one

in 2014.

                 4.      The USDOJ/FBI Investigation

          After Bass’s six prior Rule 61 motions, the FBI, along with the USDOJ, engaged in

a years-long review of MHC reports and testimony provided by FBI forensic examiners

from cases prior to December 31, 1999. The review focused on cases where improper trial

testimony may have overstated the conclusions that properly could have been drawn from

the hair comparison analysis.

          As a result, the USDOJ, the FBI, the Innocence Project, and the National

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers issued the Joint Statement, announcing that 26

of 28 FBI MHC examiners had testified erroneously, and that in 268 cases where examiners

provided testimony used to inculpate a defendant at trial, erroneous statements were made

in 257 of those cases (96 percent of the cases).58

56
     Id. at A707–08 (Denial of Direct Appeal at ¶ 15) (internal citation omitted).
57
     See supra note 2.
58
     See App. to Opening Br. at A994–98 (Joint Statement). The Joint Statement states that:

                                                  23
          In June 2015, the USDOJ notified the Delaware DOJ that the FBI’s review

determined that the testimony of the FBI forensic examiner who testified in Bass’s case,

Podolak, “included statements that exceeded the limits of science.”59 The appendix to

Bass’s opening brief contains a letter dated June 25, 2015 from Special Counsel Norman

Wong of the USDOJ to Delaware Attorney General Matt Denn reflecting this notification

(the “2015 Letter”).60 The 2015 Letter identified the three types of errors generally, and

then identified the specific errors in Bass’s case as follows:

          Error Identified in this Matter

          We have determined that the microscopic hair comparison analysis testimony
          or laboratory report presented in this case included statements that exceeded
          the limits of science in one or more of the following ways and were,
          therefore, invalid: (1) the examiner stated or implied that the evidentiary hair
          could be associated with a specific individual to the exclusion of all others –
          this type of testimony exceeded the limits of the science; (2) the examiner
          assigned to the positive association a statistical weight or probability or
          provided a likelihood that the questioned hair originated from a particular
          source, or an opinion as to the likelihood or rareness of the positive

          The government identified nearly 3,000 cases in which FBI examiners may have
          submitted reports or testified in trials using microscopic hair analysis. As of March
          2015, the FBI had reviewed approximately 500 cases. The majority of these cases
          were trials and the transcript of examiner testimony was reviewed. Some of these
          cases ended in guilty pleas, limiting the review to the original lab report. In the 268
          cases where examiners provided testimony used to inculpate a defendant at trial,
          erroneous statements were made in 257 (96 percent) of the cases. Defendants in at
          least 35 of these cases received the death penalty and errors were identified in 33
          (94 percent) of those cases. Nine of these defendants have already been executed
          and five died of other causes while on death row. The states with capital cases
          included Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma,
          Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. It should be noted that this is an ongoing
          process and that the numbers referenced above will change.
The review has shown that the FBI examiners testified in cases in 41 states. Id. at A996 (Joint
Statement at 3).
59
     Id. at A18 (2015 Letter at 2).
60
     Id. at A17–81 (2015 Letter).

                                                    24
           association that could lead the jury to believe that valid statistical weight can
           be assigned to a microscopic hair association – this type of testimony
           exceeded the limits of the science; or (3) the examiner cites the number of
           cases or hair analyses worked in the laboratory and the number of samples
           from different individuals that could not be distinguished from one another
           as a predictive value to bolster the conclusion that a hair belongs to a specific
           individual – this type of testimony exceeded the limits of the science. (A
           copy of the documents upon which our determination is based, specifying
           which of the three error types were identified, is enclosed.) We take no
           position regarding the materiality of the error in this case.61

           The 2015 Letter identified the following “Type 1” statements made by Podolak

during Bass’s trial (identified below in italics), each of which exceeded the limits of science

because “(1) the examiner stated or implied that the evidentiary hair could be associated

with a specific individual to the exclusion of all others:”62

           • “Now, my job then is to determine, first of all, whether there are any hairs
             present on the items which are submitted to me; and then secondly, try to
             make an association between those hairs and the particular individual.”63

           • “The most important part of the hair comparison is the arrangement of
             the characteristics in association with one another. Take the human face
             for an example. We all have eyes, nose, mouth, ears, hairline, chin, and
             so forth. And if you look from one individual to the other, you’ll see that
             some of these characteristics are the same, from one individual to the
             next. But it’s the arrangement of those characteristics on your face that
             gives you a uniqueness to you that when someone looks at you, they can
             say, “That’s so and so.” It’s the same thing with hair. It’s the
             arrangement of the characteristics that we have in association with each
             other that gives a uniqueness to the hair which then allows us to make an
             association of that hair to a particular individual.”64

           • “[Referring to the Minnesota Study] Now, the conclusion then or what
             this all points out is that the morphology of human head hairs is an
61
     Id. at A18 (2015 Letter at 2) (internal footnote omitted).
62
     Id.
63
     Id. at A28 (2015 Letter, A. Podolak Direct Test. at C56:9–13) (emphasis added).
64
     Id. at A34–35 (2015 Letter, A. Podolak Direct Test. at C62:12–C63:3) (emphasis added).

                                                   25
             individual characteristic of identity, and that they are – this affirms that
             this is a good reliability or a very good ability of an analyst to take a
             questioned hair and match it to an individual in a crime situation.”65

          • [Q: Aren’t there, in fact, certain groups of people or certain types of hair
            that you could have two samples from the same head and they would not
            be microscopically similar?] A: “Oh, yes. That’s all part of the
            individual’s identity or the uniqueness of the individual’s hair.”66

It further identified the following limiting language in Podolak’s trial testimony:

          • [Q: . . . On the basis of your examinations, you are not able to positively
            state that, in fact, they were from Alan Bass or [S.K.] or [A.S.]. Is that
            correct?]

          • A: “That’s correct. Hair comparisons are not like fingerprints; they are
            not a hundred percent accurate.”

          • [Q: In fact, you put a disclaimer in here that states, “It’s pointed out that
            hair comparisons do not constitute a basis for absolute personal
            identification.” Isn’t that correct too?]

          • A: “That’s correct. I think the key word is ‘absolute.’’ 67

          • [Q: So as to each of your findings here, your finding is simply that the
            hairs you examined could have originated from either Mr. Bass or [A.S.]
            – [A.S.] or [S.K.]?]

          • A: “That’s correct. I cannot say with a hundred percent surety that they
            originated from those individuals.”68

             ....

          • [Q: [Referring to the substance of the testimony in the above-quoted
            passage] you also have a caveat in there, that it’s pointed out that hair

65
     Id. at A78 (2015 Letter, A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C106:7–12) (emphasis added).
66
     Id. at A79–80 (2015 Letter, A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C107:23–C108:4–5) (emphasis added).
67
     Id. at A67 (2015 Letter, A. Podolak Cross-Examination Test. at C95:3–13).
68
     Id. at A71 (2015 Letter, A. Podolak Cross-Examination Test. at C99:10–16).

                                                26
              comparisons do not constitute a basis for absolute personal identification.
              What do you mean by those comments? Would you explain that?]

          • A: “Yes. . . .”69

          In the 2015 Letter, Mr. Wong recommended that A.G. Denn “promptly advise the

appropriate victim advocate in your office of this error, so that he/she may determine how

and when to inform the victim or the victim’s family that this matter may be the subject of

further litigation and that they may be contacted by the defense.”70

          Mr. Wong also stated that the FBI was available to provide mitochondrial DNA

(“mtDNA”) testing of the relevant hair evidence in the event that the Delaware DOJ

determined that further testing was appropriate or necessary. He further described how the

USDOJ was addressing the problem which included waiving reliance on statutes of

limitations and procedural default defenses. He asked that he be advised if the Delaware

DOJ planned to take any action based upon the information he provided. Finally, he

advised that he was notifying the defense in Bass’s case and was notifying the Innocence

Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of the error.

                  5.     The Seventh Postconviction Motion

          Following the USDOJ/FBI’s disclosure, the Office of Conflicts Counsel assigned

postconviction counsel to Bass. On April 26, 2018, Bass, through postconviction counsel,

filed the Rule 61 motion before us — his seventh.                In it, Bass asserted that the

USDOJ/FBI’s 2015 acknowledgment regarding the limitations of the MHC testimony

69
     Id. at A74 (2015 Letter, A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C102:19–C103:1).
70
     Id. at A18 (2015 Letter at 2).

                                                27
constituted “new” evidence that creates a strong inference that he is actually innocent in

fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted.71 He asserted that

without this improperly admitted testimony, the State’s remaining evidence was

insufficient to support a conviction. He also asserted that the State’s use of this unreliable

hair evidence violated his right to a fair trial.72

                   6.    The Commissioner’s Report

          Bass’s Rule 61 motion was referred to a Superior Court Commissioner pursuant to

10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(a)(5). During the pendency of

the motion before the Commissioner, the parties became aware that the hair evidence was

still available from Bass’s 1983 trial. Before a scheduled evidentiary hearing, both sides

stipulated to submit the hair evidence to the FBI for additional MHC analysis and mtDNA

testing.73

          Regarding the MHC analysis as to the S.K. sample, the results concluded that Bass

was “a possible source of [the] hair.”74 Due to the limited nature of the A.S. sample, no

conclusions could be reached as to whether or not Bass could be included as a possible

source. Regarding the mtDNA testing, the FBI concluded that for S.K., Bass could not be

excluded as a source. As for A.S., the samples were not able to be interpreted due to

71
     Id. at A868 (Motion for Postconviction Relief at 1).
72
  As noted above, Bass also asserted that the State’s failure to dismiss his indictment violated his
due process rights and demonstrated disparate treatment in view of the Delaware Attorney
General’s dismissal of an indictment in State v. Daniels based on invalid MHC evidence. Id. at
A1010–58 (Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Postconviction Relief).
73
     Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *3, *12.
74
     Id. at *13.

                                                  28
mixtures of mtDNA from more than one individual being present. The parties stipulated

to the mtDNA results.

           With the supplemental submission of the mtDNA results, the Commissioner issued

her Commissioner’s Report on December 15, 2021. The Commissioner found that the

USDOJ/FBI’s 2015 disclosure identifying erroneous testimony by FBI examiners, and the

new understanding in forensic science regarding the limitations of MHC analysis for

individual identification constitute new evidence for purposes of Rule 61’s actual

innocence exception.75

           The Commissioner then inquired whether “considering the evidence introduced at

trial other than what was later repudiated, there was a reasonable probability of a different

outcome – that is, an acquittal.”76 Finding that there was not, the Commissioner noted that

MHC is still an accepted and reliable scientific method of technique used by the FBI,

Podolak’s statements were limited during cross-examination, the MHC re-test did not

exonerate Bass, the mtDNA testing further “corroborated the MHC analysis,”77 and there

was other evidence even without any MHC evidence to support Bass’s convictions. This

other evidence included testimony from each of the victims, testimony from two

75
     Id. at *14.
76
     Id.
77
   Id. at *15. The Commissioner’s Report incorrectly stated that the “partial mtDNA sequence
obtained from the S.K. sample matched Bass.” Id. The Superior Court held that the Commissioner
was incorrect to refer to the mtDNA testing as a “match” for Bass. Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL
2093956, at *10. The Superior Court found that no conclusions can be drawn from a finding that
Bass cannot be excluded as a source and that mtDNA is not as conclusive as nuclear DNA testing.
Id.; see also A1037 (Laboratory Report, dated Jan. 20, 2020, containing Results of Mitochondrial
DNA Examinations).

                                              29
eyewitnesses, testimony from Bass’s long-time friend Loretta Schoell, the dictation

machine found in her car, the repetitive conduct and common characteristics of the

assailant, and the similarities in the modus operandi of the attacks — all of which linked

Bass to the attacks.78

          With respect to Bass’s second constitutional claim, the Commissioner found that

Daniels was inapposite because “where in the Daniels case every aspect of the State’s

evidence was called into question,” “[n]othing in the record, and none of the recent

retesting of the MHC evidence, has exonerated Bass in any way.”79 Accordingly, the

Commissioner recommended that Bass’s seventh motion for postconviction relief be

denied.

78
   Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *15–17. Specifically, the Commissioner
concluded that “[t]here was strong direct and circumstantial evidence demonstrating Bass’ guilt.
Bass’ trial would not have been different without Agent Podolak’s inadmissible testimony
overstating the MHC evidence in view of the substantial evidence of Bass’ guilt, and the re-testing
of the hair for a MHC comparison and mtDNA testing.” Id. at *17.
79
     Id. at *19. Specifically, the Commissioner explained:

          In this case, with the exception of the overstatements of the MHC expert, all other
          aspects of the State’s case against Bass remain in place. The re-test results of the
          MHC evidence do not exonerate Bass in any respect. There have been no new
          discoveries of any factual evidence that calls into question the verdict. No physical
          evidence has surfaced that undermines the State’s case against Bass. The State’s
          case against Bass through direct and circumstantial evidence was substantial and
          remains in place.

Id.

                                                   30
                  7.     The Superior Court’s Denial of Postconviction Relief

          On January 26, 2022, Bass appealed the Commissioner’s Report.80 He argued that

the Commissioner’s Report (1) overstates the strength of the State’s case, (2) minimizes

the effect of Podolak’s false testimony on the jury, (3) overstates the significance of the

mtDNA evidence, and (4) improperly finds that the Rule 61 motion fails to overcome the

procedural bar of Rule 61(d)(2).81 The Superior Court rejected Bass’s contentions, adopted

the Commissioner’s Report, and denied Bass’s seventh postconviction motion.

          In denying Bass’s instant postconviction motion, the Superior Court concluded that

the 2015 Letter was new evidence, but that it was not persuasive. It gave three reasons: (i)

the new evidence does not carry the persuasive force so as to change the result of the trial

and the expert’s overstatements were effectively limited through cross-examination;82 (ii)

“the new evidence does not establish that someone other than Defendant committed these

crimes;”83 and (iii) the result would not change if the erroneous testimony were excluded

entirely. It summarized its findings:

          The record is replete with challenges through cross examination regarding
          the inconsistences related to Defendant’s identification and what the
          witnesses did and did not see. The jury was free to weigh the credibility of
          these witnesses and the inconsistencies of the evidence as to identification.
          The State established guilt independently as to each victim and further

80
  See App. to Opening Br. at A1268–1311 (Appeal From Commissioner’s Findings of Fact and
Recommendation, dated Jan. 26, 2022).
81
     Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *7.
82
   The Superior Court found that “[t]he jury therefore heard that hair comparison analysis was
neither one hundred percent accurate nor absolute for personal identification. Considered in its
totality, the impropriety of the expert’s testimony lacks the requisite force to impact the State’s
case against Defendant.” Id. at *9.
83
     Id. at *10 (emphasis in original).

                                                31
          presented the similarities that connected the series of these assaults to
          Defendant. Challenges to any flaws in the identification processes are
          without merit and insufficient to disturb the jury’s verdicts.84

          Accordingly, the court concluded that, although the evidence was new and was

neither cumulative nor impeaching under Purnell v. State,85 it was not persuasive because

the result probably will not change if a new trial were granted.86 The Superior Court also

rejected Bass’s second constitutional challenge regarding the dismissal of the Daniels

indictment, largely on the grounds that the circumstances in Daniels were different.87 Bass

does not appeal the Daniels holding.88

          C.       Contentions on Appeal

          We consider whether the Superior Court erred in denying Bass’s seventh motion for

postconviction relief.

                   1.    Bass’s Contentions

          Bass asserts that the Superior Court committed three distinct legal errors in denying

his motion. First, he claims the court erred in finding that the MHC evidence at Bass’s

trial was “limited” and in finding that the new evidence was not persuasive according to

the standard set forth in Purnell.89 He argues that, although there was limiting language to

84
     Id. at *12.
85
     254 A.3d 1053 (Del. 2021).
86
     Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *10–11.
87
     Id. at *13–14.
88
  Moreover, Bass does not mention the holding in his opening brief, and therefore, any argument
regarding Daniels is waived. Supr. Ct. R. 14(b)(vi)(A)(3).
89
     Opening Br. at 36, 40.

                                               32
the effect that “hair comparisons are not like fingerprints” and are not 100% accurate90 and

that Podolak could not say with absolute certainty that the hair came from Bass, or even

A.S. or S.K., during cross-examination, “the problems began on redirect examination.”91

Bass points to Podolak’s statements on redirect examination, where Podolak testified that:

(i) he is more adept at identifying and comparing “negroid hairs” than “caucasian or

mongoloid hairs;”92 (ii) although defense attorneys have disputed FBI examiners’

testimony for years because of lack of statistics, there was a study (i.e., the Minnesota

Study) wherein an examiner used the FBI technique used by Podolak and determined a

match 100% of the time;93 and (iii) he had performed over 3,000 microscopic hair

comparisons and had yet to find any hair from two different individuals where he could not

distinguish between their hair characteristics.

          Bass argues that any limiting language that may have cured the error during cross-

examination was nullified by Podolak’s testimony on redirect. The minimal recross, in

which Podolak testified that he “agreed that two hairs from the same head might not be

microscopically similar,” was insufficient to overcome the damage caused by Podolak’s

testimony during redirect examination.94

90
  Id. at 37 (quoting App. to Opening Br. at A67 (A. Podolak Cross-Examination Test. at C95:6–
7)).
91
  Id. at 38. Bass submits that “had the questioning stopped there, the testimony would have been
sufficiently limited, and the Superior Court would be correct.” Id. at 38.
92
     App. to Opening Br. at A73 (A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C101:12–15).
93
     Id. at A78 (A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C106:3–7).
94
     Id. at A80 (A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C108:1–7).

                                                 33
           Second, Bass contends that the Superior Court erred in holding that the result of his

trial would not change if there had been no microscopic hair evidence. He argues that

“[t]he crucial issue at trial was identification,”95 and that identity was established through

Podolak’s overstated testimony, and not sufficiently established by the remainder of the

evidence.96 He argues that “[e]very identification in the case was weak, contradictory, or

induced by police or [Delaware] DOJ personnel.”97

           In support of this claim, Bass points out that each witness had a limited amount of

time to view the attacker. He underscores that S.K. never identified her attacker before

trial, in spite of the fact that she underwent hypnosis, viewed several photo lineups, and a

live lineup (in which she chose a Wilmington police officer). He suggests that her in-court

identification was flawed because the Delaware DOJ had told her that they had evidence

to believe the defendant, who would be sitting at one of the tables in front, was her attacker.

           Bass argues that the identification was weak in A.S.’s case as well. A.S. never

positively identified Bass in court, instead saying that Bass resembled her attacker.98 She

also did not identify Bass’s shoes as the ones she saw on her attacker during the assault,

instead saying they were the right color but a different material.

           Finally, as to S.M., he notes that S.M. never identified Bass, and the identifications

from the State’s two eyewitnesses were flawed for several reasons. First, the only

95
     Opening Br. at 41.
96
     Id.
97
     Id. at 43.
98
     App. to Opening Br. at A249 (A.S. Trial Test. at 143:7–8).

                                                 34
eyewitness to positively identify Bass was Ms. Shaw, and her photo identification was

weak, and her in-court identification was tainted because of the detective’s disclosure to

her after she identified Bass in the photo lineup that Bass was the defendant. Second, the

photo lineup identification of the second witness, Mr. Reynolds, was questionable because

Mr. Reynolds only had a brief, obstructed view of the perpetrator.

         Third, Bass contends that the trial court misread this Court’s holding in Purnell,

and, as a result, it erred in holding that he was required to show that another individual

committed the crimes for which Bass was convicted. He argues that a petitioner alleging

actual innocence need not establish that someone other than the defendant committed the

crime.

         Lastly, Bass argues that he has met his heavy burden of establishing entitlement to

relief under Rule 61(d)(2) because he has met all three prongs of the test we set forth in

Purnell. Since the Superior Court held that Bass met two of the prongs — the evidence is

“new” and not “merely cumulative or impeaching” — Bass focuses on the third prong,

namely, whether the outcome of the trial will probably change because of the new evidence.

Bass argues that without Podolak’s testimony, “[t]he remaining evidence of identification

was weak and did not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”               Further, the

overstatements in Podolak’s testimony were not cured by limiting statements. And,

according to Bass, Podolak’s testimony on redirect that he had never been wrong in over

3,000 tries, and his reference to the Minnesota Study testimony, overpowered any limiting

statements. Therefore, he contends that the result of the trial will probably change if the

MHC evidence were excluded.

                                             35
                 2.     The State’s Response

         First, the State argues that the Superior Court was correct in finding that the

USDOJ/FBI admissions constitute “new” evidence that is not merely cumulative or

impeaching and that Podolak’s testimony contained sufficient limiting statements. It points

out that this Court confronted the same issue on direct appeal when Bass challenged the

introduction of the Minnesota Study and decided that its introduction was not fundamental

because Podolak had made concessions that MHCs were not faultless. Second, the State

argues that Bass has not shown that a person other than Bass committed the attacks, and

that the correct reading of Purnell is that “the new evidence must show that someone other

than the movant committed the crime, not specifically identify that other person.”99 Third,

the State argues that even if the MHC testimony had not been admitted, the outcome of the

trial would not have changed. Finally, the State argues that even if this Court were to reach

Bass’s underlying due process claim, that claim is meritless.100

             3. Areas of Agreement

         At the outset we note that the parties agree that the standard we set forth in Purnell

applies to our resolution of this appeal, and that under Purnell, the USDOJ revelations

about MHC evidence are “new.”

99
     Answering Br. at 35.
100
   Id. at 52–53 (quoting Swan v. State, 248 A.3d 839, 878 (Del. 2021) (due process violated where
State knowingly uses false testimony and if there is “any reasonable likelihood that the false
testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury”)).

                                               36
          As to the first point, Bass correctly notes that the USDOJ waived all procedural

defenses and statutes of limitations in cases with identified MHC errors. He also notes that

courts in Massachusetts101 and Pennsylvania,102 as well as federal courts hearing habeas

petitions, have waived defenses and procedural bars in such cases. Further, certain state

legislatures have acted to eliminate procedural bars for petitioners whose convictions are

potentially tainted by scientific evidence later discovered to be flawed. There is no doubt

that the revelations regarding MHC expert testimony are extremely troubling. Close

scrutiny of these cases is required. We look to the facts of each case and the new evidence

to determine whether the pleadings carry the heavy burden set forth in Purnell.103

101
      Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Perrot, 2016 WL 380123 (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan. 26, 2016).
102
      Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 240 A.3d 564, 569 (Pa. 2020).
103
  An exchange at oral argument suggests that the number of any other such cases in Delaware
may be very limited:

          The Court: Are you able to tell us, one last question on this, if you’re comfortable
          and able, are there a substantial number of these cases still working their way
          through the Delaware Justice system?

          Counsel: We found five, Your Honor. We found five, and I think I handled them
          all. And, there was the Crump case, I moved to withdraw. I recall two others in
          which I moved to withdraw because the issue wasn’t whether the hair examiner, in
          other words, the defense was that the sexual intercourse was consensual, not an
          identity case, so those didn’t go anywhere. This is the only case that has actually
          resulted in a substantive motion for postconviction relief. I am not aware of any
          other cases, Your Honor, there could be, I just don’t know.
Oral Argument at 9:07–10:00, Bass v. State, No.                      218, 2022, available at
https://livestream.com/delawaresupremecourt/events/10806463/videos/235883011 [hereinafter
Oral Argument]; see also A1001C (Letter to Commission Requesting to Supplement the Record,
dated Dec. 10, 2018). In State v. Crump, for example, we affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of
the defendant, Crump’s, successive Rule 61 motion after the USDOJ/FBI informed defendant that
the FBI’s hair and fiber expert had committed errors in his testimony at the defendant’s trial. 2017
WL 6403510, at *1–2 (Del. Super. Dec. 14, 2017), aff’d, Crump v. State, 194 A.3d 16, 2018 WL
3769261, at *1 (Del. Aug. 7, 2018), cert. denied, Crump v. Delaware, 139 S. Ct. 1400 (2019)
                                                  37
          As discussed above, Rule 61(i)(2) prohibits this Court from considering a second or

successive motion for postconviction relief unless the defendant can meet one of the

exceptions laid out in Rule 61(2)(i) or (ii).104 We are bound by this Rule unless and until

we amend our Rules or unless and until the Delaware General Assembly creates an

exception to procedural bars for defendants challenging their convictions due to improper

MHC evidence. Here, the Superior Court determined that it “need not consider the

applicability of other jurisdictions actual/factual innocence tests since Delaware’s

requirements are fully set out under Purnell and where [Bass] later tailored his arguments

in this appeal under this applicable rubric.”105 At oral argument before this Court, Bass

agreed that the standard set forth in Purnell applies.106

(mem.). In that case, new DNA testing positively identified the defendant as the contributor of
DNA found on the victim’s pubic comb. See Crump, 2017 WL 6403510, at *2.
104
    Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61 (“A second or subsequent motion under this rule shall be summarily
dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion . . . pleads with particularity
that new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact
of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted . . . .”).
105
      Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *8 n.132.
106
   Bass’s counsel stated that its references to other state’s legislative changes regarding procedural
bars were illustrative only:
          The Court: You have five pages in your opening brief where you talk about what
          other jurisdictions have done regarding these situations, but then you come back to
          the Purnell case. It’s your position, I take it, that our standard of Purnell is what
          governs here.
          Counsel: I mean to be illustrative of other jurisdictions who have been proactive
          about this issue. The United States Department of Justice has waived all procedural
          defenses. The American Bar Association has encouraged all jurisdictions to do so.
          States have passed legislation regarding change or newly discovered science, flaws
          in prior science. I am making the argument based on this Court’s holding in
          Purnell.
Oral Argument at 17:15–17:59.

                                                   38
          As to the “newness” point, we agree with the Commissioner and with the Superior

Court that the revelations about MHC uncovered by the USDOJ/FBI report constitute

“new” evidence such that Bass has satisfied the newness prong of the actual innocence

exception. The State does not disagree. Evidence is new “where it was ‘discovered since

trial, and the circumstances must be such as to indicate that it could not have been

discovered before trial with due diligence.’”107 Here, the Joint Statement was made public

in 2015, decades after Bass’s trial.

                                    III.    Standard of Review

          This Court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion for postconviction relief for

abuse of discretion.108 “Nevertheless, we carefully review the record to determine whether

‘competent evidence supports the court’s findings of fact.’”109             We review legal or

constitutional questions de novo.110

                                           IV.   Analysis

          A.     The Applicable Standard for Actual Innocence Postconviction Claims

          Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 governs motions for postconviction relief in

Delaware.111 Since the instant motion for postconviction relief was filed on April 26, 2018,

107
      Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1097 (quoting Lloyd v. State, 534 A.2d 1262, 1267 (Del. 1987)).
108
      Swan, 248 A.3d at 855.
109
   Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935, 941 (Del. 2013) (quoting Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043
(Del. 2003), impliedly overruled on other grounds as recognized in Steckel v. State, 882 A.2d 168,
171 (Del. 2005)).
110
      Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160, 173 (Del. 2020).
111
      Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61.

                                                 39
the current version of Rule 61, with the 2014 amendments, applies.112 The current version

of Rule 61(d)(2) precludes Delaware courts from hearing any second or subsequent motion

for postconviction relief, “unless the movant was convicted after a trial” and the motion

meets one of two statutory exceptions.113 Because this is Bass’s seventh motion for

postconviction relief, he must meet one of the exceptions before a court can reach the merits

of his underlying constitutional claims.

          Under Rule 61(d)(2)(i), an untimely postconviction motion is allowed if it “pleads

with particularity that new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant

is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted.”114

This first prong is referred to in our jurisprudence as the “actual innocence exception.”

Bass claims relief from Rule 61 under the actual innocence exception. A movant can only

prevail on the merits if the motion satisfies the foregoing pleading requirements.

Moreover, “[i]nnocence of the ‘acts underlying the charges’ requires ‘more than innocence

112
    See Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1094 (“This Court repeatedly has held that a motion for postconviction
relief is to be adjudicated in accordance with Rule 61 as it exists at the time the motion is filed.”)
(citing Bradley v. State, 135 A.3d 748, 757 n.24 (Del. 2016); Brochu v. State, 133 A.3d 558, 2016
WL 690650, at *4 n.24 (Del. Feb. 19, 2016) (TABLE); Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 332 n.95
(Del. 2015)).
113
      Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
114
    Id. 61(d)(2)(i). Under Rule 61(d)(2)(ii), an untimely postconviction motion is also allowed if
it “pleads with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases
on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies
to the movant’s case and renders the conviction or death sentence invalid.” Id. 61(d)(2)(ii). This
exception is not implicated here.

                                                 40
of intent; it requires new evidence that a person other than the petitioner committed the

crime.’”115

          We most recently examined the actual innocence exception to the procedural bar of

Rule 61(d) in Purnell. There, we clarified the standard for actual innocence, including

“when evidence is ‘new’” and “what showing creates a ‘strong inference’ of innocence:”

          To qualify for an exception to Rule 61’s procedural bars against untimely,
          successive motions, [a defendant] must identify with particularity new
          evidence that creates a strong inference that he is actually innocent in fact of
          the acts underlying the charges. Stated differently, [a defendant] must
          present additional evidence that was not available at trial and would not have
          been despite his exercise of due diligence. [The defendant] must also
          convince us that the new evidence, when considered in the context of all the
          relevant evidence by a properly instructed jury, is such as will probably
          change the result if a new trial were granted.116

          We observed that “[s]atisfying the actual innocence test is, by design, a heavy

burden, and such meritorious claims are exceedingly rare.”117 We found that the defendant,

Mark Purnell (“Purnell”), qualified for the actual innocence exception to Rule 61’s

procedural bar.118 It was the first time this Court had found a defendant eligible for such

relief.

          Purnell’s case consists of the following extraordinary facts. In January 2006, two

115
   Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1095 (quoting State v. Taylor, 2018 WL 3199537, at *7 (Del. Super. June
28, 2018), aff’d, 206 A.3d 825, 2019 WL 990718 (Del. Feb. 27, 2019) (TABLE)).
116
   Id. at 1060. In doing so, we affirmed the test substantively articulated in Lloyd v. State and
applicable to federal habeas corpus cases per Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
117
      Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1100.
118
    Id. at 1060. By the time we heard Purnell’s claim, Purnell had spent fourteen years of his life
in prison. Instead of remanding Purnell’s case to the Superior Court to hold an evidentiary hearing
based on our guidance on the standard for actual innocence, we ordered a new trial. Id.

                                                41
armed assailants shot and killed Tameka Giles in Wilmington after a botched robbery

attempt. At the time, an eyewitness and Mrs. Giles’s husband, who was with her at the

time of the murder, identified Ronald Harris and Kellee Mitchell, respectively, as the

assailants. Later, when searching Kellee Mitchell’s apartment, police found a .38-caliber

revolver hidden in the ceiling tiles outside of the apartment. Ronald Harris’s brother,

Dawan Harris, who Ronald strongly resembled, was in the apartment at the time. Dawan

Harris admitted the gun belonged to both Mitchell and him. With the assistance of court-

appointed counsel, Dawan Harris pled guilty to a weapons charge for possession of the

revolver. He was a suspect in the Giles murder initially. Two different witnesses had

implicated him.

          A year later, in January 2007, an individual named Corey Hammond was arrested

on drug charges. He implicated Purnell in the Giles murder. Later that month, Kellee

Mitchell, also one of the original suspects, implicated Purnell in the murder. Purnell and

his alleged accomplice, Ronald Harris, were arrested and charged.

          The Superior Court appointed Purnell an attorney to defend him at the murder trial.

Purnell’s court-appointed attorney was the same one who had represented Dawan Harris

in the Possession of a Deadly Weapon by Persons Prohibited (“PDWBPP”) charge

resulting from his possession of the .38-caliber revolver. Before trial, Purnell’s trial

counsel brought the conflict of interest to the trial judge’s and the State’s attention,

including the defense theory that Dawan Harris might by the true killer.119 The trial judge

119
      As our opinion in Purnell explained:

                                              42
denied trial counsel’s motion to withdraw, ordering him to proceed as Purnell’s trial

advocate.

       In April 2008, a Superior Court jury convicted Purnell of Murder Second Degree

and other related charges.120 The evidence presented to the jury consisted of: (1) claims

made by Corey Hammond regarding claims Purnell and Ronald Harris made around the

time of the murder, (2) claims made by Kellee Mitchell, that Purnell had bragged about

having committed the murder, and (3) the testimony of Ronald Harris, who agreed to testify

as part of a plea deal wherein prosecutors would drop his pending murder and weapons

charges and recommend a sentence of three years.                This Court affirmed Purnell’s

conviction on his direct appeal wherein he did not raise the conflict of interest issue.

       After his conviction and direct appeal, Purnell filed a 133-page handwritten pro se

Rule 61 motion “raising ten grounds for relief, of which the first was an objection to his

trial counsel’s conflict of interest.”121         Yet, “[a]fter he obtained representation,

       Trial Counsel noted that the defense had multiple theories involving Dawan. One
       was the belief that Mitchell and Dawan were the true robbers, with the eyewitness
       misidentifying Dawan as Ronald. Another was that the robbers were Ronald Harris
       and either Mitchell or Dawan, and that Ronald was falsely implicating Purnell as
       the accomplice in retaliation for Purnell ‘snitch[ing]’ on them for shooting this .38-
       caliber out of a window in Compton Towers that prompted them getting in trouble.
       However, presenting those theories would require Trial Counsel to take positions
       directly adverse to Dawan’s interests in the Giles investigation, painting him as the
       murderer directly, or asserting that the weapon Dawan had pleaded guilty to
       possessing was the murder weapon. But Trial Counsel was ethically precluded
       from doing so, and hence from advancing these potential defensive strategies.
Id. at 1109.
120
   Id. Purnell was convicted of Murder Second Degree, Attempted Robbery First Degree,
Conspiracy Second Degree, PDWBPP, and two counts of PDWDCF. Id. at 1087.
121
   Id. at 1059. In his second motion for postconviction relief, Purnell claimed that the omission
of the conflict issue was error, but in another extraordinary occurrence, Purnell’s first
                                                43
postconviction counsel filed an amended motion asserting only three grounds and did not

include the conflict claim.”122 The Superior Court denied Purnell’s amended Rule 61

motion. This Court affirmed the denial of relief.

          Then, in May 2018, Purnell filed a second postconviction motion alleging 10

grounds for relief. His first ground for relief was that he was actually innocent, and his

second was that his trial counsel was conflicted due to his prior representation of Dawan

Harris, prejudicing Purnell’s case and denying him effective assistance of counsel. Several

grounds asserted that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to develop exculpatory

evidence at trial, including evidence implicating Dawan Harris. Other grounds related to

evidence that Kellee Mitchell’s, Corey Hammond’s, and Ronald Harris’s statements were

unreliable and coerced, and to evidence that Purnell lacked the physical mobility at the

time to commit the crime. In sum, Purnell’s claim of actual innocence was based on a

theory that his trial counsel was conflicted, and because trial counsel was denied

permission to withdraw, Purnell was unable to pursue a defense theory that two other

people, including his counsel’s prior client, actually committed the murder.

                 1.     The “Newness” Requirement

          In Purnell, we explained that, to qualify for Rule 61’s actual innocence exception,

“[a defendant] must present additional evidence that was not available at trial and would

postconviction counsel died before oral argument on the first motion. Thus, we could never know
why counsel chose to exclude Purnell’s conflict of interest claim as a basis for postconviction
relief. Accordingly, and unfortunately, this Court did not hear about the conflict of interest that
tainted Purnell’s trial until his second motion for postconviction relief was filed, 14 years after
Purnell’s incarceration.
122
      Id. at 1059–60.

                                                44
not have been despite [the defendant’s] exercise of due diligence.”123 There, the Superior

Court had found that Purnell could not meet this burden because “almost all of the evidence

Purnell submits could have been obtained by a rigorous investigation prior to trial by

unconflicted counsel.”124 We held the trial court erred in its conclusion because “the

relevant inquiry is whether [the defendant] could have obtained and presented the evidence

of his innocence at trial with the exercise of due diligence.”125 Because Purnell’s trial

counsel was conflicted and the trial court had refused to let Purnell’s trial counsel

withdraw, Purnell was barred from accessing the evidence he presented as the basis for his

second Rule 61 postconviction motion.126

          Therefore, we found that the evidence submitted by Purnell — particularly evidence

that implicated Dawan Harris, Purnell’s trial counsel’s former client — was “new” within

the meaning of the actual innocence exception because Purnell himself would not have

been able to discover it through the exercise of due diligence.127 Moreover, we found that

“[s]ince much of [Purnell’s] evidence goes to proving facts incompatible with his guilt, it

123
      Id. at 1060.
124
      Id. at 1100.
125
      Id. (emphasis added).
126
   Id. at 1100, 1113. We found that Purnell did not waive the conflict at the time of trial. Id. at
1101.
127
    Id. at 1100. We found that “[m]uch of the evidence Purnell presents, though knowable or even
known at the time, was unavailable to him at trial because his counsel was not permitted to
withdraw and was precluded from obtaining or presenting it due to his ethical duties to his former
client.” Id. at 1060 (emphasis in original).

                                                45
also satisfies the requirement that [evidence] goes beyond being merely cumulative or

impeaching.”128

                     2.    The “Persuasiveness” Requirement

          As to the second prong of the actual innocence inquiry, we explained in Purnell that

the defendant must “convince us that the new evidence, when considered in the context of

all the relevant evidence by a properly instructed jury, is such as will probably change the

result if a new trial were granted.”129 “[T]he court must assess all of the evidence, including

that which was properly excluded and that which was wrongfully admitted.”130

          Purnell presented a significant amount of new evidence in his second Rule 61

motion, which we divided into six categories: (1) ballistic and firearm evidence

undermining the only physical evidence tying Purnell to the crime;131 (2) Kellee Mitchell’s

128
      Id. at 1113.
129
      Id. at 1060, 1100.
130
    Id. at 1113 (emphasis in original); see also Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327–28 (“[T]he emphasis on
‘actual innocence’ allows the reviewing tribunal also to consider the probative force of relevant
evidence that was either excluded or unavailable at trial. . . [it] must make its determination
concerning the petitioner’s innocence in light of all the evidence, including that alleged to have
been illegally admitted (but with due regard to any unreliability of it) and evidence tenably claimed
to have been wrongly excluded or to have become available only after the trial.”).
131
   Purnell presented expert testimony that the spent 9mm shell casing (found 40 to 50 feet from
where the shooting occurred) could not have been ejected from the murder site since spent casings
could not be ejected that far. This spent casing was the only physical evidence presented in
Purnell’s trial. Purnell argued that the new ballistic evidence demonstrated that the murder weapon
was likely a revolver (which does not expend shell casings at all), potentially the revolver which
Kellee Mitchell and Dawan Harris (Purnell’s trial counsel’s former client) were charged with
unlawfully possessing. Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1114.

                                                 46
recantation of testimony that was heavily relied on by the State at trial;132 (3) other evidence

inculpating Dawan Harris and Kellee Mitchell; (4) evidence undermining Ronald Harris’s

testimony;133 (5) evidence undermining Corey Hammond’s testimony;134 and (6) medical

evidence of Purnell’s physical incapacity.135

          We concluded that much of the new evidence went to proving facts incompatible

with Purnell’s guilt, and satisfied the requirement that it went beyond being merely

cumulative or impeaching.        Thus, the key factor in Purnell’s case was that “[t]rial

[c]ounsel’s actual conflict prevented him from investigating, developing and presenting

any evidence that implicated Dawan Harris, his former client.”136 In other words, trial

counsel was not allowed to explore the potential of Dawan Harris or Kellee Mitchell as

possible perpetrators in any way: there was no pre-trial investigation and no cross-

examination at trial. For example, Purnell’s trial counsel could not present evidence that

it was a revolver, not a semi-automatic gun that Purnell was accused of possessing, that

132
    Mitchell denied the truth and voluntariness of his prior statement. There was also new
testimony indicating that Mitchell and Dawan Harris were in possession of the potential murder
weapon prior to the murder, a fact contradicting Mitchell’s prior testimony. Id. at 1116.
133
   We found that the new evidence — sworn statements from Ronald Harris’s (Purnell’s alleged
co-defendant) mother and step-father indicating that Ronald Harris consistently maintained his
innocence, which contradicted Ronald Harris’s trial testimony — was merely impeaching. Id. at
1116–17.
134
   The evidence indicated that Hammond was a career criminal, testifying to avoid jail time. We
found this evidence to be merely impeaching. Id. at 1117–18.
135
   Another extraordinary fact in Purnell’s case is that he had undergone knee surgery eight days
before the crime was allegedly committed, after he had accidentally shot himself. A medical expert
submitted his opinion that Purnell would have been unable to run at the time of the crime, a fact
established by an eyewitness who testified that the two killers sprinted away after shooting Mrs.
Giles. Id. at 1119.
136
      Id. at 1108.

                                               47
killed Mrs. Giles, because trial counsel had defended Dawan Harris in his prosecution for

possession of a revolver. Relatedly, the exculpating evidence from Mitchell’s recantation

went to possession of the murder weapon. This too was evidence that Purnell’s trial

counsel was precluded from pursuing given his prior representation of Dawan Harris.

            Evaluating Purnell’s persuasive new evidence in light of trial counsel’s conflict, and

the highly unusual procedural circumstances which prevented Purnell’s raising the issue

earlier, we concluded: “Taken as a whole, and based on the State’s own description of its

case from its opening statement and closing argument at trial, the evidence Purnell presents

is the rare case that overcomes the daunting burden of showing that it would probably

change the result if a new trial were granted.”137 We noted further that the statements on

which the State relied almost exclusively at trial already suffered from credibility

problems,138 and the facts surrounding the jury verdict indicated that “[t]he State’s case, in

other words, was a close one even when Purnell’s defense was constrained by a severe

ethical conflict which his trial counsel had noted and raised.”139

            In light of this conclusion, and the fact that Purnell had already spent approximately

half of his life in prison following “a manifestly unfair trial,” we reversed Purnell’s

conviction, and remanded for a new trial, instead of an evidentiary hearing.140 The new

trial never occurred. In yet another extraordinary occurrence, approximately nine months

137
      Id. at 1120.
138
      Id.
139
      Id. at 1122 (internal footnote omitted).
140
      Id. at 1060.

                                                  48
after we issued our opinion, the State, through a Deputy Attorney General, filed a notice

of nolle prosequi with the Superior Court, ending its pursuit of a new trial in the “interest

of justice.”141

            The notice disclosed that during the State’s renewed review of the original police

file from 2006-2008, “prosecutors identified potentially exculpatory evidence that may not

have been provided to [Purnell] in the first trial.”142 Specifically, it referred to a witness

interview taken in June of 2006, during the original investigation wherein the witness

“claimed to have overheard a conversation in which another individual [not Purnell]

discussed shooting Ms. Giles.”143 The State lacked “any documentation indicating the

interview was ever turned over to [Purnell] during the first trial in 2008.”144 It further noted

that “[i]f [the State] cannot show that an interview where another person was overheard

discussing shooting a victim was provided to the defense in the initial trial, it raises

sufficient questions that we cannot ethically proceed in the instant case.”145 Accordingly,

“[a]fter careful consideration of all the evidence in the case, the State has determined it can

no longer ethically proceed.”146

  State v. Purnell, I.D. Nos: 0701018040, State’s Notice of Nolle Prosequi, at ¶ 8 (Del. Super.
141

Apr. 28, 2022).
142
   Id. at ¶ 3. The State lacked any documentation of an exculpatory interview being turned over
to Purnell.
143
      Id. at ¶ 4.
144
      Id.
145
      Id.
146
    Id. at ¶ 6. The State acknowledged the exculpatory nature of the 2006 interview and stated that
it “will only proceed to trial in matters it believes there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction.”
Id.

                                                 49
            B.    Whether the Superior Court Erred in Denying Relief

            With the high standard we articulated in Purnell in mind, we now turn to Bass’s

claim for relief. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Bass has not met his

heavy burden of “pleading with particularity new evidence that creates a strong inference

that he is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was

convicted.”147

                  1. Whether the Superior Court Erred in Finding the MHC Evidence was
                     “Limited”

            Although the Superior Court agreed with Bass that the Joint Statement and

USDOJ/FBI disclosures constitute new evidence, it held that “[c]onsidered in its totality,

the impropriety of the expert’s testimony lacks the requisite force to impact the State’s case

against [Bass].”148 This is because Podolak acknowledged at trial that MHC is “not like

fingerprints; they are not a hundred percent accurate” and is not a basis for “absolute

personal identification,” stating “the key word is ‘absolute.’”149         Further, Podolak

acknowledged that he could not say with “a hundred percent surety” whether the hairs

originated from the sexually assaulted victims (A.S. or S.K.) or from Bass.150 And Bass’s

“trial counsel effectively cross-examined him regarding these limitations and properly

elicited inconsistencies in his testimony.”151

147
      Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1122.
148
      Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *9.
149
      Id.
150
      Id.
151
      Id.

                                                50
          However, Bass argues that the problems with Podolak’s testimony came on redirect

examination.       He concedes that up until that point, Podolak’s testimony had been

sufficiently limited on cross-examination.152 Bass cites three statements made by Podolak

on redirect that undermine the limiting language elicited during cross-examination.

          First, Podolak testified that he is better at identifying and comparing “negroid hairs”

than other types. Second, Podolak discussed the Minnesota Study and submitted it into

evidence. Third, Podolak stated that out of 3,000 MHC reports, he had yet to find any hair

from two different individuals “that I cannot distinguish between their hair

characteristics.”153

          Of these statements, only the statements regarding the Minnesota Study were

flagged by the 2015 Letter as “exceeding the limits of science.” However, we view the

statements regarding Podolak’s impressive track record as being in the same vein as the

Minnesota Study statements, and in any event, we consider the unflagged statements as

well for completeness. We observe that on recross, Bass’s counsel elicited testimony that

“you could have two samples from the same head and they would not be microscopically

similar.”154 This recross testimony limited, at least to some extent, the two statements

raised by Bass on appeal but not flagged by the 2015 Letter.

          As for the testimony regarding the Minnesota Study, Podolak stated that:

152
    Bass acknowledges “[h]ad the questioning stopped there, the testimony would have been
sufficiently limited, and the Superior Court would be correct. But the problems began on redirect
examination.” Opening Br. at 38.
153
      Id. at 39 (quoting App. to Opening Br. at A78 (A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C106:21–22)).
154
      App. to Opening Br. at A512 (A. Podolak Recross Test. at C108:1–7).

                                                 51
             [Referring to the Minnesota Study] Now, the conclusion then or what this
             all points out is that the morphology of human head hairs is an individual
             characteristic of identity, and that they are – this affirms that this is a
             good reliability or a very good ability of an analyst to take a questioned
             hair and match it to an individual in a crime situation.155

Bass’s challenge to these statements is a refrain of his argument on direct appeal, wherein

he argued that the admission of the study and the testimony constituted reversible error.

We reviewed the Superior Court’s denial of Bass’s claim then, and we affirmed. We found

no reversible error because Podolak did not rely on the study and his statements about its

conclusions had been sufficiently limited.156 We are not persuaded to depart from that

ruling. But even if we were, Bass’s claim fails because even considering the new evidence,

which prompts us to assess the strength of his case without Podolak’s improper testimony,

the result of the trial will probably be the same.157 We address this argument in Section 3

below.

                 2.      Whether the Superior Court Erred in Holding that Bass Was
                         Required to Establish Another Person Committed the Crimes

          The Superior Court did not err in holding that Bass was required to establish another

person committed the crimes. In Purnell, we stated “[i]nnocence of the ‘acts underlying

the charges’ requires ‘more than innocence of intent; it requires new evidence that a person

155
      Id. at A78 (2015 Letter, A. Podolak Redirect Test. at C106:7–12) (emphasis added).
156
      Id. at A703–04 (Denial of Direct Appeal at ¶ 8–9).
157
    We observe that the Commissioner carefully examined the facts without reference to the MHC
testimony in part of her analysis. See Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *3 (stating
that “[s]ince the issue presented herein is how material to Bass’ conviction was the error of the
MHC evidence, the facts as set forth below in this section will not reference the MHC evidence in
any respect”).

                                                 52
other than the petitioner committed the crime.’”158 Bass argues that the Superior Court

misread Purnell and improperly imposed “a requirement that Mr. Bass produce a different

individual who committed these offenses.”159 He contends that Purnell, and the Superior

Court’s decision in Taylor, stand for the more limited proposition that a defendant cannot

qualify for the actual innocence exception to Rule 61 if the new evidence is only probative

of the defendant’s lack of requisite intent to commit the crime of conviction.160

          We do not believe the Superior Court construed Purnell to require a defendant to

establish the actual perpetrator of the crime. Rather, the Superior Court’s conclusion that

Bass’s new evidence is not probative of his “actual innocence” is consistent with our

statement in Purnell and the Superior Court’s statement in Taylor, which we affirmed.161

In Taylor, the defendant sought relief under the actual innocence exception of Rule 61

where his new evidence consisted of two forensic reports opining that Taylor lacked the

requisite intent to be guilty of first-degree murder. The Superior Court in Taylor noted that

whether new evidence probative of a lack of intent can satisfy the procedural bar of Rule

61 was a matter of first impression. It turned to the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Long v.

158
      254 A.3d at 1095 (quoting Taylor, 2018 WL 3199537, at *7).
159
      Opening Br. at 45.
160
      Id. at 44.
161
    As we noted earlier, our statement in Purnell — “[i]nnocence of the ‘acts underlying the
charges’ requires ‘more than innocence of intent; it requires new evidence that a person other than
the petitioner committed the crime’” — is drawn from Taylor. Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1095 (quoting
Taylor, 2018 WL 3199537, at *7). The Superior Court cites to both Purnell and Taylor in this
portion of tis opinion. See Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *9 n.146.

                                                53
Peterson162 and the United States Supreme Court decision in Sawyer v. Whitley.163 In Long,

the Tenth Circuit held that “actual innocence means factual innocence, not legal

innocence.”164 And in Sawyer, the Supreme Court noted:

          A prototypical example of “actual innocence” in a colloquial sense is the case
          where the State has convicted the wrong person of the crime. Such claims
          are of course regularly made on motions for new trial after conviction in both
          state and federal courts, and quite regularly denied because the evidence
          adduced in support of them fails to meet the rigorous standards for granting
          such motions. But in rare instances it may turn out later, for example, that
          another person has credibly confessed to the crime, and it is evident that the
          law has made a mistake.165

          Purnell was the “prototypical example” of “actual innocence” because he put forth

evidence that the State had convicted the wrong person of the crime. In Purnell, the

evidence pointed to other individuals as potential suspects, and we allowed the successive

postconviction motion to move forward because Purnell presented evidence to that effect,

which previously was unobtainable by him due to trial counsel’s actual conflict of interest.

This does not mean that in every case a defendant must present to the court another

individual who could have committed the crime; rather, the defendant needs to put forth

evidence probative of the fact that the defendant did not commit the crime, i.e., factual

innocence.

162
      291 F. App’x 209 (10th Cir. 2008).
163
      505 U.S. 333 (1992).
164
      291 F. App’x at 213.
165
      Sawyer, 505 U.S. at 340–41.

                                               54
            Moreover, the Superior Court did not deny Bass’s claim because Bass failed to

produce a specific individual who committed the crime. Instead, it emphasized that Bass’s

new evidence does not establish any fact that might exculpate him. As the Superior Court

put it: “the new evidence does not exonerate [Bass].”166 And in this case, as discussed

below, it does not convince us that when it is considered in the context of all relevant

evidence by a properly instructed jury, it is such as will probably change the result if a new

trial were granted.

                  3.     Whether Bass Met His Heavy Burden of Establishing That the New
                         Evidence is Persuasive

            Both the Commissioner and the Superior Court found that the MHC evidence was

“new” and satisfied the newness prong of Rule 61(d)(2). The State has not challenged this

finding, and we agree that the USDOJ/FBI disclosure regarding MHC evidence is new.

            The next question is whether the new evidence is persuasive. In accordance with

the standard set forth above, we view Bass’s “new evidence in light of the evidence

presented at trial and in light of the other unadmitted material.”167 Bass must establish

“that the new evidence, when considered in the context of all the relevant evidence by a

properly instructed jury, is such as will probably change the result if a new trial were

granted.”168

166
      Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *9.
167
      Purnell, 254 A.3d at 1114.
168
      Id.

                                                55
          Applying this standard, we find no error in the Superior Court’s conclusion that

Bass did not meet his heavy burden of showing that the result of his trial will probably

change. Nothing about Bass’s new evidence gives rise to an inference that Bass did not

commit the robberies and burglaries. That is because the new evidence does nothing to

exculpate Bass. As the Superior Court noted, MHC is not a “defunct science” and the FBI

retested the hair samples in 2019, again concluding that Bass was “a possible source of the

hair.”169 The FBI’s supplemental mtDNA testing did not eliminate Bass as the source,

concluding instead that he “cannot be excluded as the source.” Nor did it indicate anyone

else was the source of the hair.170

169
      Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *10.
170
   See supra note 77. At oral argument before this Court, Bass agreed that it was appropriate for
this Court to consider the mitochondrial DNA testing. The following exchange took place:

          The Court: You mention the mitochondrial DNA testing, and I think there’s
          something in the record suggesting that it’s possible for only 1 out of every 135
          African Americans to have the same mitochondrial DNA sequence obtained from
          the S.K. sample and from Bass. What, if anything, are we to do with that piece of
          evidence?

          Counsel: Your Honor, in a retrial, I mean today, the issue on appeal is whether
          we’ve overcome a procedural bar, but let’s say hypothetically that there’s a retrial,
          that evidence, I concede would be admissible. Mitochondrial DNA cannot be used
          to identify an individual, according to the FBI’s report, unrelated people may have
          the same sequence of DNA on a particular strand, and Mr. Bass’s partial DNA
          sequence appeared in 11 out of 2,449 samples in the database of mitochondrial
          DNA.

          The Court: Can we consider those facts as we assess your showing of that
          evidence?

          Counsel: Yes. It’s only fair. I have new evidence, 2015 DOJ investigation into all
          these thousands of cases, and I did not oppose, it’s incredible that they found
          evidence from 1983, we moved courthouses, we found it and so it was tested and I
          think it would be fair game in any retrial and also for consideration by this Court.
          But mitochondrial DNA as the court found, the Superior Court found, cannot be
                                                   56
          Although, the new evidence weakens a key element of the State’s case — the

identification of Bass — there is substantial and sufficient other evidence supporting the

jury’s finding that Bass was the perpetrator, and Bass’s new evidence does not undermine,

in any way, the substantial other evidence the jury considered.171 We address this other

evidence below.

                       i.    Modus Operandi

          As the Superior Court noted, “[t]he jury was free to consider the similarities in these

cases”172 and “the independent culpability of [Bass] as to each assault or whether the series

of assaults were committed by one assailant.”173 The similarities in the cases are many.

More generally, each of the assaults took place in office buildings in the North Wilmington

          used as a means of identification, it would be evidence that would be presented by
          the State in retrial and it would be vigorously cross-examined as to the differences
          between mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA, where we routinely, when I do
          trials, see numbers like 1 in 7 trillion and things like that.

Oral Argument at 10:01–12:02; see also App. to Opening Br. at A1004–05 (Stipulation and
[Proposed] Order, dated Feb. 6, 2019) (stating that “Bass agrees to provide a DNA sample, which
will be forwarded to the FBI as part of the DNA testing,” and that “[e]xcept as otherwise ordered
by this Court, the results of the FBI’s analysis and testing under this stipulation shall be kept strictly
confidential”); id. at A1006–09 (Stipulation and Order, dated Sept. 23, 2020) (reporting on the
results of the mtDNA testing, stating that the evidence has been properly authenticated, that the
results are no longer confidential, and ordering supplemental briefing deadlines).
171
      As the Commissioner’s Report, 2021 WL 5984262, at *19, put it:
          In this case, with the exception of the overstatements of the MHC expert, all other
          aspects of the State’s case against Bass remain in place. The re-test results of the
          MHC evidence do not exonerate Bass in any respect. There have been no new
          discoveries of any factual evidence that calls into question the verdict. No physical
          evidence has surfaced that undermines the State’s case against Bass. The State’s
          case against Bass through direct and circumstantial evidence was substantial and
          remains in place.
172
      Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *10.
173
      Id. at *11.

                                                   57
and Claymont area, within a few miles of each other and close to where Bass was living at

the time. The victims were all young women who were working in the office buildings at

the time of the attacks. The specifics of each attack, testified to by each victim, demonstrate

a pattern of activity once the assailant entered the offices. The women explained that, upon

entering their office and afterward, the assailant physically assaulted them or forcefully

threatened them. Specifically, he shoved a screwdriver into the victim’s side (in the case

of S.K. and A.S.), put his hand over their mouth, or hit them. He ordered the victims not

to look at him and he obstructed their view of his face by covering their face, or his face,

with clothing. The assailant robbed each victim by demanding both money, cash and

checks, and their jewelry.

       Each victim testified that she was then kidnapped: the assailant forced the victim

to move into another, secluded room in the office building, where he either physically or

sexually assaulted her. In two cases, that of S.K. and A.S., the assailant tied the victim’s

hands and feet together with rope or wire found in the office, vaginally raped them, and

then left them in the same room, tied up. Each rape lasted for a period of less than two

minutes, during which the assailant had trouble maintaining an erection and did not

ejaculate. The Superior Court found that the evidence indicates that the third victim, S.M.,

was not raped (in addition to being kidnapped and physically assaulted) only because she

lost control of her bladder and relieved herself involuntarily.

       Finally, each of the three victims described their assailant’s physical appearance and

demeanor in the same way at trial. They stated he was a Black male, between 20- to 30-

years-old, thin, and approximately 5’8” to 6’0” in stature. At trial, Bass was 32-years-old,

                                              58
5’11” and 20 pounds heavier than his arrest weight of 152 pounds. Two of the victims

further described their attacker as having a calm, soft, or soothing voice. Moreover, each

victim, as well as Christine Shaw, identified the assailant as being well-dressed, in office

clothes or golf clothes. A.S. and Mr. Reynolds, a building manager in the office building

where S.M. was attacked, identified the assailant as wearing gray loafers.

                      ii.   Corroborating Crimes and Testimony

          Bass concedes that “it is certainly true that certain elements of the crimes established

a modus operandi,” but he claims that this “only established the same person very likely

committed all three attacks,” not that he committed the attacks.174 But the jury heard the

other evidence at trial, including Bass’s own testimony, supporting their ultimate

conclusion that Bass committed each of the attacks, and specifically tying Bass to two of

the victims. This evidence does not rely, in any respect, on MHC evidence, and it is

persuasive circumstantial evidence supporting the Superior Court’s ruling.

          First, the jury heard testimony from Bass’s long-time friend, Ms. Schoell. Ms.

Schoell’s testimony “established a nexus between [Bass] and the offices of at least two of

the victims.”175 She confirmed that Bass lived with her in Claymont at the time each attack

occurred, and that Bass and she engaged in a scheme wherein they would break into office

buildings to steal cash and checkbooks. When doing so, Bass would dress up like an office

worker to avoid detection. Ms. Schoell specifically testified that she and Bass had been to

174
      Opening Br. at 41.
175
      Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *10.

                                                 59
the office building where S.M. was later attacked. Ms. Schoell confirmed that she cashed

two of S.M.’s checks, which Bass had stolen from the office on that day — July 16, 1982,

the day of S.M.’s office party. She further testified that she cashed checks, which Bass had

given her, belonging to A.S.’s co-worker, days before the attack on A.S. occurred.

        Bass’s own testimony partially corroborated that of Ms. Schoell. Bass testified that

he supported himself by stealing checks and other valuables from office buildings in the

Wilmington area. The jury also heard that when Bass would commit these robberies, he

would dress up as an office worker to avoid detection. Bass further stated that Ms. Schoell

would drive him to the locations where he would commit the thefts. However, he denied

having been to any of the victim’s office buildings, or stated he could not recall whether

he had been, and he denied raping or assaulting anyone. Both Bass and Ms. Schoell

confirmed that the gray loafers identified by more than one witness at trial, belonged to

Bass.

                   iii.   Victim and Witness Identifications

        Finally, the State presented either witness or victim identification testimony as to

each of the assaults. S.K. positively identified Bass as her attacker in court. A.S. stated

that Bass resembled her attacker, but she could not be certain it was him. She had

previously picked him out in two prior photo lineups as the man most resembling her

attacker. Although the final victim, S.M., never saw her attacker’s face, two eyewitnesses

gave testimony at trial in favor of the State. One eyewitness, Ms. Shaw, positively

identified Bass as being in the office building on the day of S.M.’s assault and did so both

prior to trial and at trial. The second, Mr. Reynolds, selected Bass as the man he had seen

                                             60
in the office that same day from a photo lineup based on the “definite formation” of the

man’s forehead.

          Bass argues that “[e]very identification in the case was weak, contradictory, or

induced by police or [Delaware] DOJ personnel.”176 The Superior Court found that, in

each case, the record demonstrated that each identification had been challenged on cross-

examination, the jury was free to weigh the credibility of the identification, and the State

established Bass’s guilt.177

                            (A) S.K.

          S.K. failed to identify Bass as her attacker prior to trial but unequivocally identified

him at trial. Bass argues that this identification was tainted because the State told S.K. that

Bass, whom they believed was her attacker, would be seated at one of the tables in the

courtroom. However, Bass’s trial counsel cross-examined S.K. as to her identification of

Bass. S.K. testified that the prosecution had no influence on her and that she “didn’t know

if [she] was going to walk in and it was going to look exactly like him.”178 She explained,

during her testimony, that the photos did not “really show it all” and that once she saw Bass

in person, she was certain of his identity as her attacker. 179 The jury was free to make a

credibility determination as to S.K’s testimony.

176
      Opening Br. at 43.
177
      Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *12.
178
      Id. at *11 n.157; accord App. to Opening Br. at A171 (S.K. Trial Test. at 65:17–18).
179
   Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *3, *3 n.54; accord App. to Opening Br. at A174 (S.K.
Trial Test. at 68:9–10).

                                                 61
                               (B) A.S.

          A.S. never positively identified Bass, either in court or prior to court. She instead

chose Bass out of two photo lineups as most resembling her attacker and told the jury as

much at trial. Bass takes issue with A.S.’s prior identification of Bass in the second photo

lineup she viewed because Bass’s photo was the only one which remained from the first

photo lineup to the second, and the photograph of the one other person who A.S. stated

resembled her attacker had been removed from the lineup. Bass also argues that A.S.’s

testimony was weak evidence of identity because she failed to identify Bass’s gray loafers

as the shoes worn by her attacker.

          We confronted Bass’s first argument regarding A.S.’s flawed photo lineup on direct

appeal and found that the second photo lineup was not unduly suggestive.180 We noted that

any misstatements by the prosecution came after A.S. had viewed the second photo lineup,

and that the State withdrew the third photographic array evidence from the case. Moreover,

we found that A.S. had been subject to cross-examination and argument concerning the

weight to be accorded the evidence.181 Bass’s new evidence does not implicate A.S.’s

photo lineup identification and we find no reason to depart from this Court’s prior ruling.

          As for Bass’s shoes, A.S. testified that the color of the shoes was the same as those

of her attacker and that the color was unusual. She testified that the shoes were “very

180
      See supra Part II.B.2.
181
      App. to Opening Br. at A706 (Denial of Direct Appeal at ¶ 13).

                                                 62
similar except for the texture, as [she] remember[ed] it.”182 Even though A.S. failed to

match the shoes as those exactly of her attacker, her testimony is still probative of her

attacker’s identity as Bass: it corroborates that her attacker dressed like an office worker,

like Bass, and owned gray loafers, like Bass.

                             (C) S.M.

          Finally, Bass takes issue with the eyewitness identifications in S.M.’s attack. He

argues that Ms. Shaw’s in-court identification was flawed because, after she had identified

Bass in a photo lineup, a detective indicated to Ms. Shaw that she had chosen the suspect.

Bass’s argument does not change the fact that Ms. Shaw unequivocally, positively

identified Bass during the initial photo lineup, and gave a detailed description of him at

trial.

          Moreover, Bass argues that Mr. Reynolds’s photo lineup identification could not be

relied upon because Mr. Reynolds only had an obstructed view of the suspect through a

bathroom stall and because a detective testified that he believed Mr. Reynolds was under

the impression that the suspect’s photo would be in the photo lineup. But the jury was

aware of these facts. Mr. Reynolds acknowledged he had an obstructed view,183 and the

182
    Id. at A268 (A.S. Trial Test. at B16:18–19). She confirmed the color was “very unusual.” Id.
at A245 (A.S. Trial Test. at 139:14–15); Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *3 n.63 (“A.S.
testified the shoes were the same unusual gray color and slip-on, but the shoes at trial were a dull
leather and not the suede she remembered from her attack.”).
183
      The following testimony was taken:
          Q: When you went through and picked this out, did you state to the police officer
          that you definitely recognized the person or that it just – the person you picked, in
          your own estimation, had a similar type feature?
          A: I said that the forehead looked similar.

                                                   63
detective did not say why he had such an impression, denying that he told Mr. Reynolds

that Bass was the suspect or that there was a photo of him in the lineup.184 Bass also points

out that Mr. Reynolds failed to identify Bass’s shoes as those of the man in the bathroom

stall on the day of the attack. Still, Mr. Reynolds testified that they “looked like the same

shoes,” and at the very least, the testimony corroborates that the attacker wore gray dress

shoes, like Bass.185

       Bass’s trial counsel cross-examined the witnesses regarding their identifications.

And in each case, the jury was free to make credibility determinations as to the

identification evidence put forth by each witness. We agree with the Superior Court that

challenges to any flaws in the identification processes are insufficient to disturb the jury’s

verdicts. In sum, we agree with the Superior Court that Bass failed to show that the new

evidence, when considered in the context of all the relevant evidence by a properly

instructed jury, is such as will probably change the result if a new trial were granted.

       Q: Looked similar?
       A: Uh-huh.
       Q: But you couldn’t positively say that in fact was the person that you saw?
       A: I couldn’t see the person. No.
       Q: Because you didn’t see anything but a couple inches of the top of his head?
       A: Right.
App. to Opening Br. at A396 (Roger P. Reynolds Trial Test. at B142:7–16) (emphasis added).
  Id. at A452 (Kenneth J. Castelline Trial Test. at C38:14–16) (“Did you tell him that the suspect
184

was Alan Bass or that that particular photograph was one of Alan Bass? No, I did not.”).
185
   Super. Ct. Op., 2022 WL 2093956, at *4; App. to Opening Br. at A394 (Roger P. Reynolds
Trial Test. at B140:13).

                                               64
                                     V.     Conclusion

       The revelations about MHC testimony that have come to light since Bass’s trial

warrant a reviewing court’s serious attention and consideration. We have undertaken such

a review. In this particular case, we agree that Bass has not met his burden to establish that

the erroneous testimony offered by Podolak, and the new understanding regarding the

limits of MHC analysis for individual identification, as indisputably new evidence, create

a strong inference that Bass is actually innocent. The Superior Court did not abuse its

discretion when it denied Bass postconviction relief. Thus, this is not the “extraordinary

case” where the defendant has met his heavy burden to overcome the procedural bar of

Rule 61(d)(2). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Superior Court.

                                             65