ÿWPCÄ'
§i Éx}Ú¾AïÚK>fr*ÝÚÎEŽ0Ï/ƈl_ÐãŽ|ˆ{|wСËAÁY6sV³dk;ïeuîƒòì×j€§q)>_ûTšÐLš\EÔÿÞA|F„H‚]°1ý¢ÝÑåâ ÇÀ/챯Λ©sòG™µA¬ìë,<
´ÖG¶m#bÊ÷¿ähÏEUn9YÃ×vƾ..ÐÕi_òX Êfi®Túé‰äÆþúóò£úpÂ"`Hp›’Y~îX(^Uo òhnOŒê›ƒwnZº6¾ÒðYõÆ$%K´çñ‰‡‘ÛbÕq9;Á–¥¥R{“ÏÈkš¨Rlmùmv‰Øéjˆ)˜&$ ´þÊþìê,ÿ»‰GôÙ\áŠ.¥
Ž£ìó”v+žþ gÖë„…ËúÊG,
wF1ÔÇ:†’`J‹Îî8xÈDNŸPÓéÒ·ù¨¬JøsfÐ^Ãz5‹‚7È–Æî••ý1Xíè[áë¸W`r¼ªù€+w6… eÁüþ]\òG‹A‡‰ ˇ]>s‡±dz¿~ê¦|]ïç‘·Jo$…Û'3B*Úm¶yȯ|¼?Z¬—x.ˆÍÃ6z \ # É UD N Ñ %
0 : %
N _
- a
^ Ž
w š
4 ž
²
Á
m Ã
à Z Ú
î 4 0
~ "
0
D
Þ ä
ò  ´ M Ê w Ž € Ž B # W P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% P% B §' ˜K O N I C A M I N O L T A 6 5 4 È È È È È È È È 0 ( ÖÃ9 Z ‹6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X ( üœ$ ¡ ¡ Ô USUS. , Ô
# Ñ# € ˆ Xÿÿ d # Ñr•FQ ¶y‚F ê:i¢Ø +003| x % ÿU‹ÿ ÿÿÿ8 D o c u m e n t M a n a g e m e n t : : M o d i f i e d B o o l e a n T R U E
ä Ý
ƒ Ä($ ÝÔ USUS. , Ôà àòòÚ Ú9Ú
ÚóóÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÔ ‡ ŠÃ§ ˆ X X ÔÐ ° ÐAs€a€fan€of€true€crime€documentaries,€I€would€be€remiss€in€failing€to€point€out€twoÐ >Ž Ðexcellent€documentaries€on€these€cases:€the€Ken€Burnsðð€documentary€òòThe€Central€ParkÐ >Ž ÐFive€óóon€the€former€case€and€the€òòParadise€Lostóó€trilogy€on€the€latter€case.Ô# † Xüà X ˆ ŠÃ§e # Ô ( . ( 3Ä($ ¤ ¤ Ý
ƒ üœ! ÝÔ USUS. , ÔÝ Ýà àòòÚ Ú0Ú
Úóó ( #Ã$ òòÚ Ú0Ú
Úóó
Ô Ý
ƒ Ä($ ÝÔ USUS. , Ôà àòòÚ Ú1Ú
ÚóóÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÔ ‡ ŠÃ§ ˆ X X ÔÐ ° ÐÓ ÓA€non„inevitable€discovery€case€that,€nonetheless,€deals€with€a€variety€of€justifications€forÐ
>Ž U Ðupholding€the€retention€of€a€defendantððs€DNA€sample€can€be€found€at€òòPeople€v.€GonzalezóóÐ ° Ð(2013)€2013€WL€1849140.€€The€case€is€unpublished,€which€is€probably€a€good€thingÐ ° ÐÔ_ ÔsincemostÔ_ Ô€of€its€analysis€is€flawed.€€Still,€it€provides€a€nice€overview€of€the€range€of€FourthÐ ° ÐAmendment€issues€that€can€come€into€play.Ô# † Xüà X ˆ ŠÃ§e # Ô
è Ý
ƒ Ä($ ÝÔ USUS. , Ôà àòòÚ Ú7Ú
ÚóóÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÐ ° ÐÓ ÓÔ ‡ ŠÃ§ ˆ X X ÔThe€òòFreeman€óócase€is€not€the€only€example€of€a€stateððs€high€court€finding€reason€to€disagreeÐ >Ž Ðwith€a€lower€appellate€courtððs€ruling€to€reverse€a€serious€conviction€in€such€circumstances.€Ð >Ž ÐIn€òòGriggs€v.€Stateóó€(Tex.€App.€2005)€2005€Tex.€App.€LEXIS€2848,€the€lower€appellate€courtÐ >Ž Ðreversed€the€denial€of€a€motion€for€mistrial€based€upon€the€prosecutorððs€elicitation€ofÐ >Ž Ðextraneous€allegations€by€witnesses€regarding€the€defendant;€even€with€the€defendantððs€DNAÐ > Ž Ðfound€on€a€glove€allegedly€worn€by€the€assailant€as€well€as€the€defendantððs€supposedÐ >
Ž Ðjailhouse€confession,€the€court€ruled€that€the€admission€of€the€extraneous€allegations€was€stillÐ >Ž Ðprejudicial.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€of€Texas€reversed€the€ruling,€finding€that€trialÐ >Ž Ðcounsel€had€not€met€the€procedural€requirements€for€bringing€the€motion.€€(òòGriggs€v.€StateóóÐ >
Ž Ð(2007)€213€S.W.3d€923.)Ô# † Xüà X ˆ ŠÃ§† # Ô
Ñ ° Ñ
C Ý
ƒ Ä($ ÝÔ USUS. , Ôà àòòÚ Ú2Ú
ÚóóÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÔ € ŠÃ§ ˆ X X ÔÐ ° ÐÓ ÓMuch€of€the€discussion€of€the€case€law€on€this€issue€is€taken€from€briefing€provided€byÐ >Ž ÐKathryn€Ô_ ÔSeligmanÔ_ Ô€in€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ ÔBuzaÔ_ Ô€óó(Dec.€3,€2014)€A125542,€rev.€granted€Feb.€18,€2015Ð >Ž Ð(S223698).€€That€case€is€presently€on€review€in€the€California€Supreme€Court€and€will€beÐ >Ž Ðdiscussed€more€below.
m Ý
ƒ Ä($ ÝÔ USUS. , Ôà àòòÚ Ú3Ú
ÚóóÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÔ € ŠÃ§ ˆ X X ÔÐ ° ÐÓ ÓAs€noted€in€the€òòÔ_ ÔBuzaÔ_ Ô€óóbriefing,€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€address€a€potential€second€searchÐ >Ž Ðthat€the€lower€òòÔ_ ÔBuzaÔ_ Ô€óócourt€identified€as€the€ð ðtrue€focusðð€of€its€analysis€and€that€has€beenÐ >Ž Ðrecognized€by€federal€circuit€courts€as€implicating€significant€privacy€interests€ð!ð€that€is,€whenÐ >Ž Ðthe€DNA€sample€is€actually€analyzed€and€not€merely€collected.€€(See,€e.g.,€òòUnited€States€v.Ð >Ž ÐMitchell€óó(3òòrdóó€Cir.€2011)€652€F.3d€387,€406„407;€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ ÔAmersonÔ_ Ô€óó(2d€Cir.€2007)€483Ð > Ž ÐF.3d€73,€85.)
ö Ý
ƒ Ä($ ÝÔ USUS. , Ôà àòòÚ Ú8Ú
ÚóóÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÐ ° ÐÓ ÓÔ ‡ ŠÃ§ ˆ X X ÔIn€a€recent€case€that€I€handled,€I€raised€three€errors€that€all€went€to€the€trial€court's€exclusionÐ >Ž Ðof€evidence€that€could€have€bolstered€the€defense's€theory€that€the€DNA€evidence€could€haveÐ >Ž Ðbeen€inappropriately€transferred€through€faulty€evidence€collection.€€In€that€instance,€myÐ >Ž Ðclaim€of€prejudice€focused€predominantly€on€emphasizing€the€ways€that€the€transfer€couldÐ >Ž Ðhave€occurred,€and,€to€a€lesser€extent,€on€the€"òòÔ_ ÔAbdelmalikÔ_ Ô€óófactors."Ô# † Xüà X ˆ ŠÃ§† # Ô
v Ý
ƒ Ä($ ÝÔ USUS. , Ôà àòòÚ Ú4Ú
ÚóóÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÐ ° ÐÓ ÓÔ ‡ ŠÃ§ ˆ X X ÔIn€a€separate€case,€òòPeople€v.€Loweóó€(S215727,€rev.€granted€March€19,€2014),€the€CaliforniaÐ >Ž ÐSupreme€Court€is€only€considering€a€Fourth€Amendment€challenge€to€Californiaððs€DNA€Act.€Ð >Ž ÐFurther,€in€òòPeople€v.€Robinsonóó€(2010)€47€Cal.4th€1104,€the€Court€previously€found€thatÐ >Ž Ðexclusion€of€a€blood€sample€was€not€required€when€the€testing€procedure€violated€CaliforniaÐ >Ž Ðstate€law,€but€did€not€violate€federal€law.€€(òòIdóó.€at€pp.€1119„1129.)€€The€òòRobinson€óócourt,Ð > Ž Ðhowever,€most€notably€addressed€an€issue€somewhat€outside€the€scope€of€this€article:€whetherÐ >
Ž Ðan€arrest€warrant€that€identified€the€person€to€be€arrested€by€his€unique€DNA€only€metÐ >Ž Ðconstitutional€and€statutory€requirements€so€as€to€extend€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€Ð >Ž Ð(òòIdóó.€at€pp.€1130„1143.)Ô# † Xüà X ˆ ŠÃ§† # Ô
8 Ý
ƒ Ä($ ÝÔ USUS. , Ôà àòòÚ Ú5Ú
ÚóóÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÐ ° ÐÓ ÓÔ ‡ ŠÃ§ ˆ X X ÔIn€reviewing€the€thorough€briefing€in€òòFordóó,€however,€which€was€provided€by€appellantððsÐ >Ž Ðattorney€Ô_ ÔDanalynnÔ_ Ô€Ô_ ÔPritzÔ_ Ô,€the€courtððs€analysis€is€woefully€inadequate€on€this€point€as€thereÐ >Ž Ðwere€numerous€potential€holes€that€were€not€never€mentioned€by€the€court.Ô# † Xüà X ˆ ŠÃ§† # Ô
M Ý
ƒ Ä($ ÝÔ USUS. , Ôà àòòÚ Ú6Ú
ÚóóÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÔ ‡ ŠÃ§ ˆ X X ÔÐ ° ÐÓ ÓFor€a€more€detailed€description€of€confrontation€clause€cases,€please€also€see€Ô_ ÔSacherÔ_ Ô€et.€al.,Ð >Ž ÐòòCommon€Evidentiary€Issues€óóat€pp.€1„9,€an€article€from€the€2013€Ô_ ÔFDAPÔ_ Ô/Ô_ ÔSDAPÔ_ Ô€AppellateÐ >Ž ÐWorkshop€that€is€available€from€Ô_ ÔSDAPÔ_ Ô.Ô# † Xüà X ˆ ŠÃ§e # Ô d Ý
ƒ üœ! ÝÔ USUS. , ÔÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÔ ‡ °/` ° X X ÔòòòòÓ ÓÑ € zò ÑÑ8 € üà X X dì dÈ 8 ÑÑ € OY ÑChallenging€DNA€Evidence€on€AppealÐ ° ÐÔ# † Xüà X ° °/`= # ÔÔ ‡ ŠÃ§ ˆ X Xüà ÔBy€Patrick€McKenna€(Staff€Attorney,€Sixth€District€Appellate€Program)Ô# † Xüà X ˆ ŠÃ§" # ÔóóóóÐ €Ð ÐÓ b ÓÌòòÔ ‡ ŠÃ§ ˆ X Xüà ÔÓ ÓÓ ÓA.à àIntroduction.óóÐ f¶ Ðà àIn€November€2012,€Silicon€Valley€millionaire€Ravi€Kumra€was€found€dead€in€hisÐ b
² Ðgated€Monte€Sereno€estate.€€He€had€been€bound€and€gagged€by€a€group€of€thieves€who€hadÐ b² Ðbeen€aided€by€the€prostitutes€whom€Kumra€had€hired.Ð b² Ðà àA€group€of€individuals€were€eventually€charged€with€conspiring€to€commit€the€brutalÐ b² Ðattack.€€Most€of€these€individuals€were€affiliated€with€Oakland's€most€notorious€homeÐ b²
Ðinvasion€gangs.Ð b² Ðà àOne€of€the€alleged€members€of€this€group,€Lukis€Anderson,€stood€out€from€the€others.€Ð b² ÐAs€was€true€with€the€other€individuals€ultimately€charged€with€the€killing,€police€foundÐ b² ÐAnderson's€DNA€at€the€crime€scene.€€In€particular,€his€DNA€was€located€under€one€ofÐ b² ÐKumra's€fingernails.€€Ð b² Ðà àAs€far€as€police€could€tell,€however,€Anderson€was€not€a€gang€member,€and€he€did€notÐ b² Ðappear€to€know€any€of€the€other€individuals€involved€in€the€crime.€€Police€found€only€oneÐ b ² Ðconceivable€link€between€Anderson€and€the€others:€he€had€previously€spent€time€in€the€sameÐ b"² Ðjail€dorm€with€a€member€of€one€of€the€gangs€tied€to€the€Kumra€killing.€€That€particularÐ b$² Ðindividual,€however,€was€not€involved€in€the€attack.€Ð b&²!! Ðà àNothing€in€Anderson's€background€made€it€apparent€that€he€had€the€disposition€to€beÐ b(²## Ðinvolved€in€such€a€brutal€murder.€€His€criminal€record€effectively€portrayed€him€to€be€littleÐ b*²%% Ðmore€than€a€homeless€alcoholic€who,€beyond€one€prior€conviction€for€residential€burglary,Ð ° Ðhad€a€rapsheet€littered€with€minor€nonviolent€offenses.Ð ° Ðà àDespite€how€illogical€it€seemed€for€Anderson€to€conspire€with€the€other€defendants,Ð ° Ðhe€was€nonetheless€charged€with€murder.€€There€was€one€problem,€however.€€On€the€nightÐ °
Ðof€the€attack,€Anderson€had€been€hit€by€a€truck,€suffering€a€brain€injury€that€led€to€hisÐ ° Ðhospitalization€at€Santa€Clara€Valley€Medical€Center.€€Medical€records€indicated€that€at€theÐ °
Ðtime€the€murder€was€believed€to€have€taken€place,€Anderson€was,€in€fact,€at€the€hospital.€Ð ° ÐHow€then€did€Anderson's€DNA€end€up€on€Kumra's€body?Ð ° Ðà àDue€to€some€good€investigation€done€by€Anderson's€attorney,€it€came€to€light€that€theÐ ° Ðparamedics€who€had€driven€Anderson€to€the€hospital€had€later€responded€to€Kumra's€MonteÐ ° ÐSereno€estate.€€Unfortunately,€Anderson's€DNA€came€with€them,€presumably€as€the€result€ofÐ ° Ðflawed€adherence€to€evidence€collection€protocol.€€The€charges€against€Anderson€wereÐ ° Ðeventually€dismissed.Ð ° Ðà àWhile€the€litigation€at€issue€in€the€Anderson€case€was€done€at€the€trial€court€level,€itÐ ° Ðunderscores€an€important€point.€€DNA€evidence€is€not€as€infallible€as€òòCSI€óóor€prosecutorsÐ ° Ðmake€it€out€to€be.€€Problems€can€occur€with€both€the€collection€and€testing€of€the€evidence.€Ð °" ÐAdditionally€ð!ð€and,€perhaps,€most€importantly€for€appellate€advocates€ð!ð€the€admission€ofÐ °$ ÐDNA€evidence,€or€the€expert€testimony€regarding€it,€may€suffer€from€legal€errors€that€can€beÐ °& |