Legal Med Case Digest Compilation

Maryland VS King

Facts:

King was arrested on 2009 and booked on an assault charge. As part of the
standard booking procedure under the Maryland law, a swab to the inner check
was taken to obtain skin cells for DNA testing. Kings DNA was run against the
database of unsolved crimes and was connected to an unsolved rape case in
2003.

Issue:

Whether or not the collection of the sample for DNA testing is legally allowed
under the Fourth amendment?

Ruling:

The court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision that DNA testing was permissible under the
Fourth Amendment. It further explains that, The Court referenced the
safeguards in the statute in support of its ruling. For example, the Maryland
statute provides the DNA sample is not to be processed or placed in a database
until there is an arraignment and a judicial officer ensures there was probable
cause for arrest. If no probable cause exists or the prosecution does not result in
a conviction, the sample is to be destroyed.

The law also contains protections limiting the uses of the DNA, prescribing it may
only be used for identification purposes and tests for familial matches are not
permitted. The court found that under the statute DNA was obtained in a
minimally intrusive manner, and the collection was justified by the government
interest in processing and identifying persons law enforcement officers have
taken into custody.

Fully identifying persons in custody, to include their criminal history, known and
unknown was important in making decisions regarding the safety risk such
persons pose while in custody, the level of security to which they should be
subject, and whether to grant bail. In other words, if persons arrested for burglary
can, in fact, be implicated in a rape by their DNA, they should be handled while in
custody with a level of security befitting their more serious crime, and bail
decisions regarding the safety of the community and likelihood of flight should
consider the more serious crime to which the individuals are linked.

The Court further reasoned that a persons DNA profile was another facet of their
identity, like their fingerprints, photographs, or tattoos. The collection of such
information incident to arrest to serve the government interest in identifying
arrestees long has been held reasonable, and DNA simply is a more effective
means of identification. The Maryland statute, with limitations on the collection
and use of DNA obtained from arrestees, is reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
VS
LEONARD CALLACE, DEFENDANT
County Court of New York, Suffolk County
June 27, 1991

FACTS: In July 1986, Leonard Callace was charged with the January 1985
sexual assault of an eighteen-year-old nursing home aide at knifepoint in the
parking lot of a shopping center. The victim had been accosted by two men and
forced into a nearby car. The second man was never identified. In a police lineup,
her victim picked Callace as her purported assailant.

Eighteen months earlier, she had described her assailant as 5 10 or taller, with
reddish-blond afro style hair, a full beard, and a cross tattoo on his left hand.
Callace is 5 8, had straight blond hair, a tightly trimmed goatee, and a tiny cross
on his right hand.

Prosecutors offered a deal to Callace: that he plead guilty and serve just four
more months. Callace refused. The jury convicted him of four counts of sodomy,
three counts of sexual abuse, wrongful imprisonment, and criminal possession of
a weapon.

On March 24, 1987, he was sentenced to twenty-five to fifty years in prison. At
trial, the prosecution presented a sketch by police artists resembling Callace, the
victims identification of Callace from a photo array and the victims in-court
identification of Callace. The prosecution also showed that the blood group (ABO
type) of the semen collected from the scene was the same as Callaces. Callace
presented an alibi, but it was uncorroborated. Callaces conviction was
confirmed on appeal. After learning about DNA testing, he asked his attorney
about the original trial evidence. The attorney remembered that the victim had
just picked up her jeans from the cleaners and that she had spit out semen onto
the jeans after one of the assaults. The jeans were secured from the prosecution
for DNA testing.

On June 27, 1991, a judge granted Callaces motion to consider DNA tests as
new evidence. He also ruled that if the samples did not match, he would hold a
hearing to consider post-conviction relief for Callace.

ISSUE: Whether or not Callace can avail of DNA testing post conviction and
admit it as new evidence?

RULING: YES. It is apparent that the application before the Court is a prelude to
the making of the motion to set aside a judgment on the basis of newly
discovered evidence. However there is no specific authority in the Criminal
Procedure Law for discovery in connection with a motion to set aside a judgment.
On the other hand there is authority for a Court of record to devise and make
new process and forms of proceedings necessary to carry into effect the power
and jurisdiction possessed by it.

Thus the Court finds that it has the requisite authority to order discovery on this
application. In any event, the prosecution is entitled to reasonable safeguards to
insure the integrity of the evidence as well as any test results. Here the
prosecution has requested to have a representative present when the blood
sample is taken, and that request is granted. The People may include in the
proposed order any other reasonable safeguards which they believe would be
necessary. Accordingly, the application for discovery and testing of the physical
evidence, and for an order authorizing the taking of a blood sample from the
defendant is granted. The expense of these procedures shall be borne by the
defendant.

Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism analysis on the victims jeans
showed that the DNA in the semen stains did not match the accused.

On October 5, 1992, Callace was released from prison. The prosecution
dismissed all charges and did not pursue a new trial because of the DNA
evidence with the personal reluctance of the victim.
United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit.
James HARVEY, Plaintiff-Appellee
VS
Robert F. HORAN, Jr., Commonwealth'sAttorney, County of Fairfax,
Defendant-Appellant.
January 23, 2002

FACTS:

On April 30, 1990, James Harvey was convicted of rape and forcible sodomy by
a jury in Fairfax County Circuit Court.He was sentenced to consecutive terms of
twenty-five years for the rape and fifteen years for the forcible sodomy.

Harvey did not appeal his conviction but did file a state petition for a writ of
habeas corpus which was rejected by the Virginia Supreme Court in 1993.
Conventional serology testing on the items recovered from the rape kit revealed
the presence of spermatozoa on the victim's mouth smear, vaginal smear, and
thigh smear, as well as in two swab samples and on the victim's pantyhose.

Harvey's co-defendant testified that Harvey instigated the attack and that Harvey
admitted he did not ejaculate while raping the victim. The victim heard one
perpetrator call the other Harrv. Another prosecution witness, Curtis Ivy, told the
police that Harvey confessed his involvement in the attack. Ivy testified that
Harvey owned the maroon shirt identified as belonging to one of the assailants
and that Harvey wore the shirt on the date of the attack Harvey also threatened
Ivy shortly before his trial, further suggesting Harvey's guilt.

ISSUES:

Whether the criminal justice system should utilize technological and scientific
improvements in the post-conviction DNA testing.

RULING:

Harvey relies on the fact that DNA testing may also conclusively prove his guilt in
arguing that his claim does not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.
However, this attempt to avoid Heck fails.

Harvey is seeking access to DNA evidence for one reason and one reason only-
as the first step in undermining his conviction. He believes that the DNA test
results will be favorable and will allow him to bring a subsequent motion to
invalidate his conviction. As such, an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 cannot lie.

Harvey would have this court fashion a substantive right to post-conviction DNA
testing out of whole cloth or the vague contours of the Due Process Clause.
We are asked to declare a general constitutional right for every inmate to
continually challenge a valid conviction based on whatever technological
advances may have occurred since his conviction became final.

In so holding, we acknowledge that finality is not a value that trumps all others.
In some circumstances newly discovered evidence may warrant a new trial. But
there is no newly discovered evidence in this case.Instead, Harvey seeks to
subject existing biological evidence to new DNA testing.

This evidence was already subjected to DNA testing using the best technology
available at the time Harvey's conviction became final. Establishing a
constitutional due process right under 1983 to retest evidence with each forward
step in forensic science would leave perfectly valid judgments in a perpetually
unsettled state which the court cannot do.


Kirk Noble Bloodsworth Case

FACTS:

On 25 July 1984 in Rosedale, Maryland, 9-year-old Dawn Hamilton was playing
with her cousin, Lisa. Dawn was spending the summer with her father, who had
to work that day, so Dawn was being looked after by her aunt. Dawn was looking
for Lisa behind the apartment where she was staying with her father. After
stopping to watch two boys fish at the lake behind the apartment, Dawn was
approached by a young man who told her that he would help her look for Lisa.
The two boys watched Dawn and the stranger enter the woods next to the lake.
When Dawn had not returned home three hours later, her friends and relatives
launched search. The police soon discovered her body in the woods where she
had last been seen alive. She had been abducted, strangled, sexually molested
and beaten to death with a rock.

The two boys who had last seen Dawn were taken to the police station where
they were questioned and helped produce a composite of the stranger who had
taken Dawn into the woods. Several people who were in the area of the lake that
morning provided descriptions of the stranger seen with Dawn and their
descriptions generally agreed that the culprit was more than six feet tall, thin and
had curly blond hair. The composite was publicized and, eventually, someone
came forward and suggested that the composite looked like a local man, Kirk
Bloodsworth. Bloodsworth was a former marine and discus champion with no
criminal record who had followed his fathers profession as a waterman on the
eastern shore of Maryland. At the time of Dawn's murder, Bloodsworth had just
moved back to the Chesapeake Bay area of Maryland from Baltimore and
resumed his work as a commercial fisherman.

Bloodsworth insisted on his innocence throughout his arrest and trial, asserting
that no physical evidence linked him to the killing. Baltimore County Judge J.
William Hinkel sentenced Bloodsworth to death. The Court of Appeal of Maryland
ordered the conviction of Kirk Bloodsworth for first degree murder, first degree
rape and first degree sexual offence to be reversed and for Bloodsworth to be
remanded for a new trial.

On 8 July 1988, the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland heard Bloodsworth's
appeal against his conviction arising out of his second trial for first degree murder
and first degree rape for which he was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.
July 11, 1988 the appeal court denied Bloodsworth's appeal and his convictions
were upheld. He continued to serve his consecutive life sentences.

ISSUES:

Whether or Not Kirk Noble Bloodsworth is justified in using DNA to protect his
innocence?

HELD:

With the support of the Innocence Project ,which is committed to helping those
who have been unjustly convicted, Morin persuaded officials to agree to the
testing of biological material preserved from the crime with the then-emerging
DNA technology known as PCR (Polymerase chain reaction). The stain had been
tested in the 1980s by the FBI without success and no biological evidence had
been presented at trial. Bloodsworth and Morin were initially informed that the
evidence had subsequently been destroyed. However, after persistent enquiries,
the evidence turned up in a paper bag in the judges chambers.

Morin then sent the evidence to Edward T. Blake of Forensic Science Associates
("FSA") in California. Tests were carried out on the victim's shorts and underwear,
a stick found at the scene and an autopsy slide. The results were compared
against the blood standards of the victim and Bloodsworth. A year later, in April
1993, FSA determined that the amount of spermatozoa on the slide was
insufficient for testing but tests on the victim's underwear (which contained a
semen stain smaller than the size of a dime) excluded Bloodsworth. Replicate
testing was the carried out by the FBI in order to confirm the results of the
independent FSA testing. The FBI's tests also showed that the DNA was not
Bloodsworth's and the state dismissed the charges.

Kirk Bloodsworth was the first death row inmate in American to be exonerated by
DNA evidence. He spent 2 years on Maryland's death row for a crime he did not
commit before being exonerated.

PACE
VS
The STATE.
December 3, 1999

FACTS:

On August 28, 1988, a roommate found the nude body of 86-year-old Lula Bell McAfee
lying face-down on her bed. She had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death
with a strip of cloth.

On September 10, 1988, Mattie Mae McLendon, 78 years old, was found lying dead on
her bed covered by a sheet. She had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death.
No ligature was found. On February 4, 1989, the police discovered the body of 79-year-
old Johnnie Mae Martin lying on her bed nude from the waist down. She had been
sexually assaulted and strangled to death with a shoelace.

On March 4, 1989, the brother-in-law of 42-year-old Annie Kate Britt found her body
lying on her bed. She had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death with a sock
that was still knotted around her neck. At 3:00 a.m. on September 24, 1992, 69-year-old
Sarah Grogan confronted an intruder in her kitchen. A crime scene technician lifted
fingerprints from Ms. Grogan's kitchen.

At 2:00 a.m. on September 30, 1992, Susie Sublett, an elderly woman who lived alone,
awoke to discover an intruder taking money from her purse in her bedroom. The police
determined that the intruder entered Ms. Sublett's house by climbing through a window.
A crime scene technician lifted fingerprints from Ms. Sublett's window screen. The
fingerprints from the Sublett and Grogan crime scenes matched Pace's fingerprints,
which were already on file with the police. Pace was arrested and agreed to give hair
and blood samples to the police. Pace's pubic hair was consistent with a pubic hair
found on the sweat pants Annie Kate Britt wore on the night she was murdered, and with
a pubic hair found on a sheet near Johnnie Mae Martin's body. A DNA expert also
determined that Pace's DNA profile matched the DNA profile taken from the sperm in the
McAfee, Martin, McLendon, and Britt murders. Pace claims that he did not voluntarily
consent to the drawing of his blood and the collection of his hair for use in the
investigation of the four murders for which he was convicted. He argues that the police
exceeded the bounds of his consent by using his blood and hair in investigations of
murders other than the Hudson murder, and that the police obtained his consent through
deceit because he believed that his hair and blood would be used only in the Hudson
investigation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Pace is compelled to submit his DNA sample to serve as standard DNA
in a criminal or paternity case?

HELD:

Pace's situation is distinguishable from an implied consent case.
The consent form signed by Pace states that his blood and hair will be used against him
in a court of law and that he was a suspect in the Hudson murder. However, unlike an
implied consent warning, the form does not limit the use of the blood or hair to only the
Hudson murder investigation or to any particular purpose, and there is no evidence that
Pace placed any limits on the scope of his consent. The police were not required to
explain to Pace that his blood or hair could be used in prosecutions involving other
victims, or that he had a right to refuse consent. Further, like a fingerprint, DNA remains
the same no matter how many times blood is drawn and tested and a DNA profile can be
used to inculpate or exculpate suspects in other investigations without additional
invasive procedures. It would not be reasonable to require law enforcement personnel
to obtain additional consent or another search warrant every time a validly-obtained DNA
profile is used for comparison in another investigation.

Additional evidence at the suppression hearing shows that when Pace gave his
consent he was 28 years old, was advised of and waived his rights, was not
coerced or threatened, was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and was
not handcuffed. he evidence does not support Pace's claim that there was deceit
involved in obtaining his consent.