''The criminal justice system,'' Alden said near the conclusion of his argument, ''is designed to assess innocence and guilt, and to do it accurately.
''If science hands us a new tool that can give us a perfect view, or at least a much better view of what might have happened, why in the world wouldn't we use it?'' he asked Hunter."
REPORTER ED MEYER: THE BEACON JOURNAL;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: In one of Akron's most notorious murders, Prade's former wife, Dr. Margo Prade, 41, was found by her medical assistant slumped behind the wheel of her van in her office parking lot on Wooster Avenue on the morning before Thanksgiving in 1997. Autopsy findings revealed she was shot six times. After a lengthy trial, Douglas Prade was convicted in September 1998 of all charges in his indictment: aggravated murder, six counts of wiretapping and one count of possession of criminal tools. Common Pleas Judge Mary Spicer, now retired, sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 26 years. Prade, now 64, is serving his sentence at Marion Correctional Institution. The issue addressed by the high court involved a bite mark the killer apparently made on Dr. Prade's left arm — through her lab coat and blouse — as she was attempting to defend herself inside the van moments before the shooting. Although DNA tests were performed on that evidence in preparation for the 1998 trial, only Dr. Prade's DNA profile was found. Profuse bleeding on the doctor's lab coat had overwhelmed any traces of DNA that might have been embedded in the bite mark by the perpetrator. In December, Douglas Prade's attorney, David B. Alden, argued before the high court that DNA technology now can detect a small amount of male DNA, even if it is mixed in with vast amounts of female DNA. If another person's DNA is found inside the bite mark, Alden said, a reasonable conclusion would be that Douglas Prade was not the killer. (Akron Beacon Journal) COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered a judge to decide whether new DNA testing could alter the case of a former Akron police captain convicted of killing his ex-wife. The Supreme Court sent the case back to a trial court to determine the effect of scientific advances in DNA testing since his conviction in the 1997 slaying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Defense lawyers for former Akron police Capt. Douglas Prade asked a Summit County judge Wednesday for new DNA testing of four specific samples of forensic evidence from the 1997 murder of his ex-wife, Dr. Margo Prade," the Beacon Journal story by reporter Ed Meyer published earlier today under the heading, "Judge hears arguments over retesting DNA: Defense prosecution battle over evidence in Prade murder case," begins.
"Acting on a May 4 order by the Ohio Supreme Court, Common Pleas Judge Judy Hunter heard two hours of arguments by the defense and prosecution about whether the new tests — using DNA technology not in existence at the time of Prade's 1998 conviction — should be granted," the story continues.
"Hunter took the matter under advisement and did not announce a timetable for her decision.
Expanding on his arguments to the high court in December, Prade's lawyer, David B. Alden of the Cleveland firm Jones Day, told Hunter the new tests should be done on the following evidence from the murder scene:
• Dr. Prade's lab coat and cutouts from a section of the coat where the killer apparently left a bite mark on the left inner arm.
• Fingernail clippings taken
during the autopsy.
• Police swabs and links from a bracelet that came off during the slaying.
• Buttons, from Dr. Prade's lab coat, which were found outside her vehicle.
''I submit that if you find the same person [leaving DNA] in the fingernail clippings and in the bite mark,'' Alden said in his 25-minute opening statement, ''that certainly would create reasonable doubt [that Douglas Prade was the murderer].''
Alden said findings from such tests also could be used to search for a match of known suspects in the FBI's nationwide database, the Combined DNA Index System, also known as CODIS.
Any reading of the record used by the Ohio Supreme Court to send the issue back to the Summit County justice system, Alden said, makes it ''an easy call.''
Douglas Prade, once thought to be in line to become Akron's chief of police, was convicted of his ex-wife's murder in a 1998 jury trial.
Margo Prade's autopsy revealed she was shot six times behind the wheel of her van in her office parking lot on Wooster Avenue on the morning before Thanksgiving in 1997.
Now 64, Prade was sentenced to prison for 20 years to life for aggravated murder, multiple counts of wiretapping and possession of criminal tools.
He is behind bars at Madison Correctional Institution and waived his right to attend Wednesday's hearing.
In an interview with the Beacon Journal last year, before the Ohio Supreme Court ruling, Prade maintained his innocence. He said he knows his DNA will not be found in the bite mark, or in any other evidence, because he was not the killer.
At the time of the trial, only Dr. Prade's DNA profile was identified in the bite-mark evidence. Bleeding on her lab coat had overwhelmed any traces of DNA the perpetrator might have left in the mark, Alden said in his Dec. 16 arguments to the high court.
The basis for the Ohio Supreme Court decision was that advances in DNA technology are capable of identifying potentially exonerating clues, even in the smallest form, that previous tests in the case could not.
''The criminal justice system,'' Alden said near the conclusion of his argument, ''is designed to assess innocence and guilt, and to do it accurately.
''If science hands us a new tool that can give us a perfect view, or at least a much better view of what might have happened, why in the world wouldn't we use it?'' he asked Hunter.
Assistant Prosecutor Brad Gessner, head of the county agency's criminal division, argued against new tests.
He spoke for nearly 45 minutes, spending much of his time saying that testing was done on the bite-mark evidence for Prade's trial — and that no traces of saliva were found in that bite mark.
At the trial, Gessner said, Prade's own defense expert said ''there would be slobbering all over the area of that bite mark, and that slobbering is where the DNA would come from [to] show who the killer is.''
But when the scientists looked at the entire cutout sections of the lab coat, ''no [saliva] activity was detected,'' Gessner said.
''The advancements of DNAtesting,'' he continued, ''has notallowed substances that did not previously exist to exist now. If there was no saliva in 1998, there is no saliva in 2010.''
Hunter stopped Gessner after he made that point, asking the prosecutor: ''Are you saying that because there is no saliva, there is no DNA there to test?''
Hunter said she had read four briefs on the issue — two from each side — in addition to much of the voluminous transcript from Prade's trial.
She then pointed out that even if the bite mark evidence does not contain DNA markers from saliva, ''does that mean there is no DNA [there]?''
The prosecution arguments also were attended by Mary Ann Kovach, the county prosecutor's chief legal counsel, and assistant prosecutor Richard S. Kasay, the agency's chief appellate attorney.
Alden was assisted by attorneys Mark Godsey and Carrie Wood of the Ohio Innocence Project and Lisa Gates of Jones Day.
The story can be found at:
http://www.ohio.com/news/102043973.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
