PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "In 2010, a
national forensic science body recommended changing how such samples are
analyzed to a more conservative interpretation that would classify some
evidence — like Dominguez’s — as inconclusive. The San Diego crime lab
made that change just before Dominguez went on trial in 2011, but the
testimony at the trial was based on the older, abandoned method. The
defense lawyer for Dominguez, Matthew Speredelozzi, was not told of the
change in testing protocols or that the testimony was based on a
discredited method. He only learned years later while working on an
unrelated appeal. In 2017, he argued in Superior Court that he should
have known about the change and Dominguez did not get a fair trial.
Rogers agreed and wiped out the conviction, but prosecutors moved to put Dominguez on trial a third time. That
touched off a second battle over the latest DNA analysis technique now
used by the lab. Known as probabilistic genotyping, it uses software to
examine complex DNA evidence samples and come up with what its
proponents say are more reliable results than previous techniques. San
Diego uses a product called STRmix that was developed by Environmental
Science and Research, a joint venture between the governments of New
Zealand and the state of South Australia. When Speredelozzi sought to have an expert examine the source code to
determine how the program is working, he was rebuffed."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "On Nov. 7 a lawyer for the company
wrote to Speredelozzi they would not provide the crucial source code
for the software without the non-disclosure agreement. The
standoff seemed to propel both sides to a plea deal. “In light of all
the evidentiary issues and previous ruling we concluded at this point
this was the best route to go,” Deputy District Attorney Brian Erickson
said outside court. The case highlighted how the increasing use of
new forensic tools, which rely on complex computer programs developed
largely by private companies, can be questioned in court proceedings,
Speredelozzi said. Without a definitive ruling from a higher court, that
issue remains largely unresolved, he said."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Murder case that highlighted DNA-analysis controversy ends with plea to reduced charge, release," by reporter Greg Moran, published by The San Diego Union-Tribune on December 6, 2019. (Greg Moran is a reporter covering
criminal justice and legal affairs issues on the Public Safety team. He
has worked for the Union-Tribune since 1991.)
SUB-HEADING: "The case highlighted the clash
between powerful new forensic tools developed by private companies for
police and prosecutors and rights of defendants to examine how the tools
work."
GIST: "A man who
was once sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for a 2008 murder in a
San Diego park walked out of custody Friday after pleading guilty to a
reduced charge, ending a long-running case that challenged the use of a
powerful new DNA testing technology. In an agreement with the San
Diego County District Attorney’s Office, Florencio Jose Dominguez, 41,
pleaded guilty to a single charge of manslaughter in the 2008 death of
15-year-old Moises Lopez. The agreement calls for Dominguez to get an
11-year sentence, but he has been in prison for a longer time than that,
when credits for the time he has already served are factored in. As a result, Superior Court Judge Charles G. Rogers ordered Dominguez to be released immediately Friday. Dominguez
had been serving a sentence of 50 years to life in prison for Lopez’s
death. He had been tried twice with a jury deadlocking the first time in
favor of acquittal, and a second jury convicting him in the spring of
2011. Crucial evidence for the conviction was DNA on pair of bloody
gloves found at the scene that linked Dominguez to the killing. But the
DNA was a mixture sample — one that contained DNA from more than one
person. Mixture DNA samples have long been controversial in DNA circles,
because it is difficult to clearly identify one person as a contributor
especially when there are low-levels of genetic material. In 2010, a
national forensic science body recommended changing how such samples are
analyzed to a more conservative interpretation that would classify some
evidence — like Dominguez’s — as inconclusive. The San Diego crime lab
made that change just before Dominguez went on trial in 2011, but the
testimony at the trial was based on the older, abandoned method. The
defense lawyer for Dominguez, Matthew Speredelozzi, was not told of the
change in testing protocols or that the testimony was based on a
discredited method. He only learned years later while working on an
unrelated appeal. In 2017, he argued in Superior Court that he should
have known about the change and Dominguez did not get a fair trial.
Rogers agreed and wiped out the conviction, but prosecutors moved to put Dominguez on trial a third time. That
touched off a second battle over the latest DNA analysis technique now
used by the lab. Known as probabilistic genotyping, it uses software to
examine complex DNA evidence samples and come up with what its
proponents say are more reliable results than previous techniques. San
Diego uses a product called STRmix that was developed by Environmental
Science and Research, a joint venture between the governments of New
Zealand and the state of South Australia. When Speredelozzi sought to have an expert examine the source code to
determine how the program is working, he was rebuffed. The company said
he would have to sign a restrictive nondisclosure agreement first,
claiming the code was a privileged trade secret it could protect.
Arguing such a condition violated his client’s constitutional rights,
Speredelozzi filed a motion to get the District Attorney’s Office to
turn over the code as part of the pre-trial discovery. Rogers
ruled the source code should be provided, but an appeals court disagreed
and said that the company was not part of the prosecution team and
entitled to protect its product. But court records filed last
month show that the company wanted Speredelozzi and his experts to sign a
restrictive non-disclosure agreement and abide by other restrictions.
on Oct. 23 Rogers declined to require the lawyer sign the agreement, and
warned that if the company failed to comply, he might exclude the DNA
evidence all together from the trial. On Nov. 7 a lawyer for the company
wrote to Speredelozzi they would not provide the crucial source code
for the software without the non-disclosure agreement. The
standoff seemed to propel both sides to a plea deal. “In light of all
the evidentiary issues and previous ruling we concluded at this point
this was the best route to go,” Deputy District Attorney Brian Erickson
said outside court. The case highlighted how the increasing use of
new forensic tools, which rely on complex computer programs developed
largely by private companies, can be questioned in court proceedings,
Speredelozzi said. Without a definitive ruling from a higher court, that
issue remains largely unresolved, he said."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2019-12-06/murder-case-that-highlighted-dna-analysis-controversy-ends-with-plea-to-reduced-charge-release
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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 found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
