PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "A team of lawyers from the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent, who have worked on Dorotik’s case for years, argued in a detailed court filing that DNA testing using new techniques shows that her DNA was not on crucial evidence in the case: her husband’s clothing, DNA from a rope he was strangled with and scrapings from beneath his fingernails. That DNA technique used to reach that conclusion was not available in 2001, Walker noted. “Ultimately, this office intends to pursue DNA testing and retesting of the available evidence in this case using modern and advanced DNA technology available to us today,” the statement said. “Whatever the outcome of this additional testing may be, this office will commit resources to this matter in an effort to do all we can to seek the truth and pursue justice.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The evidence against her at trial included blood found in the master bedroom and a syringe that prosecutors argued had Jane Dorotik’s fingerprint on it along with smudge of her husband’s blood. But Project for the Innocent lawyers toiled on her case and in 2015 won a court ruling allowing DNA testing on the rope and fingernail scrapings, neither of which had been tested before. The new tests excluded Dorotik as a possible contributor. The lawyers also argued she was a victim of bad forensic evidence analysis and a botched police investigation that overlooked a possible suspect and hid other evidence. Last October, in a ruling ordering a new hearing on Dorotik’s claims of wrongful conviction, Elias wrote the lawyers had assembled “voluminous evidence to establish that much of the forensic, DNA and blood evidence presented against her at trial was false and that arguments to the jury included extensive false statements regarding the forensic evidence.”
---------------------------------------------------------
SUB-HEADING: "Dorotik was convicted in 2001 of murdering her husband. Lawyers with the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent have contended her conviction was flawed and new DNA evidence shows she is innocent."
GIST: "A San Diego Superior Court judge wiped out the two-decade old murder conviction of former Valley Center executive Jane Dorotik Friday, after San Diego prosecutors conceded new DNA evidence cast enough doubt on a conviction, one they had zealously guarded, to warrant a new trial.
The decision by Superior Court Judge Harry Elias is not a clear exoneration of Dorotik, who has insisted she was innocent of killing her husband Robert in February 2000. She could still face another trial, a possibility that will be discussed at a hearing now set for Oct. 23.
Steve Walker, the director of communications for the San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan, said in a statement that prosecutors want to conduct DNA testing, and retesting, on evidence in the case. The outcome of those tests will likely weigh into a final decision on a new trial.
A team of lawyers from the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent, who have worked on Dorotik’s case for years, argued in a detailed court filing that DNA testing using new techniques shows that her DNA was not on crucial evidence in the case: her husband’s clothing, DNA from a rope he was strangled with and scrapings from beneath his fingernails.
That DNA technique used to reach that conclusion was not available in 2001, Walker noted. “Ultimately, this office intends to pursue DNA testing and retesting of the available evidence in this case using modern and advanced DNA technology available to us today,” the statement said. “Whatever the outcome of this additional testing may be, this office will commit resources to this matter in an effort to do all we can to seek the truth and pursue justice.”
Paula Mitchell, the legal director for the law school’s innocence project, said they were “ecstatic” at the ruling, and that it was a surprise that the DA’s office decided to drop opposition to Dorotik’s bid for a new trial. A hearing on that issue was scheduled for next week, but Mitchell said prosecutors gave no indication in advance of the hearing Friday that they were going to concede.
“It is pretty telling,” said Mitchell, who has derided the poor forensic and police work that led to her client’s incarceration. “They did not want the evidence we were going to present next week to be out in the public.”
In comments released through the Project for the Innocent, Dorotik said she was grateful for the ruling and insisted as she has for two decades she had nothing to do with her husband’s death.
“Frankly, I’m a little overwhelmed at the moment,” she said. " I have maintained from day one that I had nothing to do with my husband’s murder. Spending almost two decades in prison falsely convicted of killing the man I loved has been incredibly painful.”
Dorotik, 73, has been out of state prison since April when her lawyers successfully said she should be released from the California Institution for Women in Chino because she was at great risk of contracting the COVID-19 disease due to her age and underlying health conditions.
At that time, prosecutors opposed her release, citing the serious nature of the crime and the fact her conviction had been upheld by appeals courts multiple times. Dorotik has been staying with a sister in Los Angeles County.
This is the latest turn in a case that began when Dorotik reported her husband was missing on the evening of Feb. 13, 2000. She said the last time she saw him was earlier that day as he prepared to go running. She was arrested two days later.
At the time Jane Dorotik was a successful high level executive for a mental health services company who also raised and trained horses at the family’s Valley Center ranch.
The evidence against her at trial included blood found in the master bedroom and a syringe that prosecutors argued had Jane Dorotik’s fingerprint on it along with smudge of her husband’s blood.
But Project for the Innocent lawyers toiled on her case and in 2015 won a court ruling allowing DNA testing on the rope and fingernail scrapings, neither of which had been tested before. The new tests excluded Dorotik as a possible contributor.
The lawyers also argued she was a victim of bad forensic evidence analysis and a botched police investigation that overlooked a possible suspect and hid other evidence.
Last October, in a ruling ordering a new hearing on Dorotik’s claims of wrongful conviction, Elias wrote the lawyers had assembled “voluminous evidence to establish that much of the forensic, DNA and blood evidence presented against her at trial was false and that arguments to the jury included extensive false statements regarding the forensic evidence.”
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2020-07-24/jane-dorotiks-murder-convict
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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
