THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. JOHNSTON’S RULE
3.853 MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION DNA TESTING.
Pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853, Mr. Johnston filed a motion for postconviction DNA testing before the circuit court.
The motion asserted that:
1. The only scientific evidence linking Mr.Johnston to the crime was the presence of blood on him.The State emphasized this evidence throughout Mr.Johnston’s trial. Officer Stickley testified that when she interviewed Mr. Johnston at the crime scene, she noticed a red stain on his right tennis shoe and red dots on his right bicep (T. 498). Officer Kenneth Roberts testified that he observed brown colored splatters on Mr. Johnston’s tennis shoe, socks and arm, which appeared to be blood (T. 507). Officer Candalaria testified that he observed speckles of blood on Mr. Johnston’s left bicep, his left leg, his socks, and his shoe laces (T. 527-28). Investigator Richard Dupuis testified that he was asked by other officers to look at Mr. Johnston’s clothing and render an opinionas to whether there were any bloodstains on the clothing (T. 538).1 After explaining the concept of bloodstain analysis to the jury, Dupuis stated the he observed a reddish stain on Mr. Johnston’s right sockand that the stain projected in a downward motion. He also observed a dark stain on Mr. Johnston’s shoes, as well as a single red stain on the groin area of his shorts (T. 540). Dupuis then opined, based on his experience and training, that the stains appeared to be blood. He also opined that the clothing was a target for the blood, explaining that the blood was either projected or cast off something else and then came into contact with Mr. Johnston’s clothing (T. 541). Dupuis further stated that the blood was in motion when it came into contact with the clothing since it was not as mear type pattern (T. 542). Officer Ostermeyer testified that he took into evidence Mr. Johnston’s clothing. Additionally, he ran a presumptive bloodtest on the stains on the clothing; the test was positive for blood (T. 641-44). Reactions to the Luminol were also observed on the back of Mr. Johnston’s shirt, his sleeves, his waistband, the front of his shorts, the back pocket area of his shorts, and his right tennis shoe (T. 648). Investigator Mundy testified that during an interview with Mr. Johnston,he noticed a couple of red stains on his clothing (T.780). Forensic serologist Keith Paul testified that he tested Mr. Johnston’s clothing for the presence of blood and determined that there was human blood present on the stretchband of Mr. Johnston’s shorts (T. 854).Paul also conducted tests on the stains found on Mr.
-6
Johnston’s tennis shoes and determined that the stains were human blood (T. 867). Additionally, Paul indicated that there appeared to be minute quantities of blood on submitted fingernails, but he conducted no tests because the amount was insufficient for testing purposes (T. 879).
1 The basis for Dupuis’ expertise was that hehad attended several seminars relating to bloodstains (T. 538-39).
2. Mr. Johnston is innocent of the murder in the instant case. The evidence utilized in convicting him was largely circumstantial. There were no eyewitnessesto the crime nor did Mr. Johnston confess to the murder.
3.853 MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION DNA TESTING.
Pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853, Mr. Johnston filed a motion for postconviction DNA testing before the circuit court.
The motion asserted that:
1. The only scientific evidence linking Mr.Johnston to the crime was the presence of blood on him.The State emphasized this evidence throughout Mr.Johnston’s trial. Officer Stickley testified that when she interviewed Mr. Johnston at the crime scene, she noticed a red stain on his right tennis shoe and red dots on his right bicep (T. 498). Officer Kenneth Roberts testified that he observed brown colored splatters on Mr. Johnston’s tennis shoe, socks and arm, which appeared to be blood (T. 507). Officer Candalaria testified that he observed speckles of blood on Mr. Johnston’s left bicep, his left leg, his socks, and his shoe laces (T. 527-28). Investigator Richard Dupuis testified that he was asked by other officers to look at Mr. Johnston’s clothing and render an opinionas to whether there were any bloodstains on the clothing (T. 538).1 After explaining the concept of bloodstain analysis to the jury, Dupuis stated the he observed a reddish stain on Mr. Johnston’s right sockand that the stain projected in a downward motion. He also observed a dark stain on Mr. Johnston’s shoes, as well as a single red stain on the groin area of his shorts (T. 540). Dupuis then opined, based on his experience and training, that the stains appeared to be blood. He also opined that the clothing was a target for the blood, explaining that the blood was either projected or cast off something else and then came into contact with Mr. Johnston’s clothing (T. 541). Dupuis further stated that the blood was in motion when it came into contact with the clothing since it was not as mear type pattern (T. 542). Officer Ostermeyer testified that he took into evidence Mr. Johnston’s clothing. Additionally, he ran a presumptive bloodtest on the stains on the clothing; the test was positive for blood (T. 641-44). Reactions to the Luminol were also observed on the back of Mr. Johnston’s shirt, his sleeves, his waistband, the front of his shorts, the back pocket area of his shorts, and his right tennis shoe (T. 648). Investigator Mundy testified that during an interview with Mr. Johnston,he noticed a couple of red stains on his clothing (T.780). Forensic serologist Keith Paul testified that he tested Mr. Johnston’s clothing for the presence of blood and determined that there was human blood present on the stretchband of Mr. Johnston’s shorts (T. 854).Paul also conducted tests on the stains found on Mr.
-6
Johnston’s tennis shoes and determined that the stains were human blood (T. 867). Additionally, Paul indicated that there appeared to be minute quantities of blood on submitted fingernails, but he conducted no tests because the amount was insufficient for testing purposes (T. 879).
1 The basis for Dupuis’ expertise was that hehad attended several seminars relating to bloodstains (T. 538-39).
2. Mr. Johnston is innocent of the murder in the instant case. The evidence utilized in convicting him was largely circumstantial. There were no eyewitnessesto the crime nor did Mr. Johnston confess to the murder.
2 There was no fingerprint evidence connecting Mr. Johnston to the crime.
3 Additionally, it was Mr.Johnston who called 911 upon finding the victim, who informed the victim’s granddaughter of what had occurred, and who stayed until the police arrived and made a full report as to how he came to find the victim. Clearly, the presence of blood on Mr. Johnston was the primary factor in obtaining a conviction. If DNA testing were to reveal that the purported blood on Mr. Johnston did not belong to the victim, he would be exonerated of the crime.
2 Mr. Johnston has always maintained hisinnocence.
3 There were, however, fingerprints from other individuals on the items tested by the State.
3. The specific evidence Mr. Johnston seeks to be tested is as follows:
a. Mr. Johnston’s tennis shoes; b. Mr. Johnston’s socks; c. Mr. Johnston’s shorts; d. Fingernail clippings.4
4Undersigned counsel orally amended the motion to include hair and debris folds currently held by the Orlando Police
-7
4. The aforementioned evidence in this case was not previously tested for DNA. 5. The last known location for the evidence was the Orlando Police Department. The evidence was originally obtained by the Orlando Police Department during its investigation of this case.
(May 6, 2009 Rule 3.853 Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing).
In its order denying Mr. Johnston’s motion, the circuit
court stated:
To be entitled to DNA testing, Mr. Johnston must be able to demonstrate that the test results would exonerate him or mitigate the sentence he received. See Rule 3.853(b)(3) and (4). However, he fails to establish that the testing would exonerate him even if the results showed that the blood did not belong to the victim and the material under the victim’s fingernails did not belong to him.
During his January 24, 1984 statement to police, Mr. Johnston admitted holding the victim’s body. Therefore, it was reasonable to expect her blood to be on his clothing, and the issue at trial was not whose blood it was but how it got there. Furthermore, there was other incriminating evidence against Defendant, including scratches on his face, discrepancies in his various statements, the discovery of his bloodstained watch on a bathroom counter in the victim’s house, and the fact that a butterfly pendant he was seen wearing was entangled in the victim’s hair. Additionally, Mr.Johnston admitted taking personal items from the victim’s house, allegedly as a memento of the victim.
Based upon the totality of the evidence presented at trial against Mr. Johnston, this Court therefore concludes that even if the results of DNA testing were to show that the blood on Mr. Johnston’s clothes did not belong to the victim and the material under the victim’s fingernails did not belong to him, there is no reasonable probability this result would exonerate him of the crime.
Department as evidence to be examined and tested. -8
(May 8, 2009 Order Denying Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing, at 2)(footnotes omitted).
Mr. Johnston submits that the circuit court’s finding, that there is no reasonable probability that DNA testing could exonerate him of the crime, is erroneous. First, the circuit court relied on the fact that Mr. Johnston at one point admitted to the police that he held the victim’s body, thus it was reasonable to expect there to be blood on him. However, the circuit court ignores the fact that Mr. Johnston is mentally ill,5 that he was recognized as such at the time of trial,6 and thus his many contradictory statements to the police are simply
5Among other mental issues, Mr. Johnston has been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia (R. 1140, 1178).
6On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the denial of Mr.Johnston’s Faretta claim, stating,
The trial judge made the proper inquiry in this case and correctly concluded that the desired waiver of counsel was neither knowing nor intelligent, in part, because of Johnston’s mental condition. In fact the court’s order denying Johnston’s motion for self-representation and counsel’s motion to withdraw specifically cited Johnston’s age, education, and
reports of psychiatrist and past admissions into mental hospitals. Clearly, the trial court was correct in concluding that Johnston would not receive a fair trial without assistance of counsel.
Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)(emphasis added).
unreliable.7 Here, the circuit court has erroneously decided to rely on one of many contradictory statements of a mentally ill individual8 rather than order scientific testing which could conclusively demonstrate whether the blood on Mr. Johnston belonged to the victim, and whether the scrapings under the victim’s fingernails match the DNA of Mr. Johnston.9
Additionally, the circuit court’s determination that there is other incriminating evidence does not negate the fact that DNA testing could exonerate Mr. Johnston. For example, the circuit court relies on the fact that Mr. Johnston had scratches on his face. But it ignores the fact that DNA testing of the scrapings from the victim’s fingernails could establish that the scratches didn’t come from the victim.10 Further, as has been discussed
7In one statement to the police, Mr. Johnston related that he did not touch the victim (T. 494). In another statement, he did touch the victim (T. 823). In one statement to the police,Mr. Johnston related that the victim was dead when he found her
(T. 494). In another statement, she was alive and appeared to betrying to speak to him (T. 845).
8In recent years, there have been multiple instances where DNA evidence has been utilized to exonerate a convicted mentally ill defendant. In 2007, a schizophrenic named Anthony Capozziwas exonerated through DNA testing after spending 22 years in prison for rape.
9Moreover, the circuit court’s logic is flawed. While the circuit court has chosen to accept certain statements by Mr.Johnston as true, the court ignores other statement favorable to Mr. Johnston, such as the fact that he was emphatically consistent in his denial of the victim’s murder (T. 845).
10Mr. Johnston stated at one point that he got the scratches from his puppy.
-10
above, the court’s reliance on the discrepancies in Mr. Johnston’s statements simply verifies that DNA testing should be
valued above the rants of a schizophrenic.11
Additionally, the circuit court’s reliance on the wristwatch and butterfly necklace found at the scene is suspect. Again, in typical fashion, Mr. Johnston at various times claimed ownership of the necklace (T. 2346)12, and at other times denied ownership of it (T. 2337). Likewise, Mr. Johnston claimed and disclaimed ownership of the watch (T. 2336, 2346, 2348).
There can be no doubt that DNA testing could exonerate Mr. Johnston. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime nor did Mr. Johnston confess to the murder. There was no fingerprint evidence connecting Mr. Johnston to the crime.13 Clearly, the presence of blood on Mr. Johnston was the primary factor in obtaining a conviction. The absence of his DNA under the victim’s fingernails combined with the absence of the victim’s blood on Mr. Johnston would establish his innocence and would demonstrate that Mr. Johnston’s inconsistent rants are nothing more than that. Mr. Johnston submits that this case should be
11Certainly, the court didn’t take at face value Mr.Johnston’s prior claim that he had been attacked by Judge Powell in chambers following his evidentiary hearing.
12At one point, Mr. Johnson stated that he gave the necklace to the victim (R. 2353).
13There were, however, fingerprints from other individuals on the items tested by the State.
remanded for DNA testing in accordance with Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.853.
ARGUMENT II
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE HAS REVEALED THAT MR. JOHNSTON WAS CONVICTED BASED UPON INFIRM FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, EIGHTH, ANDFOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
“Over the last two decades, advances in some forensic science disciplines, especially the use of DNA technology, have demonstrated that some areas of forensic science have great potential to help lawenforcement identify criminals. Many crimes that may have gone unsolved are now being solved because forensic science is helping identify the perpetrators.
Those advances, however, also have revealed that, in some cases, substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people.This fact has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Morever, imprecise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence.
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
Forward (free Executive Summary), S-3,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html, last viewed May 5, 2009.
The preceding admonition was recently released February 18,
2009 in the executive summary of the pending report produced by
the National Academy of Sciences after conducting a study on
forensic sciences as directed by the U.S. Congress. The study
panel consisted of members of the forensic science community,
members of the legal community, and a diverse group of
scientists. “Experts who provided testimony included federal agency officials; academics and research scholars; private consultants; federal state and local law enforcement officials; scientists; medical examiners; a coroner; crime laboratory officials from the public and private sectors; independent investigators; defense attorneys; forensic science practitioners; and leadership of professional and standard setting organizations.” (internal citations omitted) Id. at S-2.
The end product of the Committee’s painstakingly thorough work was a comprehensive report. This report first became available when released by the Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community on February 18, 2009. The final report constitutes newly discovered evidence that the “scientific” evidence used to convict Mr. Johnston is the result of methods with questionable and untested underlying scientific principles, in violation of Mr. Johnston’s rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This Court has recognized that “reports” issued by governmental or other bodies that affect the integrity of a defendant’s trial or penalty phase can constitute newly discovered evidence. See, Trepal v. State, 846 So.2d, 405, 409410 (Fla. 2003)(relinquishing jurisdiction for defendant to file a new successive motion to vacate judgment and sentence based on the newly discovered information in the report released by Office
of the Inspector General, U.S. Dept. Of Justice, The FBI
Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and
Alleged Misconduct in Explosive-Related and Other Cases (1997);
receded from on other grounds, Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498
(Fla. 2003).
The Committee made a number of specific recommendations for
improving the many deficiencies within the forensic science
community. Issues studied that are relevant to Mr. Johnston’s
case included pattern evidence such as fingerprints, footwear
impressions and bloodstain pattern analysis. In regards to these
types of analysis the study found that:
Often in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation, forensic evidence is offered to support conclusions about “individualization” (sometimes referred to as“matching” a specimen to a particular individual or other source) or about classification of the source of the specimen into one of several categories. With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and specific individual or source. In terms of scientific basis, the analytically based disciplines generally hold a notable edge over disciplines based on expert interpretation.Id. at S-5.
* * *
The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity. This is a serious problem. Although research has been done in some disciplines, there is a notable dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific bases and validity of many forensic methods. Id. at S
6.
-14
* * *
The study panel then went on to suggest the need for
research to establish limits and measures on performance to
prevent overreaching. The panel stated:
The development of such research programs can benefit significantly from other areas, notably from the large body of research on the evaluation of observer performance in diagnostic medicine and from the findings of cognitive psychology on the potential forbi as and error in human observers. FN8 The findings offorensic experts are vulnerable to cognitive and contextual bias. See, e.g. I.E. Dror, D. Charlton, and
A.E. Peron. 2006. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 156:74, 77. (“Our studyshows that it is possible to alter identification decisions on the same fingerprint, solely by presenting it in a different context.”); I.E. Dror and D.Charlton. 2006. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 56(4):600; Giannelli, supra note 6, pp. 220-222. Unfortunately, at least to date, there is no good evidence to indicate that the forensic science community has made a sufficient effort to address the bias issue; thus, it is impossible for the committee to fully assess the magnitude of the problem.Id. at S-6.14
* * *
The law’s greatest dilemma is its heavy reliance on forensic evidence, however, concerns the question of whether ------ and to what extent ------ there is science in any given forensic science discipline. Id.at S-7.
14 Because of these issues, and others, the first recommendation of the report is the formation of an independent federal entity: the National Institute of Forensic Sciences. Id. at S-14. This is necessary because the current “forensic science enterprise lacks the necessary governance structure to pull itself up from its current weaknesses.” Id. at S-12.
-15
* * *
But because accused parties in criminal cases are convicted on the basis of testimony from forensic science experts, much depends upon whether the evidence offered is reliable. Furthermore, in addition to protecting innocent persons from being convicted of crimes that they did not commit, we are also seeking to protect society from persons who have committed criminal acts. Law enforcement officials and the members of society they serve need to be assured that forensic techniques are reliable. Therefore, we must limit the risk of having the reliability of certain forensic science methodologies judicially certified before the techniques have been properly studied and their accuracy verified by the scientific community.Id. at S-9.
In Mr. Johnston’s case, questionable expert testimony was
utilized against him. For example, testimony reveals that
Investigator Dupius testified as to blood spatter. Interestingly,
Investigator Dupius was exclusively trained by the now
discredited Judith Bunker. Ms. Bunker was revealed to have
converted herself into an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis
from a brief four hour workshop conducted by Mr. Herbert
MacDonnell in Birmingham, Alabama. With only this minimal
experience Ms. Bunker launched a career instructing law
enforcement upon the complex science of blood-stain pattern
analysis.15
Investigator Dupius testified that he observed a reddish
stain on Mr. Johnston’s right sock and that the stain projected
15 This claim was raised and rejected as to Ms. Bunker’s
lack of credentials in Johnston v. State, 708 So.2d 590 (Fla.
1998).
in a downward motion. He also observed a dark stain on Mr. Johnston’s brown shoes, as well as a single red stain on the groin area of his shorts (R. 540). Dupius then admitted that he conducted no testing as to whether blood was actually on the socks, although he surmised that based on his training and experience it was blood (R 541).
Dupius further testified that the blood was projected or was cast-off and was in motion when it came into contact with Mr. Johnston’s clothing since it was not a smear pattern (R. 541-42). Investigator Dupius also related that he observed several patterns within Mary Hammond’s home, however, he did not mention any of it being tested. Based upon these observations he related that the three arches of staining on the west wall were cast-off stains because a bloody object had been in motion towards the right side of the body (R. 545). He also opined that the killer was right-handed (R. 553).
Officer Ostermeyer also testified regarding blood evidence supposedly upon Mr. Johnston’s clothing (R. 641-44). He completed presumptive testing and found Mr. Johnston’s clothing tested positive for the presence of blood. The areas reacting to the Luminol were the back of the Mr. Johnston’s shirt, his sleeves, his waistband, the front of his shorts, the back pocket area of his shorts, and his right shoe (R. 648-49). The officer admitted the test was not conclusive and can give false positives
(R. 651-53).
Blood spatter is the type of evidence that is listed as
suspect within the study conducted by the National Academy of
Sciences. The study relates:
However, many sources of variability arise with the production of bloodstain patterns, and their interpretation is not nearly as straightforward as the process implies. Interpreting and integrating bloodstain patterns into a reconstruction requires, at a minimum:
* an appropriate scientific education;* knowledge of the terminology employed(e.g., angle of impact, arterialspurting, back spatter, castoffpattern);* an understanding of limitations of the measurement tools used to make bloodstain pattern measurements (e.g.,calculators, software, lasers,protractors);* an understanding of applied mathematics and the use of significant figures;* an understanding of the physics of fluid transfer;* an understanding of pathology of wounds;and * an understanding of the general patterns blood makes after leaving the human body.
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United State: A Path
Forward, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html, Prepublication
Copy, at 5-38.
None of these potential sources of variability were explored
in Mr. Johnston’s case, including the fact Investigator Dupius
received virtually no meaningful instruction in this complex
science. Mere conclusory allegations were made with no
meaningful cross-examination or adversarial testing. The reliability necessary to sustain the conviction and impending execution is clearly lacking.
Gene Hietchew testified that fourteen latent prints had been lifted at the crime scene of which four were usable (R. 681). The prints did not match Mary Hammond, Kevin Williams, or David Johnston (R. 682). However, the police failed to compare the prints of Jose Gutierrez who had been observed within hours of the crime sitting in the driveway looking as if he were spoiling for a fight.
The State also had Terrel Kingery testify regarding pattern evidence relating to Mr. Johnston’s shoes (R. 740-52). He received plaster casts, a pair of shoes, and photographs of shoe tracks, among other things (R. 742). Subsequently, he compared the prints and expressed the opinion that Mr. Johnston’s left shoe could have made the print (R. 745). Kingery described the process he utilized as inking the shoes, putting the shoes on his feet (not the same size as Mr. Johnston) and then personally making the prints. He admitted the shoes had already been tested for blood and that he did not use the same soil as that at the crime scene.
Within the National Academy of Sciences report footwear pattern evidence is specifically discussed. “Class characteristics of footwear and tires result from repetitive
controlled processes that are typically mechanical, such as those used to manufacture items in quantity. Although defined similarly by various authors, Bodziak describes footwear class characteristics as ‘an intentional or unavoidable characteristic that repeats during the manufacturing process and is shared by one or more other shoes.’” (footnote omitted), Strengthening Forensic Science in the United State: A Path Forward, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html, Prepublication Copy, at 5
15.
The study goes on to consider individual wear characteristics by stating, “For footwear, Bodziak writes that ‘individual identifying characteristics are characteristics that result when something is randomly added to or taken away from a shoe outsole that either causes or contributes to making that shoe outsole unique.’” (footnote omitted), Id.
In Mr. Johnston’s case these differences and methods of interpretation were either not used or not brought out in testimony. Simply testifying to a match is not enough. The aforementioned guidelines must be adhered to in order to provide the kind of reliability required to convict and execute a man.
The report further calls into question the terminology used to describe testing results. Many terms that are utilized to describe the degrees of association between evidentiary material and particular people or objects, e.g., “match,” “consistent
with,” “identical,” “similar in all respects tested,” and cannot
be excluded as the source of.” Id. at S-15. The Committee
concluded that “[t]he use of such terms can and does have a
profound effect on how the trier of fact in a criminal or civil
matter perceives and evaluates scientific evidence.” Id.
When analyzing the significant advances in DNA technology
and its immense importance to law enforcement to law enforcement
the Committee observed that DNA advances have:
revealed that, in some cases, substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people. This fact has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Moreover, imprecise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence. NAS Report at S
13. The information, analysis, and ultimate conclusions contained in the NAS Report reveal that “scientific” evidence produced by methods with questionable and untested underlying scientific principles is being used to convict defendants.
The use of this questionable “scientific” evidence, coupled with the utter lack of standardized reporting and terminology in forensic disciplines renders both the conviction as well as the death sentence unreliable. Under the Eighth Amendment, the death penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 310 (1972)(per
curiam). Furman stands for the proposition most succinctly explained by Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion: “The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be . . . wantonly and . . . freakishly imposed” on a “capriciously selected random handful” of individuals. Id. at 310 (Stewart, J. concurring). Differences in terminology, for example, could mean the difference between life and death: two experts in the same field of forensic science may testify in two different cases and use differing terminology to describe the same results so that one defendant is convicted or sentenced to death on the basis of that evidence and the other is not. The imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in cases in which untested and unreliable “scientific” evidence is used to convict defendants also constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. When the myriad of problems with so-called “scientific” evidence are considered together in analyzing its ability to produce a reliable result, the conclusion is inescapable: as Justice Brennan wrote in his concurring opinion in Furman, “it smacks of little more than a lottery system.” Furman, 408 U.S. at 293 (Brennan, J., concurring). The use of “scientific” evidence produced by methods of questionable and untested underlying scientific principles cannot “assure consistency, fairness, and rationality” and cannot “assure that sentences of death will not
be ‘wantonly’ or ‘freakishly’ imposed.” Proffitt v. Florida, 428
U.S. 242, 259-260 (1976).
Mr. Johnston submits that this issue should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing and thereafter, Rule 3.851 relief should issue.
ARGUMENT III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. JOHNSTON’S REQUEST
FOR FORENSIC TESTING RESULTING IN A VIOLATION OF MR.
JOHNSTON’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS UNDER BOTH THE U.S.
AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONS.
Mr. Johnston was charged with the murder of Mary Hammond and convicted and sentenced to death in June 1, 1984. Numerous articles of evidence were collected and tested by the State of Florida. At trial, the State introduced numerous items of evidence and adduced expert testimony regarding the evidence.
Officer Ostermeyer testified regarding blood evidence supposedly upon Mr. Johnston’s clothing (R. 641-44). He completed presumptive testing and found Mr. Johnston’s clothing tested positive for the presence of blood. The areas reacting to the Luminol were the back of the Defendant’s shirt, his sleeves, his waistband, the front of his shorts, the back pocket area of his shorts, and his right shoe (R. 648-49). The officer admitted the test was not conclusive and gives false positives (R. 65153).
Gene Hietchew testified that fourteen latent prints had been
lifted at the crime scene of which four were usable (R. 681). The prints did not match Mary Hammond, Kevin Williams, or David Johnston (R. 682). However, the police failed to compare the prints of Jose Gutierrez who had been observed within hours of the crime sitting in the driveway looking as if he were spoiling for a fight.
The State also had Terrel Kingery testify regarding pattern evidence relating to Mr. Johnston’s shoes (R. 740-52). He received plaster casts, a pair of shoes, photographs of shoe tracks, among other things (R. 742). Subsequently, he compared the prints and expressed the opinion that Mr. Johnston’s left shoe could have made the print (R. 745). Kingery described the process he utilized as inking the shoes, putting the shoes on his feet (not the same size as Mr. Johnston) and then personally making the prints. He admitted the shoes had already been tested for blood and that he did not use the same soil as that at the crime scene.
Mr. Johnston has had numerous attorneys over the years and been effectively without counsel for the last couple of years. None of these attorneys did any independent testing. Indeed, many of the testing procedures available now did not exist during the time period when many of these attorneys represented Mr. Johnston or the science and protocols have since progressed to allow a greater degree of reliability. See, Claim II, supra.
When considered in conjunction with the newly discovered evidence claim that the testing procedures used in capital cases such as Mr. Johnston’s have been exposed as often times fraught with error, it becomes glaringly apparent that Mr. Johnston’s case requires an independent forensic review of the evidence in by his own forensic experts.
The trial court clearly erred when it found that, “As this Court concluded in the Order Denying Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing, there is no reasonable probability that the results of additional forensic testing would exonerate Mr. Johnston of the crime.” Order Denying Motion to Produce Evidence for Forensic Testing and Request for Hearing at 1.
The forensic evidence in this case was circumstantial in nature.16 Mr. Johnston has always maintained his innocence in this case. Mr. Johnston’s postconviction forensic experts will review the facts and evidence in this case and conduct forensic testing to utilize the most modern testing and science to ascertain the validity of the prior testing conducted 25 years ago. Additional testing of the evidence listed above is critical to Mr. Johnston’s claim of innocence, and would in no way harm the State. It would be a violation of due process for Mr. Johnston to be denied access to independent forensic testing in
16 Mr. Johnston adopts and re-alleges the argument regarding the exculpatory nature of the proposed testing as argued in ClaimI, supra.
this case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently
found that a state prisoner has a right to postconviction access
to biological evidence used to convict him. Osborne v. District
Attorney’s Office, 521 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2008), cert.granted,
(currently pending) District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (U.S.
Sup. Ct., Case No. 08-6). The biological evidence in Osborne
related to DNA testing and was the subject of a civil rights
action filed pursuant to §1983. The State of Alaska had blocked
Osborne’s access to DNA testing.17 In granting Osborne access to
the biological evidence the Ninth Circuit observed that:
The evidence in question can be produced easily and without cost to the State and, if favorable to Osborne, would be strong evidence in support of post-conviction relief. Nonetheless, the State seeks to foreclose such relief by its simple refusal to open the evidence locker . . .
The State supports its position with the argument that the circumstantial and eyewitness evidence in this case is also strong evidence of Osborne’s guilt, and thus granting access is not likely to “further the truthseeking function of our criminal justice system.” As recent history has shown, however, DNA evidence has the capability of refuting otherwise irrefutable inculpatory evidence, and as we have already established this case is no exception.
If the inculpatory evidence has been correctly interpreted, further DNA testing will confirm that Osborne is guilty as charged and convicted. But it remains a very real possibility that further DNAtesting will be exculpatory and may even lead to
17 Mr. Johnston adopts the due process argument within this claim as if fully argued in Claim I as well.
-26
Osborne’s exoneration. In the former case, the State will have lost nothing; indeed, it will gain even more definitive proof of Osborne’s guilt and will be relieved of the burden of further post-conviction litigation. In the latter case, however, Osborne will obviously gain a great deal, as will the State, whose paramount interests are in seeking justice, not obtaining convictions at all costs, and which will then have strong evidence for use in catching and punishing the real perpetrator. Importantly, the State is prejudiced in neither case, and the truth-seeking function of the criminal justice system is furthered in either case. Osborne at 1141.
Osborne, 521 F.3d at 1141. The same holds true in Mr. Johnston’s
case. The minimal amount of time required for DNA and forensic
testing relative to the twenty-six years Mr. Johnston has spent
on Florida’s death row does little, if anything, to prejudice the
State of Florida. However, this requested testing, if the
results are exculpatory, has the potential to save Mr. Johnston’s
life. Clearly, the requested testing should be allowed and
relief should issue.
2 Mr. Johnston has always maintained hisinnocence.
3 There were, however, fingerprints from other individuals on the items tested by the State.
3. The specific evidence Mr. Johnston seeks to be tested is as follows:
a. Mr. Johnston’s tennis shoes; b. Mr. Johnston’s socks; c. Mr. Johnston’s shorts; d. Fingernail clippings.4
4Undersigned counsel orally amended the motion to include hair and debris folds currently held by the Orlando Police
-7
4. The aforementioned evidence in this case was not previously tested for DNA. 5. The last known location for the evidence was the Orlando Police Department. The evidence was originally obtained by the Orlando Police Department during its investigation of this case.
(May 6, 2009 Rule 3.853 Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing).
In its order denying Mr. Johnston’s motion, the circuit
court stated:
To be entitled to DNA testing, Mr. Johnston must be able to demonstrate that the test results would exonerate him or mitigate the sentence he received. See Rule 3.853(b)(3) and (4). However, he fails to establish that the testing would exonerate him even if the results showed that the blood did not belong to the victim and the material under the victim’s fingernails did not belong to him.
During his January 24, 1984 statement to police, Mr. Johnston admitted holding the victim’s body. Therefore, it was reasonable to expect her blood to be on his clothing, and the issue at trial was not whose blood it was but how it got there. Furthermore, there was other incriminating evidence against Defendant, including scratches on his face, discrepancies in his various statements, the discovery of his bloodstained watch on a bathroom counter in the victim’s house, and the fact that a butterfly pendant he was seen wearing was entangled in the victim’s hair. Additionally, Mr.Johnston admitted taking personal items from the victim’s house, allegedly as a memento of the victim.
Based upon the totality of the evidence presented at trial against Mr. Johnston, this Court therefore concludes that even if the results of DNA testing were to show that the blood on Mr. Johnston’s clothes did not belong to the victim and the material under the victim’s fingernails did not belong to him, there is no reasonable probability this result would exonerate him of the crime.
Department as evidence to be examined and tested. -8
(May 8, 2009 Order Denying Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing, at 2)(footnotes omitted).
Mr. Johnston submits that the circuit court’s finding, that there is no reasonable probability that DNA testing could exonerate him of the crime, is erroneous. First, the circuit court relied on the fact that Mr. Johnston at one point admitted to the police that he held the victim’s body, thus it was reasonable to expect there to be blood on him. However, the circuit court ignores the fact that Mr. Johnston is mentally ill,5 that he was recognized as such at the time of trial,6 and thus his many contradictory statements to the police are simply
5Among other mental issues, Mr. Johnston has been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia (R. 1140, 1178).
6On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the denial of Mr.Johnston’s Faretta claim, stating,
The trial judge made the proper inquiry in this case and correctly concluded that the desired waiver of counsel was neither knowing nor intelligent, in part, because of Johnston’s mental condition. In fact the court’s order denying Johnston’s motion for self-representation and counsel’s motion to withdraw specifically cited Johnston’s age, education, and
reports of psychiatrist and past admissions into mental hospitals. Clearly, the trial court was correct in concluding that Johnston would not receive a fair trial without assistance of counsel.
Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)(emphasis added).
unreliable.7 Here, the circuit court has erroneously decided to rely on one of many contradictory statements of a mentally ill individual8 rather than order scientific testing which could conclusively demonstrate whether the blood on Mr. Johnston belonged to the victim, and whether the scrapings under the victim’s fingernails match the DNA of Mr. Johnston.9
Additionally, the circuit court’s determination that there is other incriminating evidence does not negate the fact that DNA testing could exonerate Mr. Johnston. For example, the circuit court relies on the fact that Mr. Johnston had scratches on his face. But it ignores the fact that DNA testing of the scrapings from the victim’s fingernails could establish that the scratches didn’t come from the victim.10 Further, as has been discussed
7In one statement to the police, Mr. Johnston related that he did not touch the victim (T. 494). In another statement, he did touch the victim (T. 823). In one statement to the police,Mr. Johnston related that the victim was dead when he found her
(T. 494). In another statement, she was alive and appeared to betrying to speak to him (T. 845).
8In recent years, there have been multiple instances where DNA evidence has been utilized to exonerate a convicted mentally ill defendant. In 2007, a schizophrenic named Anthony Capozziwas exonerated through DNA testing after spending 22 years in prison for rape.
9Moreover, the circuit court’s logic is flawed. While the circuit court has chosen to accept certain statements by Mr.Johnston as true, the court ignores other statement favorable to Mr. Johnston, such as the fact that he was emphatically consistent in his denial of the victim’s murder (T. 845).
10Mr. Johnston stated at one point that he got the scratches from his puppy.
-10
above, the court’s reliance on the discrepancies in Mr. Johnston’s statements simply verifies that DNA testing should be
valued above the rants of a schizophrenic.11
Additionally, the circuit court’s reliance on the wristwatch and butterfly necklace found at the scene is suspect. Again, in typical fashion, Mr. Johnston at various times claimed ownership of the necklace (T. 2346)12, and at other times denied ownership of it (T. 2337). Likewise, Mr. Johnston claimed and disclaimed ownership of the watch (T. 2336, 2346, 2348).
There can be no doubt that DNA testing could exonerate Mr. Johnston. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime nor did Mr. Johnston confess to the murder. There was no fingerprint evidence connecting Mr. Johnston to the crime.13 Clearly, the presence of blood on Mr. Johnston was the primary factor in obtaining a conviction. The absence of his DNA under the victim’s fingernails combined with the absence of the victim’s blood on Mr. Johnston would establish his innocence and would demonstrate that Mr. Johnston’s inconsistent rants are nothing more than that. Mr. Johnston submits that this case should be
11Certainly, the court didn’t take at face value Mr.Johnston’s prior claim that he had been attacked by Judge Powell in chambers following his evidentiary hearing.
12At one point, Mr. Johnson stated that he gave the necklace to the victim (R. 2353).
13There were, however, fingerprints from other individuals on the items tested by the State.
remanded for DNA testing in accordance with Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.853.
ARGUMENT II
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE HAS REVEALED THAT MR. JOHNSTON WAS CONVICTED BASED UPON INFIRM FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, EIGHTH, ANDFOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
“Over the last two decades, advances in some forensic science disciplines, especially the use of DNA technology, have demonstrated that some areas of forensic science have great potential to help lawenforcement identify criminals. Many crimes that may have gone unsolved are now being solved because forensic science is helping identify the perpetrators.
Those advances, however, also have revealed that, in some cases, substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people.This fact has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Morever, imprecise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence.
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
Forward (free Executive Summary), S-3,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html, last viewed May 5, 2009.
The preceding admonition was recently released February 18,
2009 in the executive summary of the pending report produced by
the National Academy of Sciences after conducting a study on
forensic sciences as directed by the U.S. Congress. The study
panel consisted of members of the forensic science community,
members of the legal community, and a diverse group of
scientists. “Experts who provided testimony included federal agency officials; academics and research scholars; private consultants; federal state and local law enforcement officials; scientists; medical examiners; a coroner; crime laboratory officials from the public and private sectors; independent investigators; defense attorneys; forensic science practitioners; and leadership of professional and standard setting organizations.” (internal citations omitted) Id. at S-2.
The end product of the Committee’s painstakingly thorough work was a comprehensive report. This report first became available when released by the Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community on February 18, 2009. The final report constitutes newly discovered evidence that the “scientific” evidence used to convict Mr. Johnston is the result of methods with questionable and untested underlying scientific principles, in violation of Mr. Johnston’s rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This Court has recognized that “reports” issued by governmental or other bodies that affect the integrity of a defendant’s trial or penalty phase can constitute newly discovered evidence. See, Trepal v. State, 846 So.2d, 405, 409410 (Fla. 2003)(relinquishing jurisdiction for defendant to file a new successive motion to vacate judgment and sentence based on the newly discovered information in the report released by Office
of the Inspector General, U.S. Dept. Of Justice, The FBI
Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and
Alleged Misconduct in Explosive-Related and Other Cases (1997);
receded from on other grounds, Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498
(Fla. 2003).
The Committee made a number of specific recommendations for
improving the many deficiencies within the forensic science
community. Issues studied that are relevant to Mr. Johnston’s
case included pattern evidence such as fingerprints, footwear
impressions and bloodstain pattern analysis. In regards to these
types of analysis the study found that:
Often in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation, forensic evidence is offered to support conclusions about “individualization” (sometimes referred to as“matching” a specimen to a particular individual or other source) or about classification of the source of the specimen into one of several categories. With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and specific individual or source. In terms of scientific basis, the analytically based disciplines generally hold a notable edge over disciplines based on expert interpretation.Id. at S-5.
* * *
The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity. This is a serious problem. Although research has been done in some disciplines, there is a notable dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific bases and validity of many forensic methods. Id. at S
6.
-14
* * *
The study panel then went on to suggest the need for
research to establish limits and measures on performance to
prevent overreaching. The panel stated:
The development of such research programs can benefit significantly from other areas, notably from the large body of research on the evaluation of observer performance in diagnostic medicine and from the findings of cognitive psychology on the potential forbi as and error in human observers. FN8 The findings offorensic experts are vulnerable to cognitive and contextual bias. See, e.g. I.E. Dror, D. Charlton, and
A.E. Peron. 2006. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 156:74, 77. (“Our studyshows that it is possible to alter identification decisions on the same fingerprint, solely by presenting it in a different context.”); I.E. Dror and D.Charlton. 2006. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 56(4):600; Giannelli, supra note 6, pp. 220-222. Unfortunately, at least to date, there is no good evidence to indicate that the forensic science community has made a sufficient effort to address the bias issue; thus, it is impossible for the committee to fully assess the magnitude of the problem.Id. at S-6.14
* * *
The law’s greatest dilemma is its heavy reliance on forensic evidence, however, concerns the question of whether ------ and to what extent ------ there is science in any given forensic science discipline. Id.at S-7.
14 Because of these issues, and others, the first recommendation of the report is the formation of an independent federal entity: the National Institute of Forensic Sciences. Id. at S-14. This is necessary because the current “forensic science enterprise lacks the necessary governance structure to pull itself up from its current weaknesses.” Id. at S-12.
-15
* * *
But because accused parties in criminal cases are convicted on the basis of testimony from forensic science experts, much depends upon whether the evidence offered is reliable. Furthermore, in addition to protecting innocent persons from being convicted of crimes that they did not commit, we are also seeking to protect society from persons who have committed criminal acts. Law enforcement officials and the members of society they serve need to be assured that forensic techniques are reliable. Therefore, we must limit the risk of having the reliability of certain forensic science methodologies judicially certified before the techniques have been properly studied and their accuracy verified by the scientific community.Id. at S-9.
In Mr. Johnston’s case, questionable expert testimony was
utilized against him. For example, testimony reveals that
Investigator Dupius testified as to blood spatter. Interestingly,
Investigator Dupius was exclusively trained by the now
discredited Judith Bunker. Ms. Bunker was revealed to have
converted herself into an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis
from a brief four hour workshop conducted by Mr. Herbert
MacDonnell in Birmingham, Alabama. With only this minimal
experience Ms. Bunker launched a career instructing law
enforcement upon the complex science of blood-stain pattern
analysis.15
Investigator Dupius testified that he observed a reddish
stain on Mr. Johnston’s right sock and that the stain projected
15 This claim was raised and rejected as to Ms. Bunker’s
lack of credentials in Johnston v. State, 708 So.2d 590 (Fla.
1998).
in a downward motion. He also observed a dark stain on Mr. Johnston’s brown shoes, as well as a single red stain on the groin area of his shorts (R. 540). Dupius then admitted that he conducted no testing as to whether blood was actually on the socks, although he surmised that based on his training and experience it was blood (R 541).
Dupius further testified that the blood was projected or was cast-off and was in motion when it came into contact with Mr. Johnston’s clothing since it was not a smear pattern (R. 541-42). Investigator Dupius also related that he observed several patterns within Mary Hammond’s home, however, he did not mention any of it being tested. Based upon these observations he related that the three arches of staining on the west wall were cast-off stains because a bloody object had been in motion towards the right side of the body (R. 545). He also opined that the killer was right-handed (R. 553).
Officer Ostermeyer also testified regarding blood evidence supposedly upon Mr. Johnston’s clothing (R. 641-44). He completed presumptive testing and found Mr. Johnston’s clothing tested positive for the presence of blood. The areas reacting to the Luminol were the back of the Mr. Johnston’s shirt, his sleeves, his waistband, the front of his shorts, the back pocket area of his shorts, and his right shoe (R. 648-49). The officer admitted the test was not conclusive and can give false positives
(R. 651-53).
Blood spatter is the type of evidence that is listed as
suspect within the study conducted by the National Academy of
Sciences. The study relates:
However, many sources of variability arise with the production of bloodstain patterns, and their interpretation is not nearly as straightforward as the process implies. Interpreting and integrating bloodstain patterns into a reconstruction requires, at a minimum:
* an appropriate scientific education;* knowledge of the terminology employed(e.g., angle of impact, arterialspurting, back spatter, castoffpattern);* an understanding of limitations of the measurement tools used to make bloodstain pattern measurements (e.g.,calculators, software, lasers,protractors);* an understanding of applied mathematics and the use of significant figures;* an understanding of the physics of fluid transfer;* an understanding of pathology of wounds;and * an understanding of the general patterns blood makes after leaving the human body.
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United State: A Path
Forward, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html, Prepublication
Copy, at 5-38.
None of these potential sources of variability were explored
in Mr. Johnston’s case, including the fact Investigator Dupius
received virtually no meaningful instruction in this complex
science. Mere conclusory allegations were made with no
meaningful cross-examination or adversarial testing. The reliability necessary to sustain the conviction and impending execution is clearly lacking.
Gene Hietchew testified that fourteen latent prints had been lifted at the crime scene of which four were usable (R. 681). The prints did not match Mary Hammond, Kevin Williams, or David Johnston (R. 682). However, the police failed to compare the prints of Jose Gutierrez who had been observed within hours of the crime sitting in the driveway looking as if he were spoiling for a fight.
The State also had Terrel Kingery testify regarding pattern evidence relating to Mr. Johnston’s shoes (R. 740-52). He received plaster casts, a pair of shoes, and photographs of shoe tracks, among other things (R. 742). Subsequently, he compared the prints and expressed the opinion that Mr. Johnston’s left shoe could have made the print (R. 745). Kingery described the process he utilized as inking the shoes, putting the shoes on his feet (not the same size as Mr. Johnston) and then personally making the prints. He admitted the shoes had already been tested for blood and that he did not use the same soil as that at the crime scene.
Within the National Academy of Sciences report footwear pattern evidence is specifically discussed. “Class characteristics of footwear and tires result from repetitive
controlled processes that are typically mechanical, such as those used to manufacture items in quantity. Although defined similarly by various authors, Bodziak describes footwear class characteristics as ‘an intentional or unavoidable characteristic that repeats during the manufacturing process and is shared by one or more other shoes.’” (footnote omitted), Strengthening Forensic Science in the United State: A Path Forward, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html, Prepublication Copy, at 5
15.
The study goes on to consider individual wear characteristics by stating, “For footwear, Bodziak writes that ‘individual identifying characteristics are characteristics that result when something is randomly added to or taken away from a shoe outsole that either causes or contributes to making that shoe outsole unique.’” (footnote omitted), Id.
In Mr. Johnston’s case these differences and methods of interpretation were either not used or not brought out in testimony. Simply testifying to a match is not enough. The aforementioned guidelines must be adhered to in order to provide the kind of reliability required to convict and execute a man.
The report further calls into question the terminology used to describe testing results. Many terms that are utilized to describe the degrees of association between evidentiary material and particular people or objects, e.g., “match,” “consistent
with,” “identical,” “similar in all respects tested,” and cannot
be excluded as the source of.” Id. at S-15. The Committee
concluded that “[t]he use of such terms can and does have a
profound effect on how the trier of fact in a criminal or civil
matter perceives and evaluates scientific evidence.” Id.
When analyzing the significant advances in DNA technology
and its immense importance to law enforcement to law enforcement
the Committee observed that DNA advances have:
revealed that, in some cases, substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people. This fact has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Moreover, imprecise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence. NAS Report at S
13. The information, analysis, and ultimate conclusions contained in the NAS Report reveal that “scientific” evidence produced by methods with questionable and untested underlying scientific principles is being used to convict defendants.
The use of this questionable “scientific” evidence, coupled with the utter lack of standardized reporting and terminology in forensic disciplines renders both the conviction as well as the death sentence unreliable. Under the Eighth Amendment, the death penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 310 (1972)(per
curiam). Furman stands for the proposition most succinctly explained by Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion: “The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be . . . wantonly and . . . freakishly imposed” on a “capriciously selected random handful” of individuals. Id. at 310 (Stewart, J. concurring). Differences in terminology, for example, could mean the difference between life and death: two experts in the same field of forensic science may testify in two different cases and use differing terminology to describe the same results so that one defendant is convicted or sentenced to death on the basis of that evidence and the other is not. The imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in cases in which untested and unreliable “scientific” evidence is used to convict defendants also constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. When the myriad of problems with so-called “scientific” evidence are considered together in analyzing its ability to produce a reliable result, the conclusion is inescapable: as Justice Brennan wrote in his concurring opinion in Furman, “it smacks of little more than a lottery system.” Furman, 408 U.S. at 293 (Brennan, J., concurring). The use of “scientific” evidence produced by methods of questionable and untested underlying scientific principles cannot “assure consistency, fairness, and rationality” and cannot “assure that sentences of death will not
be ‘wantonly’ or ‘freakishly’ imposed.” Proffitt v. Florida, 428
U.S. 242, 259-260 (1976).
Mr. Johnston submits that this issue should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing and thereafter, Rule 3.851 relief should issue.
ARGUMENT III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. JOHNSTON’S REQUEST
FOR FORENSIC TESTING RESULTING IN A VIOLATION OF MR.
JOHNSTON’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS UNDER BOTH THE U.S.
AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONS.
Mr. Johnston was charged with the murder of Mary Hammond and convicted and sentenced to death in June 1, 1984. Numerous articles of evidence were collected and tested by the State of Florida. At trial, the State introduced numerous items of evidence and adduced expert testimony regarding the evidence.
Officer Ostermeyer testified regarding blood evidence supposedly upon Mr. Johnston’s clothing (R. 641-44). He completed presumptive testing and found Mr. Johnston’s clothing tested positive for the presence of blood. The areas reacting to the Luminol were the back of the Defendant’s shirt, his sleeves, his waistband, the front of his shorts, the back pocket area of his shorts, and his right shoe (R. 648-49). The officer admitted the test was not conclusive and gives false positives (R. 65153).
Gene Hietchew testified that fourteen latent prints had been
lifted at the crime scene of which four were usable (R. 681). The prints did not match Mary Hammond, Kevin Williams, or David Johnston (R. 682). However, the police failed to compare the prints of Jose Gutierrez who had been observed within hours of the crime sitting in the driveway looking as if he were spoiling for a fight.
The State also had Terrel Kingery testify regarding pattern evidence relating to Mr. Johnston’s shoes (R. 740-52). He received plaster casts, a pair of shoes, photographs of shoe tracks, among other things (R. 742). Subsequently, he compared the prints and expressed the opinion that Mr. Johnston’s left shoe could have made the print (R. 745). Kingery described the process he utilized as inking the shoes, putting the shoes on his feet (not the same size as Mr. Johnston) and then personally making the prints. He admitted the shoes had already been tested for blood and that he did not use the same soil as that at the crime scene.
Mr. Johnston has had numerous attorneys over the years and been effectively without counsel for the last couple of years. None of these attorneys did any independent testing. Indeed, many of the testing procedures available now did not exist during the time period when many of these attorneys represented Mr. Johnston or the science and protocols have since progressed to allow a greater degree of reliability. See, Claim II, supra.
When considered in conjunction with the newly discovered evidence claim that the testing procedures used in capital cases such as Mr. Johnston’s have been exposed as often times fraught with error, it becomes glaringly apparent that Mr. Johnston’s case requires an independent forensic review of the evidence in by his own forensic experts.
The trial court clearly erred when it found that, “As this Court concluded in the Order Denying Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing, there is no reasonable probability that the results of additional forensic testing would exonerate Mr. Johnston of the crime.” Order Denying Motion to Produce Evidence for Forensic Testing and Request for Hearing at 1.
The forensic evidence in this case was circumstantial in nature.16 Mr. Johnston has always maintained his innocence in this case. Mr. Johnston’s postconviction forensic experts will review the facts and evidence in this case and conduct forensic testing to utilize the most modern testing and science to ascertain the validity of the prior testing conducted 25 years ago. Additional testing of the evidence listed above is critical to Mr. Johnston’s claim of innocence, and would in no way harm the State. It would be a violation of due process for Mr. Johnston to be denied access to independent forensic testing in
16 Mr. Johnston adopts and re-alleges the argument regarding the exculpatory nature of the proposed testing as argued in ClaimI, supra.
this case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently
found that a state prisoner has a right to postconviction access
to biological evidence used to convict him. Osborne v. District
Attorney’s Office, 521 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2008), cert.granted,
(currently pending) District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (U.S.
Sup. Ct., Case No. 08-6). The biological evidence in Osborne
related to DNA testing and was the subject of a civil rights
action filed pursuant to §1983. The State of Alaska had blocked
Osborne’s access to DNA testing.17 In granting Osborne access to
the biological evidence the Ninth Circuit observed that:
The evidence in question can be produced easily and without cost to the State and, if favorable to Osborne, would be strong evidence in support of post-conviction relief. Nonetheless, the State seeks to foreclose such relief by its simple refusal to open the evidence locker . . .
The State supports its position with the argument that the circumstantial and eyewitness evidence in this case is also strong evidence of Osborne’s guilt, and thus granting access is not likely to “further the truthseeking function of our criminal justice system.” As recent history has shown, however, DNA evidence has the capability of refuting otherwise irrefutable inculpatory evidence, and as we have already established this case is no exception.
If the inculpatory evidence has been correctly interpreted, further DNA testing will confirm that Osborne is guilty as charged and convicted. But it remains a very real possibility that further DNAtesting will be exculpatory and may even lead to
17 Mr. Johnston adopts the due process argument within this claim as if fully argued in Claim I as well.
-26
Osborne’s exoneration. In the former case, the State will have lost nothing; indeed, it will gain even more definitive proof of Osborne’s guilt and will be relieved of the burden of further post-conviction litigation. In the latter case, however, Osborne will obviously gain a great deal, as will the State, whose paramount interests are in seeking justice, not obtaining convictions at all costs, and which will then have strong evidence for use in catching and punishing the real perpetrator. Importantly, the State is prejudiced in neither case, and the truth-seeking function of the criminal justice system is furthered in either case. Osborne at 1141.
Osborne, 521 F.3d at 1141. The same holds true in Mr. Johnston’s
case. The minimal amount of time required for DNA and forensic
testing relative to the twenty-six years Mr. Johnston has spent
on Florida’s death row does little, if anything, to prejudice the
State of Florida. However, this requested testing, if the
results are exculpatory, has the potential to save Mr. Johnston’s
life. Clearly, the requested testing should be allowed and
relief should issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment