Defendant’s Motion For Rehearing (includes DNA consultant Tiffany Roy’s Report).
In this motion, It is disclosed the Report that was prepared by Ms. Roy on behalf of Ernesto after patiently waiting for almost four (4) years on the State’s Response to his Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief. Of course, as it was expected, this motion was summarily denied by Judge Andrew L. Siegel just two (2) days after the State submitted its 467 pages Response to Ernesto’s Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief.
It is clear on the record of this case that despite Ms. Roy’s unambiguous concerns about the integrity of the tests results and the chain of custody of this DNA evidence–as clearly stated in her Report. The recused Judge Siegel, recklessly disregarded her concerns and ultimately denied Ernesto’s motion for Rehearing and/or Reconsideration.
Nevertheless, the District Court of Appeal ultimately agreed with Ernesto’s Motion to Recuse Judge Siegel from his case and furthermore, it also agreed with him to vacate Judge Siegel’s ruling on his Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief.
Therefore, right below is the preliminary Report written by Ms. Roy on the DNA related evidence of this case. This Report is currently in front of the new appointed Judge Michael A. Usan, for his own consideration and final ruling.
DNA MANIPULATED CONVICTION 