PART I. [BSO Crime Lab DNA Technician, Donna Marchese]
At a pretrial Arthur hearing conducted on December 17, 1999, BSO Crime Lab DNA technician Donna Marchese told me in the presence of my attorneys, in pertinent part: “when using my microscope, I was able to find one spermatozoa cell, that was entwined into the fiber of the fitted sheet.” Then during trial, in September 2000, she testified under oath that the sperm cell she found yielded six feet of genetic material. She further claimed that she obtained a sufficient amount of DNA material to conduct the RFLP DNA testing in this case.
However, after the trial had concluded, I contracted the services of an independent DNA Laboratory, LabCorp for a second opinion. According to Anthony D. Winston, Associate Technical Director of Forensic Identity Testing, Ms. Marchese’s testimony at trial would have been wrong and scientifically impossible. Apparently, science dictates that in order to conduct an RFLP DNA test using sperm cells, the scientist must have a minimum of 200 individual sperm cells. Thus, this scientific conclusion from LabCorp is in sharp contrast with that presented to the jury by BSO Crime Laboratory technician Donna Marchese at trial. For more information about this State’s expert witness’ testimony at trial and/or access to the whole Trial Transcripts go to Ernesto’s Court Documents and click on – (Trial Transcripts Vol 7, pgs. 878 – 1009).
PART II. [BSO Crime Lab DNA Population and Statistics Consultant, Dr. Martin Tracey]
At trial, Dr. Martin Tracey told the jury that according to the calculation he performed on the DNA testing results obtained by BSO Crime Laboratory DNA technician Donna Marchese, on the DNA evidence extracted from the green fitted sheet, the probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual to me, that could match the DNA found on the victim’s green fitted sheet would be approximately 1 in 14 billion people. For more information about this State’s expert witness’ testimony at trial and/or access to the whole Trial Transcripts go to Ernesto’s Court Documents and click on – (Trial Transcripts Vol 7, pgs. 1010 – 1052).
PART III. [Assistant State Attorney, Dennis Siegel’s Closing Argument]
As it is clearly shown on the trial transcripts provided below, the Assistant State Attorney Mr. Siegel improperly bolstered the State’s DNA experts during his closing arguments while attempting to gain the trust and sympathy of the jurors. His closing arguments included, in pertinent part, the following statements:
“Furthermore, the DNA evidence does not lie. It is a scientific test. It does not have any biases in there. It does not have reasons to fabricate. It is just a scientific test. It is a well recognized and accepted scientific test which was reviewed and analyzed by knowledgeable, experienced people: Donna Marchese and Professor Martin Tracey. Ms. Marchese and Professor Tracey have no motive whatsoever to fabricate anything they said…”
For more details on how this Assistant State Attorney improperly bolstered these experts at trial and/or direct access to the whole Closing Arguments go to Ernesto’s Court Documents and click on – (Trial Transcripts Vol 8, pgs. 1221 – 1246. Specifically, page 1228).
On the other hand, since PBSO Crime Lab had created a PCR DNA profile identifying my DNA genetic markers after obtaining my oral swabs from the Miami-Dade Crime Lab. I submitted that “DNA PROFILE” of mine, created by the PBSO Crime Lab to the independent DNA Laboratory LabCorp. This independent Laboratory’s conclusions were as follows:
“Based on the DNA profile provided via fax. The probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual’s DNA profile that matches the profile provided at the genetic systems analyzed is approximately:
1 in 2,220,000 for the African American Population.
1 in 469,000 for the Caucasian Population.
1 in 454,000 for the Southeastern Hispanic Population.
1 in 829,000 for the Southwestern Hispanic Population.”
Therefore, the PCR DNA calculations performed by LabCorp on my DNA profile are in fact, 13 ½ billion less than the RFLP DNA calculations utilized and testified by Dr. Martin Tracey at trial. Those numbers of 14 billion presented to the jury, were extremely prejudicial. Especially, where the record clearly shows that my PCR DNA profile, obtained by the PBSO Crime Lab, was in the hands of the prosecutor since December 1997, almost 3 years before my trial took place.
Additionally, the Plantation Police Department Property Receipt Chain of Custody on the “black and white dress,” unambiguously depicts that this dress was more likely than not, PCR DNA tested by BSO Crime Lab’s DNA technician Donna Marchese, on February 2, 2000, even though, the defense was never placed on notice that this testing was taking place.
Equally important, was the fact that I was unable to afford a DNA expert that could have challenged or rebutted the State’s DNA experts’ opinions. And, of course, because of my impossibilities of knowing back in 2000, about the BSO Crimes Lab and its DNA experts’ lack of professional integrity and personal reputation, before it became public in 2016. Therefore, because my whole theory of defense at trial was based on tampering with/planting on DNA evidence. I was in fact, harmfully precluded from presenting to the jury this new information in support of my defense. Specifically, that the BSO Crime Lab mishandled and miscalculated DNA evidence that contained DNA from more than one person. These facts were necessary in my trial to cast out the necessary doubt on the State’s seemingly powerful DNA evidence, collection and testing procedures, and its experts’ now questionable scientific testimonies. For more information related to this issue with the BSO Crime Lab DNA Unit go to:
http://www.sao17.state.fl.us/BSODNA ASCLD.pdf
DNA MANIPULATED CONVICTION 