DNA Testing Evidence Allowed if Identity is a Critical Issue – PC Section 1405
Recently, the California Court of Appeals ruled that DNA testing evidence left at the crime scene by a defendant may be performed if the perpetrator’s identity is a critical issue and there is a “reasonable probability” the verdict would be more favorable had the DNA testing been performed.
Jointer v. Superior Court and DNA Testing Evidence
In 1998, defendant Michael Jointer was convicted of second degree burglary with an enhancement for the personal use of a firearm. He was sentenced to a term of 34 years to life in state prison.
In 2012, Jointer filed a motion pursuant to California Penal Code section 1405 seeking DNA testing of a water bottle left at the crime scene. The water bottle was recovered after the 1997 robbery of a Ralph’s Grocery Company in Orange, Calif. Store personnel claimed that Jointer purchased the water bottle minutes prior to committing the robbery. After police lifted five fingerprints from the bottle, a forensic specialist concluded that the fingerprints belonged to Jointer. However, the forensic specialist could not determine when the prints were left on the bottle.
The jury also considered the following evidence in finding Jointer guilty of second degree burglary with an enhancement for the personal use of a firearm:
- The manager’s positive identification of Jointer as the robber in court 15 months later;
- Black clothing found at the defendant’s residence (e.g. hat, pants, jacket, and shirt);
- Documentation showing that Jointer was a security guard at Ralph’s Grocery Company; AND
- Ammunition and a handgun holster found at Jointer’s residence.
The trial court denied Jointer’s motion pursuant to California Penal Code section 1405 since it found that there was no reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable had the DNA testing been performed. In denying his motion, the trial court relied on the “substantial amount” of other evidence linking Jointer to the robbery.
Motion Pursuant to California Penal Code section 1405
California Penal Code section 1405 states that a person who is convicted of a felony offense and currently serving a prison term may make a written motion for DNA testing of evidence. The purpose of this motion is to provide a procedure “for post-conviction testing of DNA evidence for defendants who did not have that technology available at the time of trial and where identity was a significant issue that resulted in his or her conviction.”
California Court of Appeals Ruling and Rationale
The California Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in holding that there was no reasonable probability that the verdict would be more favorable had the DNA testing been performed.
Citing California Penal Code section 1405(f)(4), the appellate court explained that Jointer was not required to show that a favorable DNA would conclusively establish his innocence in light of the other evidence. Rather, it would be sufficient for Jointer to show that the perpetrator’s identity was a key issue and that the results of a DNA test would be relevant evidence. In other words, Jointer was not required to show that the results of a DNA test would require some form of ultimate relief from the conviction.
The appellate court reasoned that a favorable DNA test would result in a more favorable verdict for Jointer. Since the only disputed issue was the robber’s identity, the water bottle was of central importance because it was the only physical evidence linking Jointer to the robbery. The prosecutor himself claimed that “the case is in essence a circle of evidence which begins and ends with the bottle of Aquafina water.”
The California Court of Appeals also held that the remaining evidence was not conclusive. For example, since the manager’s positive identification of the robber occurred 15 months later, the possibility of mistaken identification was a primary concern. The court also found it “unremarkable” that Jointer owned a gun since he was employed as a security guard. It also did not consider the possession of black clothing to be unusual.
In granting Jointer’s petition, the California Court of Appeals held that a favorable DNA test would be sufficiently exculpatory to create a reasonable probability of a more favorable verdict for Jointer.
Call Wallin & Klarich Today
The skilled criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 40 years of experience successfully defending clients accused of a criminal offense. If you are being charged with a criminal offense, it is imperative that you contact our law offices immediately. Our attorneys have the experience to help you achieve the best possible outcome in your case and truly know the law. We will fight for your freedom through every step of the process.
Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Ventura, West Covina, Torrance, Riverside, Victorville, San Bernardino and Sherman Oaks. Give us a call today at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877) 466-5245. We will be there when you call.
