DNA can't be used in trial, judge says

Associated Press ^ | March 10, 2003 | Associated Press Staff

[MeekOneGOP]

DNA can't be used in trial, judge says

03/10/2003

Associated Press

BEAUMONT, Texas - A judge has barred the use of DNA evidence against a capital murder defendant, citing extreme negligence by the prosecution in sharing the evidence with the defense.

Joe Edward LaRue, 39, faces the capital murder charge in connection with the Oct. 15, 1989, death of a co-worker. Donna Pentecost, 33, of Port Neches, was found dead in her yard. She had been sexually assaulted and her head crushed with a concrete block.

State District Judge Layne Walker initially planned to postpone the scheduled March 17 trial to give the defense ample time to prepare its case. He was also planning to dismiss the jury, which was selected last week after a three-week process.

When District Attorney Tom Maness objected to the delay Friday, Judge Walker said, "If that is your position, we will go forward with the trial on March 17, and I'm excluding all DNA evidence," the Beaumont Enterprise reported.

Judge Walker said the district attorney's office was "extremely negligent" in not turning over DNA evidence to defense attorney Doug Barlow before January, a year after the court ordered the prosecution to produce it.

Mr. Maness said he would appeal Judge Walker's ruling. Mr. Maness said Mr. Barlow did not set up a time and place to collect the evidence, as is customary in Jefferson County.

Prosecutors have said the DNA evidence is an important part of the case against Mr. LaRue. The original case against Mr. LaRue was dismissed in 1994 because prosecutors did not believe they could get a conviction based upon the evidence they had. Advances in DNA technology were credited in November 2001 with Mr. LaRue's re-indictment.

Any appeal of Judge Walker's decision must be made before the March 17 trial date.

---

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/tsw/stories/031003dntexdna.9bf16.html

[MeekOneGOP]

What is the deal here? I must be missing something. It looks like the prosecutor is sabotaging his own case . . .

[drjoe]

This is not really such a big deal. The court told the prosecution what they had to do. They failed to do it. It is not simply a matter of a killer going free. It is a matter of the arrogance of a prosecutor not doing what he was told he had to do. If society has a beef, tell it to the prosecutor who is solely responsible for this fiasco. You HAVE to play by the rules - both sides. Very very sad. It certainly reminds me of the OJ case wherein the police tried to cook the evidence and, as a result, a jury essentially threw out the case.

[MeekOneGOP]

Here is the local newspaper story, from last Saturday . . .

http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7305701&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=481650&rfi=6

Judge tosses out DNA evidence in murder case

VANESSA EVERETT , The Beaumont Enterprise

03/08/2003

BEAUMONT — A state judge Friday threw out key evidence from a 13-year-old capital murder case, saying the prosecution did not turn over the evidence to the defense in a timely manner.

Scientific evidence, such as DNA test results, will be excluded from Joe Edward LaRue’s trial unless the state can get the evidence back in on appeal.

LaRue, 39, formerly of Port Neches, faces the capital murder charge in connection with the death of his co-worker Donna Pentecost.

The 33-year-old Port Neches woman was found dead in her yard Oct. 15, 1989. She had been sexually assaulted and her head crushed with a concrete block.

Judge Layne Walker of the 252nd Criminal District Court initially decided to postpone the trial and give the defense ample time to prepare its case. He was also planning to dismiss the jury, which was selected earlier this week after a three-week process.

However, when District Attorney Tom Maness objected to the delay, Judge Walker said, "If that is your position, we will go forward with the trial on March 17 and I’m excluding all DNA evidence."

Maness said he would appeal the ruling.

Prosecutors were tight-lipped after the ruling, declining to answer questions from reporters. In past interviews, however, they said the DNA evidence was an important part of the case.

In fact, advances in DNA technology were credited in November 2001 with LaRue’s re-indictment. The original case against LaRue was dismissed in 1994 because prosecutors did not believe they could get a conviction based on the evidence they had.

Doug Barlow, defense lawyer for LaRue, said the state did not give him the evidence until this January, a year after the court ruling to hand over evidence.

Maness, however, contended that Barlow did not set up a time and place to collect the evidence, as is customary in Jefferson County.

Walker found that the District Attorney’s Office was "extremely negligent" in waiting so long to turn over the evidence.

The late action forced LaRue to decide between his Constitutional right to a speedy trial and his right to an adequate defense, Barlow said.

The state must appeal Walker’s decision by the scheduled trial date of March 17.

Reach this reporter at:

833-3311 ext. 427

veverett@beaumontenterprise.com

©The Beaumont Enterprise 2003

[capitan_refugio]

As they say, "discovery" is a two-way street. If the prosecution failed to turn over evidence as they were obliged to do, the judge is well within his/her rights to exclude it from trial.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The prosecution screwed up.

[MeekOneGOP]

Here is an excerpt from the article in #3:

Maness, however, contended that Barlow did not set up a time and place to collect the evidence, as is customary in Jefferson County.

It looks like the defense may be as negligent if this prosecutor is right. I agree that rules are rules, but when I read . . .

Donna Pentecost, 33, of Port Neches, was found dead in her yard. She had been sexually assaulted and her head crushed with a concrete block.

. . . it seems like the animal/criminals are winning this one in the war against heinous crimes.

That doesn't excuse any bumbling/negligence by the prosecutor, if any, though . . .

[MeekOneGOP]

Bummer. Thanks . . .

See my #6 also, fyi.

[Piasa Bird]

If there is no statute of limitations on murder then what is to stop the state from simply dismissing the case and refiling the charges?

I don't believe the judge can do anything to stop it.

[longtermmemmory]

There is an inherent malicious prosecution charge that then could be brought. There is also the bad faith in dropping the case. Additionally, it will most likely as a matter of policy end up in front of the same judge in order to prevent judge shopping.

The days of surprise witnesses and surprise secret evidence are long gone. There has to be no litigation by ambush.

This has nothing to do with the case specifically. It has everything to do with prosecutor offices that believe they do not have an obligation to timely share evidence and permit access to witnesses.

If anything, there must be a problem with the DNA evidence itself which caused such major foot dragging.

[Henrietta]

It looks like the prosecution was deliberately withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense, to prevent the accused from defending himself.

Often, prosecutors get away with such nonsense because the judges and the prosecutors are on the "same side," so to speak. Sounds like the judge here understands his duty to society and to the constitution and is going to make everybody play by the rules. We need more judges like this.

[eno_]

Amen to that.

DNA is a potentially powerful tool, but prosecutors who railroad defendants and labs that botch DNA analysis devalue this tool.

Think of the number of burglaries that could be solved if DNA evidence was routinely collected at property crime scenes. But that will only work if everyone plays by the rules.