Alan Jacobson - False accusations

“How big a sample of DNA are we talking about in this particular case against my client?”

“The DNA was obtained from saliva residues on a beer can, so there was more than enough to get an accurate result.”

Denton knew that Warwick was well aware of that very unfortunate fact.

The public defender cocked his head. “How big is a molecule of DNA?”

“It’s microscopic.”

“So it’s nothing we can really see with the naked eye. It’s nothing that I or any of the jurors could look at and see for ourselves.”

“No. But I assure you it exists and is quite real.”

“Uh-huh,” Warwick said, as if to mock Ross’s last comment. “You said earlier while being questioned by Mr. Denton that DNA can become contaminated?”

“Yes.”

“What are some of the ways in which this can occur?”

“A number of factors or situations.”

“Can you name some?”

“Improper handling of the evidence, improper storage conditions, high humidity, excessive dirt, dust, things of that nature.”

“What about sneezing? Could that spoil a sample?”

“Yes.”

“Coughing?”

“Yes.”

“Hmm,” Warwick said, pacing away from the witness.

The jurors’ eyes followed him. “Something as benign as a sneeze could contaminate the sample.”

“Yes, but-”

“And how much time elapsed between the time that the evidence was gathered and the actual lifting of the saliva from the cans?”

“As I said earlier, I believe six weeks.”

Denton felt pimples of sweat forming on his forehead.

“Six weeks,” Warwick said. “And you said dust or even dirt could contaminate the sample?”

“Again, as I said a moment ago, yes. But it would have to be-”

“And when a DNA sample is contaminated, the results that it yields are then no longer considered accurate.”

“I suppose you could say that.”

Warwick had stopped and leaned back against the defense table, arms folded across his chest. He looked hard and long at Ross, as if he were pondering what he had just answered. It was no doubt intended as an exclamation point for the jury. “Yes, I suppose I could. Thank you, Dr. Ross. I have nothing further.”

“Redirect, Mr. Denton?” Calvino asked.

“Yes, Your Honor.” He stood rapidly and walked to the spot in front of the witness stand, facing Ross. “Doctor, was the sample in question contaminated?”

“No. Not to my knowledge.”

“Was the evidence properly stored, in a facility where there were no unusual amounts of humidity, direct sunlight, dust, or dirt?”

“From what I’ve read in the report, standard protocol was followed, and the evidence was properly marked, stored, and handled.”

“How does sneezing or coughing contaminate a sample?”

“Contamination occurs because you have someone else’s DNA intermixing with the sample DNA. It’s only a concern when you’re dealing with a very small sample, which, as I said, is not the case here. However, even if it were, we would be able to separate out the DNA from the person who sneezed or coughed from the DNA of the suspect.”

“It sounds very sophisticated.”

“It is,” Ross said. “Very sophisticated.”

“And accurate?”

“Extremely accurate.”

“If a DNA sample were contaminated or degraded by dirt or dust, or any such substance, would the tainted analysis come back with results implicating Brittany Harding?”

“No, the results would either be incomplete or unmatchable.”

“And that was not the case here?”

“No.”

“They clearly matched Brittany Harding’s DNA?”

“Yes, they did.”

“Is there any reason to believe that the results produced by the DNA analysis in this case were tainted, degraded, contaminated, or otherwise rendered inaccurate?”

“Absolutely none whatsoever.”

“Thank you, Dr. Ross.”

Denton walked back to the prosecutor’s table, threw a look of triumph at Warwick, and sat down. Warwick’s strategy of attempting to place doubt in the minds of the jurors was neutralized by Denton’s pointedly successful redirect; he was gathering momentum, which was exactly what he wanted as he led into his next witness, Mark Stanton.

Stanton, impeccably dressed and imposing by way of his wholesome good looks and articulate manner, seduced the jury as he told of Harding’s false claims of sexual harassment. As he spoke, Harding seated at the defense table, rolled her eyes and shook her head.

The jury listened intently as Stanton described his conversation with Movis Ehrhardt. Denton inquired about the video they were about to play. Stanton explained why it was made, who made it, the date it was filmed, and the manner in which the filming was accomplished.

Warwick objected again to the showing of the video for the record, citing its lack of foundation and relevance, and its highly prejudicial nature. Calvino overruled the objection, and the bailiff was instructed to initiate playback.

As expected, it had the same effect on the jury as it had had on everyone else who had viewed it-some of the jurors looked at Harding afterward, their faces betraying their thoughts: how could someone be so cold and calculating? She turned away to avoid their gazes, as clear an admission of guilt as there was without overtly entering a guilty plea.

Denton extracted from Stanton the reasons for his reluctance to testify, and by the time he finished, he had all the jurors’ sympathies…while Harding had all their wrath.

To cap off the day, Denton finished with a mere formality: the private investigator who filmed the video-verifying the date and time when it was created, and what he observed. He flawlessly reiterated Stanton’s story.

Warwick had no questions for either of them; the damage had been done, and belaboring the subject would only drive home the image of Harding’s admission of extortion.

Although Warwick undoubtedly wanted to ignore the repulsive content of the tape and move on, Denton was hoping that it would remain an indelible mark against Harding no matter what her attorney was able to accomplish in the coming days of trial.

The day following Stanton’s testimony, Hellman was in Department 12, participating in the trial that had started a couple of days ago. The judge had recessed early, and Hellman stopped in to see how Denton’s case was progressing. He arrived at the tail end of the day’s testimony pertaining to the rape accusation against Madison.

One of Denton’s last witnesses, who was on the stand when Hellman arrived, was Mary Bender, a police officer trained as a rape counselor. It was her job to meet with the victim upon presentation, and accompany her to the hospital to ensure that the appropriate evidence was properly secured and marked. She was well versed in trials, having testified in over one hundred rape cases as to the nature of the evidence obtained, the type of physical evidence one would expect to find on a victim, and the process by which the evidence was collected.

“So, Officer Bender, please tell the court what evidence one would expect to find following a rape,” Denton said.

She leaned forward and used a hand to comb her coarse ash blond locks behind her ears. “We’d find seminal constituents in or around the vagina of a rape victim. Physical findings such as bruises or bleeding confirm that a violent act occurred. Sometimes, the transfer of physical evidence, such as blood, semen, hairs, and fibers will occur between assailant and victim.

“Following the act, we take vaginal swabs, and sometimes oral and anal swabs as well. Pubic combings will be made to check for loose or foreign hairs. Saliva and blood samples are secured, and fingernail scrapings are taken to check for skin that the victim might have scratched from the assailant.”