‘Make it Fair,’ Defense Attorney Motions to Exclude DNA Evidence

Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.

A defense attorney motioned to exclude DNA samples involved in a homicide case before DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman on March 24.

Kavon Young, 34, is charged with first-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of John Pernell, 66. The incident took place on July 3, 2010, during a robbery at a cookout on the 3000 block of Nelson Place, SE. According to court documents, multiple armed men allegedly assaulted attendees and stole personal belongings.

The only evidence the prosecution has to implicate Young in this case is the DNA, and it’s lost, Mani Golzari, Young’s attorney, said. He repeated, “retest, retest, retest,” implying that’s what he would do if this case had been able to fulfill his clients confrontational rights, then finally ending by pleading with the judge, “Make it fair – nobody gets to use DNA.”

During the hearing, Golzari stated the prosecution lost DNA evidence during the course of the investigation. The evidence in question were allegedly DNA extracts found on Pernell’s fingernail clippings that were tested in 2011. He stated that if these materials were still present, they would be considered exculpatory.

A forensic scientist, who tested the fingernail clippings that linked Young and Pernell, walked the court through multiple different studies involving the retention of DNA extract under fingernails. He surmised that you don’t find DNA under the nails of a good amount of the population. If DNA is present there usually needs to be intimate contact, he said.

Golzari proceeded to question the witness on his method of obtaining this DNA evidence. He stated the expert used outdated technique, citing a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) article explaining why the technique was discontinued. Golzari also brought up the expert’s own testimony in a past case, where he stated the parameters for proper use of the technique. Those parameters were not followed with Young’s case.

The expert responded by stating he was merely using the methodology of the dated technique, applying it in a different way that wasn’t bound to the same parameters.

The expert rebutted the aforementioned status of his technique, stating that NIST agrees with its use as long as it accurately describes the value that the DNA data has in reaching source conclusion. The expert said he believes he fulfilled this requirement when linking Young’s DNA to the evidence found under the fingernails.

Golzari told Judge Edelman that he was confused on whether the expert was going to stand by using the dated technique for his DNA evaluation or insist on only using the methodology.

Judge Edelman agreed with Gozlari, stating that if there was no resolution before trial, that sanctions on the jury have to go beyond just telling them “evidence is lost – make of that what you wish.” At this time though, he is unsure of what those would be and is only focused on moving forward.

Golzari also stated that at every single stage in this case, Young has been denied his right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. He claims the defense has been asking for names of alleged eyewitnesses since the first hearing, and now two of those eyewitnesses are fully incapacitated.

He also claimed the prosecution lost important surveillance video during the case.

Parties are slated to reconvene March 25.