November 29, 2021 at 10:07 a.m.
Expert offers new take on DNA evidence as former custodian pushes for new trial
Expert offers new take on DNA evidence as former custodian pushes for new trial
By Heather Schaefer and Jamie Taylor-
Thus, argues assistant state public defender Jefren Olson, Iliopoulos is entitled to a new trial.
A hearing on Olson's motion for post-conviction relief in the Iliopoulos case was held Nov. 11 before Oneida County circuit judge Michael Bloom. It featured testimony from a forensic DNA analyst who reviewed the DNA evidence at Olson's request.
Dr. Alan Friedman, Ph. D. testified that the DNA evidence was critical to the Iliopoulos defense because, in his analysis, the amount of saliva found on swabs taken from the child is not "consistent" with the allegation that the defendant kissed the child's upper chest and abdomen.
Iliopoulos, 68, is serving a 14-year prison sentence, to be followed by 16 years extended supervision, after being convicted of child enticement, false imprisonment and first-degree child sexual assault.
According to the recitation of the case history included in the post-conviction motion, a summary report on the DNA evidence was prepared and received by the prosecutor's office in April 2019, but the state did not file the required notice until August, just weeks before the trial began on Sept. 5, 2019.
In addition, trial counsel did not request all of the material related to the lab's analysis of the swabs and did not hire its own expert to conduct an independent review of the evidence.
"Trial counsel's failure to request disclosure meant the material was not turned over to trial counsel, is not in his file, and was not reviewed or used by trial counsel in his preparation for trial," Olson argued in the post-conviction motion. "Instead, the state provided only what it was required to provide under (state statutes): a copy of the crime lab's summary report of its analysis, which lists the evidence it tested and analyzed and states the analyst's conclusions."
In his Nov. 11 testimony, and in a letter to Olson dated Nov. 2, Friedman explained that he was asked to "review the state's DNA evidence and offer an opinion on the validity of the crime lab's conclusions that Mr. Iliopoulos's DNA was found on the swabs from the complainant's chest area and whether Mr. Iliopoulos's self-described conduct of pushing the complainant out of the closet could explain the presence of his DNA on her."
"It is my understanding that (the child's) version of events is that Mr. Iliopoulos, the janitor at her school, pulled or pushed her into a janitor's closet and groped and kissed her. Mr. Iliopoulos version of what happened is that when she walked into the closet, he asked her to leave. When she did not, he physically ejected her," Friedman wrote.
After reviewing 69 pages of reports, analyst notes, worksheets, DNA profiles and statistics from the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory (WSCL) in the case, Friedman was able to offer some expert opinions.
First he noted that the transcript of (the child's) interview (taken on Nov. 20, 2018) states that she reported that Mr. Iliopoulos kissed her on the lips and neck area and pulled her top up and touched her breasts with his hands and kissed her under her breasts on her stomach area. She also said he put his hand down her pants and squeezed her right thigh,
"Saliva was not detected on (the child's) upper chest swabs above her breasts or on the abdominal area below her breasts, or on her right thigh," Friedman wrote in his report, noting that the state crime lab uses a "very specific and highly sensitive test" for salivary amylase.
"This test has been shown to detect as little as 0,05pi3 of saliva," he wrote. "Given that (the child) alleged that she was kissed multiple times on the lips, upper chest, and abdominal area below her breasts over several minutes, it is surprising to me that saliva was not detected on swabs from anywhere on (her) body given that high sensitivity of the RSID test and those swabs were collected within 12 hours. Furthermore, Mr. Iliopoulos' version of events, where he pushed (the child) from the janitor's closet, is potentially consistent with the DNA evidence. Saliva was not detected, and the total amount of DNA recovered from the upper chest swab was 0,0109ng/pl, The total amount of DNA recovered was approximately the amount contained in 80 male cells. This is a very small amount of male DNA given the alleged kissing. This small amount of male DNA could easily have been transferred from Mr, Iliopoulos to (the child's) hands and from there to upper chest above the breast."
Friedman's report also states that there was no male DNA detected in the swabs from the right thigh.
"There was some male DNA in the left-hand fingernail evidence and significantly less male DNA in the right and fingernail evidence," he added. "However, the lab did not process this evidence though it may have been appropriate for Y chromosome profiling."
In a written "supplemental argument" filed on Nov. 5, Olson summarized the importance of Friedman's findings with respect to the question of whether Iliopoulos received a fair trial.
"In light of the questions raised by the DNA evidence when compared to Iliopoulos's conduct as described by (the child) and Iliopoulos's denials of (the child's) core allegations of contact, an adequate defense in this case required a full assessment of the evidentiary significance of the apparently powerful DNA evidence. Doing that required an independent analysis of the material documenting the crime lab's work," he wrote. "Had trial counsel requested the DNA discovery and given it to an expert to review, he could have presented evidence like Friedman's and provided the jury with an alternative interpretation of the significance of the DNA evidence and supported an argument that it does not corroborate, and in fact arguably contradicts, the allegations made by (the child)."
"There is a reasonable probability that, had trial counsel sought and obtained and presented evidence that would give the jury grounds to discount the corroborative effect of the DNA evidence, the outcome of the trial would have been different," he concluded. "Therefore, trial counsel's failure to request the additional DNA material to which he was entitled and have it analyzed by an expert prejudiced Iliopoulos's defense.
Trial attorney Andrew Morgan also testified during the motion hearing.
He stated that he considered contacting a DNA expert to review the state's evidence ahead of the trial but did not pursue it.
"It seemed to me that DNA would not help us because Mr. Iliopoulos was saying he was in a confined space with the girl and they did have physical contact," he said, adding that he considers DNA to be a "wild card" at trial and his impression was Mr. Iliopoulos did not want the trial to be delayed.
Iliopoulos also took the stand briefly. Speaking in English, he stated that he would have consented to a delay to allow his attorney to conduct an analysis of the state's DNA evidence.
The motion hearing was adjourned until Dec. 10 because the state's DNA expert was not immediately available to offer a rebuttal to Friedman's testimony.
Comments:
You must login to comment.