“Why?”
“I’ll let it be a surprise.”
“Should I bring Randi?”
“No.”
“Why the heads up?”
“You’ll find out.”
Judge Redding’s courtroom was packed, and Robin guessed that someone in Blaine Hastings’s camp had tipped off the press. Robin found a seat just as Les Kreuger called Paul Baylor, a slender, bookish African American, as his first witness. Kreuger was a bear of a man with a florid complexion and gray-streaked black hair. He had trained for the opera in his youth and used his deep voice for dramatic emphasis.
“Mr. Baylor, are you self-employed?” Kreuger asked.
“I am.”
“What is your business?”
“I own Oregon Forensic Investigations.”
“What do you do there?”
“I provide forensic expertise to individuals and institutions.”
“With regard to criminal investigations, do you work for the prosecution and defense?”
“I do.”
“What are your credentials?”
“I have a degree in forensic science and criminal justice from Michigan State University, and I worked at the Oregon State Crime Lab for ten years before leaving to open my own business.”
“Can you tell the Court a little about DNA?”
Baylor turned to Judge Redding. “DNA is shorthand for deoxyribonucleic acid, a chemical entity that is found in all living things. With regard to human beings, DNA is an instruction manual that helps us carry out all the necessary life processes.
“DNA is also genetic material that we inherit half from our mother and half from our father. In addition to being life’s instruction manual, DNA is capable of copying itself so that new cells in the body have identical content.”
“Is DNA consistent throughout a person’s body?” Kreuger asked.
“Yes.”
“So, a sample taken from a person’s hair, blood, skin, or semen will give the same result upon DNA testing?”
“Yes.”
“Mr. Baylor, will two human beings ever have the same DNA?”
“No. The only exception we know of is identical twins. So, other than identical twins, no two human beings should have the same DNA.”
“Let’s move on to the subject of this hearing. A short time ago, were you contacted by the Oregon State Crime Lab and asked to conduct DNA testing on samples of semen obtained in two rape cases involving two different individuals?”
“Yes.”
“Why did they contact you?” Kreuger asked.
“There is a database for DNA in which samples from an unknown individual can be compared to DNA from known individuals to see if they match. If semen from a rapist is found on his victim, a lab can determine the structure of the DNA in the semen and compare it to the DNA from people whose DNA is in the database.”
“Did the State Crime Lab have semen from an unknown person known only as Ray who was accused of rape?”
“Yes.”
“Were they puzzled by the results when they fed their information into the DNA database?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“I was told that the DNA was a match for a man known as Blaine Hastings Jr.”
“Why was that a problem?”
“Mr. Hastings was incarcerated at the time of the rape. The lab wanted me to conduct an independent test because they knew this result was impossible.”
“What was the result of your test?”
“It was the same as the crime lab. Ray’s DNA and Mr. Hastings’s DNA are identical.”
“How do you explain that?” Kreuger asked.
“There is a theoretical possibility that there are two humans who are not identical twins with identical DNA, but the odds are so astronomical that it is not a possibility in the real world. Therefore, the only explanation I can think of is that there were errors in the DNA tests conducted on one or both samples.”
“Has any police lab ever made errors when testing DNA?”
“The Houston Police Department shut down the DNA and serology section of its crime laboratory in early 2003 after a television exposé revealed serious deficiencies in the lab’s procedures, a Seattle newspaper documented DNA testing errors in the Washington State Patrol lab, and there have been similar problems detected in independent labs that test for DNA.”
“Have these errors led to the conviction of innocent individuals?”
“Yes.”
“Mr. Baylor, as an expert in the field of DNA testing, can you say with any certainty that the test of the semen in the case in which Blaine Hastings was convicted was an error-free test given the fact that identical DNA was found in semen ejaculated in a rape case in which it was physically impossible for Blaine Hastings to have been the perpetrator?”
“No. I cannot.”
“Thank you. No further questions, Your Honor.”
“Mr. Kellerman?”
“Mr. Baylor, if an error occurred, can you say whether it occurred in the tests in the Ray case or in the test in Mr. Hastings’s case?”
“No.”
“Then the DNA test in Mr. Hastings’s case may be accurate?”
“Yes.”
“No further questions,” the prosecutor said.
After Paul Baylor was dismissed, forensic experts from the crime lab were examined. Robin heard the testimony, but she had a hard time believing it. It was obvious that Judge Redding was also having difficulty accepting the only conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence.
When all the witnesses had been questioned, Les Kreuger pitched his argument for his client’s release on bail and a new trial.
“It is obvious, Your Honor, that my client has suffered a grave injustice. Defense Exhibit Three is a copy of the lawsuit filed by Randi Stark against my client after Mr. Hastings was convicted. She is suing for millions of dollars, which gave her a very strong motive to lie about what happened between her and my client.
“One explanation of what happened in this case is that Miss Stark had intercourse with the man identified by Miss Braxton as Ray. Miss Braxton met Ray at a club Miss Stark frequents and Miss Braxton’s description of Ray could be a description of Mr. Hastings. After having sex with Ray, Stark went to the fraternity party and saw Mr. Hastings. She realized that he resembled Ray and this gave her a diabolical idea.
“During cross-examination at Mr. Hastings’s trial, Your Honor heard Miss Stark admit that she bore a grudge against Mr. Hastings for beating up a former boyfriend. I suggest that she saw a way to avenge herself against Mr. Hastings and make a pot full of money in the process.
“Mr. Hastings was intoxicated. Miss Stark lured him into a bedroom with the promise of sex. There were no other witnesses in that bedroom and no one to contradict her when she accused my client of rape.”
“How do you explain the fact that the DNA identified in the sample in Miss Stark’s rape kit matches your client’s DNA?” Judge Redding asked.
“I do not have the scientific training to answer that question, Judge, but none of the witnesses with that training have been able to answer it either. All I can say is that the evidence in the Braxton case raises a reasonable doubt about my client’s guilt.
“Your Honor should grant Mr. Hastings bail and a new trial,” Kreuger continued. “I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that any jury would have had a reasonable doubt about Mr. Hastings’s guilt if it heard the evidence concerning the DNA in the Braxton case that you heard today.”
“Mr. Kellerman?” Judge Redding said.
“I urge the Court to deny the request for bail. Mr. Hastings is a very dangerous man. If he’s freed, Miss Stark may be in danger, as may other women Mr. Hastings may assault.”
“Mr. Kellerman, you are arguing that Mr. Hastings is dangerous, but is he? The crucial evidence in your case against him was the DNA evidence that has been called into serious question by the testimony we heard today. Do you concede that there is an excellent chance Mr. Hastings would have been acquitted if the jury had heard this evidence?”