The Out-Lawyer's Blog

A LONG RECESS

Testimony ran through the lunch hour and the court adjourned to accommodate a key court employee.  So the case of the People vs. Hans Reiser will resume Monday, January 28th when your Out-Lawyer will be more than 2,500 miles away from the courtroom. I will check in during the week and post at least one analysis before trial resumes on Monday, February 7.

Given the detailed opening statement by the prosecution, I’d not expect any sharp surprises until the defense starts in earnest.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR NEXT WEEK & FOLLOWING

One thing to look for before the DA rests, however:  In an accident case, tried in civil court, one or both sides often call an accident reconstruction expert.  Why not a crime scene reconstruction expert in a criminal case?  It’s one thing for DA Paul Hora to draw all of the disparate evidence together in final argument, but far more effective to have an expert witness do it in front of the jury, subject to cross examination.  A competent criminalist could probably be qualified as an expert in Judge Goodman’s court.  It would be an effective and innovative step- arguably justified by the peculiar circumstances.

Contrary to some reports, so far the defense hasn’t laid a glove on OPD criminalist Shannon Cavness. 

On cross examination today, she acknowledged that – had she thought that she was dealing with two separate blood sources – the preferred procedure would have been to take not one swab, but several.

But she didn’t and a juror is entitled to ask- How does this matter?  In my professional opinion, not very much at all…

More swabs might have identified a part of the bloody area in which Nina’s blood was not commingled with that of Hans and vice versa.  Those locations might have enabled a better reconstruction of the struggle.  This is an example of the defense pretending to be disappointed at police procedural lapses. 

But nothing about the blood recovery has diminished the ultimate finding, to wit: Nina’s blood and Hans’ blood were both recovered from the same entryway post in the Exeter house.

DuBois’s Co-counsel, Dick Tamor, attempted to get Cavnes to agree that Nina’s DNA recovered from the faint blood stain on  the sleeping bag stuff sack might have been drool, arguably commingled with someone else’s blood.

Cavness quite properly answered that, in counsel’s proffered theory, Nina would coincidentally have had to drool exactly on the existing blood spot.  What she didn’t say – and may yet have a chance to point out next week – is that no other DNA was recovered from the bag, and that counsel for the defense is entitled to test and retest evidence.  What she did say was probably enough to persuade the jury: The most reasonable conclusion is that Tina’s DNA came from the blood itself.

The defense has properly pointed out – and Cavness has agreed to – the proposition that DNA science can’t date a sample. But what are the odds – the jury is now entitled to wonder – that Nina’s and Hans’ blood could innocently have been deposited where the police found it?

Stay tuned…

Note your other online resources…

Henry Lee of the SF Chronicle at http://links.sfgate.com/ZBLS .

David Kravets of Wired at http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/jurors-shown-st.html - or navigate to Wired News, then type in “Reiser” having selected blog searches.

Chris Metinko at The Oakland Tribune at http://www.insidebayarea.com .