Daniel King v. State of Iowa, 2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 24

Daniel King was convicted of sexual abuse in the third degree for a 2004 incident with a 15-year-old; DNA evidence linked King to the victim’s neck, and a semen sample from the underwear suggested his DNA but with potential contamination questions.
King’s trial counsel hired a DNA expert, Soll, who reviewed the lab procedures but did not raise cross-contamination issues prior to trial due to the scope of counsel’s instruction and knowledge.
The underwear and other victim clothing were reportedly placed in the same bag; the bag was not sealed upon receipt at the lab, raising cross-contamination concerns later.
After trial, Soll developed concerns about cross-contamination and lack of sperm in the seminal fluid, which defense counsel attempted to raise via posttrial motions for a new trial/arrest of judgment.
The district court denied relief, and the court of appeals affirmed; the supreme court granted review to assess ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland.
The supreme court ultimately held that King failed to prove prejudice under Strickland; even if cross-contamination theories were explored, there remains substantial evidence supporting the verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to develop DNA defense	King argues counsel failed to investigate cross-contamination.	State contends counsel’s performance was reasonable and not prejudicial.	No reasonable probability of different verdict; no prejudice established.
Prejudice under Strickland despite new DNA theories	Soll’s testimony could undermine State’s DNA, affecting outcome.	State contends new theories would not undermine overwhelming evidence.	Insufficient probability verdict would change; not prejudicial.
Reasonableness of trial counsel’s investigation and use of an expert	Counsel failed to engage in two-stage, literature-informed defense with Soll.	Counsel acted reasonably given expertise and discovery; Soll’s later views do not negate trial strategy.	Insufficient impact on outcome to prove ineffective assistance.
Admission of additional testimony and motives of the victim	Additional witnesses could negate or rebut the victim’s testimony.	Such testimony would not alter the verdict and could reinforce guilt.	Not shown to change outcome; no prejudicial effect.

State v. Lyman, 776 N.W.2d 865 (Iowa 2010) (standard for ineffective assistance review)
State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003) (prejudice standard under Strickland)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishing ineffective assistance framework)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (reaffirming prejudice inquiry in postconviction context)
Millam v. State, 745 N.W.2d 719 (Iowa 2008) (diligence and competency in counsel’s performance)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (de novo standard with credibility weigh-in)
State v. Wilkes, 756 N.W.2d 838 (Iowa 2008) (parallel federal/state constitutional claim treatment)
State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (state constitutional comparison cautions)
United States v. Lowe, 954 F. Supp. 401 (D. Mass. 1996) (cross-contamination and handling concerns in DNA evidence)
Mincey v. State, 112 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003) (contamination and evidence handling discussion)