824 S.E.2d 1
Va.2019Background
- In 1975 JD was raped in her Reston apartment; police collected her clothing (including jeans) and vaginal swabs; a composite and two photo lineups led to Winston L. Scott’s arrest and conviction in 1976 for rape, oral sodomy, and burglary; he was sentenced to 14 years.
- At trial serology of a semen stain on the victim’s jeans produced conflicting ABO results (first Type A, later Type O); the Commonwealth admitted both 1975 COAs and stipulated the jeans were the victim’s and taken from her apartment.
- DFS later tested the crotch stain samples and a vaginal swab (March 2010 COA) and developed a single-source male DNA profile from sperm fractions; that profile was later compared to reference samples.
- DFS DNA testing in 2017 (August/September COAs) excluded Scott and the victim’s boyfriend (RN) as contributors to the sperm-derived DNA profile; the vaginal swab partial profile is concordant with the jeans sperm profile.
- Scott petitioned for a writ of actual innocence under Va. Code § 19.2-327.2 et seq.; the Commonwealth acknowledged the DFS testing but disputed the probative value of the DNA (chain-of-custody/relevance, victim’s DNA presence, possible laundering/contamination).
- The Virginia Supreme Court reviewed the totality of trial evidence, DFS COAs, expert proffers (including a non-DFS expert analysis), and proffered witness statements and granted the writ, vacating Scott’s convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scott) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DFS DNA results and proffers prove actual innocence under Va. Code § 19.2-327.3 | DFS-developed sperm profile from jeans and vaginal swab excludes Scott; thus no rational trier of fact would convict | Exclusion alone is insufficient because the tested jeans may not be linked to the rape and victim’s DNA is not conclusively in the stain | Court: Granted writ — DNA excludes Scott and, combined with other evidence, proves by clear and convincing evidence no rational juror would convict |
| Admissibility of analysis by a non-DFS expert interpreting DFS COAs | Dr. Rudin may analyze and interpret DFS-produced data though she did not perform tests | Commonwealth: petitioner should not rely on non-DFS expert to interpret DFS data | Court: Non-DFS experts may analyze DFS COAs; Dr. Rudin’s proffered analysis is admissible for consideration |
| Relevance and chain-of-custody of the jeans tested | Trial stipulation and Investigator Wilkins’s affidavit support that the jeans were the victim’s and were collected post-attack; DNA from those jeans is relevant to the rape | Commonwealth: trial record left gaps about provenance; at trial Commonwealth waived objections but now questions link between jeans and crime | Court: Stipulation and proffered affidavits establish relevance/chain; testing of those samples is admissible and probative |
| Whether alternative explanations (laundering, contamination, sample age) negate probative value of DNA | Physical stain characteristics, acid phosphatase result, and concordant vaginal swab make laundering/contamination unlikely; redundancy across samples strengthens exculpatory value | Commonwealth: prior serology discrepancy and potential contamination undermine reliability and link to crime | Court: Gave little weight to laundering/contamination arguments; found DNA evidence probative and reliable enough to meet clear-and-convincing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Watford, 295 Va. 114 (explains totality review and "no rational trier of fact" standard for actual innocence petitions)
- In re Brown, 295 Va. 202 (addresses DFS as gatekeeper for DNA testing and admissibility issues)
- Haas v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 284 (trial court authority to weigh documentary/physical evidence)
- Fred C. Walker Agency, Inc. v. Lucas, 215 Va. 535 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)