Jones v. State, 165 Conn. App. 576

Background

Melvin Jones was convicted at retrial (1996) of capital felony and carrying a pistol without a permit for a 1990 New Haven murder; conviction rested primarily on multiple eyewitness identifications placing a black man in a camouflage jacket at the scene.
An eyewitness, Frankie Harris, testified she saw Jones throw a camouflage jacket into a dumpster after gunshots; the jacket contained a 1988 repair receipt for the victim’s car. No earlier forensic tests tied Jones to the jacket or car (no blood, no GSR, no matching fingerprints/hairs).
Postconviction, Jones obtained STR nuclear DNA testing (2010, retested 2012) on swabs from the jacket collar and sleeves: mixtures from at least two individuals, neither matching Jones. He also obtained mtDNA testing (2012) on three hairs from the victim’s car: two Negroid-type hairs excluded Jones; the third matched the victim.
Jones petitioned for a new trial (2013) arguing the newly discovered DNA evidence would likely produce an acquittal. The State conceded novelty/materiality but disputed likelihood of a different result.
At the evidentiary hearing, experts explained DNA degradation, contamination risks, and that absence of Jones’s DNA on the jacket did not preclude his having worn it; the trial court found the DNA testing reliable but concluded the new evidence would not probably lead to acquittal given the strong eyewitness evidence and other case facts.
The Appellate Court affirmed: DNA exclusions did not establish Jones never wore the jacket or definitively exclude him from the vehicle; the Asherman fourth-prong (likelihood of different result) was not met.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether newly discovered DNA (STR on jacket; mtDNA on car hairs) establishes likelihood of acquittal (Asherman fourth prong)	Jones: DNA excludes him from tested jacket swabs and two Negroid hairs, so a new trial would likely produce acquittal.	State: DNA is credible but explainable by contamination, degradation, prior handling, or non-contemporaneous deposition; does not make acquittal likely.	Held: Denied — DNA, when weighed with trial evidence, would not likely produce acquittal.
Whether DNA shows Jones never wore the jacket	Jones: Absence of his nuclear DNA on swabs implies he did not wear the jacket at the crime.	State: Lack of DNA is inconclusive — poor shedders, clothing layers, prior testing, storage, and handling can remove or mask contributor DNA.	Held: Rejected — absence of DNA did not prove Jones never wore the jacket.
Significance of mtDNA exclusions of two Negroid hairs from car	Jones: Exclusions undermine eyewitness identifications and place doubt about his presence in the car.	State: mtDNA cannot fix time of deposition; vehicle was unclean and could contain older hairs from other occupants/contacts.	Held: Rejected — exclusions insufficiently probative of absence from vehicle and do not likely change verdict.
Standard of appellate review: de novo vs. abuse of discretion for credibility/predictive judgment	Jones: Lapointe supports de novo review of whether new evidence would likely change result.	State: This case differs from Lapointe; trial court made credibility/findings; appellate review is abuse of discretion.	Held: Abuse-of-discretion review applies; Lapointe not controlling here.

Key Cases Cited

Asherman v. State, 202 Conn. 429 (trial-court standard for new-trial petitions based on newly discovered evidence)
Shabazz v. State, 259 Conn. 811 (trial court must assess newly discovered evidence in context of original trial; credibility analysis required)
State v. Hammond, 221 Conn. 264 (postconviction DNA excluding defendant can be dispositive when contamination/deposition timing unlikely)
State v. Whipper, 258 Conn. 229 (denial of new trial upheld where DNA exclusions do not make conviction scientifically impossible; contamination/degradation concerns)
Skakel v. State, 295 Conn. 447 (Asherman/Shabazz standards applied; new evidence must probably lead to acquittal)
Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 225 (limited circumstances where appellate court may review predictive credibility determinations de novo)
State v. Jones, 50 Conn. App. 338 (trial record and factual history from appellate affirmance of conviction)