People v. Cordova
62 Cal. 4th 104
| Cal. | 2015Background
- In 1979 eight‑year‑old Cannie Bullock was sexually assaulted and strangled; evidence (vaginal and rectal swabs) was preserved but the case remained unsolved for decades.
- A 1996 Cellmark DNA test excluded one early suspect (William Flores). In 2002 a national DNA database “cold hit” linked Joseph Cordova to the sperm found in the victim; Cordova was charged in 2002.
- Multiple laboratories (including Forensic Science Associates and the Contra Costa lab) tested the samples and matched the sperm DNA to Cordova with extremely low random‑match probabilities; defense expert Inman confirmed the match but offered a transfer hypothesis.
- Cordova conceded the DNA was his but argued innocent secondary transfer (from intercourse with the victim’s mother) and sought to implicate Flores.
- At trial the jury convicted Cordova of first‑degree murder and found special‑circumstance rape/lewd‑act on a child; the penalty jury returned death. The trial court denied pretrial motions (dismissal for delay, expanded discovery of laboratory error records) and admitted DNA and prior‑sex‑offense evidence; conviction and death sentence affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Cordova) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre‑charging delay (due process) | Delay was investigative and justified; no substantial prejudice shown. | Delay from 1979 to 2002 prejudiced defense and investigation was negligent; dismissal warranted. | Denial affirmed: prejudice speculative; delay was investigative and justified (citing People v. Nelson). |
| Discovery of lab error/contamination records (Brady/§1054.1) | Prosecution provided all case‑specific lab work; records of other case problems not material here. | Forensic Science Associates’ records of contamination/false positives could be exculpatory and must be produced. | Denial affirmed: (1) lab tested victim samples before receipt of Cordova reference sample, so cross‑contamination in this case implausible; (2) defendant could retest remaining material; other‑case records not material. |
| Admissibility of DNA testing using Identifiler (Kelly new‑tech threshold) | Identifiler is PCR‑STR methodology, an incremental improvement of accepted methods; no Kelly prong‑one required. | Identifiler incorporates novel features and required foundational validation under Kelly. | Admissible: Identifiler is an improved application of established PCR‑STR methods; challenges go to weight, not admissibility. |
| Admission of prior sex offenses (Evid. Code §1108 / penalty considerations) | Prior Colorado child‑sex convictions show propensity and are relevant to circumstances of the crime and rebuttal; probative value outweighs prejudice. | The convictions are remote and dissimilar; improperly used in guilt and penalty phases and as aggravating evidence. | Admissible: §1108 evidence properly admitted; for penalty, crimes considered under §190.3 factor (a) and as rebuttal to character evidence; not admitted under factor (b) or (c). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Nelson, 43 Cal.4th 1242 (discussing precharging delay and prejudice)
- Kelly v. California, 17 Cal.3d 24 (establishing requirement for first‑prong admissibility hearing for novel scientific evidence)
- McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120 (discussing prosecutor’s fallacy and DNA statistics)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause framework for hearsay and forensic reports)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (confrontation rights for forensic certificates)
- People v. Hill, 89 Cal.App.4th 48 (Profiler Plus kit—no Kelly prong‑one required)
- People v. Jackson, 163 Cal.App.4th 313 (Identifiler kit is an incremental PCR‑STR improvement; admissible)
- People v. Loy, 52 Cal.4th 46 (Evid. Code §1108 admission standard and §352 balancing)
- People v. Avila, 59 Cal.4th 496 (section 1108 and death‑penalty evidence principles)
- Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (jury instruction clarity in capital cases)