People v. Rozo
2012 IL App (2d) 100308
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Rozo was convicted of two murders in 1996; the nail, jacket, and glove evidence were not tested or were tested with older methods.
- Rozo filed a 2008 motion for DNA testing under 725 ILCS 5/116-3 seeking testing of fingernail tissue, glove/blood from jacket using STR analysis, and DNA testing of Zink and Derrickson.
- Trial court denied the motion; this appeal followed.
- Court held: testing of fingernail tissue should be ordered; jacket/glove testing denied under a(2); and comparative testing to Zink/Derrickson permitted under a(2)/(c) on remand.
- Key issue is whether the requested testing would likely yield new, noncumulative evidence supporting Rozo’s actual-innocence claim.
- Materially relevant evidence may advance actual-innocence claim even if not exonerating; de novo review of trial court decisions under 116-3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fingernail evidence testing was authorized under 116-3(a)(1). | Rozo | State | Yes; nail evidence not tested before fits a(1). |
| Whether jacket/glove DNA testing qualifies under 116-3(a)(2). | Rozo | State | No; testing available at trial; not authorized under a(2). |
| Whether comparative testing with Zink/Derrickson is permissible under 116-3(c) to yield new, noncumulative evidence. | Rozo seeks comparison to Zink/Derrickson | State | Yes; testing of comparison evidence permitted on remand when it could be materially relevant. |
| Whether ordering testing would materially advance Rozo’s actual-innocence claim. | Rozo | State | Yes; testing could exclude Rozo or show mixed profiles including another party. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pursley, 407 Ill. App. 3d 526 (2011) (framework for evaluating 116-3 testing and prior testing limitations)
- People v. Savory, 197 Ill. 2d 203 (Ill. 2001) (testing may provide nonexonerating but probative evidence of innocence)
- People v. Barrow, 2011 IL App (3d) 100086 (3d Cir. 2011) (materially relevant evidence can advance innocence even if not exonerating)
- People v. Barker, 403 Ill. App. 3d 515 (2010) (DNA-STR testing not widely adopted until mid- to late-1990s; availability affects analysis under 116-3(a)(2))
- People v. Johnson, 205 Ill. 2d 381 (Ill. 2002) (importance of evaluating evidence in light of potential testing under 116-3(c))