2012 IL App (1st) 73106
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Harvey Wright was convicted largely on a nine-loci DNA match from a victim’s rectal swabs, though the underwear analysis with 13 loci did not yield a match.
- Defendant moved pretrial under 725 ILCS 5/116-5 to have the ISP determine the number of nine-loci matches in the state offender database or to conduct a nine-loci database search.
- Trial court denied the motion; the defense supplemented with an Arizona nine-loci study showing many nine-loci matches, arguing greater reliability and the need for testing the database.
- The nine-loci evidence was the central identification link to Wright; the victim could not identify him, and other corroborating physical evidence was weak or inconclusive.
- Wright challenges the denial of the database search, alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, and asserts other trial-ruling errors; the appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial.
- The majority holds the denial of the pretrial database search was error (abuse of discretion/plain error), that Wright had not forfeited the issue, and that there were related issues of cross-examination and counsel performance that also require reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a pretrial DNA database search under 116-5. | People Wright argues the defense is entitled to access to the Illinois database. | Wright contends the search is material to the defense investigation and necessary for fairness. | Yes; abuse of discretion; remand for a new trial. |
| Whether the trial court barred cross-examination about the Arizona nine-loci study. | People contend the Arizona study is irrelevant or appropriately limited. | Wright contends cross-examination could impeach the nine-loci match. | Abuse of discretion; cross-examination permitted. |
| Whether the denial of the database search and related rulings prejudiced Wright under plain error. | State argues no plain error or harmless error. | The error affected trial’s fairness and integrity by limiting key impeachment evidence. | Plain error established; reversal and remand. |
| Whether Wright’s consent defense affected preservation of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. | People assert consent defense bars related appellate challenges. | Consent defense does not bar pretrial-116-5 claims; preservation exists. | Consent defense does not bar review; ineffective assistance claim viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lakisha M., 227 Ill.2d 259 (2008) (statutory context for DNA database access)
- In re Jessica M., 399 Ill. App.3d 730 (2010) (dicta on genetic marker analysis and database access)
- Watson, 2012 IL App (2d) 91328 (2d Cir. 2012) (defense must probe statistical meaning of DNA matches)
- Schulz v. Schulz, 154 Ill. App.3d 358 (1987) (evidence value of non-matching but non-excludable DNA)
- Johnson, 389 Ill. App.3d 618 (2009) (DNA evidence as overwhelming but reversible challenges exist)
- Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 553 (2007) (plain error framework for unpreserved errors)