State Of Washington v. Brian Chadwick Dublin
75817-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 16, 2017Background
- Brian Dublin was convicted of multiple offenses, including first‑degree rape and burglary for the attack on A.B.; DNA from A.B.'s sexual‑assault swabs matched Dublin and no other male.
- At trial, A.B. described an intruder who threatened and raped her on her bed; evidence showed DNA from a single unidentified male on swabs taken from neck, breasts, anus, and vagina (later matched to Dublin).
- Investigators seized items from A.B.’s bedroom (underwear, bedding, stuffed animal, scissors) but did not test those specific items for DNA at trial; their connection to the assailant was speculative in the record.
- Dublin filed a pro se motion for post‑conviction DNA testing of those seized items; the trial court denied the motion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for proper application of the presumption that results would be favorable, and the trial court again denied the motion on remand.
- Dublin also moved to disqualify Judge Middaugh based on an appearance‑of‑fairness claim; the judge declined recusal and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no objective basis showing bias or an inability to hear the matter impartially.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dublin) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post‑conviction DNA testing of seized bedroom items should be granted | Absence of Dublin’s DNA or presence of another man’s DNA on underwear/bedding/stuffed animal/scissors would likely show Dublin’s innocence (underwear likely worn by rapist; bedding likely contains semen) | The record does not tie those items to the rapist; existing swab DNA already links Dublin to the assault, so even exculpatory results on those items would not establish innocence more likely than not | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion because items were not shown to be linked to the rapist and swab results incriminating Dublin undermine any exculpatory inference |
| Whether Judge Middaugh should have recused under the appearance‑of‑fairness doctrine | Prior erroneous orders and perceived firmness in denying the motion show she could not revisit the issue with an open mind | Erroneous prior orders do not alone show bias; no objective facts show the judge failed to consider the remand materials or was unable to be impartial | Denied — no showing that a reasonable, informed observer would conclude Dublin did not receive an impartial hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crumpton, 181 Wn.2d 252 (Wash. 2014) (trial court must presume DNA results would be favorable and grant testing when exculpatory results would make innocence more probable than not)
- State v. Riofta, 166 Wn.2d 358 (Wash. 2009) (denial affirmed where absence of defendant’s DNA or presence of third‑party DNA on item would not reasonably establish defendant’s innocence)
- State v. Solis‑Diaz, 187 Wn.2d 535 (Wash. 2017) (appearance‑of‑fairness recusal required where judge’s comments and conduct would lead an objective observer to doubt impartiality)