Thomas Pope, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
60 Va. App. 486
| Va. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Pope, Jr. was convicted of rape and first-degree murder for a 1975 Emporia crime where the victim was attacked in her home and later died.
- Evidence showed Harrell collected items from the victim’s home and stored them before transferring to the state lab; DFS personnel performed serology in 1975 and later DNA testing in 2007–2008.
- DNA testing identified a foreign profile and, after database search, matched Pope’s profile; a buccal swab from Pope was analyzed.
- Schiermeier-Wood prepared certificates of analysis reflecting victim and perpetrator DNA profiles and conducted further analysis and rarity statistics.
- Appellant challenged the DNA certificates, the chain of custody, hearsay at trial, the use of DNA statistics (RMP vs DMP), and a post hoc subpoena; the trial court denied relief on all issues.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court’s rulings and the verdicts and sentence were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to strike | Pope argues Commonwealth’s reasons were pretextual | Lee strike based on lack of information; race-neutral reasons | No error; challenge waived under Rule 5A:18 or good cause ends of justice exception not satisfied |
| Chain of custody | Vital link missing due to Harrell’s uncertain custody | Gaps affect weight, not admissibility; Roseberry corroborated items | No abuse of discretion; chain of custody sufficient for admission of DNA evidence |
| Hearsay evidence | Roseberry testifying to Harrell’s statements about evidence is hearsay | Record insufficient to assess; argument waived for lack of contemporaneous objection | Waived; arguments not properly preserved under Rule 5A:12/5A:18 |
| RMP vs DMP and need for expert | DMP should be admissible; offers alternative database probability | DMP not sufficiently reliable; DFS does not use it; need expert | No error; trial court did not abuse discretion denying DMP and expert |
| Certificates of analysis (Code § 19.2-187) | Schiermeier-Wood not the examiner for actual testing; improper signing | Certificate reflects analysis conducted and signed by qualified examiner | No error; certificate admissible under § 19.2-187; examiner requirement satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 449 (1994) (Batson challenge; standards for preservation and pretext showings)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126 (1989) (ends of justice exception narrow and to be used sparingly)
- Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215 (1997) (miscarriage of justice standard; ends of justice rationale)
- Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433 (1987) (miscarriage of justice threshold; ends of justice applicability)
- Andrews v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 479 (2002) (good cause exception not satisfied when no timely objection)