Widespread DNA review after quashed murder conviction
Almost 250 criminal cases are still under scrutiny “in the interest of fairness” after a man sentenced to life in prison for murder had his conviction overturned owing to flawed DNA evidence.
Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told The Royal Gazette that 244 cases that could be affected by the DNA issues raised in Julian Washington’s successful appeal to the Privy Council in London were “still in the review process”.
Cases involving people in prison are being prioritised.
Ms Clarke launched her review this year after a miscarriage of justice was discovered in the 2014 murder and attempted murder convictions of Mr Washington, who spent a decade behind bars.
It was due to be completed by the end of July but Ms Clarke said she now expected to be able to comment on progress by December 1.
Forensic scientist Candy Zuleger, of Florida-based Trinity DNA Solutions, gave expert evidence at Mr Washington’s trial.
It has since been determined that her firm had a lack of policies and procedures in place for the specific typing and analysis that was relied upon by prosecutors.
The DPP’s review, according to a formal judgment from the Privy Council dated October 31, established that Trinity DNA Solutions carried out forensic analysis in 426 cases in Bermuda between 2006 and 2015 and “DNA was found in 247”.
Ms Clarke told the Gazette that three of the 247 were flagged up to her first “because they had the same DNA processes that were referred to in the Washington trial”. None of the three were approved for prosecution.
The DPP added that the remaining 244 cases “did not use the same process but are being reviewed in the interest of fairness”.
In cases involving a prosecution and conviction, relevant documentation, including the trial transcript, is being sent to Barbara E. Llewellyn, an expert in forensic DNA commissioned by the DPP.
The Privy Council ruling said that Dr Llewellyn would “assess whether any of the flaws identified” in Mr Washington’s case by her and Dan Krane, the DNA expert hired by the plaintiff’s legal team, were present.
Tom Poole, KC, representing the DPP, told the appeal panel at a hearing in June that the DPP would not await the identification of flaws before informing a convicted person of the existence of a review into DNA evidence.
The ruling summarised Mr Poole as saying: “Rather, as soon as it becomes apparent that any individual in the 247 cases has been convicted, then that individual will immediately be informed that a review is being conducted by Dr Llewellyn.
“Once informed, the individual can make their own submissions to Dr Llewellyn and instruct their own expert.
“Dr Llewellyn’s report will be disclosed to the individual as well as being provided to the DPP.”
The ruling continued: “Any case in which the individual is in prison will be prioritised.
“The review by Dr Llewellyn also extends to those cases in which there was a prosecution, but the accused was acquitted, and where there was no prosecution.”
Mr Washington was convicted in 2014 of the 2012 gun murder of Stefan Burgess and attempted murder of Davano Brimmer, after prosecution witness Ms Zuleger told his Supreme Court trial that there was a 1-in-46 million chance that he was not a possible contributor to DNA found on bullet casings near the murder scene.
A British charity, the Death Penalty Project, took on Mr Washington’s case in 2021 and obtained fresh evidence to challenge the forensic evidence at his trial on the basis that it was “flawed, imbalanced and wrongly implicated him”.
The 34-year-old always protested his innocence and he walked free from Westgate in May after the Crown decided not to contest his appeal against his convictions.
Lawyer Parvais Jabbar, co-executive director of the Death Penalty Project, has called for an independent review of all the cases in which Ms Zuleger gave expert evidence.
At the Privy Council hearing in June, Icah Peart, KC, representing Mr Washington, accepted that the review now suggested by the DPP was appropriate.
The ruling stated: “The DPP has provided information in relation to the review in a transparent manner to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
“The board records the information which has been provided by the DPP for the same purpose of maintaining public confidence that a review is being carried out to correct potential miscarriages of justice.”
• To read the Privy Council ruling, see Related Media
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers
