TABLEOFCONTENTS

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES..3
INTRODUCTION..4
PARTIES....5
STATEMENTOFFACTS.....5
CONTENTIONS....9
PRAYERFORRELIEF.....9
VERIFICATION..10
MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES..11

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
2

 TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

CASES
InreHardy(2007)41Cal.4th977...9,13
InreRichards(2012)55Cal.4th948..13
InreLawley(2008)42Cal.4th1231...13
InreHall(1981)30Cal.3d408...13

STATUTES
PenalCode1473..4,9,11,12
PenalCode1474......5
PenalCode187(a)...........5
PenalCode186.22...5
PenalCode182(a)(1).........5

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
3

 I. INTRODUCTION
Inearly2011inthisCourt,Petitioner,FlorencioJoseDominguezwasconvictedof
FirstDegreeMurderandConspiracytoCommitMurder,eachchargecontaininganallegation
thatthecrimewascommittedforthebenefitofacriminalstreetgang.Heisservinga
sentenceof50yearstolifeinCaliforniaStatePrison.Petitionerhasmaintainedhis
innocencefortheallegedoffensethroughouttheentireprosecutionandmaintainshis
innocencetoday.
TheallegedcrimeinvolvedavictimnamedMoisesLopezwhowasthirteenyearsold
atthetimehewasbeaten,shotandkilledinMountainViewParkinSoutheastSanDiego.
TheprosecutionallegedthatdefendantandtwootherShelltowngangmembersbeatupthe
victimandthenfatallyshothimwhiledozensofonlookerswerepresent.SanDiegopolice
detectivesfoundapairofleatherglovesnearthecrimescenethatindisputablyweresoakedin
thevictimsblood.
Attrial,theprosecutionintroducedthetestimonyofCriminalistShawnMontpetit,
whoisanexpertinForensicDNAtestingandinterpretation.CriminalistMontpetittestified
thatheswabbedtheinsideofeachgloveforDNAtodeterminewhowasthewearerofthe
gloves.BasedonDNAtesting,Montpetitopinedthatdefendantsbiologicalmaterialwas
likelyincludedinthesample.Basedonthis,theprosecutionwasabletoarguethatdefendant
waswearingtheglovesatthetimeoftheshootingandwasthusinvolvedinthebeatingand
shootingofthevictim.(SeeExhibit1.)
In2012,theDNAinterpretationguidelinesoftheSanDiegoPoliceDepartment
CrimeLabchangeddramatically.Underthenewinterpretationguidelines,Criminalist
Montpetitstestimonyandopinionhasfundamentallychanged.IfMontpetitweretotestify
now,hewouldnowopinethatitisimpossibletoconcludewhetherdefendantsDNAis
containedinthegloves.(SeeExhibit2.)
MontpetitsrepudiationrendershisopinionattrialfalseevidencepursuanttoPenal
Code1473.Thusthereisastatutoryauthorizationandmandateforawrittoissueinthis
case.Also,sincetherepudiationisnewlydiscoveredevidenceandsuchevidence

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
4

 underminestheentirecaseoftheprosecution,awritistheappropriateremedy.

II. PARTIES[PenalCode1474]
ThePetitionerinthiscaseisFlorencioJoseDominguez.Petitionerisincarceratedin
IronwoodStatePrison,inBlythe,California.ThewardenofIronwoodStatePrisonisNeil
McDowell.TheDirectorofDepartmentofCorrectionsisJeffreyA.Beard,Ph.D.

III. STATEMENTOFFACTS
1. InFebruaryof2010,TheSanDiegoDistrictAttorneysOfficechargedFlorencio
Dominguezwithonecountofmurderwithaspecialallegationthatthecrimewas
committedforthebenefitof,atthedirectionof,orinfurtheranceofacriminalstreet
gang.(PenalCode187(a)/186.22.)Theallegedcrimeinvolvedthefatalshootingof
a13yearoldboynamedMoisesLopezatnightinMountainViewParkinearly
September2008.PetitionerstoodtrialinOctoberof2010.Afterthejuryhungnine
tothreeinfavorofthedefense,thecourtdismissedthecase.TheDistrictAttorney
refiledthecaseimmediately,overtheobjectionofdefense.Asecondtrialoccurredin
Aprilof2011andDefendantwasfoundguiltyofbothMurderwithagang
enhancement(PenalCode187(a)/186.22)andConspiracytoCommitMurderwith
agangenhancement(PenalCode182(a)(1)/187(a)/186.22).
2. DefendantsdefenseatbothtrialswasthathewaspresentatMountainViewParkat
thetimeoftheshooting,butdidnotparticipateinthebeatingortheshootingof
MoisesLopez.Instead,hewaswithawomannamedDianaBanuelos.Therewere
dozensofpeoplepresentattheparkthatnight.HeandMs.Banuelossawthefight.
Theythenheardgunshotsandranaway.Hisdefensewassupportedatbothtrialsby
thetestimonyofseveralwitnessesincludinghimself,ChristianMartinez,SiriaFord,
DianaBanuelos,andVictorDominguez.
3. TheProsecutiontheorizedthatdefendantandtwootherShelltowngangmembersbeat
MoisesLopezandthendefendantshothimatMountainViewParkwhiledozensof

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
5

 othergangmemberswatched.
4. TheDNAevidenceattrialwasthelynchpinoftheprosecutionscase.Theother
evidencewasweak.WithouttheDNAevidence,defendantwouldprobablynothave
beenconvicted.
5. TheprosecutionproducedonlyoneeyewitnesswhoidentifiedPetitionerasthe
shooter.HisnamewasAndresL.,a15yearoldboywhowas13atthetimeofthe
shooting.AndresL.provedtobeafeeblewitness,whosecredibilityandreliability
wasseverelybroughtintoquestionafterrigorousexamination.Hecouldnottestify
coherentlyaboutwhathesawandheardthenightoftheshooting.Headmittedto
beingbothdrunkandhighonmarijuanathenightoftheshooting.Hewasimpeached
severaltimeswithpriorinconsistentstatements.Headmittedtolyingwhiletestifying
attrialandlyinginpriorhearings.AndresL.admittedthatpolicedetectivestoldhim
thathewouldgetlesstimeinjailifhegavetheminformation.
6. TheprosecutionalsocalledwitnessGlennysBerumen.Berumenclaimedshewasthe
victimsgirlfriend.Berumentestifiedthatanotherwitness,JoseGutierrez,toldher
thathesawdefendantshootthevictim.ThedefenserebuttedBerumenstestimony
withthetestimonyofseveralotherwitnesswhotestifiedthatJoseGutierrezwasata
quinceneraatthetimeoftheshootingandcouldnothaveseendefendantshootthe
victim.OneofthosewitnesswasCarlosRios,aCityofSanDiegoParksand
RecreationEmployee.JoseGutierrezdeniedevermakingthestatement.
7. TheprosecutioncalledcriminalistShawnMontpetittotestifyaboutDNAevidence
allegedlylinkingdefendanttothemurder.Forbackground,SanDiegopolice
detectivesfoundpairofbloodsoakedleatherglovesinabackyarddirectlyadjacentto
MountainViewParkwherethevictimwasfatallyshot.Itwasundisputedthatthe
glovesweresoakedwiththevictimsblood.Montpetitswabbedtheinsidepalmarea
ofeachgloveforDNAattemptingtodiscernwhowaswearingthegloves.The
samplefromeachglovecontainedamixtureofDNAfromatleastfourcontributors
onemajorcontributorandthreeminorcontributors.Afteranalysingthesample,

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
6

 montpetitopinedthatdefendantwasoneofthepossibleminorcontributors.
8. Togivethejuryanideaofthesignificanceofhisopinion,CriminalistMontpetit
associatedapopulationfrequencytohisopinion.Apopulationfrequencycalculates
theoddsthatapersonselectedatrandomwouldbeconsideredapossibleminor
contributortothesameextentasdefendant.Forexample,ononeofthegloves,
Montpetitopinedthatthepopulationfrequencywithregardtodefendantwas1/1700
fortheCaucasianpopulation,1/100,000fortheAfricanAmericanpopulation,and
1/450fortheHispanicpopulation.Thismeansthatifapersonwasselectedatrandom
inthehispanicpopulation,therewouldbea1/450chancetheywouldmatchthe
sampletothesameextentasdefendant.
9. DuringcrossexaminationMontpetitadmittedthatforthepurposesofhisopinionhe
hadtoassumethemixturesamplehadallelicdropout,i.e.thatthemixturesamplewas
incompletespecificallywheredefendantsprofilewasmissing.Further,Montpetit
confirmedthatthemixturesamplehadallelesinthestochasticrangeandthat
stochasticeffectscouldhaveindicatedthesamplewasincomplete.Oncross,
Montpetitadmittedthattheinterpretationguidelinesheusedarecontrarytoscientific
peerreviewedliteratureandtherearenopeerreviewedscientificjournalarticlesthat
specificallyauthorizetheSanDiegoPoliceDepartmentCrimeLabsinterpretation
guidelines.(SeeExhibit1foraportionofrelevanttestimonyofMontpetitfromthe
trialinthismatter)
10. ThedefenserebuttedthetestimonyofMontpetitwiththetestimonyofDr.Roger
VincentMiller,aforensicDNAexpert.Dr.Millertestifiedthattheprofilesonboth
mixturesamplesweretoocomplextomakeaanydeterminationsastominor
contributors.Dr.MillerconfirmedthatMontpetitsinterpretationandcalculations
werenotsupportedbyanyscientificliterature.Dr.Millerdemonstratedthispointby
showingthatevenhewouldbeconsideredapossibleminorcontributortothemixture
sampleusingtheinterpretationguidelinesthatMontpetitutilized.Finally,Dr.Miller
testifiedthatthepopulationfrequencyastestifiedtobyCriminalistMontpetitwas

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
7

 invalidandoverstated.
11. BecauseofCriminalistMontpetitstestimony,theprosecutionwasabletosecurea
convictionarguingthatdefendantwaswearingtheglovesatthetimeofthebeating
andshootingofthevictim.Withoutthisevidencetheprosecutionscasewouldhave
beenanemic,relyingsolelyonthefeebletestimonyofAndresL.andGlennys
Berumenbothofwhomhadbeenimpeachedandcontradictedbyseveralcredible
witnesses.
12. Afterthetrial(sometimein2012)theSanDiegoPoliceCrimeLaboratories
InterpretationGuidelineschangeddramatically.Inordertocomplywithstandards
recentlypublishedbyScientificWorkingGroupforDNAAnalysisMethods,
hereinafterSWGDAM,theSanDiegoCrimeLabrewrotetheinterpretation
guidelinesspecificallyformixturesamplescontainingallelesinthestochasticrange.
(SeeExhibit3.)Trialcounselfordefendantlearnedaboutthischangeinlate2014
whileworkingonanothercase.Suspectingthatthenewinterpretationguidelinesmay
affecttheinterpretationoftheglovesatissueinthiscase,defensecounselcontacted
CriminalistMontpetitandrequestedaninterview.Mr.Montpetitgrantedtrialcounsel
theinterview.Theprosecutor,DeputyDistrictAttorneyKristianTrocha,wasalso
presentattheinterview.Atthatinterview,trialcounselrequestedthatCriminalist
Montpetitreanalyzetheglovesunderthenewinterpretationguidelinesand
CriminalistMontpetitagreedtodoso.
13. Underthenewandcurrentinterpretationguidelines,defendantcannolongerbe
consideredaminorcontributortothesample.(SeeExhibit2SupplementalReport8
ofMontpetit.)Thesampleisconsideredtoocomplextomakeanydeterminationsas
topossibleminorcontributors.Further,underthenewandcurrentinterpretation
guidelines,Montpetitcannolongerassociateanystatisticalpopulationfrequencyto
thedefendant.DuringMontpetitsinterviewwithdefensecounsel,hewasaskedif
thetrialoccurredtodaywouldhetestifythatdefendantwasapossibleminor
contributortothetheDNAsample.Montpetitstatedhewouldnot.

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
8

 14. Currently,aFederalWritofHabeasCorpusispendingintheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtSouthernDistrictofCaliforniacasenumber14CV2890BASRBB.TheWrit
essentiallyallegesthatthetrialcourtsdismissalafterthefirsttrialwasanacquittal
andthesecondtrialwasbarredbydoublejeopardy.Defendantstillbelievesand
legallyassertsthatthetrialwasbarredbydoublejeopardy.Defendantspetitionfor
habeasinthiscaseshouldnotbeconstruedasawaiverofhisfederalclaim.

IV. CONTENTIONS
1. PetitionercontendsthattherepudiationofCriminalistShawnMontpetitsopinion
requiresawrittoissuereleasingPetitionerimmediatelyfromstateprisonpursuantto
PenalCode1473.
2. PetitionercontendsthattherepudiationofCriminalistShawnMontpetitisnewly
discoveredevidencethatunderminestheentirecaseoftheprosecution.(InreHardy
(2007)41Cal.4th977,1016.)Assuchawritofhabeascorpusismandated.

V. PRAYERFORRELIEF
Petitionerpraysthiscourtissuesawritofhabeascorpuseffectiveimmediately
releasingPetitionerfromstatecustody.

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
9

 VERIFICATION

MatthewJ.Speredelozzideclaresasfollows:

IamanattorneyadmittedtopracticelawintheStateofCalifornia.Imakethis
verificationbecausepetitionerisincarceratedattheIronwoodStatePrisoninBlythe,
California,whichisoutsidethecountyinwhichmyofficelocated,andbecausethematters
statedinthepetitionforwritofhabeascorpusaremorewithinmyknowledgethanhis.

Ihavereadtheforegoingpetitionforwritofhabeascorpus,anddeclarethatthe
contentsofthepetitionaretrue.

Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoingistrueandcorrect.

Executedthis_____dayof___________,2015atSanDiego,California.


Respectfullysubmitted,

____________________________
MatthewJ.Speredelozzi
Attorneyfor
FLORENCIODOMINGUEZ

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
10

 MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES
I. AWritofHabeasCorpusisProperWhenEvidencePresentedatTrialisLater
DiscoveredtobeFalse.
Becausescientificdiscoveryisconstantlyongoingthetechniquesusedforinterpreting
physicalevidenceatcrimescenesarealwaysevolving.Thisinevitabilityisrecognizedbythe
PenalCodewhichsetsoutthewritofhabeascorpusasanappropriateremedyforfalse
evidence:
(a)Everypersonunlawfullyimprisonedorrestrainedofhisorher
liberty,underanypretense,mayprosecuteawritofhabeascorpus
toinquireintothecauseofhisorherimprisonmentorrestraint.
(b)Awritofhabeascorpusmaybeprosecutedfor,butnotlimited
to,thefollowingreasons:
(1)Falseevidencethatissubstantiallymaterialorprobativeon
theissueofguiltorpunishmentwasintroducedagainstaperson
atahearingortrialrelatingtohisorherincarceration.
(CaliforniaPenalCode1473.)Falseevidence,perthePenalCodespecificallyincludes
situationsinwhichtheopinionofanexperthaschangedbecauseofevolvingscientific
understandingandapplication:
(e)(1)Forpurposesofthissection,"falseevidence"shall
includeopinionsofexpertsthathaveeitherbeenrepudiatedby
theexpertwhooriginallyprovidedtheopinionatahearingortrial
orthathavebeenunderminedbylaterscientificresearchor
technologicaladvances.
Section1473wasenactedtorectifysituationsexactlyliketheonethathasoccurredin
thecaseofPetitioner.Here,criminalistMontpetittestifiedattrialthatPetitionerwasa
possibleminorcontributortothesamplefoundinbothglovessoakedwiththevictims
blood.Montpetithasnowrepudiatedthistestimonyandnowopinesthatitisinconclusive
whetherPetitionerisaminorcontributor.(SeeExhibit2.)Theprosecutionarguedattrial
thatPetitionerwaswearingthebloodyglovesatthetimeheallegedlybeatandshotthe

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
11

 victiminthiscase.Becauseoftheexpertsrepudiationwhichisbasedonlaterscientific
researchandtechnologicaladvances,suchargumentisnolongeravailabletothe
prosecution.
TherepudiationofMontpetitstestimonyessentiallyrendershistrialtestimonyfalse
evidenceunderPenalCode1473(e)(1).Californialaw,throughthisstatute,specifically
authorizeswritreliefwhenaconviction,suchasthis,isbasedonfalseevidencethatis
substantiallymaterialorprobativeontheissueofguilt...
Therecanbenoquestionthatthisevidenceisjustthat.Atthetrialtheprosecution
arguedthatdefendant,evenifhewasnttheshooter,wasliableformurderunderatheoryof
conspiracy.TheprosecutionarguedthatifPetitionermerelyparticipatedinthebeatingof
thevictim,hewasinvolvedinaconspiracytocommitmurderandthusliableforthekilling
ofthevictim.Ajurynoteduringdeliberationsindicatedthatthejurywasnotconvinced
defendantwastheshooter.TheyaskedthecourtwhethertheycouldconvictPetitionerof
murderonaconspiracytheoryeveniftheywereundecidedonwhotheshotthevictim.
ThejurynoteunderscorestheimportanceoftheDNAevidenceinthecase.
Specifically,itpointstothejurysdoubtintheveracityoftheothertwoimportantpiecesof
evidencewhich,thestateargued,pointedtodefendantbeingtheprincipal,i.e.,theshooter:
thetestimonyofAndresL.andGlennysBerumen.AndresL.testifiedhewitnessedthe
shootingandGlennysBerumentestifiedthatJoseGutierreztoldherthathewitnessedthe
shooting.Basedonthenote,thejurywasdisinclinedtobelieveeitherofthosewitnesses
testimony.Forgoodreason.Thedefenseshedconsiderabledoubtontheirtestimony
throughimpeachmentandpresentationofotherindependentevidence.
Becausethejuryhadclearconcernsaboutthereliabilityofthewitnessaccountsthey
undeniablyreliedontheDNAevidencetoconcludethatPetitionerwasinvolvedina
conspiracy.Thus,theDNAwasthelynchpinoftheprosecutionscase.Now,severalyears
later,wehavelearnedthatthescientificmethodusedtoconvictthedefendanthasbeen
whollyrejectedbythedepartmentandtheexperthasfundamentallychangedhisopinionina
waythatunderminestheprosecutionscase,.Awritreleasingthedefendantimmediatelyis
expresslyauthorizedandmandatedunderCaliforniaLaw.

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
12


II. AWritofHabeasCorpusisaProperRemedyintheCaseofNewlyDiscovered
Evidence.
Newlydiscoveredevidenceisabasisforreliefifitunderminestheentirecaseofthe
prosecution.(InreHardy(2007)41Cal.4th977,1016.)Towarrantissuanceofawrit,the
newevidencemustcreatefundamentaldoubtintheaccuracyoftheproceedingsandpoint
unerringlytoinnocenceorreducedculpability.(InreRichards(2012)55Cal.4th948).
Thestandardfordeterminingwhethertoaffordprisonershabeas
corpusreliefonthegroundthatnewlydiscoveredevidencedemonstrates
actualinnocenceislikewiseestablished.Underprinciplesdatingbackto
InreLindley(citationomitted)acriminaljudgmentmaybecollaterally
attackedonhabeascorpusonthebasisofnewlydiscoveredevidenceif
suchevidencecastsfundamentaldoubtontheaccuracyandreliabilityof
theproceedings.Attheguiltphase,suchevidence,ifcredited,must
underminetheentireprosecutioncaseandpointunerringlytoinnocenceor
reducedculpability.

(InreLawley(2008)42Cal.4th1231,123839,citationsomitted.)Normally,ifevidence
canbediscoveredbydiligentinvestigationbeforetrial,itisnotnewlydiscoveredevidence.
(InreHall(1981)30Cal.3d408,420).
Intheinstantcase,theexpertopinionregardingDNAhasfundamentallychangedin
awaythatcastsfundamentaldoubtontheaccuracyoftheproceedings.Theprosecutions
case,asdiscussedearlierinthispetition,heavilyreliedontheexpertsopinionthat
PetitionersDNAwasfoundinthegloves.Thejury,understablydisbelievingother
prosecutionevidenceinthecase,alsoreliedheavilyontheopinionoftheDNAexpert.Now,
theDNAexperthasrepudiatedsuchtestimonyandstatesthatitisinconclusivewhether
PetitionersDNAwasfoundintheglove.Thisrepudiationrequiresreversalofthe
conviction.
Thisisespeciallytrueinlightoftheotherevidencepointingtoinnocenceinthis
case.Petitionercalledseveralwitnessesthattestifiedhewasnotinvolvedineitherthe
shootingorbeatingofthevictim.ThesewitnessesincludedDianaBanuelos,SiriaFord,
ChristianMartinez,andVictorDominguez.Further,thetestimonyofGlennysBerumenwas

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
13

 alsounderminedbythetestimonyofCarlosRios.BerumentestifiedthatJoseGutierreztold
herthathewasattheshootingandsawPetitionershootthevictim.CarlosRios,anemployee
fortheparksdepartment,testifiedthatGutierrezcouldnothaveseentheshootingbecausehe
waswithhimataquinceneraatthetimeoftheshooting.
Inlightoftheotherexoneratingevidenceinthiscase,therepudiationoftheDNA
expertopinioncompletelyunderminestheprosecutionscaseinsuchawaythatpoints
unerringlytoinnocence.Thus,thewritisrequiredonthegroundofnewlydiscovered
evidence.

CONCLUSION
Basedontheargumentsstatedhereinandthesupportingexhibitsattached,Petitioner
respectfullyrequestsawritofhabeascorpusissueandthejudgementinthismatterbe
vacated.

Respectfullysubmitted,
____/____/________
______________________________
MATTHEWJSPEREDELOZZI
ATTORNEYFOR:
FLORENCIOJOSEDOMINGUEZ

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
14





EXHIBIT1

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
15





EXHIBIT2

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
16





EXHIBIT3

PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpus
17

2. Allele Designation
The new SDPD guidelines document practices that have always been employed by the
laboratory. The current guidelines do not differ from the previous guidelines to any significant
degree.

3. Interpretation of DNA Typing Results

The SDPD laboratory has had the same basic definitions and practice of identifying artifact data
and has been performing analyses in the manner section 3 of the SWGDAM mixture guidelines
indicates since the implementation of Short Tandem Repeat (STR) testing. The new guidelines
further refine many points addressed in section 3 and document practices that had not been
formally addressed in prior SDPD interpretation guidelines.

SDPD validation studies have always contained data on peak height ratios; although the
validation studies performed on the new testing kit exceed those that have been done in the past.
The laboratory has had data for the stochastic thresholds for the kits we employ since
approximately 2006 and have continued the practice with the validation of the new testing kit.

The laboratory previously refined mixture interpretation in August 2009 in response to the audit
document published by SWGDAM. The 2009 changes involved creating a more defined method
of determining major/minor contributors in mixtures and implementing a more consistent
method for performing statistical analyses on minor contributor inclusions (modified again with
the 2011 SDPD guidelines).

The new interpretation guidelines (2011) provide more detail about making assumptions and
handling mixtures of DNA as well as provide additional statistical options (see section 5). A
change in the SDPD interpretation guidelines relates to section 3.6.1 of the SWGDAM mixture
guidelines, and specifically how comparisons are made with evidence samples.

4. Statistical Analysis of DNA Typing Results

The SDPD laboratory has always used the listed statistical approaches to dealing with mixtures
of DNA. The new guidelines provide additional information and guidance to analysts in
applying these approaches. Another change to the SDPD interpretation guidelines relates to
section 4.6.3 of the SWGDAM mixture guidelines, specifically dealing with how statistics will
be performed on samples with low level data when no assumptions can be made about a mixture.

5. Statistical Formulae
The SDPD laboratory has always used the statistical formulae recommended in the National
Research Councils 1996 report (The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence National Academy
Press 1996) cited in the SWGDAM mixture guidelines. In August of 2010, the SDPD adopted
the ability to use the 2p formula (SWGDAM Mixture Guidelines 5.2.1.3) to deal with situations
of undetermined zygosity. The new SDPD guidelines continue the use of 2p and in addition
provide information for the use of Random Match Probabilities in DNA mixtures.

In conclusion, the new SDPD mixture interpretation guidelines are a more detailed continuation
of past practices employed, some not previously codified, and they provide additional
information with respect to utilizing the various statistical options available. The main changes
concern how comparisons are made to the evidence and which markers can be used for statistics
in samples with low level data when no assumptions can be made. The effect of these changes

Page 2 of 3
will be to alter how minor DNA contributors are interpreted and which DNA markers will be
used for statistical calculations on inclusions. It is likely the new SDPD guidelines will result in
more samples that cannot be interpreted due to their complexity and/or low level. With regards
to the statistical significance applied to inclusions, samples where no assumptions can be made
may have more common inclusion statistics estimates, whereas samples for which assumptions
can be made are may have more discriminating inclusion statistics provided in the report.

Shawn Montpetit Patrick ODonnell

DNA Technical Manager Supervising Criminalist
SSDPD Crime Laboratory SDPD Crime Laboratory

Page 3 of 3