The attorney handling the murder conviction appeal of Scott F. Doll is asking for a hearing on why a Monroe County medical examiner testified during Doll's trial that fingernail clippings were taken and retained from the victim, Joseph Benaquist, when they were not.
Timothy Murphy argued his motion today in Superior Court, but presiding judge Michael F. Pieturszka was full of skeptical questions.
Repeatedly, in various ways, Pieturszka asked Murphy what would be gained by a hearing when it's already known that the evidence doesn't exist. A hearing isn't going to suddenly produce the evidence, the judge noted.
Murphy argued that is presumably in the best interest of the court to find out why the trial judge -- Robert C. Noonan -- was misled about the existence of the fingernail clippings. Murphy also repeatedly stated that he didn't blame the DA's Office for the missing evidence, but he thinks the ME's Office should explain the now clearly false testimony that the evidence was collected.
At the time of trial, neither the DA nor the defense, led by Paul Cambria, requested DNA evidence from the fingernail clippings. The lack of the evidence was only discovered after Judge Robert C. Noonan, now retired, ordered the Monroe County ME's Office produce it.
Scott LaPoint, a deputy ME, testified in Doll's trial that the evidence is routinely collected and that it was collected in this instance.
Pieturszka asked what the pratical result of a hearing might be since a hearing wouldn't make evidence appear that didn't exist.
"The court is entitled to know why an order was not enforced and fully enforced," Murphy said, arguing that it was in the best interest of the court to find out why false testimony was given and why the ME's Office wasn't able to satisfactorily produce evidence Noonan ordered produced.
The fact that there may have been a third person's DNA at the scene of the crime, on Benaquist's left boot, made the inquiry all the more important, Murphy asserted, but Pieturszka asked whether even that fact was relevant without any idea of how the DNA came to be introduced into the crime scene.
It's an incomplete DNA sample, so a third person cannot be identified with it. There's no indication that, if there was a third person present, it was at the time Benaquist was killed, or if it was on Benaquist's boot prior to the attack, or if it accidently came from an investigator after the fact.
ADA Will Zickl argued that even if Murphy's request had merit, it wasn't related to the motion presently before the court. Zickl said Murphy could bring a new motion to uncover the information he seeks, but the fact that the evidence doesn't exist and can't be produced ends the original motion that prompted the discovery of the mistake.
Murphy also wants hair samples from Benaquist subjected to DNA testing to see if any third-party DNA might be found. But Zickl argued that it was such a bloody crime scene and the hair was covered so thoroughly with Benaquist's blood, there is nothing to be gained by another round of tests.
"The pulled hair samples are not worth the trouble it would take the lab to test it in light of the circumstances," Zickl said.
Pieturszka is reserving his decision until a later date. He gave Murphy two weeks to file a memo supporting his position, and Zickl two weeks after that to produce an answering memo.
Previously: DNA sample can't be matched to 2009 murder victim, nor the man convicted of killing him
Forl all previous coverage of the Scott Doll case, click here.
"Repeatedly, in various ways,
"Repeatedly, in various ways, Pieturszka asked Murphy what would be gained by a hearing when it's already known that the evidence doesn't exist."
And, again. "Pieturszka asked what the pratical result of a hearing might be since a hearing wouldn't make evidence appear that didn't exist."
Uh, what was that question, Judge Pieturszka?
"What practical result of a hearing might be ..."?
How about, such a hearing might result in a deputy medical examiner being brought up on
perjury charges.
Oh, that's right. I forgot that deputy ME works for the "gov't. Therefore, I guess he's immune to the laws that us common folks have to abide by. I guess he can lie in a court of law, and not be worried about any repercussions.
I wonder where he got that idea from. Maybe he's been taking lying lessons from the "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period!" guy. Or, maybe he follows the "There are no classified emails on my server" gal.
Who knows where he might get the idea that gov't workers aren't to be held accountable for their actions, or words? Heaven knows, he's got enough examples to choose from.
Oops!
Oops!
Looks like I've poked the behinds of those that don't care if our gov't officials are trustworthy.
Then, I'll assume they are probably members of that 'club'.
So, do the fingernail
So, do the fingernail scrapings match Scott's son?
I for one totally agree with
I for one totally agree with you Ed. No, a hearing won't make evidence re-appear, or appear that didn't exist in the first place, whichever is the case. But people in power need to be held accountable , and lying about evidence unfortunately has been instrumental in putting many innocent people behind bars. Check out the work of the Innocence Project and some of what they have uncovered. I still should be addressed, it may or may not shed a different light on what happened.
Hi, Debra.
Hi, Debra.
Yeah, I know of the Innocence Project and some of their work.
In fact, I just spent 3 evenings last week watching the Netflix production, "Making A Murderer". If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it. (By the way, it's a true story - not a hollywood pipedream). It (in my opinion, anyways) shows the corruption of one of our gov't agencies.
I no sooner finished watching it, and I invited my nephew over the following 3 evenings to watch it. So, I got to see it twice in 1 week. And, as I sit here typing about it, it still makes my blood boil.
There does seem to be two sets of "rules/consequences" for the people.
Five minutes ago, as I listened to WHAM (radio), it came over the air that Robert Weisner, the husband of former Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks, has plead guilty to committing an antitrust crime in connection with a public corruption scandal. (He is, also, a former captain of the Rochester Police Department).
So, what is Mr. Weisner's sentence for such a crime?
He has been sentenced to a three-year conditional discharge, and will avoid prison time if he remains out of trouble. He will also pay a $5,000 fine and have to forfeit $3,000 for an improper discount he received for a home security system from one of the contractors involved in the contract.
Yep! TWO sets of rules/consequences!
Please don't get me going. Since I retired, I've spent an inordinate amount of time watching actual (REAL) corrupt policemen, sheriffs, police agencies, city/town council meetings, etc., on Youtube. And I'm not just talking about a dozen or two. I'm talking hundreds and hundreds - possibly a thousand or more. All caught on video. And, in FAR TOO MANY cases, no consequences beyond a "handslap/dontcha do that again" - sometimes the consequences amount to a transfer to a different agency, with a pay raise/job advancement.
Trust me when I say, corruption is rampant.
Our county is filled with
Our county is filled with corruption. But for the person who suggested or for anyone who has suggested his son was involved, learn the facts of this case.
In this case you have a juror who slept through half the trial, missing evidence, a ME that was allowed to commit perjury (that I'm sure the DA was aware of) and the suggestion that no one sought to have the DNA tested at the beginning. The DA's office will continue to back pedal so they can save face.
Make no mistake my heart goes out to the family members of the victim however, there were other people who should have been looked at but weren't.