DNA EVIDENCE EXCLUDES CORLISS -
UPSETTING YEARS OF "INCONCLUSIVE" CLAIMS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v
JUSTIN CORLISS,
Appellant
No. 108 EDA 2017
CCP No. 1749 & 2173 CR 2013
PETITION TO REMAND TO THE TRIAL COURT
TO THE Honorable Judges of said court:
NOW COMES, Appellant, Justin Corliss in the above captioned matter seeking a remand to provide the trial court an opportunity to correct its claims regarding the DNA evidence and to provide some reasoning for its base rejection of the prosecutorial misconduct averred as no record evidence exists to support the lower court's claims. Appellant states in support thereof:
- These combined appeals are resultant of a joined trial of two disparate cases, one a patently time-barred prosecution of indecent contact alleged to have occurred prior to July 1997 [2173 CR 3013], the second, a time barred prosecution of indecent contact claims alleged to have occurred prior to June 2010 [1749 CR 2013]. In both cases the indecent contact claims have erroneously elevated to justify felony convictions, for crimes having no elements of indecent contact.
- Of import here is that the Commonwealth's "bad acts" witness, Danielle Brink, testified at trial that in 1997 she had sexual intercourse with Appellant, for which he was convicted of in 1998, and, that semen was found in her underwear, and, she claims, now in 2016, that the testing conducted on her underwear produced "inconclusive" results; however, the jury from 1998 did not hear these claims, over defense objections.
- Danielle Brink's testimony of 5/31/2016 is consistent with the 1998 Commonwealth claims that the DNA results were "inconclusive." Appellant diligently contested this 2016 trial claim, that was left unchanged by the prosecution, because the DNA results actually "exclude" Appellant as the donor of ANY DNA obtained from Danielle Brink's underwear in 1998.
- By order and opinion dated December 15, 2016 the trial court plainly misapprehended the DNA results by erroneously and sua sponte, asserting the results are "inconclusive" absent any record evidence to support such. The original report writer, Beth Ann Giles of the Greensburg Regional Laboratory has never been called to testify to the results of her test. [3/9/1998 Report #98-0979-G, attached as Exhibit A]
- The lower court's 12/15/2016 erroneous conclusion that the DNA report is "inconclusive" is done in such a manner as to vindicate the 1998 conviction and Daniele Brink's claims in the 2016 joint trial, absent any opportunity for Appellant to present evidence in open court that contradicts the erroneous claims of the DNA results being "inconclusive." [12/15/2016 Op. at 8-11, attached as Exhibit B]
- On March 1, 2017, Appellant received an independent analysis of the original Greensburg Regional Laboratory report that explains, with expert erudition, that the courts and the Commonwealth have mistakenly labeled the DNA results as being "inconclusive" and yet, in fact, the results plainly "exclude" Appellant as the donor of any DNA found in Danielle Brink's underwear in 1998, as has been contentiously propounded by Appellant for nearly twenty years. [3/1/2017 Report by Dr. Monte Miller, attached as Exhibit C].
- The trial court's opinion of 12/15/2016 is self-styled, based on an ex parte review, does not rely on any DNA expert analysis, and, it is opined that judge David J. Williamson is not a DNA expert, has no background in biological sciences nor relied on facts established in open court. The Commonwealth has refused forever to defend their "inconclusive" claims from 1998 as no report writer nor DNA expert has weighed in on this issue, until now.
- Had Appellant's first and second juries been properly informed, by the prosecution, that the Commonwealth's laboratory results, of DNA evidence, excluded Appellant, the outcome of both trials would have been different in that Danielle Brink's credibility would have been destroyed.
- While the incontrovertible physical fact rule holds that where the testimony of a witness (or as here, a judge) is contradicted by incontrovertible physical facts, the testimony of such witness cannot be accepted, it being either mistaken or false, and a verdict based on it will not be sustained. See Lamp. v. Pa.R.R, 305 Pa. 520, 1931.
- As provided, the lower court's 12/15/2016 Opinion was sua sponte rendered, Appellant was not provided due process of law, in an adversarial setting to test the conclusion rendered by the court, that to date, has not been proffered by the Commonwealth. Plainly there has been a commingling of the prosecutorial and judicial functions here.
- Additionally, Appellant complained of gross prosecutorial misconduct involving the presentation of known false evidence and the omission of known exculpatory evidence; however, the trial court has refused and failed to conduct any fact finding on these issues which impedes this court's ability to fairly weigh the facts and law attendant thereto. Absent a full and fair review thereof, by the lower court, resolution will only be delayed further.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing, it is respectfully averred that this matter should be remanded to the trial court for the conduct of a full and fair evidentiary hearing regarding the DNA evidence, the deliberate omission of exculpatory evidence and the introduction of known false evidence for absent this appellate review will be severely hampered which will result in the delay and thus, the denial of justice.
Such relief is sough in the interests of justice
Respectfully submitted,
March 2, 2017
Justin Corliss
MU6240
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200
