The Army Sergeant was charged with raping his friend’s underage babysitter after a night of drinking and beer pong at his friend’s home. When Tim Bilecki was retained in this case, the evidence against the Client was daunting. Many defense attorneys would have folded and pled guilty. But Bilecki did not and won the trial.
The government presented Bilecki with evidence from the DNA branch of the United States Army Criminal Investigative Laboratory (USACIL), which showed that the Sergeant’s DNA was a “match” to that found on the underwear of the alleged victim. In addition, there were witnesses who allegedly saw the Sergeant lying naked on the floor next to the sleeping underage babysitter. Lastly, the government had evidence from the sexual assault forensic examination showing injuries that it claimed could be consistent with a recent sexual act.
Undaunted and knowing the Soldier was facing life in prison if convicted, Bilecki assembled the best defense team possible to investigate the case, conduct a thorough evaluation of the evidence, and devise a winning strategy for the trial.
Mr. Bilecki used his two best investigators, one of whom was a retired Honolulu Police Department sex crimes detective with over 30 years of experience. Bilecki also brought on board Mr. Dean Wideman, one of the nation’s leading DNA experts. Bilecki’s investigators uncovered a myriad of problems with the government’s case, including a great deal of information that would shake the credibility of the government’s star witnesses.
After conducting a thorough analysis of the DNA evidence, Bilecki discovered that the “DNA match” was, in fact, only a partial profile match based on Y-STR DNA testing as opposed to autosomal testing. (If you are facing charges involving Y-STR DNA testing, we are happy to discuss the details and pitfalls of this unique form of DNA testing). The statistic reported for the partial Y-STR profile in this case was approximately 1 in 500. That figure did not establish a one-in-500 probability that someone other than our client deposited the DNA.
At trial, Mr. Bilecki conducted a detailed cross-examination of the USACIL DNA examiner and revealed a number of inconsistencies:
-
the ratio of female to male DNA was too high to conduct autosomal DNA (the gold standard);
-
the amount of DNA that was actually obtained was less than one-half of one billionth of a gram;
-
the laboratory obtained only a partial Y-STR profile from the 15 markers it analyzed;
-
the bedding, clothes and other evidence collected were not tested for DNA, and
-
the partial Y-STR profile did not uniquely identify our client.
Bilecki then cross-examined the DNA expert on Locard’s theory of transference and revealed that the vaginal swabs taken from the alleged victim contained no male DNA and that, given the forensic evidence in the case, the absence of male DNA on those swabs undermined the prosecution’s account of direct sexual transfer.
Then Mr. Bilecki probed the statistical data to question the confidence ratio of the DNA, for purposes of casting additional doubt on the test results. At the conclusion of the DNA cross-examination, the government’s case was hit hard as the defense theory of secondary transfer was looking more like the actual manner in which the male DNA was found on the underwear of the complaining witness. The defense also raised considerable doubt on the prosecution’s initial claim that they had a “DNA match” to the Sergeant.
At trial, Mr. Bilecki also cross-examined the sexual assault forensic examiner who conducted the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE) on the alleged victim. Mr. Bilecki revealed that the only abnormality noted in the SAFE was erythema, or redness. He challenged the significance of that finding, including whether something as ordinary as tight jeans could explain it, and argued that the examination did not corroborate the assault alleged in this case. This collateral information placed even greater doubt on the government’s “smoking gun” DNA evidence.
Finally, Mr. Bilecki cross-examined the lead CID agent in the case and challenged his sloppy and incomplete investigation, pointing out to the jury that there was a significant amount of evidence that could have been exculpatory, but which was never collected and forensically examined.
Ultimately, for whatever reason, the government elected not to call the alleged victim in this case, and after waiting for nearly a year for his trial, the Sergeant was found not guilty in less than one hour. Had he pled guilty, he likely would have received over ten years of confinement.
Prior results do not predict future outcomes.