Story Created:
Sep 28, 2009 at 5:51 PM EDT
Story Updated:
Sep 28, 2009 at 5:51 PM EDT
SOUTH BEND — A majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices have ruled against a convicted child molester who claimed evidence presented in his case violated his Sixth Amendment rights.
The decision comes on the heels of a recent controversial Supreme Court case that ruled lab technicians must appear in court, rather than send affidavits only.
The local case centers on 40-year-old Richard Pendergrass, of South Bend, who was convicted of child molesting in 2007 for impregnating a female relative.
A doctor determined the 13-year-old victim was pregnant after she became ill at school, according to court documents. The girl revealed to her mother that Pendergrass was the father and that the abuse started when she was 11. Shortly afterward, the teen had an abortion.
An investigation led to the aborted fetus being sent for DNA testing, according to court documents, and examinations found that Pendergrass had a 99.9999 chance of being the aborted fetus’ father.
But during Pendergrass’ trial, he objected to the court admitting documents detailing the DNA analysis, insisting that without the actual lab technicians, the paperwork was hearsay.
The protest related to the recent ruling of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, a case in which drug affidavits deeming a substance to be cocaine were ruled as insufficient evidence. Instead, the historic case ordered lab technicians be in court to back up their claims and be present for cross-examination.
In the Pendergrass case, the prosecution did present live testimony from two lab experts, one who supervised the lab that conducted the report and another who had specific knowledge of DNA.
But Pendergrass argued the actual lab tech should have testified.
In their 11-page ruling, three of five justices found that Pendergrass had the chance to confront witnesses who were directly involved in the analysis, unlike the Melendez-Diaz case, who "confronted none at all."
The judges ruled the witnesses who testified had personal knowledge of the DNA results and were competent to address challenges to the tests.
Two other justices, however, dissented, finding that the Melendez-Diaz precedent points in a different direction.
"The record is clear that it was (the lab technician) who examined the aborted fetus specimen and buccai swabs taken from (the victim)," the dissenting opinion reads. "But (she) was never subjected to the rigors of cross-examination on either the examination she performed, the testing she conducted, or the results she researched."
Pendergrass was sentenced to 65 years in prison for child molestation.
Staff writer Alicia Gallegos:
agallegos@sbtinfo.com
(574) 235-6368
