mittenstate1988
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2016
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 68
LOL. You underestimate your memory! Just to cover my *advertiser censored* here, I am from Michigan but not licensed in Michigan, so take everything I say with a handful of salt. Most of this stuff is pretty standard across US jurisdictions but criminal law isnt even my practice area, so I dont want to mislead you. I have no inside info. This case hits too close to home for me and Im admittedly way over-invested, so Ive done my research. I think there are a few MI lawyers following this thread so if they say I'm wrong, defer to them, lol. I will do my best to provide you with some sources so that you can arrive at your own educated opinions, though.
At the outset, I agree with just about everything you said. He probably never consented to a voluntary DNA test. He lawyered up pretty quickly. Even for his various jobs (security guard, EMT, firefighter training), they probably did not collect his DNA. Most background checks consist of drug tests, public criminal record, and maybe fingerprints. My initial feeling at the very beginning of all this was that fingerprints might come back to haunt him. Did I read somewhere in the past few days that he had a DUI conviction at some point in his past?
I don't want to go too far down the speculation rabbit hole here. It doesnt really matter if he voluntarily gave up his DNA at this point, anyway. Well, it does, but only to the extent that LE followed the book on obtaining the search warrants and the laws of criminal procedure. If there were 60-some warrants executed related to Danielles case, and FGs home was searched 5-7 times (as reported), you can pretty much bet that they got a warrant for a DNA swab or hair sample or both. They can only use that warranted sample to the extent of investigating the matter outlined in the warrant (Danielles case not the sexual assault case which is why youve probably noticed the careful wording used in recent news articles). However, its a little different for when they obtained DNA by swabbing her car or anything else not directly coming out of FG's body for the purpose of collecting his DNA.
You shouldnt think of CODIS as just one giant database. To pull directly from Wikipedia:
"The CODIS software contains multiple different databases depending on the type of information being searched against. Examples of these databases include, missing persons, convicted offenders, and forensic samples collected from crime scenes..." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_DNA_Index_System)
That last example is what is relevant here. Think about it. We have 2, maybe 3 crime scenes and 2 victims. For Danielle, LE has probably focused on collecting evidence from her Jeep, her apartment, and Berkley house. For the jogger, her physical body, clothes, etc., would be the primary focus for collection purposes.
If the Hines Park sexual assault victim went to the hospital and had her clothes taken for evidence, and her skin swabbed, etc., there could be DNA from an alleged assailant on that evidence. If so, they can run it through CODIS/Forensic Index to see if there is a hit. A hit can either be a possible suspect profile whose DNA is in the system and can be identified or be what they call, a forensic hit. A forensic hit is when you have a DNA profile from different crime scenes that match but the identity of the possible offender is still totally unknown. (https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet) SOOO if, for example, they collected DNA evidence from a possible offender via Danielles Jeep (remember - they have said they are pretty certain someone else drove her car) or whatever else, it could have matched up with the sexual assault kit evidence from the Hines Park victim. That is looking like it boils down to the same guy.
With how long this has taken, Im certain they have way more evidence than we know about. This is where the "puzzle piece" metaphor is most applicable. Theres a reason they requested to seal the record in the sexual assault case. If theyre worried about threats, that seems to suggest there is at least one witness who might be "worth" threatening/harassing. If we are to believe the news reports, there is, at the very least, forensic evidence from the Hines Park case that overlaps to some extent with forensic evidence from Danielles case. There is also a sketch and witness description that at least somewhat resembles the alleged perpetrator in the Hines Park case. That guy has similar features as the guy living in the Berkley home, who may or may not have been the last one seen with Danielle, but at least was acquainted with her. They may have phone pings or traffic/trail cams that put him/his phone/his vehicle in the vicinity of the trail AT LEAST. We arent privy to the rest but law enforcement at least had sufficient probable cause to charge Floyd Galloway Jr. in the sexual assault case. I think that's how those "puzzle pieces" fit together.
Now... to specifically address the DNA connection and what evidence is admissible...
Michigan recently revised their DNA collection laws. If you are arrested for attempting to commit or actually committing certain types of felonies, you will be court ordered to provide a DNA sample for profiling purposes (CODIS). (https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CODIS_FAQs_491665_7.pdf) The Supreme Court of the US seems to be on board with the general idea. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/dna-databases/) Now, look at Floyds charges multiple felonies. Thats why the court ordered him to provide a DNA sample. Even though the evidence obtained from warrants related to the probable cause for charging him in the assault case cannot be used in subsequent unrelated cases (or vice versa), the court ordered sample can be entered into CODIS and that can be used to connect him to potential DNA evidence from crime scenes that has already been databased. You use the search warrant to get the DNA to get the probable cause to arrest and charge with a felony, which then requires a sample be taken to be put into the Index. Then, when you run through the crime scene evidence obtained in a totally different case, it will hit with the court-verified DNA profile and BOOM! Now the cases are connected by DNA officially. As I wrote in my previous comment, theres a few scenarios where it might be problematic (procedural issues, he is acquitted of the sexual assault, bad faith prosecution, things like that), but I personally dont think theyd risk it with Danielles case and how careful theyve been with it. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-176
As you said, LE will now have DNA that irrefutably belongs him, rather than samples found on items collected during searches. I dont think its an accident they decide to move forward with one case and not the other quite yet. That irrefutable DNA could end up being very significant down the line. Here is an example of a different MI sexual assault case where they were able to link different crimes this way to get a subsequent conviction on an unrelated crime: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/09/dna_links_suspect_to_cold-case.html. The Chelsea Bruck case is another one where they connected the dots this way: http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2016/08/09/Daniel-Clay-accused-in-crimes-not-tied-to-Bruck.html
I cant really speak to the jury aspect. Conceivably, a defense attorney could argue that the DNA at the home doesnt match or isnt FGs and a jury could believe it. Id like to think were past the OJ Simpson era but juries are unpredictable. Lastly, as far as Im aware, the HIV test has become standard for people going to jail because of the increased risk among incarcerated individuals. They track it so they can treat it.
Whew! That took a minute! I think I answered one or two of your questions, though? Hopefully?
How do I get my novel-length comment into one of those fancy boxes that you click to expand to prevent one post from taking up a whole thread page? I can't seem to figure it out.
