Amicus Brief: Teddy Chester
State of Louisiana V. Teddy Chester
Filing Date
September 22, 2020
Charge
Murder
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeal Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
Partners
Innocence Network
Summary
CIFS and the Innocence Network filed this amicus brief in the Court of Appeal Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in Teddy Chester’s case to educate the court that DNA evidence presented in this case was outdated, unreliable, inconclusive, and far below current standards. This evidence undercuts the constitutional guarantees and raises questions about the validity of scientific evidence more broadly.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Twenty-three years ago, inconclusive DNA evidence was used to convict Teddy Chester for the murder of John Adams. R. 7965; R 97KA2790 1st Appeal at 897, 1906. Mr. Chester served more than two decades in prison before being granted a new trial in 2018. See Chester v. Vannoy, CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-17754 SECTION "E", 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99219, at *130 (E.D. La. June 11, 2018). The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found Mr. Chester's trial attorney ineffective for failing to challenge the questionable presentation of this DNA evidence.
During the 2018 retrial, where Mr. Chester faced second-degree murder charge, he was once again convicted with faulty and outdated forensic evidence. R. 4131. Amici ask this Court to critically examine the veracity of the evidence used to convict Mr. Chester in 2018, with a focus on three specific issues. First, the DNA evidence linking Mr. Chester to Mr. Adams was outdated at the time of his 2018 retrial. Both the testing methods used and the resulting probability fall far below the modern standards for such evidence and carry little statistical weight. Second, nearly all of the testing done in preparation for Mr. Chester's original trial was consumptive, meaning that no retesting could be conducted with modern technology, and the older, flawed results cannot be verified. While consumptive testing is sometimes vital where limited physical evidence is available, in the instant case, reliance upon such testing-performed at standards contrary to the current scientific consensus-is problematic. Third, where scientific evidence is heavily relied upon, it is imperative for certain basic facts underlying the results-such as ownership of the physical evidence tested-to be established. Yet, here, the only item tethering Mr. Chester to the crime, a black Oakland Raiders hat, has never been conclusively linked to Mr. Chester. For Mr. Chester's retrial to follow the spirit of the U.S. District Court's decision, these inadequacies should not be allowed to sustain the conviction.