Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Cynthia Eapen [former]
, Waverly Reginato [former] - October 15, 2021
Daily Stories
|
Homicides
|
Juveniles
|
Suspects
|
Victims
|
A forensic expert testified during a motions hearing for the case of a 17-year-old who allegedly raped and killed an 83-year-old woman in 2018.
According to CBS Baltimore, Tyrone Harvin was charged as an adult for an incident on August 29, 2018. Dorothy Mae Neal suffered for three days before going to the hospital and then died due to blunt force trauma. Harvin is charged with first-degree murder, first-degree rape, first-degree sex offense, perverted practice, and using a deadly weapon with an intent to injure.
On Oct. 13, the prosecution had a forensic expert testify regarding her review of DNA from sperm she found in a condom from the scene of the incident. The witness said there was a likely probability that Harvin’s DNA matches to the DNA found in the condom.
However, defense attorney Jaquelyne Shelton, along with the assistance of defense attorneys Robert Linthicum and Deborah St. Jean questioned the witness about findings in her report that showed area in the genetic code where the DNA did not match Harvin.
Shelton questioned whether the expert’s knowledge of the case impacted the DNA analysis she provided.
“I would do anything to catch the killer,” the witness said.
After a brief recess, Shelton introduced another forensic analyst who provided further testimony on the DNA review.
The analyst, who has a background assessing reviews conducted by other DNA analysts, said he found several issues with the DNA analysis based on the DNA sequencing software that was used.
The witness said some of the DNA analysis initially completed by the laboratory was considered “unreliable.”
He said the results exhibited too many instances where the software used failed to discriminate the samples, therefore, making the DNA analysis inaccurate.
According to the witness, if the machine was properly calibrated and maintained, the results should have been much clearer, giving a more accurate reading.
The defense went on to question the reliability of the software used to analyze the DNA. The defense says the software has had issues in the past distinguishing or even merging DNA analysis results, which was confirmed in this case by the witness.
The prosecution challenged the witness’ qualifications because there was a small sample of DNA, but the witness said, “My lab specializes in it.”
Shelton requested to have the witness’ testimony accepted as expert testimony, but the prosecution objected on the basis that the witness did not have expertise in the specific field of genetic probabilities.
Judge Yvette M. Bryant granted the defense’s request.