State's Attorney: Disallowing Key Evidence Will "Gut" State's Case

Montgomery County State's Attorney John McCarthy argued in court Wednesday that excluding an expert's opinion that the victim's blood was present on a glove uncovered at the crime scene would "gut" the state's case against Keith D. Little.

Keith D. Little, of Lanham, is a hospital maintenance engineer, who was found stabbed over 70 times in the hospital’s basement boiler room Jan. 1.

The state filed a motion asking Circuit Court Judge Marielsa Bernard to reconsider her Tuesday ruling, which barred the opinion from being presented to the jury by an expert witness. But in a blow to the prosecution, Bernard denied the request Wednesday as the jury waited outside the courtroom.

The ruling followed impassioned arguments by McCarthy and defense attorney Stephen Mercer.

"The fact of the victim's blood being on the glove is vital to the state's case," McCarthy argued.

Excluding the evidence would be a "windfall" for the defense, he argued.

"There are other interim steps short of gutting the state's case of this vital evidence...robbing the state of the opportunity to provide vital evidence in this case," McCarthy said.

The controversy over the stained glove was highlighted during a Friday motions hearing, when prosecutors revealed they had sent the sample from the glove to a lab for further testing, after it had been tested twice and came up positive for human blood.

The new "confirmatory" tests— a different type of test than the first two administered— came up negative for blood.

Mercer argued in court Tuesday that the "confirmatory" tests conducted on the stain proved the stain on the glove is not blood, and that previous tests conducted on the glove were not conclusive enough to prove the stain was blood. The DNA profile from the stain that matched Brockington, he said, could have come from a different source, such as saliva or mucous.

"This is a circumstantial evidence case for the state," Mercer said Tuesday, "and the state desperately wants to turn this brown stain into human blood."

Mercer argued that an expert witness, Erin Farr, changed her opinion. Farr said in November that the stain couldn't be proven to be blood to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, Mercer said, and that the defense wasn't notified by the prosecution of the shift.

"The state says, that's not good enough. We want your opinion to be more certain. She's gone from less certain to more certain after meeting with the prosecution -- what more is there to say?" Mercer said Tuesday.

He argued that testimony stating that the stain was human blood was "unreliable" and should not be admissable before the jury.

Bernard initially ruled on Friday she would allow Farr's opinion on the blood and initial positive test results on the glove to be presented at trial. But when the defense requested a new hearing Tuesday, based on the most recent test results, Bernard reversed course, saying the jury could be "confused or mislead" by the evidence.

McCarthy argued in court Wednesday that Farr never changed her opinion about whether the substance on the glove was blood, and that the state notified the defense properly of Farr's expected testimony.

The most recent negative result, McCarthy argued, was likely a result of the sample being too weak to test, adding that the first tests conducted were more sensitive than the recent procedures. He said information presented by the defense in Tuesday's hearing was "not consistent with the facts," and also took issue with the suggestion that the state influenced Farr's opinion.

"I was surprised and shocked [Mercer] made an argument to this court...that the state pushed [Farr] to enhance her testimony to make it better for the state," McCarthy said. "That's the furthest thing from the truth."

He asked to call Farr and another scientist, who conducted the most recent tests on the glove, to take the stand Friday, but Bernard disallowed the testimony.

"The court is gutting the state's case and not allowing us to put on these witnesses to know the facts here," McCarthy said.

Mercer said Bernard had already considered the motion, adding that the state didn't present new information Wednesday.

"The court ruled, and we relied on the ruling in opening statements," Mercer said. "We can't un-ring bells now."

In court Wednesday, witnesses took the stand, including police officers who responded to the crime scene Jan. 1 and Suburban Hospital employees who worked with Brockington and Little.

This post has been updated.