Peter Rose

• Third Party Guilt

● Defense presented another man who fit victim’s description, and confessed that he had sex with a young girl [victim was a young girl].

• Eyewitness
• Forensic Evidence

• Hair
• Serology

• Invalid
• Vague

The victim was an O secretor, PGM 1+, while Rose was an A secretor, PGM 1+. The stain on the underwear exhibited PGM 1+, and the ABO typing was inconclusive. “Q. So based on your studies, you can’t say it came from the victim, the suspect or a combination? A. That is correct. In other words, I cannot eliminate Peter Rose is the donor of the semen.” However, the analyst gave the relevant statistic as “about 30 percent of the general population” that possesses PGM 1+, when the statistic was 100% where the 1+ could have come entirely from the victim. See Part II.A.1 for a description of the problem of masking and non-quantification and discussion of similar cases. The analyst found questioned hairs to be “similar” to those of the defendant.

• Cross Racial Identification
• Victim

• Lineup
• Photo array
• Showup

Yes ● Suggestive remarks – pressure to identify someone, said otherwise would close case● Shown single photo of Rose

“Q: During that interview with her, didn’t you tell her at some point you were looking, either you or Mr. Foster, were looking at maybe dismissing the case? A: I don’t recall if we said we were going to dismiss it necessarily. We wanted to bring it to an end. Q: And bring it to an end because you investigation wasn’t having any luck bringing up anybody, was it? You didn’t have any leads as to who this person might be at this particular point, right? A: Right. Q: And you confronted her about that? A: Yes.” Witness was given a warning that the suspect might not be present: “A summons admonition has to do with showing a photo lineup. It is an admonition that is given to the witness that has to do with keeping an open mind. The fact that the person who committed the crime may or may not be among the photographs you’re going to be shown. The fact that you shouldn’t discuss your selection with anybody else. The fact that it is just as important to free innocent person’s suspicions as it is to find guilty person’s (sic) responsible for what they have done. It is actually a formal admonition that we have usually attached to the back of the photo lineup that we prepare to show the witnesses”

Yes ● Initial nonidentification

“Q: Did they ask you who did this to you? A: Yeah. Q: What did you tell them? A: I don’t know. Q: Didyou know? A: Yeah. Q: Why did you tell them you didn’t know? A: Because I didn’t want to tell them.” “Q: And they told you that they were confused because they had different descriptions, right? They wanted you to clear that up? A: Yes.” Officer testified, “Q: In fact, with respect to this naming of Pete as the party responsible for the events that occurred to her on the 29th of November of last year, she expresses some reluctance to do that initially, right? A: Yes, sir.” And “Q: At no time in this interview does she say Pete did it, does she? A: Not during the interview.” Later showed victim single photo of defendant: “Q: Now when you showed the victim a picture of the defendant, did you include that in a photo lineup? A: No, I did not. Q: Why didn’t you include that in a photo lineup? A: Because she had already identified the defendant, both to the Lodi Police Department”