Chester Bauer

• Alibi

● Mother, father, and wife all testified that defendant was at home at the time of the crime

● When asked if he was at the scene of the crime, defendant testified, “No, I was not.”

• Eyewitness
• Forensic Evidence
• Other

• Hair
• Serology

• Invalid

The analyst provided a 7.5% figure, including invalid division of the population statistic in half for males. The serology testimony was also invalid in its limitation of the population to O secretors, ignoring masking and non-quantification. The victim and Bauer were both O secretors. Thus, absent quantification, the victim’s O substances could have masked any material from the semen donor and 100% of the male population could have been the donor. Regarding hairs, the analyst provided unsupported statistics which were then multiplied as if the hairs represented independent events: “To have them both match, it would be the multiplication of both factors so as an approximately using that 1 out of 100, you come out with a number like 1 chance in 10000.” See Part II.B.1 for a discussion of this case.

• Intraracial Identificaiton
• Victim

• Lineup

No. Tape recorded line-up Victim identified him at line-up; another witness was an acquaintance, one did not testify, and the last saw him at a bar on the day of the crime and weeks later and identified him in-court

No ●Discrepancy in descriptions – hair color

Q. In your statement on January 26 you stated that the individual’s hair was medium brown and now you stated “dishwater blond”. What color would it be accurately described as? A. Right now, what I see now? Q. No. A. I would say dishwater blond. Q. Was there any reason you had called it medium brown on that particular day? A. I was pretty upset and pretty confused at the time.

• Jury Selection
• State Law Evidence Claim
• Suggestive Eyewitness Identification

• HE
• NP

State v. Bauer, 683 P.2d 946 (Mont. 1984)