Court Test of DNA Lab Awaited

When 29-year-old Donald R. Ricklef goes to trial on rape and assault charges on April 26, prosecutors will be ready for him. Four victims have identified him, and another witness got his license number after an attack.

But the early focus at Ricklef’s trial will not be on what lawyers call the “human evidence”--eyewitnesses, Ricklef’s whereabouts when the crimes occurred--but on the scientific arguments. The concentration will be on the genetic code-testing on sperm left at the scene of the three rapes included in his case.

Ricklef is scheduled to be the first defendant to go on trial where prosecutors will use evidence produced by Orange County’s new DNA genetic-coding laboratory. And lawyers and county criminalists alike are anxious to see if the county’s judges rule that the lab’s work is admissible evidence.

“Once we can get this first one behind us, we can concentrate on what we are trained to do: work on criminal cases,” said Margaret Kuo, chief criminalist for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. “But right now, much of our effort has to be concentrated on all the paperwork to prepare for trial.”

DNA testing is considered by law enforcement officials to be the most significant breakthrough in criminal investigation since the discovery of fingerprint evidence. The letters stand for deoxyribonucleic acid, which is found in blood and body fluids, such as semen or saliva, which carries a person’s unique genetic coding. Experts say the odds of two people having the same DNA are about one in 30 billion.

But despite their growing acceptance in courtrooms around the country, DNA tests have yet to be put before a jury in Orange County.

They have come close, several times. Superior Court Judge Theodore E. Millard issued the most significant ruling in the county last week when he ruled that prosecutors could show jurors DNA test results for accused serial rapist Michael Philip Gross.

But in light of the judge’s ruling, Gross immediately pleaded guilty. At least four others have pleaded guilty under the threat of facing DNA evidence in the courtroom.

In all but one of those cases, the DNA work was done by either the FBI or private labs for Orange County prosecutors.

Orange County’s own new DNA lab is still waiting for its first test in court. And that’s likely to be the Ricklef case.

“That first one is so important,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Dennis Bauer, the DNA specialist in his office. “Once we get that, we not only have a precedent to follow, but we have a transcript of the hearing on the issue to use as a base in all future cases.”

It was another rape suspect, 31-year-old Kyle Borges, whose arrest helped spur the county Board of Supervisors into pushing ahead on Sheriff Brad Gates’ request for a local DNA lab.

Borges was facing trial in 1989 in the rape of a 46-year-old Anaheim woman. Prosecutors had sent a blood sample from Borges, and a semen sample taken from the victim, to a private lab for comparison. But because of the huge backlog of work sent to that company from all over the United States, it could not produce the results in time for Borges’ trial.

Borges was acquitted, then later arrested on suspicion of two subsequent rapes in Huntington Beach, one involving a 50-year-old woman, the other a 12-year-old girl. He was sentenced to 60 years for those crimes on Friday.

Citing the Borges’ case, the supervisors quickly approved Gates’ requests. The Orange County Sheriff’s DNA lab was funded in October, 1989, a month after Borges’ arrest, and began operation about a year ago.

Since then, it has begun work on 20 cases. All but one of those cases involves semen samples. The exception was a test conducted of blood found on a defendant’s shoes.

Another test for the county’s new lab may be the upcoming case of 29-year-old Frank Soto of Westminster. Soto is accused of raping his 80-year-old neighbor.

“Without DNA, there is no case against my client,” defense attorney Paul Stark has said.

Not only had the victim not seen her attacker, who wore a mask, but she has made statements that she does not believe it was Soto.

But “with scientific evidence like that (DNA), if there are no other factors involved, the jury is going to believe it unless you can show them a picture of your client climbing Mount Everest the day of the offense,” Stark said. “But there is the human factor--what kind of man my client is. Normal guy, wife and child on the way, good job. And scientific data can be misinterpreted.”

Kuo says that the DNA’s crime lab is going to make a difference in many cases.

“We are confident in our methods and our results. We’re ready to go to court to show that.”