Man Convicted in Key Case for DNA Evidence : Trial: Prosecution was based on ‘genetic fingerprinting.’ Defendant is found guilty of attempted rape.

The first suspect ever arrested in Orange County on the basis of “genetic fingerprinting” was convicted Wednesday of the attempted rape of a 79-year-old widow.

Frank Lee Soto, a 32-year-old gardener who lived next door to the victim in Westminster, faces four years in prison for the Nov. 17, 1989, attempted rape, but he was acquitted on charges of rape and using a deadly weapon.

Soto remains free on $100,000 bail and is scheduled to be sentenced May 8.

Because of various procedural delays, another case involving DNA evidence reached a jury before Soto’s. Two Santa Ana men, Alfredo Martinez and Joel Mojica, were convicted in July, 1991, of sodomy and torture in an attack on a county woman. But that case also included eyewitness testimony and other evidence.

The Soto case was closely watched by attorneys and investigators because it relied almost entirely on DNA evidence. More than 20 other county cases involving DNA evidence are in progress.

The jury foreman in the Soto case, Russell Janson, 75, of Orange, said DNA findings had “major” impact and were “critical evidence.”

Another juror, Joseph Person, 66, of Huntington Beach, said: “The DNA was the weighing factor, by far. . . . The DNA factor is what brought everything else in. Without the DNA, without us believing the DNA evidence was correct, none of the other evidence would have really held any weight.”

Soto’s attorney, Paul G. Stark, said he is “very disappointed” with the verdict.

“I think that we made a showing that it wasn’t” Soto in the victim’s home, Stark said. “And there’s enough controversy over the issue of DNA evidence that I think that the jury has resolved an issue that scientists themselves have not resolved.

“This verdict is quite strange,” he said, noting that Soto had no previous criminal record. “It’s a bizarre crime allegedly committed by a non-bizarre person.”

But Assistant Dist. Atty. Dennis D. Bauer, who has argued other DNA cases, disagreed, calling it “a very good, very reasonable verdict based upon the facts that we didn’t . . . have identification without the DNA. DNA was basically the entire case. And, with that, it’s a very reasonable verdict, and I’m really pleased with it.”

The victim, who lived alone in a mobile-home park, told police that Soto had discussed doing yard work for her on the day of the attack. Later, while preparing to watch TV, she responded to a knock at her door and was confronted by a man in a stocking mask. He ordered her at knifepoint into the bedroom, where he attacked her, she told police.

Before the case could come to trial, the woman suffered a stroke that affected her memory, and she was unable to testify. Medical evidence regarding the extent of the sexual attack, given by the emergency room physician who treated her, was ambiguous, jurors and attorneys for both sides agreed.

The DNA samples were taken from semen found on a comforter in the woman’s bedroom and matched to Soto’s blood, according to results from the Orange County Crime Lab’s genetic testing facility, established in 1990.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is found in blood and other body fluids and carries a person’s unique genetic coding. Genetic fingerprinting has also been used to determine paternity.

However, scientists differ sharply on its accuracy, and several scientific journals have argued that point.

Expert witnesses called by the prosecution in Soto’s five-week trial said the chance of anyone else but Soto being the source of the DNA evidence is one in 189 million. But three defense witnesses gave a range from one in 71 to one in 39,000.

In thanking jurors, Superior Court Judge Jean M. Rheinheimer noted their attention to “the complex scientific evidence.”

Many law enforcement officials and private investigators interested in DNA fingerprinting crowded the hallway outside the courtroom to quiz jurors, who deliberated for 2 1/2 days, on their reaction to the scientific testimony.

“I definitely believe it’s a viable means of determining whether a person was at the scene of a crime or not,” said juror Lennie Pope, 50, of Huntington Beach.

“It can free an innocent person that’s been arrested and in turn find a person guilty,” she said. “It has its merits on both sides. . . . There is going to be skepticism for a long time.”