DNA Called Crucial in Rape Trial : Crime: The defendant faces 28 counts. There will be no mention of victims’ possible exposure to HIV.

A prosecutor said Tuesday that DNA evidence will be crucial in the trial of a prison parolee accused of being a serial rapist who attacked women late at night in their San Fernando Valley homes.

In his opening statement to a Van Nuys Superior Court jury, Deputy Dist. Atty. Phillip H. Rabichow said he intends to prove that defendant Monette Johnson is guilty of 28 counts stemming from a string of attacks in 1991 and early 1992.

The prosecutor said there is no question the women--and a man who was with one of the women and also sexually assaulted--were raped by an assailant armed with either scissors or, in one incident, a gun. Rabichow concentrated on the issue of identity, saying one victim clearly saw her assailant and that items stolen from all six victims were recovered from Johnson’s Lake View Terrace apartment.

Missing from Rabichow’s opening arguments was a subplot that has served as a point of intrigue: whether Johnson has the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS. Several of his alleged victims have been informed they were exposed to HIV, but confidentiality laws prevent authorities from revealing who is responsible.

The panel of seven men and five women hearing the case will never find out if Johnson carries the virus.

However, Rabichow said the jury will hear experts and scientists explain how evidence proves conclusively that Johnson is the rapist. He said DNA evidence indicates the odds are extremely remote--at least 1 in 1 million--that someone other than Johnson attacked the six women.

The genetic evidence, which Rabichow said is made up of the “blueprint for all life,” is compiled when material collected after a rape is compared to the victim’s blood and that of the suspected attacker.

“The defendant was matched to all of the victims . . . in each and every case,” the prosecutor said.

Defense attorney M. David Houchin did not make an opening statement and he declined to comment on any specific charges.

“Identity is an issue,” Houchin said, offering the only insight into the defense case.

None of the victims testified on the first day of the trial, but they will all be brought to the stand. The first victim is expected to testify today.

Rabichow’s first witnesses were people who had contact with Johnson prior to his arrest in January, 1992. Each person testified that Johnson spoke clearly and effectively, and that it appeared his hearing was normal.

Johnson, who has served time in prison for attempted extortion, is being assisted during his trial by hearing aids on both ears, as well as sign language interpreters.

Seated at the defense table, Johnson was asked to repeat statements he allegedly made to his victims, including “Where is your money?” and “Ever done this before?”

His voice in court was slurred and mumbling, in contrast to witnesses who said he was articulate and well-spoken as recently as two years ago.

Los Angeles Police Detective Gary Barthelmess testified he had a January, 1992, telephone conversation with Johnson, and said that at that time Johnson communicated clearly. But, according to Barthelmess, the defendant exhibited what appeared to be “a severe speech impediment” only one month later during a lineup in front of several victims.